Topic: Mathias or Dracula

[DragonSlayr81]

I actually if you would compare Mathias and Copella's version of Dracula I think the latter has a better reason for renouncing god just because they mention that his wife's soul couldn't be saved because of the suicide and all while according to Lament (the manga) Mathias's wife died of uh tuberculosis. In both cases though I think their reasoning for their human genocide is way too exceggerated to be taken seriously and only makes them look egoistic.         

Most reasons for human genocide are exaggerated in general.

[DingusBelmondo]

Nagumo, I think you are confused. I am referring to Bram Stoker, the author of the original novel Dracula. The man who originally created the character. I think that is really what made the character famous, and what made him so badass. Therefor, the version i identify with.

[Nagumo]

Well yes but I wasn't commenting on your post.

[Lumas]

Nagumo, I think you are confused. I am referring to Bram Stoker, the author of the original novel Dracula. The man who originally created the character. I think that is really what made the character famous, and what made him so badass. Therefor, the version i identify with.

Also keep in mind what LordsOfShadow is saying here, Bram Stoker created Dracula. He used Vlad III as his model for creating him. Therefore without that novel we wouldn't have the great Dracula movies of old which means we would never have had Castlevania in the first place.

[DingusBelmondo]

here is the thing Vlad the impaler =/= Dracula. Dracula, the vampire from the Bram Stoker novel, the sinister, imposing, manipulative creature likely shared little in common with the historical dracula, personality wise. The character of Dracula is based a little off of Vlad the Impaler, Atilla the Hun, and a LOT off of Stokers personal friend Henry Irving. So here is my point, the historical dracula was not believed to be a vampire. the Character was. This thread should be between Mathias and Stoker's Dracula, because when you think of the vampire, you are thinking of his.

[DragonSlayr81]

LordofShadow, you bring up a very good point. People's perception of Stoker's Dracula = Vlad III are a little off. The poll should be between the three:

1. Vlad III
2. Stoker's Dracula
3. IGA's Dracula

[Lumas]

LordofShadow, you bring up a very good point. People's perception of Stoker's Dracula = Vlad III are a little off. The poll should be between the three:

1. Vlad III
2. Stoker's Dracula
3. IGA's Dracula

Actually to clarify it was between Stokers incarnation of Dracula since in his novel Vlad Dracula Tepes III was used to create Dracula. It also references the historical Vlad many times example being when they were trying to figure out the next course of Draculas plan Mina concluded he would return to Transylvania to regain his power much like he returned to regain his troops against the ottoman empire. It would be silly to put up the actual Vlad III as an option being he wasn't a vampire cause they dont exist, unless you are one of them loony people that think you can get energy from staring at someone awkwardly or touching them and making them feel uncomfortable. So the poll shall remain the same being that the real Vlad isn't a vampire and only has connections to vampires, other then drinking his enemies blood to inspire fear and possibly catching syphilis through Stokers novel. And also to clarify we are going by the novel not the movie version, reason being the novel obviously came out long before the movie.

EDIT: Also to clarify i placed Vlads name in there was because before Lament he was known as Vlad Dracula Tepes as mentioned in the Symphony of the Night manual and other games like CV 64. It was in no way suppose to be connected to the actual historical Vlad the impaler.

[Nagumo]

I think the point is that we are just arguing two of the many interprentations of Dracula and say who is better since both of them matter (or use to matter) to the storyline. Bram's Stoker's creation has little to do with since the series has never cleary refered to that version of the character. If anything they combined his dark wizard thing with Vlad Tepes.

Also, its actually debatable if Bram Stoker's Dracula has any connection to Vlad Tepes aside from his title since he is never mentioned in the writer's notes. That's what wikipedia says at least.                               

[Lumas]

Also, its actually debatable if Bram Stoker's Dracula has any connection to Vlad Tepes aside from his title since he is never mentioned in the writer's notes. That's what wikipedia says at least.                                

Actually if you read my above post you would know that its not debatable if Brams Dracula has any connections to Vlad being that he referenced in the novel.

EDIT: Vlad is referenced a few times through out the novel so I would say that yeah Brams Dracula does have connection  to the actual Vlad Tepes.

Also if it makes it simpler for everyone think of it like this.

Do you like that Dracula is Mathias or would you have preferred him staying Vlad Dracula Tepes as stated in Symphony of the Night and numerous other games. Meaning do you prefer Dracula before the Mathias idea or after it was implemented.

[Nagumo]

Actually I read the orginal version of the novel not so long ago and there aren't any references to Vlad Tepes at all. I'm guessing you must have read one of those later editions meant for kids/young adults or something because I recall reading one too that also took some liberties with the plot.     

[Lumas]

Actually I read the orginal version of the novel not so long ago and there aren't any references to Vlad Tepes at all. I'm guessing you must have read one of those later editions meant for kids/young adults or something because I recall reading one too that also took some liberties with the plot.      

Perhaps you need to learn to read.

An excerpt from chapter 18 Mina Harker's journal

"Thus when we find the habitation of this man-that-was, we can confine him to his coffin and destroy him, if we obey what we know. But he is clever. I have asked my friend Arminius, of Buda-Pesth University, to make his record, and from all the means that are, he tell me of what he has been. He must, indeed, have been that Voivode Dracula who won his name against the Turk, over the great river on the very frontier of Turkeyland. If it be so, then was he no common man, for in that time, and for centuries after, he was spoken of as the cleverest and the most cunning, as well as the bravest of the sons of the 'land beyond the forest.'

And an excerpt from Chapter 25 of Bram Stokers Dracula. And that would be in Dr. Seward's Dairy

"The Count is a criminal and of criminal type. Nordau and Lombroso would so classify him, and qua criminal
he is of an imperfectly formed mind. Thus, in a difficulty he has to seek resource in habit. His past is a clue,and the one page of it that we know, and that from his own lips, tells that once before, when in what Mr.Morris would call a 'tight place,' he went back to his own country from the land he had tried to invade, and thence, without losing purpose, prepared himself for a new effort. He came again better equipped for his work, and won. So he came to London to invade a new land. He was beaten, and when all hope of success was lost, and his existence in danger, he fled back over the sea to his home. Just as formerly he had fled back over the Danube from Turkey Land."


So I would say those are good for starters references. I'll read over the book once more and add to that. Perhaps next time you should take your time, I know its a big book but you shouldn't rush through it for the sake of saying you read it.

And also that was taken directly from the 1897 edition.

EDIT: Also to note the reason he used "Land Beyond the Forest" was because of Emily Gerard's publication of The Land Beyond the Forest: Facts, Figures, and Fancies from Transylvania,. It was published in 1888 a few years before Bram's novel.

And I also noticed it makes more sense if I place my excerpts in proper order that and it was buggin out my ocd.

[Lumas]

Also just incase you didn't know what voivode meant I thought I should put this down.
 
Voivode[1] is a Slavic title that originally denoted the principal commander of a military force. The word gradually came to denote the governor of a province; the territory ruled or administered by a voivode is known as a voivodeship. In English, the title is often translated as "prince", "duke", or, as in Bram Stoker's Count Dracula, "count". The Polish title is sometimes rendered in English as "palatine" or "count palatine", in charge of a palatinate. In Slavic terminology, the rank of a voivode is in some cases considered equal of that of a German Herzog.

The title was used in medieval Bulgaria, Bohemia, Bosnia, Croatia, Transylvania, Poland, Moscow (later Tsardom of Russia), Serbia, Republic of Macedonia, Moldavia, Wallachia, Halych, Volhynia, Novgorod Republic, Chernigov, Kiev. Later, voivode was the highest military rank in the principalities of Montenegro and Serbia, the Kingdom of Yugoslavia.

Wojewoda is today the term for the centrally-appointed governor of a Polish province or voivodeship (Polish: województwo).

In the Romanian medieval principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia, voievode became part of the official titulature of the sovereign prince, showing his right to lead the entire army. Voivode or vajda was also the title of the Hungarian governors of Transylvania in the Middle Ages.

The leaders of Bulgaria's Haiduti (Хайдути) rebels under the Ottoman Empire were called "voevodes" (Bulgarian, singular: войвода, voyvoda).

[X]

The more this thread goes on, the more educated we all get... Keep it up! Boo yeah!!!  Seriously this is all good stuff to learn about. It's a shame IGA isn't taking advantage of this info as well.

-X

[crisis]

You say you don't want none of us to flame eachother, but you throw a "lol learn 2 read" insult at Nagumo?


Anyway thanks for the history lesson and all, but it still doesn't change the fact that the games say Drac was a sorceror long before 1476. The book doesn't mention Vlad practicing dark magic and summoning demons, right? Despite the novel being canon, I wonder how much of it they actually intended it to be. If it were to be made into a game, I'm sure they'll replace Quincy's bowie knife with the Vampire Killer, remove the London parts & Harker altogether, etc.

So at the end of the day it bottles down to preference. You prefer Dracula to be this evil warlord since day 1 so you hate to see him characterized as a tragic once-loving soul, AKA Mathias. I don't understand why that bothers you so much.

[DragonSlayr81]

The novel's not as canon as "certain ideas from the novel" is used in the canon. But yeah, CV's Dracula is it's own, no doubt. Maybe based more on Stoker's depiction, but then again, you have to question WHICH depction, because even with Stoker's Dracula, there are many depictions of THAT. CV seemingly takes the old Bela Lugosi movie Dracula as the basis for the "look" of Dracual in the older games, and every fan knows that the movie isn't exactly the same as the novel. Most of the Dracula movies differ, so it's almost like un-winding the strings down and down to the single strands. I mean, choose to deny it all you want, but the Universal depcition of Lugosi's Dracula is probably the most famous depictions of all time, being more recognizable than Stoker's actual story and Vlad III himself.