Freeranger · M
Off the top of my head spikes, I'd probably say that, with either of the aforementioned in terms of cinema, there has been no need for over the top special FX like superheroes....and shizz being exploded and bashed up to massive shock waves of sound reverberating throughout.
Rather, with these, particularly Dracula, it is the silence that is deafening. Consider Bram Stoker's dracula ('92) or even An American Werewolf in London by extension (1981). Those are much more quiet....like every child's fear that there is something under their bed, or something stalking that individual just outside the safety of a street lamp.....I think silence can create a scary palpable emotion in which the our emotion can run wild due to apprehension....
Rather, with these, particularly Dracula, it is the silence that is deafening. Consider Bram Stoker's dracula ('92) or even An American Werewolf in London by extension (1981). Those are much more quiet....like every child's fear that there is something under their bed, or something stalking that individual just outside the safety of a street lamp.....I think silence can create a scary palpable emotion in which the our emotion can run wild due to apprehension....
Fluffybull · F
They're classics and I don't think the stories are really that popular. A lot of people have heard of the characters but you'd probably hear less of people who have actually watched them.
MethDozer · M
What Romper said. They are early modern horror stories along with both having very iconic early Hollywood character portrayals. It's kind worth noting they each are representative of two opporite ends of horror. Dracula being a poster child for the old tradtional style of monster. The monster of old myths and legends of the supernatural. Frankenstein's monster being the monster of modern science and man's own making and creation.