Posts by Elizabeth Newman2

amberwalker4 said:this image just chills me to the bone....

Personally, I find the whole Dracula thing pretty interesting—sometimes even funny, really—but it’s definitely not scary to me. I mean, how can fiction actually terrify you 🤷?

I've already pointed out two things about this picture: Dracula is wearing red (though he usually sticks to black), and he's way too short—actually shorter than Harker.

Off topic!

Quote : for those familiar with Bram Stoker's

briskhound2 said:And technically, it's not even briskhound2's survey 😉

Yep. 😉 .

Quote : for those familiar with Bram Stoker's

Michelle Hill38 said:1931. Lugosi is the only real Dracula.

Dracula why? 🤷 Please explain your reasoning.

Quote : for those familiar with Bram Stoker's

amberwalker4 said:Coppola, obviously... even though I'm not a fan of Dracula's "redemption," it's still the best Dracula movie out there.👍

Dracula why—I mean, seriously? 🤷 I guess you should probably explain yourselves—if you can. Justify your answers, maybe?

rustyscout34 said:It's the same thing if you ask me. 🙂

Not really! Over here, we're talking specifically about adaptations of the novel itself—but over there, it's just about the best Dracula movie in general, regardless of whether it actually follows the book or anything. So, let's stick to the book stuff here—go ahead and vote, and maybe explain your reasoning.

rustyscout34 said:😬

One thread is for the best Dracula movie, while this one is for the best adaptation of the actual Dracula novel.

I checked out briskhound2's poll. It’s basically the same thing—he just isn't being patriotic, I guess—since he doesn't translate movie titles or bother with periods after years. It probably just means he's influenced by American English, nothing more.

Donna Gray4 said:Let’s be real here, your poll is a total disaster. Just look at the ones briskhound2 puts together; that’s how you actually do it.

And honestly, the best Draculas are Lee and Lugosi, though if we're talking about the absolute best version, it’s the 1992 one with Gary Oldman—even if the guy doesn't even follow fifty percent of what happens in the novel.

Give me a link to one of briskhound2's polls.

Lee speaks too perfect an English for a Transylvanian—actually, pretty much everyone except Lugosi and Gary Oldman does. Come on, just list some of the differences between the book and the 1992 film.

Donna Gray4 said:You haven't even listed at least seven or eight of them yet, have you?

I was talking about adaptations of THE NOVEL itself, not loose retellings, sequels, or whatever.

I’ve watched 8 out of the 15 film adaptations of the book: one on TV and one on YouTube (from 1992), then 7 on YouTube (the 1922 version, two from 1931, plus the 1958, 1970, 1973, and 1979 versions (Dracula)). The other 7 aren't on YouTube. Anyway, I've seen more than half.

NOSFERATU (1922)

It's 94 minutes long. There's really just one effect: the doors opening by themselves. Dracula is portrayed as this creepy, repulsive figure—though later they'll make him look like a charming, seductive young guy. He mostly shows up toward the end. He gets killed by the sun, not by a stake through the heart. Harker finds Dracula's tomb in what I'd call a basement crawlspace. Honestly, Dracula doesn't even blink once during the whole movie.

DRACULA (1931)

Runs for 75 minutes. Three main effects: the self-opening doors, Dracula having no reflection, and the carriage being driven by bats. You don't see any vampire teeth at all in this one. They show some animals in the castle that you'd only find in the States. In this version, Dracula drinks blood from Renfield (not Harker) instead of his brides.

DRACULA (SPANISH VERSION (1931))

It's 104 minutes. Some details differ from the American version: Dracula's brides drink Renfield's blood (instead of Harker's), and Renfield cuts his finger on a knife rather than a magazine binding... It's a pretty drawn-out plot.

DRACULA (1958)

It's 82 minutes long. There's only one bride that Harker kills. Then Dracula kills Harker, and Harker turns into a vampire. Harker finds Dracula and the bride's graves in a little chapel next to the castle. Dracula is finally killed by looking at a cross, not by being staked.

COUNT DRACULA (1970)

Along with the 1992 film, this is probably the most faithful to the book. They actually tried to capture the look described in the novel (those long white whiskers, sharp teeth, and prominent ears). Christopher Lee plays Dracula, who he also played in the 1958 version. It's a quick one, only 90 minutes.

DRACULA (1973)

No Renfield here. It's made pretty clear that Dracula is the dead prince of Wallachia, Vlad III. Tepes. Dracula is shown as a surprisingly emotional guy. Even though he's locked in a room, Harker somehow climbs over the roof and finds the bodies in the basement. He tries to kill Dracula with a shovel, passes out, and wakes up at night while being hunted by Dracula's brides. Dracula ends up getting killed standing up, with a stake through the heart. This was filmed in England and America.

DRACULA (1979)

This one does the best job showing Lucy as a vampire. Dracula is killed by the sun.

DRACULA (1992)

Arguably the best one and definitely has the most effects. Two odd things, though: Dracula is a bit short (shorter than Harker), and he wears red—even though black is his signature color.

Anyway, does anyone know where all these were shot? I know Nosferatu was filmed at Orava Castle in Slovakia. Does anyone know which castles the others used? Otherwise, I'd say Lugosi and Oldman are the only ones who can really compete for the best Dracula. Everyone else speaks their English or Spanish too perfectly to pass for Transylvanian. Dracula is generally a silly, short, and not-so-scary story, but hey, it's the most adapted novel ever 🤷 .

The best adaptation of the most filmed novel ever, I guess...

Thomas Davis6 said:Yeah, Susan Lewis2, times are changing for the better...🙂..and they could change even faster if women become more empowered, independent, and self-aware—especially regarding money. And yeah, they should definitely demand their rights, because that just means they aren't letting themselves be denied the respect and justice they deserve...
BTW, Jamie Jackson3, I mentioned cardiovascular disease as one of those issues that hits men harder in an earlier post, so...
Elizabeth Newman2, you seriously need to rethink those views. I hope you grow out of them as you get older, because the way you're thinking right now? Not a good look. Your theories don't really hold water, especially when it comes to intelligence and creativity... but honestly, I don't have the energy to argue with someone acting like a teenager😁😁..so...🙂

There are actually people on this planet who would argue that men aren't even more creative than women on average🙄 .

Jamie Jackson3 said:Well, you’re missing the mark. Men are indeed more susceptible to certain types of ailments, while women face different risks. It’s a fact that women deal with more reproductive health issues, whereas men see higher rates of cardiovascular disease. If you bother to look at the CDC statistics, the mortality differences between the sexes become quite clear. And honestly, the idea that men are taller, faster, or more athletic isn't some sort of inherent advantage. You likely have a friend who is taller and faster than you, and you aren't exactly pining to swap places with them. There is always someone faster and stronger. Should a Chinese person be envious of an African person because they are taller or more athletic? What if they were half-Chinese or Inuit? Ultimately, it doesn't matter. Frankly, I couldn't care less who is physically superior to me. Even if I were a man, I wouldn't lose sleep over the fact that Mark from 8th grade runs a faster mile...
Regarding creativity, the notion that men are generally more creative is fundamentally flawed. Creativity is defined in countless ways; it depends entirely on one's mental freedom and capacity for visualization. Since there are various forms of creativity, you could argue that men might excel in spatial or technical areas, but to generalize is a massive reach—creativity is far too broad a concept for such sweeping statements. And what "research" are we talking about? Do you actually understand what constitutes legitimate scientific research and how it's conducted? Nowadays, anyone can whip up a pseudo-study and call it a day.
Furthermore, there are multiple types of intelligence (even though most people only focus on mathematical ability), so you really need to specify which type was being tested. Have you ever actually taken an intelligence test? Perhaps a Mensa exam? If so, try to recall the diversity of the tasks; each one was designed to probe a specific facet of intellect. Viewed through that lens, we can conclude that women often outperform men on certain types of cognitive tests, while men may edge ahead on others. Therefore, claiming men are simply "more intelligent" is a logical fallacy. Besides, even if that were true, it hardly makes being male an advantage over being female. What if you were a brilliant woman only to find yourself reincarnated in the body of an unintelligent man who can't solve a basic algebraic equation? You haven't gained anything from that trade.
Since you seem to be struggling with the concept of intelligence, allow me to provide some clarity.😁
http://www.testovi.info/

This site might be particularly useful for you; it can help you identify which specific type of intelligence aligns best with your own profile.
http://www.lifehack.org/articles/com...ence-type.html
And a little more reading on the various types of intelligence.
http://ezinearticles.com/?IQ-Measure...ence&id=401409

Once you digest this, it becomes painfully obvious that intelligence isn't some inherent justification for being male. Nobody is perfect, and there isn't a single body out there that was granted a flawless brain by default.

As for the chauvinism... allow me to address that.
Your tone toward women is incredibly patronizing. You seem to have forgotten the fundamental biological reality: you were brought into this world through them. Anything emerging from a woman is, by definition, her product. By disparaging women, you are effectively insulting your own existence and the very woman who gave you life.😍

Furthermore, your claims lack any semblance of realism. You adopt this aggressive, primal posture—insisting, as you do, that men possess a 5 percent edge in intelligence—yet you clearly understand nothing about how intellect actually works. Being a man comes with plenty of inherent advantages; you don't need to fabricate arbitrary ones just to prove a point. This obsession with intelligence suggests you haven't bothered to reflect or even inform yourself; you’re simply shouting into the void for the sake of an argument. That is a poor way to carry oneself, and it certainly doesn't demonstrate the intelligence of a true 😉man. It is far too much posturing and far too little substance.☕
My focus remained on characteristics that apply universally to the sexes. For instance, men do not experience menstruation. Regardless of what kind of man I might be, I won't have that. You, however, are fixated on unverified insinuations that wouldn't define the entire male gender even if they were accurate. What does height or IQ actually mean to my identity as a man? I could grow up to be exactly my current height, and I could certainly end up being even more foolish than I am now. Do you follow? You could turn out brilliant or dim-witted; there is a vast spectrum. It is illogical to claim that height or intelligence defines my maleness when there is absolutely no guarantee that I will end up taller or smarter than I am as a female.
There... I suppose I've rambled a bit.

STDs are the absolute worst. When someone is taller, faster, or more athletic, they get a shot at incredible results in sports, and let's face it, sports is a massive business. Personally, I don't really have friends 🙂 or even need them. And sure, men are more creative—that’s worth a debate 🙄 ? I mean, men built at least 95% of everything in existence.

Extensive research shows that all this new nonsense regarding different types of intelligence is just a way to offer comfort. The harsh reality is that intelligence is hereditary, genetically determined, develops genetically until age 16, is on average higher in men, is best measured by simple IQ, and is basically set in stone.

I said all that was an average, but there's one thing that isn't average—something every woman has and no man does, which is why I'm incredibly glad I'm not a woman: childbirth pain and a higher susceptibility to certain (the worst) diseases. So, yeah, I wouldn't want to be a woman. We haven't moved from a standstill here; like I wrote, it was true then and it’ll stay true until the end of the human race.

Ethan Thomas13 said:@Elizabeth Newman2, you’re acting like a total kid, and honestly, your writing style gives you away immediately. Of course you'll eventually change your tune once you realize that insulting women isn't exactly a winning strategy for getting any attention. Only a complete moron—or someone who's already dead inside—stays stuck in their ways forever. Don't take this personally, though; given how young you are, nobody's actually expecting much maturity yet.

I'm better written than you. First off, because I actually know how to use two languages, and second, I'm more eloquent and care more about expressing myself properly in American English. Facing harsh reality isn't an insult, nor am I trying to win over some random debater 🤦 . I've changed my mind a few times, sure, but anyone doing that after the age of 16 is just flighty, and their views aren't worth mentioning since they're as unstable as they are. Once I've formed a solid opinion, I almost certainly won't be changing it.

Thomas Davis6 said:You can take these sexist, brainless theories and just toss them in the trash😁..😠just saw your post..honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if you don't have a girlfriend, wife, or fiancé, assuming you even have the guts to say this stuff to someone's face..this is just a massive load of nonsense..

So, you think labor pains aren't actually a thing—I guess you're just being optimistic? Maybe. 😂 Maybe men are more prone to certain illnesses—especially STIs, I guess. As for what I don't buy... I'm not convinced by those theories that men are inherently taller, faster, heavier, or better at jumping—like, the gap between the men's high jump record and the women's isn't exactly a slam dunk for me. And I definitely don't think they're more creative. 😂 Regarding intelligence—check out my thread "Smarter men or women." Research suggests the average male IQ is about 5 points higher than females. I guess... what were you even trying to get at? What’s the disagreement here? And honestly, what does cold, hard reality have to do with being a chauvinist?

I mean, I’d definitely tell him if he actually asked me if I wanted to be a woman—but it's not exactly a conversation starter, I guess. 😂 She’s just not going to be my type—not exactly the average I'm looking for. And honestly, searching the whole country for a soulmate feels a bit like looking for hair on a cat—pretty much impossible. You can find casual stuff anywhere these days, I guess. I don't see myself ever getting married.

Lisa Hernandez3 said:He mentioned he’s only 14—at least, that's what he wrote on another thread. I guess he's still in that stage where his opinions are definitely going to evolve as he grows up.
Let’s try to steer things back to the main topic—which option do you all prefer and why? Also, I'd love to hear your thoughts on the poll results.

Opinions shouldn't really change once you hit sixteen—or ever, I guess. Anyone who flips their stance after that isn't worth mentioning—just a total weather vane, really.

Thomas Davis6 said:Look, like I said before, there are people out there who just aren't happy with their gender. Whether they're men or women, they really need to work through that. Honestly, being a woman is great—just incredible. If you can learn how to own it and make the most of who you are, you'll see. And by the way, Michael Jordan—the kind of guy who sleeps around constantly—isn't exactly seen as a big deal by society anymore. On the flip side, a woman isn't automatically labeled a slut either; it really just depends on how she does things, who she’s with, and the context. Just look at a bunch of Hollywood actresses. Plenty of them have had tons of partners, yet nobody ever thinks to label them as sluts. Why is that? It’s because these women have this charisma, talent, or success that basically overshadows their lifestyle. They build such strong personalities that their flaws or "vices" just get lost in the shuffle. Think about it—how many partners have Madonna, Angelina Jolie, or Demi Moore had? I mean, I've never heard anyone in my circle call them names like that. Usually, they just get called eccentric, creative, or charismatic. So, to all the women out there who aren't happy with their gender: just know that it’s all in your head. Seriously, it starts and ends in your mind. Our successes, our failures, our complexes, and our limits—it all comes from within. The whole goal is to get past those mental hurdles.

😂

On average, men are...

* physically: taller, faster, heavier, more athletic, stronger
* mentally: more intelligent, more creative

That’s just the average, though. There is one thing that isn't average, which applies to every single woman and absolutely no man: childbirth pain—and, I guess, a generally higher susceptibility to illnesses, especially STDs (which are the worst).

Henry Williams said:Honestly, I wish I were a woman. I think I'd need a female brain just to get a little bit of mental rest.

Honestly, I wouldn't want to be paid even if they offered me the entire universe in exchange.

So, honestly—be real here—do you laugh more because it’s genuine or because you're forcing it? For instance, when I watch "Arrested Development," I barely ever actually laugh out loud; it’s usually just a little "hm" moment during the series. I tend to find myself chuckling at a weird accent or some odd delivery rather than the actual joke itself. It's more about the way something is said than what happens. I guess people don't actually have those deep, genuine belly laughs nearly as often as we think.

Do you guys buy this: . Personally, I feel like forcing a laugh might be just as bad as not laughing at all—it probably spikes your cholesterol just from the stress of trying to act natural.

Morgan Morris2 said:Maybe she's just drawn to the flag colors?
Specifically the red—since she was in Germany before they brought in a flag with even more red?

Well, Ghana and England have plenty of red in their flags too, and she didn't pick them. Plus—and this is the big thing—I think most species don't see color the way we do. Some things, like bees, see way more, while most others just see a narrow range of darker tones. Not sure if octopuses are part of that minority group, though.

Some people claim her owner is actually predicting outcomes by putting better food in the bowl with the flag of the country he thinks will win—which is basically just the octopus picking the smellier food. But honestly, it’s hardly surprising that the owner is such a great "predictor." And since the octopus is in a German aquarium and people are watching the choice, I doubt the owner (a German guy) would intentionally upset his fellow citizens or the visitors by putting the better food in the bowl with the Mexican—or Spanish—flag. And as for him being such a gifted—and let's be objective here—predictor who thinks Germany will lose to Mexico... yeah, I highly doubt it.

Emily James74 said:I mean, if someone's looking for a sign, they're always going to find one somewhere, I guess.

coincidence

The guy actually called the winner for every single game in the 2010 Census and the 2008 EP—well, except for that final match two years ago between Germany and Spain. So, he’s making up for it now. You really think that's just luck?

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&so...I87z_AbH-MCvBQ

Don't let these headlines get to you—he hasn't predicted the outcome yet. After all that, he went ahead and picked Spain for his "prophecy."