Nosferatu – Maven

Why does the Original cinematic vampire have so few imitators?

About Maven of the Eventide

Host of Vampire Reviews. [URL][/URL] [URL][/URL] [URL][/URL] [URL][/URL]


  1. That is one of most stupid stories ever. Stoker didn’t invent the vampires and in reality didn’t have any rights for names or most ideas (yes, there were maybe few misconceptions we may argue he popularize). So in realty it wasn’t a theft. But I understand that because at that time people didn’t know much about that on west court could be not aware of that fact.

    Furthermore destroying even problematic movies is crime against art. Yes, I know that back then movies weren’t considered as such but still. Also it is bit stupid to destroy movie instead taking royalties from them. If she could get all copies she could obviously resell them.

    • Actually, the film DIRECTLY plagiarized the novel. It’s not that they borrowed ideas, or just kind of followed the basic idea; it’s that they DELIBERATELY MODELED THEIR SCRIPT ON THE NOVEL.

      True, they made a few changes, but not enough to cover the fact they deliberately copied the novel.

      So, yes. It is stealing.

      • Except even Maven pointed out that overall structure of this movie is different then in the book. So outside fact that creators claim that they were inspired by it, this accusation barely hold up. Also you ignore my main point that Stoker also “steal” ideas form the folklore and discredit name of Romanian hero. My point is that such case could happen only half century ago and would not hold up according to modern law. As such people should pull stick from asses here with accusations.

        • Except she didn’t say that at all. What she did say was that the story was pretty much the same aside from changing the name of the antagonist and the protagonists and moving the setting to Germany. I’ve seen the movie dude and aside from those changes it’s pretty much EXACTLY like the novel. The novel which the movie’s producers never bothered purchasing the rights for. Ergo, they committed plagiary and Stoker’s widow was well within her rights to sue their asses off because of it.

          Also you ignore the fact that folklore is in public domain, at the time of the lawsuit the novel was not. If somebody tried to pull this shit today, let’s say with a thinly veiled copy of Harry Potter, a similar case most assuredly would happen today.

        • You must be watching a different Maven than the one I watched. Because in the video embedded above, the real Maven straight up says that it was plagiarized.

          It is already well documented that the creators of Nosferatu were using Stoker’s Dracula as a basis for their own story. It’s why, during production, they made the changes that they did; they knew they were in trouble and were hoping to appease Mrs. Stoker. But it was too little and too late.

          Seriously, just read the Wikipedia page on the film: several times it is stated that the film was an attempt to make an unauthorized adaptation of Dracula, and that the script was based on the novel. Ergo, plagiarism. End of story.

    • So, not to risk breaking the enchantment or anything, but… is this a gimmick account or something?

  2. I love that part where he’s flicking the light switch on and off, and Spongebob and Squidward are relieved that it’s only “NOSFERATU!”

  3. Wow, impressive analysis.

    This review is an example of taking your time to understand the source material, delving into the background of it’s cinematic influence, as well as the German expressionist movement that inspired it.

  4. Can you blame her?
    Yes! The destruction of a work of art is an atrocity. The justification doesn’t matter, it’s still an atrocity.

    • Hardly. The world is neither better nor poorer for the existence of Nosferatu and really it’s their own damn fault. All the had to do was pay for the rights to the novel and their movie wouldn’t have been destroyed in the first place. Instead they chose to steal from her.

      • Perhaps not to you, or to me for that matter. But imagine there is something you care about that will be lost. Then someone tells you that the world is neither better nor poorer for the existence of it. Would you still view this statement as a valid argument?

        Alternately imagine you are the creator of a work. You learn of a second work that bears similarity to your own. Does that warrant the other works destruction?

        And which of these two scenarios is the more tenable position? How many stories follow the narrative pattern of the Hero’s Journey? Would the world be any better or poorer for it if all of those structurally similar works were destroyed until only the first of them remained?

        • If it was that important to them, maybe they should have paid for the rights for Dracula rather then robbing Stoker’s widow. They got exactly what they deserved and I don’t have the slightest bit of sympathy for them.

          Also it didn’t “bear similarity” to Stoker’s story it was Stoker’s story with only minor changes.

          • For the last time, THE CREATORS OF NOSFERATU PLAGIARIZED BRAM STOKER’S DRACULA! It wasn’t slightly similar; it wasn’t just some interesting parallels; IT WAS STRAIGHT UP STOLEN, with only minor changes to try to disguise the fact they were stealing. That’s not me just guessing based on a few observed similarities; this is a historically documented fact.

  5. Here’s hoping you cover the Werner Herzog remake of this movie. It deals with a lot of the issues of the portrayal of Count Orlock (admittedly, by making him even more monstrous), and moves the connection of him with the plague to the forefront.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.