This is such a shallow interpretation of Dracula the novel, so shallow that it prevents answering its own rhetorical question. It's especially noticeable since the post goes on to discuss Frankenstein and Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde quite a bit better. Dracula is like a blind spot for analysis for this poster.
So let's be blunt here: Dracula is a racist, anti-semitic, anti-immigrant book. It's about an evil count pretending to be a peaceful immigrant but actually he is an evil eastern european jewish rapist who is coming here to rape and corrupt good white englishwomen.
It's a bit offensive to describe this literal bloodsucking jew character as some anti-capitalist metaphor, as the screenshotted post seems to imply.
All this is fairly obvious to me, who has read the book many times, and even more obvious to just about any literary scholar who has read this book. Now it might not be obvious to the general public nowadays, who I think might not fully understand the novel since it's almost 130 years removed from the present-day context. For example, people reading it today might simply not understand what Stoker means by describing Dracula's face as "aquiline." They might not understand the word means in its most basic sense, and just skip over it. And such readers are even less able to understand that Stoker is clearly coding Dracula as jewish.
A lot of it also has to do with how popular Dracula is despite it's age. There is a strong fandom here on tumblr, of the book itself, as the Dracula Daily craze a few years ago proved. So there is the usual fan's reluctance to admit that the work they love is racist. It takes an unusual fan to admit that "I love this book, this book is racist", but I'm that fan.
Anyway, once you understand Dracula is an uncomfortably racist text about the evil foreigner rapist, then you can finally answer question asked in the screenshotted post.
The reason adaptations like the Francis Ford Coppola film change Dracula to a sympathetic, tragic figure who is Mina's lover, despite that being the opposite of the original story, is because that original story is racist.
It's one easy way to subvert the racism of the story, and fairly common in horror media. Turning the monstrous outsider (a trope that is inherently racist and xenophobic) into a sympathetic and misunderstood tragic figure, unfairly persecuted by the forces of normality and turning the rape of the (white) female lead character into a consensual relationship, it's a standard way of subverting an old racist horror story.
See The Shape of Water for a movie that does the same to The Creature from the Black Lagoon. These films are unfaithful, but they are engaging with the themes of the work.
And it's probably for the best that a Dracula adaptation is unfaithful. A faithful adaptation can't help but reproduce the racism inherent to the story. See Robert Eggers's Nosferatu (2024) for an uncomfortable example (it deserves its own post).
