Why has there never been a Dracula film that follows Bram Stoker's novel 100%?

Why has there never been a Dracula film that follows Bram Stoker's novel 100%?

Normalfags don't read so they don't even know or care that there is a book.

Because Stokers book from a literal point of view is a piece of shit with dozens (possibly hundreds) of filler pages

Because the novel, taken on the whole, is not very good. Most of the Fan-fiction canon that's been built up by movies and comic books and shit since then is much, much more interesting. The book just sucks.

The bit where the Phantom stage coach driver jumps off his seat to chase after the ghostlit treasure in the woods was my favorite scene in the book and it will never see film because movies suck shit

You too? Weird

Because novels are different then films.

Good man

>filler
like what exactly?

"Let's root out Brimstoker and give him the thrall of our lives"

God, take your pick of every other chapter of the latter half of the book

so the entire exploration of the victorian-era once off the boat is filler?

what did you want, for them to just kill dracula before he even arrived like it's castlevania?

Has there ever been a movie-book adaptation that was 100% accurate?

Because following source material 100% is a dumb idea.

Coppola's is like 99% faithful though.

>exploration of the Victorian era

Yeah right

There couldn't be a movie that follows it completely. It would have to be several hour-long episodes of a show

Coppola sucks. Fuck that stupid wig they made Oldman wear at the beginning. Focusing on Mina's cosmic romance of leaving her husband for Dracula was lame. Had some nice aesthetics beyond that stupid wig

Nosferatu follows the book better.

the acting is pretty goofy though

Bullshit. Reads as if written yesterday, actually.

I wished I skipped the boring shit with the letters that comes after the happenings in the castle