So far as #1 goes, the 1925 version was based on the book (obviously), but the 1943 one was more a reworking of the 1925 version. I have heard it said that every subsequent movie moved further and further away from Leroux and Chaney because each one was, to some degree, based on the ones that preceded it. Might be one angle to examine.
Another one might be the way each generation sees what is essentially the same story through the filter of its own experiences and expectations. Could write that one for Dracula, too. Both are very period pieces; both are usually reinterpreted as period pieces when made into various movies (usually, not always; the Robert Englund one starts present-day, of course, and there's The Phantom of the Mall... And Dracula: 2000); but what angle they come from seems to be very much all about the times they're made in. The originals were very much creatures of their times: scary, but in a non-gory, non-threatening way (although at the time both were considered terrifying), with an element of romance and seduction, but downplayed and subtle and innocent. By the time you get to the Hammer adaptations of both there's sex and blood all over the place. Towards our own Fin de Siecle in the 1990's, we get R.E.'s Phantom, which strives for lushness, even with all the gore (and which is still the only version to actually play the violin at Perros, for all its other liberties), and Bram Stoker's Dracula, which also goes back to turn-of-the-previous century cinematography techniques for the effects, and which has its own lushness (along with a certain amount of prerequisite gore). And then you get to 2004's Phantom, and Dracula: 2000, both of which are unoriginal crap. ;-)
If there's anything there you can make use of, have at 'er!! :-D
no subject
So far as #1 goes, the 1925 version was based on the book (obviously), but the 1943 one was more a reworking of the 1925 version. I have heard it said that every subsequent movie moved further and further away from Leroux and Chaney because each one was, to some degree, based on the ones that preceded it. Might be one angle to examine.
Another one might be the way each generation sees what is essentially the same story through the filter of its own experiences and expectations. Could write that one for Dracula, too. Both are very period pieces; both are usually reinterpreted as period pieces when made into various movies (usually, not always; the Robert Englund one starts present-day, of course, and there's The Phantom of the Mall... And Dracula: 2000); but what angle they come from seems to be very much all about the times they're made in. The originals were very much creatures of their times: scary, but in a non-gory, non-threatening way (although at the time both were considered terrifying), with an element of romance and seduction, but downplayed and subtle and innocent. By the time you get to the Hammer adaptations of both there's sex and blood all over the place. Towards our own Fin de Siecle in the 1990's, we get R.E.'s Phantom, which strives for lushness, even with all the gore (and which is still the only version to actually play the violin at Perros, for all its other liberties), and Bram Stoker's Dracula, which also goes back to turn-of-the-previous century cinematography techniques for the effects, and which has its own lushness (along with a certain amount of prerequisite gore). And then you get to 2004's Phantom, and Dracula: 2000, both of which are unoriginal crap. ;-)
If there's anything there you can make use of, have at 'er!! :-D