[deleted]
Well, in the original story, if the vampire just fed on you, you died. If the vampire made you drink HIS blood, you became a vampire.
So if the film stuck to that, then Dracula took the trouble to make Lucy and whatshisname into starter vampires, but the brides didn't do it to Jonathan. Selfish bitches.
You must be right. I recall that is implied by what happens to Mina, and it certainly makes sense. After all, if simply dying from the bite was all that was required, Dracula would be up to his ass in competition.
shareYeah I always felt the exchange of blood was necessary for the turn to take effect, which made sense.
There was also the risk of the victim contracting a deadly case of vampirism if they weren't treated or were bitten but the blood wasn't exchanged. This also made some sense.
I think it was Interview With The Vampire that also maintained that an exchange of blood had to take place in order for vampirism to actually turn the victim.
I always hated the lore where getting bit or scratched instantly turned you into a vampire.
I suspect it is because being bitten by a vampire does not actually turn you into a vampire. Being drained entirely by a vampire may be the requirement in this case. Remember, there is no single set of rules. The rules we are most familiar with were invented, mostly by Bram Stoker. Variations are always possible, even in versions of Dracula. Recall, for example, that being destroyed by sunlight was not part of Stoker's rules yet it has been often seen in adaptations of Dracula.
shareI've seen that before, that it's not being bitten that turns you. It's being bitten and dying from it.
shareI believe the victim has to taste the vampires blood as well and then also die from the ordeal before coming back as a vampire. It's that weird scene where Mina appears to be sucking Draculas nipple.
shareYeah that scene was in the book as well and I never felt there was a whole lot of consistency with the vampire rules
shareIt was the same method in interview with a vampire. I do like the introduction of it to vampire lore because if a simple bite turns someone into a vampire, then they become more like zombies and it makes an ever expanding vampire population. After a period of time there would be more vampires than people and then everyone would be gone because they'd have no food supply.
shareLooks like you stumbled upon a plot hole
shareThe everything is a plot hole guy strikes again.
shareDo you have a better explanation?
shareWhen something is not intricately explained in a film it does not make it a plot hole. Dracula tells Mina he will give her eternal life, he then drinks her blood, he then cuts a slice in his chest and tells her to drink. She starts drinking and he becomes emotional and tells her he cannot let this happen, she then begs him to and he lets her and she starts drinking again. It's clear this is how one becomes a vampire. If it was just by him biting people then he could have drank her blood and she'd be a vampire, the cutting his chest and feeding her makes no sense if it is not to turn her.
The confusion seems to be that we did not see him feed Lucy blood, that is something that happened off screen. It isn't necessary for the plot and would be redundant since we are shown how he turns Mina.
While Lucy drinking Dracula’s blood isn’t shown, we hear Lucy tell Mina after the first encounter that his “blood is in my mouth.”
shareWow, I never caught that line.
sharehttps://youtu.be/99Cu_h8vs3o
At 3:43:
I still have the taste of his blood in my mouth.”
[deleted]
Because he didn't drink the blood of the vampires, which is something that Van Helsing asked him after his return.
share[deleted]
Van Helsing even explicitly mentions that if he hasn't drank from their blood, he doesn't have the vampire's curse.
share