The movie was cinematically beautiful. The story wasn’t crazy but I enjoyed the movie and watched it twice. How do y’all feel about it? And is the book better than the movie?

I saw Nosferatu today and loved it! Now I want to read a horror book that has the same vibe as Nosferatu or has vampires. Bonus points if it's on Kindle Unlimited. Thank you!

In Nosferatu the man reads a small book, does it exist?

I was extremely hyped for this movie. I LOVED the lighthouse, and Dracula is one of my favorite novels, and I even watched the old nosferatu movie. However I was very dissapointed today, because I feel that the plot and story in the book were exponentially better than in the movie. I`m so dissapointed that so many things were cut out. Like half of the hunt for the Count, the gradual realization that he crawls out of the window at night and is definetely not human, the trying to keep Ellen safe, etc. The Count in the book was so incredibly witty and evil, he would have never died while getting laid. And arguebly the best character in the whole damn book, Van Helsing, wasn`t even mentioned! I visited the real Dracula`s castle, and there wasn`t even any water for Thomas to fall into.

And you know what the worst part is? Count Orlok was played so well, the visuals were incredible, the acting was good. The plot just ruined it and made Count Orlok seem just weak, and really naive for someone that has lived for hundreds of years and is highly educated and intelligent.

Edit: alright so William Dafoe was Van Helsing, but the character was so underwhelming that I didn't even tell.

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?

So I’ve been to see the film twice… it’s the first movie I’ve had to see again, and if I could, I’d go a third time (and a fourth and a fifth).

Instead, I’m looking for book recommendations that’ll put me back in that world…

Many thanks in advance for helping me get my fix…

What are some good movies and books you'd recommend that are tonally similar to Nosferatu? Would love some dope vampire story recommendations, but down for some non-vampire stories, as well.

EDIT: Thank you for all of the awesome suggestions, and keep em flowing like blood down Orlok's gullet! I'm so bummed Bloodborne isn't on Steam and that I don't have a Playstation, because that game looks incredible.

At one point it is mentioned Dafoe's character was obsessed with the works of Paracelsus, Agrippa (and possibly a third I didn't catch.)

There is a book of the Solomonari but that name of that books escapes me, and I assume that was made for the movie.

Anything else catch your eye? Any interviews where Eggers mentions other inspiration? I know he is pretty well-versed in the occult.

I love that Nosferatu sticks to the vampire origin we find in Stoker's work. The Count was black magician who studied at Scholomance

Pls tell me the story after the anime ends.

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.

First 100 pages had me shook and captivated. I even got to thinking that Dracula might even like Jonathan? Maybe like a pet or something.

Then I also liked the Whitby sections.

But I think my enjoyment of the book is brought down by Dr Sewards. Who I found extremely boring to read through. He was just a really blank slate.

This is made better because Van Helsing is such a FUN character.

I'm also not sure I like the ending, or Quincy Morris, but I think its ok.

Just saw Nosferatu (2024) and loved it, I don't typically read books in its genres (vampire horror/dark romance/historical) and would appreciate suggestions!

Hi guys, I'm interested in playing a rat in a v5 game, and i feel like i want more fluff. noticed there are two nos clan books, one for the original and one for the revised. which is better and more relevant to v5? i remember one of them was considered great.

we are playing pre-inquisition, if it matters.

Pre ordered from GRUV

Anyone have interesting insights on the novel? I really like it and was surprised how readable it was I loved the epistolery writing style.

I was disappointed Nosferatu didn't end with the protagonists just fucking Dracula up outside his castle. It's such an awesome part of the book that is often left out of adaptations.

Did U know Dracula is the literary character that has appeared the most in film. What do U think inspires so many adaptations?

The abbess at the Orthodox nunnery where Thomas ends up says Orlok was "a dark enchanter in life -- Solomonari." This means he attended the legendary Scholomance where ten students, who never saw sunlight for their seven years there, learned black magic from the Devil himself. It is incredibly cool and I had never even heard of it before! And I'm a folklore NERDATROID!!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholomance

Anyway, I think we can say it's strongly suggested Orlok became a vampire through this black magic and, y'know, covenants with the Devil. Especially because folklore vampires didn't infect other people with vampirism through their bites, and there were instead a hundred different ways someone could become a vampire after death, with black magic way up there.

So, badass af, right? A great combination of Romanian folklore. Good job there, Robert Eggers.

But what you may not know... is that THIS IS O.G. DRACULA'S EXACT BACKSTORY!!

[Dracula] dared even to attend the Scholomance, and there was no branch of knowledge of his time that he did not essay.

Apparently it was a family tradition:

The Draculas were, says Arminius, a great and noble race, though now and again were scions who were held by their coevals to have had dealings with the Evil One. They learned his secrets in the Scholomance, amongst the mountains over Lake Hermanstadt, where the devil claims the tenth scholar as his due.

Just like in Nosferatu 2024, this is suggested to be in some way how Dracula became a vampire.

WHY have I never heard of or seen a Dracula adaptation use this awesome backstory?? Is it mentioned in some adaptations I may have missed?? Why hasn't anyone made it, or the Scholomance, a significant part of the Dracula story until now??

And now Moustacheratu will be remembered as a Solomonar, and Dracula won't be. And if anyone DOES use it for Dracula, people will be like "ugh, just trying to copy Moustacheratu."

I'm not a huge Dracula person, but it's tragic. Why did they throw such juicy lore away?

Got done watching Robert Eggers' Nosferatu. I'm still forming my thoughts about the film, but I wanted to try and pin down what I've understood about it and explore the themes the movie explores.

To me, I think the movie is primarily about two things: the wane of mysticism and spiritualism versus the rise of science and reason, and the difference between the lust for carnal pleasures and true love.

The clash between science and spiritualism is epitomized by the clash between Von Franz and Friedrich Harding. I won't talk much about Von Franz since I think his role in the story on a thematic level is kinda straightforward: he represents the occult, or at least serves as a guide to show us that the world is not purely physical and material, that good and evil are forces emanating from God and Satan. However, I think Harding is more interesting, specifically because of his fate in the movie. Harding is a simple man, a man who believes in the results and virtues of science and reason and yet, isn't a scientist himself. He's a mere shipyard worker. He only believes in the material. When his wife contracts the plague, he ignores Franz's pleas and insists the plague is natural, borne out of the vermin. He lusts after his wife and desires her only as an object for sex. He only values her in the physical sense (this is also why Ellen and Anna have such strong kinship with one another). He's a slave to the material, the physical, the carnal. It's this addiction that leads to his doom in the end. Even in death, he cannot lay his hands off his dead wife. He continues to lust for her, and eventually, this kills him. The blind devotion to science and reason is no better than the blind worship of mysticism.

The second clash is displayed by Ellen, Thomas, and Count Orlok himself. First, I want to broach how and why Orlok desires Ellen so heavily. It's implied throughout the movie by multiple characters and Ellen herself that she's always been downbeat and melancholic. But in addition to her melancholy, she also alludes to a sin she committed in her past, namely lust. Ever since she was a young child, it's implied she's been lustful to a fault, even to the point of seeking the company of others despite being with Thomas. Her desires are unable to be satisfied, and hence, she inevitably calls upon the Count to give her what no one else could. Ellen seeks to die; she is trying to commit suicide, and she asks Orlok to deliver her this mercy. Hence why at the beginning, she describes her "wedding" with Orlok as the happiest moment of her life, despite the obvious death it entails for her and everyone else. Life is not good enough for her, so she seeks its end.

Count Orlok represents her melancholy, but specifically the melancholy that arises out of addiction—the loneliness that arises out of the inevitable dissatisfaction of untamed desire and appetite. She hungers for more and more and can never get it; this is simply her nature. Eventually, she calls upon death himself to satisfy her.

Enter Thomas. Despite the fact that Thomas is unable to satisfy Ellen physically, it's clear that she loves him and he loves her. Their love transcends the physical, and for that reason, their relationship survives Orlok's scheming. It's this love, perhaps what the movie is trying to portray as true love, that helps Ellen vanquish Nosferatu. She accepts her nature, she accepts who she is, and with this acceptance, she vanquishes the melancholy that's arisen out of this nature; she vanquishes the Count. I think her final embrace with Orlok is borne out of love for Thomas. Despite the fact that she's addicted to carnal desire, it's also clear that there's something in her that recognizes her love for Thomas—a love that can't be shown in any physical way, through sex or otherwise. She rebukes Orlok's advances and tells him he doesn't know true love, only appetite. In her sacrifice, I think she proves to Thomas and perhaps the audience too, that she is also capable of true love, despite her nature.

That's my interpretation of the movie. What did you guys think? Did I miss something?

First, MASSIVE disclaimer that I have not seen any previous iteration of Nosferatu (assuming Shadow of the Vampire doesn’t count), and while I have seen the Coppola version and read the original book, I’m not an expert on Dracula either.

All that said, I just caught the Eggers version and I’m grappling with what a non-character Nosferatu is. He has almost no humanity to him, no dimension, and that’s the actual text of the movie. He describes himself as appetite. He tells the object of his affection that they are not of humanity. He pantomimes human interactions for the sole sake of getting what he wants. It’s entirely and deliberately perfunctory.

He seems to function almost like an Inside Out horror film version of “Libido” anthropomorphized.

It’s not romantic. It’s sexy only in the most brutish of senses, unless Animal Planet + necrophilia is your thing (no judgment).

I’m interpreting this as a rejection of the romanticized Dracula, who embodies youth, undying love, and romantic passion when he meets his beloved. This guy is half-eaten by maggots, strains to sound credibly human, and seems to exist just to explode in orgiastic ecstasy like a salmon driven to spawn and die.

Anyone else have this read on the character, and do you think the director set out to demolish the “suave, tragic lover” trope in vampire stories?