Dracula in the Buffyverse

I actually rewatched this on a whim last week, it's definitely not as bad on rewatch, it's actually quite enjoyable!
 
I think Dracula's okay but he does fail as a character.
He's simply a plot device for Buffy to begin thinking about the dark side of her slayer-ness that will become more of a focus in the coming seasons.

Those trailers were a hoot though! Peter Weller with the fakest beard ever! 😀
 
They did . Well then he wasn't a bad actor for the role but had a bad script . Thanks for the info 😀
 
white avenger said:
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.
Click to expand...


You made a really good point about Whedons version of Dracula being an amalgamation of several different takes on the character. You're also right about his not being sired. However in the novel Dracula still had to feed people blood to turn them into vampires. They also de-powered Dracula quite a bit on Buffy. I won't list all of his powers in this post but I will mention that he is in fact a daywalker.
 
Athena said:
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.
Click to expand...

Actually, doesn't the 'real' Dracula crap himself and run from England the second he realises that Min and co are onto him?
 
Xin Rong said:
Actually, doesn't the 'real' Dracula crap himself and run from England the second he realises that Min and co are onto him?
Click to expand...

Good point. But since he undead he cant "crap" himself . He can only run away .
 
GwenRaiden
GwenRaiden
Why did this make me laugh so much!
He doesn't so much crap himself as much as get his ass handed to him.
 
Well at least they gave it back . LOL .

And you right . He ran for it & didn't come back period .
 
Just rewatched Buffy vs Dracula. Better than I thought. I still think the actor is to wooden. I don't feel any kind of seduction from him. I get its the thrall that draws people in. But someone described him as, tall, dark and handsome. I just don't see that. I still don't get how he can't die. Cause it looks like he is dusted, you see the dust and bones disintegrate, but then he reforms again, and again.
 
But at the end he was about to reform & after hearing what Buffy said disappeared & didn't come back.
 
I know . And we never saw him again which means Buffy won since he didn't do anything more.
 
ChaseRules said:
I know . And we never saw him again which means Buffy won since he didn't do anything more.
Click to expand...

That's kind of the problem though. He's Dracula, literally the most famous vamp of all time, and we never see him again (on the show).
 
I always thought that was weird- he appears once on the show and buggers off once Buffy gets the best of him. Kinda undecided how I feel about him in the comics.
 
Same here . You think after such a big entrance something would have happened instead of him just disappearing .
They could at least had Dracula say he was going to leave her alone or something .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom