Talk:Drakula halála

First Screen Appearance of Dracula?
This film is sometimes listed with a 1921 date. However, if it turns out to be 1923, then Dracula made an earlier screen appeareance, in Nosferatu (1922) of course.WHPratt (talk) 13:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the First Screen Appearance of Dracula!
An article in the October 1998 edition of Cinefantastique discusses the research of a Hungarian film scholar which proves that the film was originally released in 1921, thus verifying that the film marks the first silver-screen appearance of Dracula. This Wikipedia stub is now updated, with footnoted references, to reflect the new research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael R. Gates (talk • contribs) 18:19, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Hoax?
The article is tagged as a possible hoax, but the link to IMDB checks out. Was there a reason to disbelieve that too? Furthermore, Google Scholar returns GD Rhodes - Horror Studies, 2010 - intellectbooks.co.uk "This essay covers the history of Károly Lajthay's Hungarian film Drakula halála (1921), the cinema's first adaptation of Bram Stoker's novel Dracula". Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 19:03, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

No, Not a Hoax!
In addition to the essay referenced above, an article in the October 1998 edition of Cinefantastique discusses the research of a Hungarian film scholar which definitively proves that the film was originally released in 1921, thus verifying that the film marks the first silver-screen appearance of Dracula. The Wikipedia stub is now updated, with footnoted references, to reflect the new research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael R. Gates (talk • contribs) 18:24, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

NO, Not the first screen appearance of drakula.
The first dracula film was made in 1920 in Russia, thus pre-dating draculas death. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.195.31.66 (talk) 17:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Dracula's Death. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140222001240/http://www.hitchcock.hu/Filmes/Silent_Horror/Drac21hu.htm to http://www.hitchcock.hu/Filmes/Silent_Horror/Drac21hu.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:44, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Surviving screenplay?
Does anyone know if there's a surviving screenplay for this film? Preferably translated into English, but I'm not picky. BrokenEye3 (talk) 03:52, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * There is very little of anything surviving from the film. What does survive is what appears to be a "book adaptation" of the film. It is available translated in English in Gary Don Rhodes Journal entry. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:01, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Re-vamp
I did a basic re-write of this page from information in Gary Don Rhodes's essay in the Horror Studies journal. It clears up some information and notes doubts about some items. For example, the known plot structure of the film appears to be pulled from what is believed to be a "film-to-book" adaptation, but there is no proof of how accurate this was to the film. Same with the release date which has no specific sources on the Austrian release date. I've also changed the title back to Drakula halála as the film does not appear to have been released elsewhere with any other title. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:01, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Novel's plot, infobox image, and release date
Ahoy! I've been making a few edits to this article recently (after years of occasional editing I'm still quite the novice, so thanks for bearing with me), and I have a few suggestions and questions I'd like to broach here rather than blindly attempt to instate.

Firstly, I'd like to propose that the plot of the film's prose adaptation should be considered for inclusion in the article. Andrzejbanas has made a fair and reasoned argument that, as it's accuracy to the film is impossible to determine, it shouldn't be included in such as way as to represent the plot of the film itself. However, as one of the few surviving primary sources on what the film may have been like, and one which Gary Rhodes describes as "evidently intended to be quite faithful", I feel its expanded plot warrants inclusion in some form. That said, I tend to agree with the argument that it shouldn't be used to represent the plot of the film itself, and an entire section dedicated solely to the plot of the film's novel adaptation sounds clumsy. Barring the novel getting its own article (I highly doubt a novel adaptation of a lost film is notable enough), would a section dedicated to the novel with a subheading giving a synopsis of its plot be out of the question here?

Regarding the infobox image, rather than a promotional still, might I suggest one of the film's print advertisements which has been uploaded to the film's category on Wikimedia Commons? Per FILMPOSTER, film infoboxes should ideally use an original poster where possible, and the existing print advertisements are as close an approximation to a movie poster as exists for the film.

As for the release date, I'm wondering if there's any precedent on the wiki in regards to erring on the side of either earliest possible or earliest confirmed? Again, Andrzejbanas has explained why including either release date within the infobox is a bad idea, lest the article be potentially put in the wrong category, but what about other aspects of the article, such as its short description? I, perhaps hastily, edited the short description to match the 1923 date, erring on the side of earliest confirmed. This may be the wrong place to ask, but is there consensus on which is the correct side to err on? Would a short description of "1920s film", though perhaps needlessly ambiguous, be more accurate here? Double - U (talk) 19:17, 25 October 2023 (UTC)


 * So a few points, I think we could use the book cover in the infobox as it's the closest thing we have to promotional material. I'm back and forth as presenting the book's plot as a film plot because even Rhodes can't just flat out say "this is what happens in the film." I think we should stick to facts for release dates over possibilities as I've seen so many obscure films that just pull release dates or even alternative titles out of thin air. Per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, " the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored, with exceptions noted below)." We often do not apply this in film articles I find, as I see so many release dates, production countries and more just ignored and shoved into an infobox, but people seem to love to fill these up so it's complicated. I'd rather leave it blank and let people read the prose and make their own assumptions on the possibility of this release. Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:36, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with you about the infobox image. While the book's cover may not represent the film itself per se, it is, as you say, about the closest approximation to a poster, to the point that a lot of internet sources have mistakenly attributed it as such. In any case, I generally think it serves best as the primary source of visual identification for the work.
 * Regarding the novel's plot, again I tend to follow your line of thought here, unsure if/how to implement it. For what it's worth, having read through a translation and comparing it with the contemporary press for the film featured in Rhodes' article and Laszlo Tamasfi's book, it does at least seem to feature every scene mentioned in the press. At the very least, if the book's plot is anything to go by, then the current plot section isn't particularly accurate (In the book, Mary is visiting her father in the asylum rather than being admitted to the asylum herself, and she has trouble determining if her dream is real rather than if Dracula's delusions are real). I'm obviously slightly biased here, but I think my previous edit of using the novel's plot summary accompanied with an explanatory hatnote making clear that its accuracy is impossible to fully determine is a decent compromise.
 * As for the release date, the view expressed in Tamasfi's book is that if the 1921 screening occurred, it was was likely a press screening not open to the public. As the majority of film articles list a release date that reflects either the first public performance or the formal premiere rather than press or test screenings, I'd personally lean towards either the March or April 1923 dates if a release date were ever to be added, but that's just for the record. For the time being, I'm happy concede that a lot of details surrounding the film's release are ambiguous at best, and so leaving this detail blank seems as good a compromise as any. Double - U (talk) 00:28, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I think if we add a hate note it should be okay, I just don't want readers to think they know the plot of the film for sure. Maybe something like The Gorilla (1927) intro (which I guess could also be made as a "note" instead. Maybe show an example of what we could write here to get it organized? If it's not open to the public, then it's not usually considered a release as we only include publicly available releases as "premieres" of films. I don't want to assume this release may be, but I know that Rhodes' book involves him dealing with scholars and archivists from Hungary and such while the other book doesn't state any source on this release at all. (I'm often very frustrated when any publishing thing includes release dates and other hard to pinpoint facts without citing any source and it happens far too often that people just assume its fact without checking any sort of source). Anyways! I think we should just go with the current info on hand as there are some serious doubts of any sort of public screening prior to the ones Rhodes mentioned. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:30, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, perhaps the note could be stated like the The Gorilla one in phrasing, but formatted like Black Sabbath (film) plot note. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:31, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * For the synopsis itself, I'm comfortable saying the one implemented in my previous edit sufficiently and succinctly covers all the major plot beats in the book. It leaves out the occasional detail, such as Mary recognizing Dracula as her former music teacher, and even the occasion scene, such as the two inmates attempting to perform eye surgery on Mary, which I felt were extraneous for the purposes of a synopsis. In any case, these can always be implemented in future if other editors determine them to be important. As for the note, how does this read:
 * Note: As this film is considered lost, exact plot details are difficult to determine. This plot summary is based on an adaptation of the film was was published in the form of a short novel. While this adaptation has been described as "evidently intended to be quite faithful",[citation] its exact accuracy to the film remains uncertain.
 * Double - U (talk) 18:28, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Looks okay to me! Andrzejbanas (talk) 06:55, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Excellent. I've implemented the plot synopsis with this note, and replaced the infobox image with the book's cover artwork. Double - U (talk) 19:05, 1 November 2023 (UTC)