I never seen any version. From what I understand the original is just a riff on the Dracula book that used another name due to rights issues. But then, why remake Nosferatu instead of just doing another Dracula adaptation? Rights are public domain and the name recognition is much superior. What am I not getting? What makes Herzog or Eggers’ versions a “Nosferatu” story instead of a Dracula one?

I recently fell down a rabbit hole with Nosferatu (1922), and I’m fascinated by how this unauthorized Dracula adaptation survived its own destruction order to become one of the most iconic horror films of all time. Imagine being so bold—Prana Film straight-up adapted Dracula without permission, renamed the characters (Count Dracula became Count Orlok), and moved the story to Germany. But Florence Stoker, Bram’s widow, wasn’t having it. She sued, won, and had most prints destroyed.

Thankfully, a few copies survived, and now Nosferatu isn’t just a horror movie—it’s THE horror movie that shaped everything from Universal’s monster films to modern vampire stories. Max Schreck’s Orlok is still one of the creepiest, most unforgettable screen monsters ever.

But what gets me is how Nosferatu transcended its controversial beginnings. It’s not just a knockoff—it’s an expressionist masterpiece. The shadows, the eerie lighting, the surreal landscapes...it’s a visual feast that elevated horror into art. Honestly, I can’t help but wonder: if Florence Stoker had known how influential this film would become, would she have fought so hard to destroy it?

Here's a video breaking down this wild story and how Nosferatu became a legend despite its messy legal origins. If you’re curious, here’s the link: https://youtu.be/-O16ZNtb9Ks.

What about you? Do you see Nosferatu as a horror masterpiece, or does its ripoff history hold it back? I’d love to hear your thoughts on how this oddball little film found immortality in cinema history.

I’ve always been fascinated by how both Nosferatu (1922) and Dracula (1931) shaped vampire cinema. While Nosferatu feels like a haunting fever dream with its eerie visuals and unsettling atmosphere, Dracula has Bela Lugosi’s iconic performance that defined the character for decades.

Both have left a lasting mark on horror, but which one tells a better story? Do you prefer the silent film’s raw creepiness or the theatrical, gothic charm of Universal’s take? And what makes one stand out over the other for you?

In my opinion you can't really look at silent films the same way you do talkies, it's almost a different medium. Having said that, Nosferatu is almost a masterwork. Max Shrek's performance and the more famous scenes hold up really well, and the design of Orlok is probably the most nightmarish depiction of "Dracula" we've had. I don't love the film for a few reasons, one being that knowing how legendary it is I was hoping it was more surreal like The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari but that's not really a problem with the film. Orlok's castle and the sets they built are creepy and great.

Dracula (1931) I actually haven't seen despite it being the most iconic version, but everyone's seen clips. The Spanish version, which was filmed on all the same sets but with a Spanish cast looks more interesting, the actor plays him a lot crazier than Bela Lugosi so despite having the exact same script it's very different, not as many people know about it.

Horror of Dracula - This movie sucks. It's a pretty boring interpretation of the novel and Christopher Lee surprisingly doesn't have much screentime, the best thing to come out of it is Peter Cushing's Van Helsing. A lot of the creative changes felt like they were made for budget reasons.

Jess Franco's Dracula - This one claims to follow the book closely but it takes a lot of liberties, and overall it's not all that great. It's very cheap and the only interesting thing in it is Klaus Kinski as Renfield.

Dracula (1974) - Another one I haven't seen, BUT this one is notable because it follows the book relatively closely despite being the origin of the idea that Mina is Dracula's reincarnated love, and it cuts Renfield from the story which I find intriguing, if I were to write an adaption I would most certainly omit Renfield as I don't think he serves much of a purpose in the story, you can take the time to develop other characters more and frankly it's hard to beat Tom Waitts. Simon McBurny as Knock should be great too.

Dracula (1977) - This one's a BBC miniseries, and apart from Luis Jordan as Dracula, who was unbelievably dull in the role (he's literally just a guy) it wasn't the worst. It gets the spirit of the novel pretty on point, it didn't wow me but I could recommend it.

Nosferatu the Vampyre (1979) Ah, Herzog's reimagining. This film is in equal parts great and disappointing. He really went out of his way to establish a tone, with an amazing cast, beautiful locations, eery music and wonderful cinematography. It has an atmosphere you can cut with a knife, until it gets to Dracula. Klaus Kinski's energy doesn't really match the direction in my opinion, his performance is very interesting and at times compelling, but he doesn't evoke the same kind of abject terror as Shrek and some of the other actors over the years. The real standout in the film is Isabelle Adjani as Lucy, who absolutely matches the direction and she delivers a terrific performance. I have other issues with it filmmaking-wise, some music choices are inappropriate and it can't hide the fact that it was made in contemporary times, Robert and Jarin Blashke point out its use of spotlights which I'm also bothered by. It's inauthentic to the period, which most period pieces seem to have an easy time avoiding. Of course most period pieces don't light only with candle light like Robert likes to do, but there's rarely a movie with lighting so obnoxious that you're taken out of it.

Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992) I grew up with this film, and I love it but it's too silly for its own good. The creative direction in theory is fantastic, but when they use puppets to communicate war and the characters get as hammy as they do it loses me. But the big thing about it is despite the creative detours it's very faithful to the novel, and it's better for it.

Shadow of the Vampire (2000) I just fucking love this movie, it feels almost tailor made for me.

Dracula (2020) Another BBC miniseries, I liked it a lot despite the pretty aggressive reviews it got at the time. Normally I hate modern updates but I found this entire show tasteful, the creative changes were fun and it's helped that the main cast (Dracula, Van Helsing, Mina) were fucking brilliant and they shot at the same castle in Nosferatu 1922.

The Last Voyage of the Demeter (2023) - I was hoping this would be more bleak and atmospheric but for a little creature feature, it's decent. It helps that I like the director.

Being that Nosferatu is essentially Dracula but with slight differences to avoid a legal issue, why do you think Eggers went with remaking Nosferatu over Dracula?

Personally, I would say Dracula because of the atmosphere and bela lugosi’s performance as well. It truly become the most iconic Dracula movie but in terms of horror and which is scarier, I do say it’s Nosferatu. Dracula was like a fine looking gentleman while count orlack looked bald and had sharp teeth. Now the question is which one is better and why?

I just got the book Dracula by Bram Stoker, but have also heard about Nosferatu and i am a bit confused...is Nosferatu Dracula?

There's not a single appearance or allusion to bats in this movie. The only animal we see associated with Nosferatu is rats, perhaps implying he is a pest. Bats are often described as rats with wings so it's no wonder we never see Nosferatu flying, but crawling towards his victims, almost as if he is a rat man.

Lately, I’ve been gravitating away from horror movies and finding more satisfaction in books(mainly non fiction still). It’s not that I don’t enjoy the genre anymore, but the films just aren’t hitting the same. Take Nosferatu (2024), for example—what a letdown. There’s no message, no interesting character arcs, and nothing to really think about once it’s over. Even Saw, for all its brutality, at least left you with some messed-up moral questions to unpack.

That got me reflecting on why books have been more fulfilling lately. I recently read Frankenstein, and it completely changed how I see the story. The movies always focus on the monster smashing things, but the book dives so much deeper. It’s a thoughtful exploration of creation, responsibility, and what it means to be human. It’s not just a horror story, it’s a tragedy and a philosophical argument wrapped together. It really stayed with me in a way the movies never have.

The same thing happened with Crime and Punishment. Even a single chapter had me questioning morality, guilt, and justice in ways I hadn’t considered before.

Now I’m eyeing Dracula. If Frankenstein turned out to be so much richer than its adaptations, maybe the original vampire story will surprise me too. I’ve only ever known Dracula through films and pop culture, so I’m curious to see what the book has to say.

I would also really appreciate any horror book recommendations. I’m looking for something that sticks with you, not just through scares, but through ideas that linger long after you’re done reading.

I’ve seen both and they are both very similar, but even with the addition of song and more polished film, I just feel that the original Dracula is very tamed and slowly paced compared to Nosferatu, I also think the atmosphere in Nosferatu is better by a long shot, I never once felt creeped out watching Dracula nor did Dracula himself scare me, but count orlok defiantly scares me! I’m curious to know what you guys think! Which film do you think is better and why?

Mine would be Nosferatu (2024), Nosferatu the Vampyr (1979), Nosferatu (1922), Bram Stoker’s Dracula (1992). Haven’t seen Dracula (1931)

Went and saw the new Nosferatu tonight and loved it.

What I didn’t love was the damn audience after. Couple next to me began getting up and one of them says “ugh, that was, like, just a big ripoff of Dracula.” Further chats I overheard as I exited: “so Bill Skarsgard is just edgy Gary Oldman?” “Why didn’t they call it ‘Ugly Dracula?’”

I wanted to yell “this was a retelling of the 1922 Nosferatu which was an unauthorized and unofficial adaptation of Bram Stoker's 1897 novel Dracula!!!!” But I just swallowed it in along with the remains of my popcorn.

Anyway, loved the new film. Can’t wait to see it again soon.

I know Nosferatu is the rip off Dracula, but we can agree they have differences in their vampirism. So which eternal thirst would you prefer gifted to you? Along with the powers they display in their adaptations.
I have a desire to look more like a fresh corpse/still humanoid versus decaying so that really is enough to move the needle for me.

saw nosferatu tonight and i'm not even close to a regular movie critic, but i don't know if i've ever seen a worse movie. i walked out of the theater with my mind absolutely blown, (and possibly destroyed). how did this even make it to theaters, and even more importantly, how does this movie have 87% on rotten tomatoes?? it was disgusting to say the least. wish i could bleach my eyes and my brain.

spoiler alert

edit: i will say that i had pretty much no problem with it until she's possessed and says something about her husband not being able to please her like the vampire could, and then in what seems like an attempt to prove a point, they start aggressively banging? like...who had that idea? at that point the whole movie was pretty much ruined for me, and then it somehow managed to get worse as the movie went on, which ruined it even further. i do think that it started off strange, alluding to her as a child allowing this vampire to come into her soul or whatever, it's pretty weird. but up until that specific scene, and the many ones that would soon follow, having any chance of liking this movie was gone for me.