The castle


In the exterior shots it is a completely different castle from the one featured in the 1958 film, anyone can see that.
But the interiors are the same in both films. The thing that makes a bit of confusion is that in some of the rooms the orientation changes. For example, here the staircase leading up to the upper floor stands on the right hand-side of the hall and then the corridor runs towards the left. In the 1958 film it is the other way round. I wonder if the director did it this way deliberately in order to confuse the audience or it was just a goof as a result of the eight-year gap between the making of the two films? But in this case they should have watched the first film before starting to shoot the second so there would be not spatial discrepancies.
What is your opinion, fellows?

reply

I think the sets are based on what is available to the film makers at the time rather than continuity.... Also, I believe that the movies are not meant to be pure 100% sequels but rather artistic extensions of each other, so to speak.

reply


Thanks.

reply

It is always worth remembering that back in the days before video and DVD's film-makers didn't have to worry too much about this kind of continuity stuff as it would be unlikely that anyone would see the film often enough to notice. Having said that ,Hammer were masters of making tiny budgets go a long way and producing movies that looked expensive on next to nothing. One of their techniques was just to move the sets around a little and reuse them. Usually this hardly matters and personally ,I find spotting the switches rather fun.

Gordon P. Clarkson

reply

Dracula had major renovations done while his ashes were awaiting flesh blood. Klove handled the contractors. Take it up with him.

reply

Clove was a man before his time.


Now more than ever we can use you in our sadly depleted organization.

reply

They were using the same sets that were used on Rasputin in order to save money. Hammer wasn't terribly concerned with continuity.

reply