Talk:Van Helsing (film)

Special Effects
I wish people would stop whining how digital effects in movies like Van Helsing are inferior to makeup effects and prosthetics. This is BS. As a lot of movies with live-action creature effects start to age, the makeup and prosthetics begin to look fake. All i see in movies with special makeup effects are people running around in expensive halloween outfits or sometimes sloppy overdone makeup and trying so hard not to fall on their face. There is only so much you can do with makeup effects. Besides we are living in 2007 almost 2008 now, 80% of movies made have digital effects and creatures. It's time to wake up in the 21th Century. I want to be able to know that i'm not seeing some human dressed up as a monster. This is just my opinion though. User: Timberwolf101189 8:57 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The Film Does Have a Plot
Honestly, I loved every minute of the movie and it is one of my favorites (mainly because of the special effects and action which was the only reason i went to go see it - i'm not a big fan of complex plots-not counting the pirates of the caribbean films which were very complex and special effects filled-the third one very complex). Now, a lot of people in reviews say there is no plot whatsoever. I disagree. I did see a plot through all the special effects (which i think are some of the best creature effects in recent years.)even if it was paper-thin. The film may have a paper-thin plot, but a plot is still a plot. What were people exepecting from Stephen Sommers, the Titanic of monster movies? What do you think? User: Timberwolf101189 8:45 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Whoa
That is one long plot. ARBlackwood


 * Agreed. This needs a MAJOR trim.  This isn't a plot summary, it is basically the entire plot spelled out.  I can spell out the plot in much less: 1) Van Helsing fights evil monsters.  2) He is sent to fight Dracula.  3) He eventually succeeds.  That's too short, but come on.  No need for excess.  -JC 07:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I know this was said, but I'm adding my two cents. Does anyone know the plot well enough to discuss the highlights in four or five paragraphs? If it's not done in a week or so, I'll do it myself. Gary Seven 15:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * this isn't a plot summary, it's a transcription! if i find the time i'll be back with a respectful scythe. but very sharp. -- Denstat 10:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * so far so good. i've completed my first full edit of the plot and will take a break before returning. it is still way too long, although i liked the original plot contributor's dedication to a full transciption, and some of their prose. but a fansite?WP:NOT. Denstat 09:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * i keep chopping it back, but other editors keep adding material... the article has now been tagged as the overlong plot as being a problem, so please help streamline the plot even more! there was some lovely and accurate description removed, but it had to be done -- Denstat 09:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Unsigned Question
Can anyone please tell me more about the relation between both Van Helsing, and Dracula? When did they meet before? What's his relation with the Valerious's? How did Van Helsing get hold of Dracula's ring? Also How come he told Carl that he remembers some ancient battle?

In short, What is it that Van Helsing cannot remember.

THank you.

I just saw it today. My understanding is that Van Helsing was "the Left Hand of God" a supernatural figure who fought evil. He acknowleged being thousands of years old. When they met, Dracula said that Van Helsing was the one who originally killed him and cut the ring off his finger. In the movie, Dracula was portrayed as being raised from the dead by the devil, so Dracula and Van Helsing are essentially counterparts - each a champion for a higher power. MK 05:53, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Van Helsing
Just curious... Most fiction has some truth in it. Is there any truth in the stories of Van Helsing?

In my opinion, I don't know if stuff like vampires and whatnot exist, as I'd be crazy to think it, but if there isn't some basis for the belief, then there's been a nation of crazy Romanians for hundreds of years, and that doesn't make too much sense either.Gnrlotto

of course there's some factual bits in these legends, there always is. and wikipedia just happens to be a fountain of knowledge, so why not look it up? try: vampire for the not very palatable truth behind the monster (the first ones where from serbia, btw. romanian ones are just more popular due to bram stoker; vlad tepes for the historical romanian noble; lycanthropy for werevolves and so on. it's really not that difficult.

There are creepy people out there. One such person bathed in the blood of her servants to "keep herself young." And the was actually a person named Count Dracula but I'm not sure if its pronouced the same.

I have heard that Van Helsing is supposed to be the archangel Gabriel, and it is possible that Dracula and Van Helsing were on the same side, but they had a falling out and Dracula was killed during the argument. Then Dracula sold his soul to the devil for eternal life. This is based on probablilities, so this is only from prior knowledge and putting pieces together. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.136.138.125 (talk) 18:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Van Helsing has no more basis in reality than Abraham Van Helsing from Bram Stoker's original novel Dracula, on who this character is directly based, though with significant license taken. Legionaireb (talk) 04:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Plot Hole?
The antidote was supposed to be delivered to Van Helsing before the 12th stroke of midnight, but the battle between Val Helsing and Dracula (which started on the first stroke of midnight, since that was when Van Helsing could actually turn into the werewolf form) was far, far longer than just twelve clock stroke gongs... It was at least a minute long, if not twice that, and there were invervals where it went to show what other characters were doing (presumably) at the same time... is that clock just HORRIBLY slow (such that the twelfth stroke of midnight is actually, like, five after midnight?), or is this a plot hole? -JC 07:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

A wizard did it... --- I think the scenes of the other characters occur during the battle,not between every battle scene. ---

It's called "Suspension of Disbelief"; It's something you're not supposed to notice. ---

And yes, the clock probably was horribly slow as well, given the technical context of the film.

Was this plot hole (or any other plot hole) addressed in the director's commentary or the novelization? Maybe he thought 12 strokes meant 12 minutes. Other plot holes include why did Dracula have a werewolf cure when he could just use a silver bullet. Or why Van Helsing could only turn into a werewolf at midnight when the full moon rises a lot earlier than that. Was it behind the clouds all night?

-- Given the nature of the source material, it's also possible that the battle took place at a vastly high speed. Thats just a speculation, however. GideonFrost 17:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

-- It's a movie clock. They're always notoriously slow. 81.168.46.168 21:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Comparisons to Wolverine
I can't help but notice that Van Helsing's character has some marked similarities to Hugh Jackman's other major character role, Wolverine- memory loss, older than he looks and knows, tormented by a fragmented past and of course becoming a werewolf with an apparent 'healing factor' (despite his intense battle with Dracula, at the end of the movie he is barely scratched) and sharp claws. Should this be added somewhere?


 * maybe in hugh jackman's article in terms of the kinds of roles he chooses, but not here. -- Denstat 09:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Full moon
In the movie it's explained that after the twelfth stroke of midnight during its first full moon, a werewolf will become completely under Dracula's control and will also be stuck in wolf form permanently. Van Helsing was bitten by a werewolf and we're told the next full moon is two nights from now. That means nearly a whole month of time must've passed between the scenes where Dracula first tried to bring his children to life and the scene where Van Helsing gets bitten. When could this missing month have taken place? Although Dracula does seem to have moved all his equipment from Frankenstein's castle to his own castle so a considerable amount of time must've taken place but what the heck were the main characters doing during this time?
 * Driving the horse carriage to Budapest? Borisblue 06:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

put overall Spoiler tag up top
cleaned up this page a little and removed individual spoiler tags from sections. no need to add individual tags any more. :) --  Denstat 19:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

need cleanup of trivia section
here are my thoughts on what this section needs. it has three components right now: comparisons with source material, technical trivia, and casting/acting trivia. it has two main problems: citation and content.

a general "note" at the top is not adequate citation for wikipedia (see WP:CITE, and if citing the DVD, use the video citation method [[Wikipedia:Citation_templates here]). inadequately cited sources are also the article's main weakness, so any proper sourcing would go a long way to keeping some of these points from a purge, and bring up the article's quality.

as for content, it seems like comparisons with source material is notable enough to be developed into a sourced section of its own, maybe called (how original!) "Comparison with source material." it's quite different in tone than ordinary technical and casting trivia, and perhaps film reviews and essays are available to round it out.

anybody who'd like to go ahead with this proposal? please do! -- Denstat 20:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * created a new section with a long name, took some of the trivia material out to put in it. looks like the rest of the section is going to be cut out as part of WP as per the new tag to that effect -- Denstat 09:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The Critics
There is no mention that this film got hammered by the critics for being somewhat rubbish...For instance:
 * movies: Reviews of the latest films.
 * Curse of the Vampire
 * Van Helsing, a feeble imitation of classic horror.
 * By David Edelstein
 * Updated Friday, May 7, 2004, at 7:09 PM ET


 * You don't have to adore traditional horror movies—both the American classics and the colorful British remakes—to loathe every second of Stephen Sommers' Van Helsing (Universal). But it helps. It helps to know the movies that this giftless writer-director is ripping off to appreciate how little he brings to the party. We live in an era rich in genre pastiches, but filmmakers like Tim Burton (Sleepy Hollow), Peter Jackson (Lord of the Rings), Quentin Tarantino (Kill Bill), and Guillermo del Toro (Hellboy) manage both to sample from their inspirations and soulfully transform them. Sommers, whose previous efforts were The Mummy (1999) and The Mummy Returns (2001), is a dim bulb powered by a giant studio trust fund. He makes empty but vulgarly extravagant special-effects fests: Donald Trump horror movies.

Colin4C 11:02, 25 December 2006 (UTC)


 * this is true, but a good critical response category would require some balance (i.e. several critical sources, etc.), WP:NPOV, box office figures, and probably citation of the film's fanbase. go for it! -- Denstat 19:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Dracula age
I noticed that in the main article trivia the age of Dracula in the movie is labeled as "historical error", but Dracula in the movie is not connected to Vlad III. Can somebody correct this mistake? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.50.175.176 (talk) 14:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC).


 * you're right. this entire work of fiction is a pastiche and so the historical note you mention doesn't belong there at all. i'm deleting it. but in future, feel free to be bold. -- Denstat 06:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Sculpture
Can the author of this image please clarify why it should belong in this article? It has no relevant illustrative purpose; it could be considered copyright infringement (I doubt the author made it himself); it's too large in comparison with the other, more relevant images; and it features bad composition quality.

Unless anyone objects, I believe this should be removed from the article. Vadigor 23:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * why don't you contact the author to ask? it's licensed under the creative commons license and User:RMajouji claims to have uploaded this pic by "Ramy Majouji," which seems fairly authentic. a google search reveals that someone who posts with this name also posts other photos on the net. to my eye it looks like a pic taken by an amateur, not a piece of studio PR. i agree that more info is desirable regarding the pic -- was it a sculpture from the premiere? does it belong at madame tussaud's wax museum? it certainly represents the main character of the film, but is it from the video game instead, et cetera? -- Denstat 07:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Brides
A couple of questions: How does Dracula make women his brides? It seems like he just bites their neck, but that is what he does to all of his victims. Any ideas?

Second: Who are all of the vampires in the ballroom scene? Thanks, Quinlanfan2 00:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'd say that he makes them a vampire, and then selects a few as a Bride. Being a servant of him, they'd accept, and thats all, I guess. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.224.26.233 (talk) 03:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion
The plot section could be rewritten for clarity and to be shorter. Lots42 04:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

For this particular movie, whenever Van Helsing crossed (or blessed) himself, he spoke the latin words "Resquiant en pace" (In english: Rest in Peace) (Also, that may not be the correct spelling) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.136.138.125 (talk) 18:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Sequel?/ Angel?/Predictions?
I would personally appreciate to see a sequel to this movie. Although I wonder how it would turn out. I was also wondering if anyone noticed that Van Helsing was named after the Archangel Gabriel. That would probably give plot to the sequel.Imagine Van Helsing being an Angel who lost his memory. What do you all think would be next? A battle on the verge of Armageddon? Zgapd (talk) 11:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Genre
Unless a citation can be found that explicitly calls this a "swashbuckling film", I really don't think the genre should be changed. There's enough genre-warring over these things in music articles, and we really don't need this to break out in film articles, too. I think action-horror is good enough for this film, and it's explicitly supported by multiple reliable sources:, , ,. Another choice that came up fairly often was action-adventure, such as, , , and. Or we could just call it an "action film" and be done with it. I really don't think there's enough support for "swashbuckling superhero film" despite the character's description as a "swashbuckler". NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:57, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Van Helsing (film)
Cyberbot II has detected links on Van Helsing (film) which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:


 * http://www.vegasslotsonline.com/igt/van-helsing/
 * Triggered by  on the global blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 17:10, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Took care of it. The following citation seems sufficient to handle this claim. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:56, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Dracula's brides ranked by age?
As it stands now, the "Cast" section of the article calls Verona "the oldest of Dracula's brides", Marishka "the second oldest of Dracula's brides", and Aleera "the youngest of Dracula's brides". In fact, there is nothing in the film to support that information, unless I missed a crucial piece of dialogue. Elena Anaya, who plays Aleera, is actually slightly older than the two other actresses. Is this another case of original research? Edelseider (talk) 14:58, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Seems a bit trivial even if it's true. I removed it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:41, 11 August 2022 (UTC)