Dracula in the Buffyverse

[Athena]

Season 5's opening episode is Buffy vs Dracula. As Dracula is public domain, he was included in the episode at the request of Joss Whedon instead of some random made-up vampire.

The version of Dracula we see is fairly faithful to the original depiction of the famous Count. We see his gothic castle appearing in Sunnydale mysteriously, his ability to thrall and seduce, his three brides, his ability to disappear into the mist and enslave people to his bidding. The problem is, all of this kind of goes against the Buffyverse rules of vampirism. We have examples of old vampires on the show (Darla, The Master) but none of these vampires look or act anything like Dracula.

We're told he's essentially a celebrity and everyone appears to be starstruck around him. Bram Stoker wrote the famous novel about him after meeting him and Drac was essentially ostracized by the vampire community for selling their secrets. But again, Dracula is nothing like the vampires we know.

Not to mention a vampire as famous and infamous as Dracula appears to be an odd choice for monster of the week, especially considering that literally the most famous vampire in the history of all vampires shows up for only one episodes and then disappears forever, never to return to the Hellmouth. I just don't think this depiction of Dracula actually makes sense in this world. I think they would have been better off just having some random made-up vampire.

I guess you could make the argument that Dracula seduces Buffy successfully and she ends up drinking his blood which then gives her the visions of the first Slayer and puts her on that path to finding out more about Sineya, but I don't think you necessarily need Dracula for that.

And I'm sorry, but the actor playing Dracula is awful. There's no charisma, no chemistry with SMG.... they seem to have chosen the most bland person they could find. Maybe the character would have worked better with a different actor?

Do you think this version of Dracula works within the Buffyverse?

 

[Skanky Vamp]

Dont get me started on that Dracula. That was not Dracula. That was a caricature of Dracula. I was so offended by that. Honestly. Offended. It felt like an insult to vampire fans.
 
And it wasnt just that he showed up. I could handle him showing up... but he showed up and was a JOKE and Buffy killed him? Please.

 

[Fuffy Baith]

While I'm not huge up on my Dracula lore, I agree that this Dracula doesn't make sense. Spike tries to explain why he's different by saying "oh is just showy magic tricks". And maybe that works, but then why aren't more vampires and demons (or even people) trying to learn this stuff? You think other vamps don't want to learn how to turn into mist before getting staked. I also don't really get the motive for Dracula to come to Sunnydale. He's like stalking her in her room like Angelus did, and he wants to enthrall her so that he can drink from her. But then her's also talking about her as a slayer. Is there any mention that he's even met past slayers, or killed past slayers. There's no mythos to THIS Dracula in the Buffyverse, it's just what we are suppose to think of Dracula.

And I'm sorry, but the actor playing Dracula is awful. There's no charisma, no chemistry with SMG.... they seem to have chosen the most bland person they could find. Maybe the character would have worked better with a different actor?

I do not like the actor they got. I think if it had been a better actor it might have sold the character more. In a lot of ways Spike is not your typical vampire but because James Marsters does such a great job he sells the character and it all makes sense.

 

[white avenger]

Actually, once you take into account that Whedon's Dracula isn't, and doesn't in any way pretend to be, Stoker's Dracula, it might make more sense that the two characters are so different. Stoker's Dracula was based on Vlad Tepes, a real historical figure who, as well as I can recall (and it's been several decades since I read a condensed version of the book, so someone please correct me if I'm wrong) didn't become a vampire by the traditional method of being turned by another vampire. He never displayed any sort of "game face," remaining totally human, always. Also, there was no siring necessary with his victims. If they died from his bite, they always came back as vampires. His powers were unique because he was unique.

Whedon's Dracula was based on what must have been dozens of interpretations of the character, so changed over the years that they bore little or no resemblance to the "real" Dracula. It would be like trying to portray Tarzan by studying the movies of Johnny Weissmuller, Glenn Morris, Gordon Scott, and the other actors who have portrayed Burroughs' Lord of the Jungle, without ever going back to the source. Whedon tried to fit a character into the Buffyverse who never had any real business there in the first place. He tried to do it by simply saying that everything unique about Dracula was the result of Gypsy magic, because without all those unique things, the character just wouldn't be the Dracula we are all more or less familiar with.

Whedon's Dracula isn't the character Bram Stoker wrote about, he isn't Bela Lugosi, and he isn't Christopher Lee. He's bits and pieces of all of those, with a little Whedonverse magic tossed in for spice. He's a completely different character, and I think that the actor who portrayed him that way did a good job of NOT trying to be Lugosi or Lee, whether that was his intent or the director's.

 

[Monkey Pants]

I like that they brought in Dracula. Not sure if it makes sense or not historically, as I don't know much about the original character. Yes, he's different from other vamps, but so is Spike. I look at it like some vamps are more intelligent, more emotional, more human-like. So Dracula had ambitions and talents that other vamps didn't have. He taught himself "tricks" that other vamps could possibly learn but have no patience for. Kind of like Willow teaching herself magic when other people don't bother.

 

[Athena]

I like that they brought in Dracula. Not sure if it makes sense or not historically, as I don't know much about the original character. Yes, he's different from other vamps, but so is Spike. I look at it like some vamps are more intelligent, more emotional, more human-like. So Dracula had ambitions and talents that other vamps didn't have. He taught himself "tricks" that other vamps could possibly learn but have no patience for. Kind of like Willow teaching herself magic when other people don't bother.

Interesting theory. But if Dracula had all that ambition and interest in Buffy (he admits he's attracted to her darkness and she would be an amazing vampire), why did he never return in the TV show and actually follow through with that. She beats him but he doesn't seem to care that she bested him, he just skulks off...?! I don't think the "real" character of Dracula would be so absolute in his defeat.

 

[Professor Walsh]

This is one of the episodes I sometimes forget that I have watched. Not deliberately, as in "I dislike this episode so much that I want it to unexcist", I just plain forget that it is there.

'nuff said.

 

[Athena]

I would say though, as season openers go it's not a bad episode. I think it wants to be more memorable than it actually is and the inclusion of Dracula is case in point. 😉

 

[Bluebird]

I would say though, as season openers go it's not a bad episode. I think it wants to be more memorable than it actually is and the inclusion of Dracula is case in point. 😉

As a season opener it was quite good! It tied up with Restless and The Gift, although to be perfectly honest they could have done that sans Dracula. Rudolph Martin was his name and the only other thing I seen him in was Dexter and he wasn't great in that either. I always had a feeling he was cast for his look.

I would have liked to have seen Freddie Prinze Jr. play Drac in this episode, as was originally intended.

 

[AndrewCrossett]

Dracula does return in the canon comics... first in the short story "Antique" from Tales of the Vampires, then the "Wolves at the Gate" arc from season 8 and the first arc of season 10. Those appearances reveal a lot more about his history, personality, magic, and relationship with Buffy and Xander.

 

[Athena]

I would have liked to have seen Freddie Prinze Jr. play Drac in this episode, as was originally intended.

I don't even think the genius that is FPJ could save Dracula from sucking.... see what I did there....!? Pure comedy gold, I tell you. 😉

 

[GwenRaiden]

I would have liked to have seen Freddie Prinze Jr. play Drac in this episode, as was originally intended.

Hmm, why did that not happen then? Any info? Is it because SMG would instinctively try to pull his mask off at the end of the episode?

 

[Skanky Vamp]

Hmm, why did that not happen then? Any info? Is it because SMG would instinctively try to pull his mask off at the end of the episode?

I think it's because the dracula guy got another dracula job and they put him in Buffy as a means to help promote that.

 

[Fuffy Baith]

Interesting theory. But if Dracula had all that ambition and interest in Buffy (he admits he's attracted to her darkness and she would be an amazing vampire), why did he never return in the TV show and actually follow through with that. She beats him but he doesn't seem to care that she bested him, he just skulks off...?! I don't think the "real" character of Dracula would be so absolute in his defeat.

I think they just didn't want to actually kill off Dracula. Because that would be a bigger deal than just one episode could deal with. Why he never returns? Idk. If he is attracted to the darkness in the slayer, then has he turned past slayers? I think the original concept for Sunday was that she was supposed to be a slayer turned vampire. If they had stuck with that, they I think that could have played into Dracula's character. This idea that he's trying to turn slayers rather than kill them.

 

[Skanky Vamp]

 

 

[RomanticSoul]

He has no place in the Buffyverse. I just tell myself it's because of the shifting reality due to the insertion of Dawn. Those monks maybe should have read less trashy vampire books if this is their version of vampires. So Dracula being there is a glitch that happens while the spell goes into effect.

 

[ChaseRules]

He has no place in the Buffyverse. I just tell myself it's because of the shifting reality due to the insertion of Dawn. Those monks maybe should have read less trashy vampire books if this is their version of vampires. So Dracula being there is a glitch that happens while the spell goes into effect.

That a great idea . And his tricks were just him taking advantage of the spell going into effect 😎

 

[Taake]

While I never thought Dracula was a good fit for the verse, I largely agree with White Avenger's points on the character and it's execution, and in general I like the episode. I think it's fun and basically not to be taken too seriously.
I also think Rudolf Martin did a fine job! 🙂

Fun fact, Dracula and Buffy share a history! (Or you know, Martin and Gellar do). They were on All My Children together. Tanned Dracula! 😛

I would dub their wardrobe aggressively 90's 😉

 

[ChaseRules]

That a interesting piece of information there. I agree also you should not take it to serious.

Lastly Dracula might actually have come there to help Bufy in his own way 😱

 

[Buffy Summers]

The sad thing is, SMG and Rudolph Martin had FABULOUS chemistry on All My Children. So I chock this up to bad writing. Maybe intentionally bad, but still bad. Though I do like the episode now more than I did the first time I watched it.