Talk:Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992 film)

Themes - Stoker's Dracula is identified as Vlad Tepes in the original novel
Just read the section on "Themes" which states "Unlike the Stoker novel, Bram Stoker's Dracula explicitly portrays Dracula as the historical Vlad the Impaler or Vlad Țepeș, who ruled intermittently as Voivode of Wallachia between 1448 and his death in 1476/77." Having just finished reading the original Bram Stoker novel I can attest this is incorrect, despite having seen it commonly cited again and again, in plenty of sources (not just this wikipedia entry). It seems as though no one actually reads the novel, because Stoker makes it quite clear that Dracula is the historical Vlad Tepes. On page 256 of the Penguin Classics edition, (Chapter XVIII) Stoker has Van Helsing say, in describing Dracula: "He must, indeed, have been that Voivode Dracula who won his name against the Turk, over the great river on the very frontier of Turkey-land. If it be so, then he was no common man; for in that time, and for centuries after, he was spoken of as the cleverest and the most cunning, as well as the bravest of the sons of the 'land beyond the forest'. That mighty brain and that iron resolution went with him to his grave, and are even now arrayed against us." ['Land beyond the forest' is the literal meaning of 'Transylvania']. Perhaps this reference should be added and the record corrected. 59.102.48.90 (talk) 09:18, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Recent edit re: themes
An edit yesterday (January 22, 2024) added a redundant second "Themes" heading with a substandard analysis of the movie's possible connection with HIV/AIDS, which is already present in the existing "Themes" heading. Could someone with more experience than me revert this edit? 67.255.243.141 (talk) 22:29, 23 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Agreed. The source is a badly broken website that appears to be not much more than a blog. Other sources don't appear to be more reliable with one exception - the New York Times had an article on it back in 1992, but this seems to have been a 'fad' interpretation that didn't really last. Beyond that, this interpretation has also been attached to the book itself, so it's not really specific to the movie. Out it goes absent some compelling argument that would counter WP:UNDUE. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 00:54, 24 January 2024 (UTC)