Who Will Replace Bela Lugosi in Official 'Dracula' Sequel?

[SoulManX]

Blackfilm.com (http://www.blackfilm.com/20070420/features/dickersonnews.shtml) has learned that Ernest Dickerson (Juice) will be directing the sequel to Dracula called "The Un-Dead". Not only is Dickerson directing, but rumor has it that the following people are in negotiation to be in the film as well. Javier Bardem will play Dracula, Monica Bellucci will play Lucy, and John Hurt will play Professor Van Helsing.

Holt scouted locations in Whitby, England, and Transylvania, Romania, including a visit to the ruins of Dracula's castle. His credits include horror project "Dr. Chopper."

The official sequel to the Bela Lugosi 'Dracula' from 1931. The film is set 25 years after the book’s events. All the surviving protagonists—including Jonathan and Mina Harker and Professor Van Helsing—appear, along with Inspector Cotford, a character cut from the original manuscript, facing the bloodsucking Count once again.

[The Dark Defender]

Blackfilm.com (http://www.blackfilm.com/20070420/features/dickersonnews.shtml)Monica Bellucci will play Lucy...

My eyes just lit up.:woot:

[SoulManX]

April 25, 2007
Once in a while, we'll get emails alerting us to fascinating news, and just the other day, a little bird flew by with some great news to spread. Blackfilm.com has learned that Ernest Dickerson (Juice) will be directing the sequel to Dracula called "The Un-Dead". Not only is Dickerson directing, but rumor has it that the following people are in negotiation to be in the film as well. Javier Bardem will play Dracula, Monica Bellucci will play Lucy, and John Hurt will play Professor Van Helsing.
As previously reported by Variety last May, Jan De Bont will be producing the pic through his his Blue Tulip Prods. banner along with Atchity Entertainment.
"The Un-Dead" is after the subtitle of Stoker’s original novel, the script was written by Ian Holt and is set 25 years after the book’s events. All the surviving protagonists, including Jonathan and Mina Harker and Professor Van Helsing, appear, along with Inspector Cotford, a character cut from the original manuscript, facing the bloodsucking Count once again. The Stoker family has officially recognized Holt’s screenplay, the first adaptation to receive such approval since the original 1931 Bela Lugosi-starring film.
Holt scouted locations in Whitby, England, and Transylvania, Romania, including a visit to the ruins of Dracula's castle. His credits include horror project "Dr. Chopper."

Dickerson has been doing a number of episodic work fortelevision shows such as "Heroes", "The Wire" and "ER". His last feature film was "Never Die Alone" in 2004.

Dickerson and De Bont are former DPs turned directors.

[Darth Elektra]

Monica Bellucci will play Lucy.

Awsome sign me up.

[SoulManX]

I hope to God there is a nude scene of Lucy:ninja:

[Darth Elektra]

Javier Bardem Dracula:
http://img172.imageshack.us/img172/2770/bardemvo1.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

John Hurt as Van Helsing:
http://img172.imageshack.us/img172/209/johnhurta150x200tn8.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Monica Bellucci as Lucy:
http://img181.imageshack.us/img181/7927/matrixmonica2vf6.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[Darth Elektra]

EDIT

* Double post.

[Catman]

Monica Bellucci was in the 1992 Dracula.

[dpm07]

Monica Bellucci is kind of an old woman to be playing Lucy. I'd have preferred someone who was a bit younger. Bellucci has already hit that 40 mark, and that's old enough to be Lucy's mother.

[OtepApe]

Monica Bellucci is kind of an old woman to be playing Lucy. I'd have preferred someone who was a bit younger. Bellucci has already hit that 40 mark, and that's old enough to be Lucy's mother.


But apparently it's set 25 years after the events of the book 'Dracula', which puts Belluci around the right age mark.

[dpm07]

But apparently it's set 25 years after the events of the book 'Dracula', which puts Belluci around the right age mark.

In that case, I can accept it.

However, didn't Lucy die in Dracula?

[OtepApe]

In that case, I can accept it.

However, didn't Lucy die in Dracula?

Yeah, Lucy did die. Maybe they meant Mina???

[KenK]

Shouldn't her character be British? I don't think Monica can pull off the accent.

I'm on the fence about Dickerson as the director. I haven't liked any movie he's directed except Juice.

[DACrowe]

I smell a steaming pile of BS. A sequel to the 1931 film? If it is based on a fanfic (or equivalent to) book that is a sequel to the book it cannot be a sequel to the 1931 film, as they are drastically different. Also that movie already had a bad sequel called Dracula's Daughter. Also, Dracula is dead and gone forever in that and so is Lucy, as she is in the book.

Lastly, I HIGHLY doubt Ms. Bellucci who already played a vampire in a Dracula movie would do so agian. Mind you she played probably the hottest vampire in history (you watch her "orgy" scene in Coppola's Dracula you know what I mean), but that is neither here nor there.

Why do another Dracula movie as a British character who would be dead for 25 years now?

[Catman]

Lastly, I HIGHLY doubt Ms. Bellucci who already played a vampire in a Dracula movie would do so agian. Mind you she played probably the hottest vampire in history (you watch her "orgy" scene in Coppola's Dracula you know what I mean), but that is neither here nor there.

She still looks great, but yeah, she can't top that scene.

[mclay18]

Monica Bellucci is kind of an old woman to be playing Lucy. I'd have preferred someone who was a bit younger. Bellucci has already hit that 40 mark, and that's old enough to be Lucy's mother.

She's not an old lady! She still looks like she's in her mid-20s to early 30s.

How can you say that?!? :cmad:

[cryptic name]

I smell a steaming pile of BS. A sequel to the 1931 film? If it is based on a fanfic (or equivalent to) book that is a sequel to the book it cannot be a sequel to the 1931 film, as they are drastically different. Also that movie already had a bad sequel called Dracula's Daughter. Also, Dracula is dead and gone forever in that and so is Lucy, as she is in the book.

Lastly, I HIGHLY doubt Ms. Bellucci who already played a vampire in a Dracula movie would do so agian. Mind you she played probably the hottest vampire in history (you watch her "orgy" scene in Coppola's Dracula you know what I mean), but that is neither here nor there.

Why do another Dracula movie as a British character who would be dead for 25 years now?

maybe she wants to be in a good dracula movie? not saying this will definitely be good (if it's even made) but coppola's dracula SUCKED...imho

[Rac]

Cool cast. Definetely seeing this.

[Kevin Roegele]

Excellent, another Dracula movie. We haven't seen Dracula since....well, Van Helsing, Blade Trinity, The Batman Versus Dracula, Buffy the Vampire Slayer....yes, I would certainly say the Count is definetly not over-exposed (like all mass-media properties these days). No sir.

[OtepApe]

Vampires are overexposed, there's no doubt. But you can say the same thing about Zombies. This could be a steaming pile of crap, of it could be pretty good. But I do think a sequel could work. Stoker's 'Dracula' is a favourite of mine, but a sequel could be easily worked out and be made credible.

Not directly a sequel, but 'The Historian' by Elizabeth Kostova is a book which fits in very well with what Stoker was doing.

[Catman]

coppola's dracula SUCKED...imho

why?! I thought the movie was awesome! Plus, its the most faithful adaptation! The only thing Coppola did was add a love story but aside from that its VERY faithful to the novel.

[Kevin Roegele]

why?! I thought the movie was awesome! Plus, its the most faithful adaptation! The only thing Coppola did was add a love story but aside from that its VERY faithful to the novel.

A love story which makes it completely unfaithful to the novel! In the book, Dracula is EVIL. He's a monster. In the movie, he's a tragic, doomed romantic hero, cursed because he loves his wife so much.

I myself am a big fan of Francis Ford Coppola's Bram Stoker's Dracula, but it is fundementally different from the novel. Plus, Keanu Reeves' all-time worst performance.

[Catman]

A love story which makes it completely unfaithful to the novel!

Honestly, I think Coppola improved it! The novel is good but its also kinda disappointing. The novel is titled, Dracula, yet the mofo is barely in it. As you may recall the entire novel is basically the characters journals, diarys, etc put together to tell the overall story. It starts with Jonathans journal and Dracula is a MAJOR part of the entry. Then, after the whole Jonathan trapped in the castle section is over, Dracula is barely mentioned till the end! The hell is that all about?!

By adding that romantic story, Coppola figured out a way to have Dracula be a part of the entire story that was different from the Lugosi and Lee films.

In the book, Dracula is EVIL. He's a monster. In the movie, he's a tragic, doomed romantic hero, cursed because he loves his wife so much.

Dracula is also EVIL in the Lugosi and Lee films. Atleast Gary Oldman's Dracula is different and gives the movie a fresh take. Again, Coppola made another smart decision.

I myself am a big fan of Francis Ford Coppola's Bram Stoker's Dracula, but it is fundementally different from the novel.

Yes, it is different but at the same time faithful to the novel. Nothing wrong with that! If you read the Godfather novels and watch the movie you'll notice some things are different but its still faithful. Nothing wrong with that.

Plus, Keanu Reeves' all-time worst performance.

The ONLY thing about the movie that I disliked! Everything is was fantastic. Overall its a great movie. So, Keanu sucked...whatever...there is no such thing as a perfect movie.

[Backdrifter]

Im still waiting for a faithful adaptation of the book.

[DACrowe]

I want a faithful adaptation of the book.

Coppola wanted his cake and to eat it too. He made his movie broad and like an erotic nightmare dream sequence all the way through and a decent retelling of the book (but again broad, with an eccentric Van Helsing, some cheese here, sex there, etc).

But he also wanted to add this love story to make it a gothic romance and pretend that it fit into the story well. What it did was COMPELTELY contradict itself. They did not gel. The movie is flawed due to how uneven it is. Mina is constantly the best example with her bouncing between her husband and Dracula like a basketball depending on if he is telling the novel's plot or the love story's. At the end she turns on her husband yet is implied she'll come back to him even though at the end she makes her stake (baad pun) with Dracula in the eyes of God.

It is a mess. And hence is unfaithful. BUT it is so much fun with great acting outside of Keanu and so much eye candy, great production, costumes, music and direction to be a very good (but flawed) movie.

This is not going to be faithful though....ESPECIALLY IF IT IS JUST NOT A SEQUEL...BUT A SEQUEL TO A 70 YEAR OLD MOVIE THAT LEFT NO ROOM.

Also Monica doing the same movie again (as she would be a vampire in a Dracula-related film) seems unlikely.

[Kevin Roegele]

What puzzles me is - looking at the state of Hollywood today - why are they not making a Dracula prequel?

[Catman]

It is a mess.

Whatever, dude. The movie was AWESOME! Which is something I can't say about most post-Apocalypse Now Coppola movies.

[Kurosawa]

Actually Dracula came back several times in the Universal sequels. After Dracula's Daughter-which is in fact NOT a crappy sequel but is actually superior to the 31 original in some ways, Dracula returned in "Son Of Dracula", played by Lon Chaney Jr,. then appeared in both of the House movies-House of Frankenstein and House of Dracula, where he was played by John Carradine. Bela Lugosi came back and played the Count again in "Abbot and Costello meet Frankenstein", where the Universal Monsters themselves were played straight. So this would really be the 6th appearence of the Universal Dracula.

[MaskedManJRK]

What puzzles me is - looking at the state of Hollywood today - why are they not making a Dracula prequel?

Actually, depending on how it's handled, that could be pretty cool. Like, who Dracula was before he was bitten and the like.

Has that been done in other Dracula movies, anyone?

And as for Coppola, the girl going back and forth between Harker and Dracula was annoying, and Reeves probably should have just stuck to his regular voice (I'd rather an American in Victorian England than an American failing at an English accent), but otherwise it was a pretty cool, trippy movie. Oldman was probably one of the better Draculas in movie history. :woot:

[Kevin Roegele]

Actually, depending on how it's handled, that could be pretty cool. Like, who Dracula was before he was bitten and the like.

Has that been done in other Dracula movies, anyone?

Coppola's Dracula gave him the most back story, an origin if you will. Most of the movies wisely avoid giving any real details about him - after all, he is supposed to be very mysterious.

And as for Coppola, the girl going back and forth between Harker and Dracula was annoying, and Reeves probably should have just stuck to his regular voice (I'd rather an American in Victorian England than an American failing at an English accent), but otherwise it was a pretty cool, trippy movie. Oldman was probably one of the better Draculas in movie history. :woot:

Oldman was, IMO, THE BEST screen Dracula ever. Lugosi, Lee, Langella - all great Draculas. Oldman was the best though.

[Catman]

Oldman was, IMO, THE BEST screen Dracula ever. Lugosi, Lee, Langella - all great Draculas. Oldman was the best though.

I second that! :up:

[CrimsonMist]

This sounds interesting. I'll check it out. Only thing i dont get is the apparent confusement among the reports. In the same article it says it's a sequel to Lugosi's Dracula and then that it's a sequel to the novel. Although didn't the first report announcing the movie say that it was a sequel to the novel?

And to the person who said that Dracula, in the novel, after Harker's journal entries, is hardly in the story at all, i dont agree. His presence is very prominant throughout the rest of the story: Lucy becoming a vampire and stalking Mina and such. And if he isn't in that specific scene, his presence is. He has a firm grasp on the events unfolding in the story and is behind everything, and everyone knows it, but are almost helpless.

I didn't like Coppola's Dracula at all. It had too much special effects and it seemed that the effects were the focus. I didn't like the romance angle either. I never felt Dracula was a tragic character. He's an evil SOB. Personally, a character that feeds his 3 brides a baby and then has his pet wolves rip the mother of the baby begging for it back outside his castle walls to pieces is one evil dude. And i didn't like the Vlad The Impaler approach either. Marvel Comics pulled it off brilliantly. Coppola did not.

as for the previous sequels to Dracula, i never really liked "Dracula's Daughter" either. Personally, they should have used James Whale's script for Dracula. All-Star cast+plus cast from first film, BRILLIANT origin and some bad ass effects. Throw in James Whale and you have yourself a movie that could have surpassed Bride of Frankenstein. But Universal chickened out.

Im actually working on a short story sequel to Lugosi's film incorporating a combo origin of Marvel's and James Whale's, amongst other things. Essentially, it's my "remake" of Dracula's Daughter.

[Ceb-Man]

I am looking forward to seeing this movie. My favorate Dracula is Christopher Lee. I loved that animalistic Dracula.

[Ceb-Man]

This sounds interesting. I'll check it out. Only thing i dont get is the apparent confusement among the reports. In the same article it says it's a sequel to Lugosi's Dracula and then that it's a sequel to the novel. Although didn't the first report announcing the movie say that it was a sequel to the novel?

And to the person who said that Dracula, in the novel, after Harker's journal entries, is hardly in the story at all, i dont agree. His presence is very prominant throughout the rest of the story: Lucy becoming a vampire and stalking Mina and such. And if he isn't in that specific scene, his presence is. He has a firm grasp on the events unfolding in the story and is behind everything, and everyone knows it, but are almost helpless.

I didn't like Coppola's Dracula at all. It had too much special effects and it seemed that the effects were the focus. I didn't like the romance angle either. I never felt Dracula was a tragic character. He's an evil SOB. Personally, a character that feeds his 3 brides a baby and then has his pet wolves rip the mother of the baby begging for it back outside his castle walls to pieces is one evil dude. And i didn't like the Vlad The Impaler approach either. Marvel Comics pulled it off brilliantly. Coppola did not.

as for the previous sequels to Dracula, i never really liked "Dracula's Daughter" either. Personally, they should have used James Whale's script for Dracula. All-Star cast+plus cast from first film, BRILLIANT origin and some bad ass effects. Throw in James Whale and you have yourself a movie that could have surpassed Bride of Frankenstein. But Universal chickened out.

Im actually working on a short story sequel to Lugosi's film incorporating a combo origin of Marvel's and James Whale's, amongst other things. Essentially, it's my "remake" of Dracula's Daughter.

Hry Crimson. What was James Whale's script about?

[CrimsonMist]

Hry Crimson. What was James Whale's script about?

There's information about it in "Hollywood Gothic" by David J. Skal which you should really check out if you're heavily into Dracula films and such.

But anyway, this is what the book said, which is rather scant on the rest of the film's plot.

There's an extended flashback sequence that takes the setting back to Transylvania in the 1400's or so(The date is never given, but it was a long time ago). Dracula isn't a vampire yet, but he's a cruel count. There's a segment in which a young female is waiting for her lover and is getting worried. But then he shows up, and she knows it's her lover by the ring on his hand. She runs to him, and the man is revealved to actually be Dracula in disguise, holding the severed arm of the woman's lover. He then proceeds to have his way with her.

Later on, a local wizard, fed up with all the madness at Dracula's doing leads a revolt to the castle and turns all of Dracula's evil guests into pigs and Dracula into a vampire.

There was a special effect in which after the Wizard casts his spell, time was supposed to flash foward. The castle would start to crumble and the pigs and everything in the castle would begin to age and decompose and rot and so forth.

The cast of the first film was to return, and the film was set to be a starring vehicle for Lugosi and Jane Wyatt who would be playing his daughter.

And if you think that cast is impressive, get this: Karloff was set to play the wizard who turns Dracula into a vampire!

Of course, this freaked out Universal, who hired Whale after the great sucess of "Bride of Frankenstein" and optioned to make another horror film with a female monster, and fired Whale and screenwriter R.C. Sheriff. Lugosi, Wyatt, the rest of the cast except Edward Van Sloan and the character of Dracula(save a wax dummy of him) were dropped from further production.

Details about the rest of the plot, again, are scarce, but apparently, David J. Skal is trying to get the script published.

If only.:csad:

[Galactus]

Dickerson Helms "Un-Dead" Dracula Sequel
By Garth Franklin
Tuesday May 15th 2007 1:08am
Ernest Dickerson ("Bones") will direct "The Un-Dead," the officially sanctioned sequel to Bram Stoker's "Dracula" reports Variety.

Based on a novel written by Stoker's great grand-nephew Dacre Stoker and Ian Holt, the story picks up twenty-five years after the original book.

Plans are afoot to re-publish the original Stoker work in its original form. Some of the excised plot was incorporated into the sequel book and will be used as plot in the new film.

Jack the Ripper and the infamous Madame Bathory make an appearance in "Un-dead". Holt wrote the script and production will begin in Eastern Europe late in the year

[Darth Elektra]

There's information about it in "Hollywood Gothic" by David J. Skal which you should really check out if you're heavily into Dracula films and such.

But anyway, this is what the book said, which is rather scant on the rest of the film's plot.

There's an extended flashback sequence that takes the setting back to Transylvania in the 1400's or so(The date is never given, but it was a long time ago). Dracula isn't a vampire yet, but he's a cruel count. There's a segment in which a young female is waiting for her lover and is getting worried. But then he shows up, and she knows it's her lover by the ring on his hand. She runs to him, and the man is revealved to actually be Dracula in disguise, holding the severed arm of the woman's lover. He then proceeds to have his way with her.

Later on, a local wizard, fed up with all the madness at Dracula's doing leads a revolt to the castle and turns all of Dracula's evil guests into pigs and Dracula into a vampire.

There was a special effect in which after the Wizard casts his spell, time was supposed to flash foward. The castle would start to crumble and the pigs and everything in the castle would begin to age and decompose and rot and so forth.

The cast of the first film was to return, and the film was set to be a starring vehicle for Lugosi and Jane Wyatt who would be playing his daughter.

And if you think that cast is impressive, get this: Karloff was set to play the wizard who turns Dracula into a vampire!

Of course, this freaked out Universal, who hired Whale after the great sucess of "Bride of Frankenstein" and optioned to make another horror film with a female monster, and fired Whale and screenwriter R.C. Sheriff. Lugosi, Wyatt, the rest of the cast except Edward Van Sloan and the character of Dracula(save a wax dummy of him) were dropped from further production.

Details about the rest of the plot, again, are scarce, but apparently, David J. Skal is trying to get the script published.

If only.:csad:

Wow, sounds great.

[Lighthouse]

You know whats a shame? I'd really like to see Gerard Butler as Dracula, but he's already played a crappy emo version of him in Dracula 2000. Now that Butler is older and coming off of his great performance in 300, I think he could make a great Dracula a real honest novel inspired performance, instead of whatever the hell Dracula 2000 was.

[Ceb-Man]

There's information about it in "Hollywood Gothic" by David J. Skal which you should really check out if you're heavily into Dracula films and such.

But anyway, this is what the book said, which is rather scant on the rest of the film's plot.

There's an extended flashback sequence that takes the setting back to Transylvania in the 1400's or so(The date is never given, but it was a long time ago). Dracula isn't a vampire yet, but he's a cruel count. There's a segment in which a young female is waiting for her lover and is getting worried. But then he shows up, and she knows it's her lover by the ring on his hand. She runs to him, and the man is revealved to actually be Dracula in disguise, holding the severed arm of the woman's lover. He then proceeds to have his way with her.

Later on, a local wizard, fed up with all the madness at Dracula's doing leads a revolt to the castle and turns all of Dracula's evil guests into pigs and Dracula into a vampire.

There was a special effect in which after the Wizard casts his spell, time was supposed to flash foward. The castle would start to crumble and the pigs and everything in the castle would begin to age and decompose and rot and so forth.

The cast of the first film was to return, and the film was set to be a starring vehicle for Lugosi and Jane Wyatt who would be playing his daughter.

And if you think that cast is impressive, get this: Karloff was set to play the wizard who turns Dracula into a vampire!

Of course, this freaked out Universal, who hired Whale after the great sucess of "Bride of Frankenstein" and optioned to make another horror film with a female monster, and fired Whale and screenwriter R.C. Sheriff. Lugosi, Wyatt, the rest of the cast except Edward Van Sloan and the character of Dracula(save a wax dummy of him) were dropped from further production.

Details about the rest of the plot, again, are scarce, but apparently, David J. Skal is trying to get the script published.

If only.:csad:

If only for sure.:csad: Thanks Crimson!:yay:

[Galactus]

Dracula: The Undead Trailer Arrives
Source: Official Site September 17, 2009


Dacre Stoker and Ian Holt's "Dracula the Undead," a sequel to Bram Stoker's classic tale first announced nearly a year ago, is ready to hit bookshelves on October 13. A full description of the 336-page novel is below along with a "trailer" that was conjured up to promote it.

While there's been a lot of speculation regarding who had the movie rights to the property, Holt explains in this blog that there is nothing official to report. Two major studios are currently in negotiations and big news is coming within the month.

Synopsis: Dracula The Un-Dead is a bone-chilling sequel based on Bram Stoker's own handwritten notes for characters and plot threads excised from the original edition. Written with the blessing and cooperation of Stoker family members, Dracula The Un-Dead begins in 1912, twenty-five years after Dracula "crumbled into dust." Van Helsing's protégé, Dr. Jack Seward, is now a disgraced morphine addict obsessed with stamping out evil across Europe. Meanwhile, an unknowing Quincey Harker, the grown son of Jonathan and Mina, leaves law school for the London stage, only to stumble upon the troubled production of "Dracula," directed and produced by Bram Stoker himself.

The play plunges Quincey into the world of his parents' terrible secrets, but before he can confront them he experiences evil in a way he had never imagined. One by one, the band of heroes that defeated Dracula a quarter-century ago is being hunted down. Could it be that Dracula somehow survived their attack and is seeking revenge? Or is their another force at work whose relentless purpose is to destroy anything and anyone associated with Dracula?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJJCiQ6GgI0&feature=player_embedded

[GhostPoet]

How about a sequel to Dracula: Dead and Loving it?=D

[DACrowe]

There's information about it in "Hollywood Gothic" by David J. Skal which you should really check out if you're heavily into Dracula films and such.

But anyway, this is what the book said, which is rather scant on the rest of the film's plot.

There's an extended flashback sequence that takes the setting back to Transylvania in the 1400's or so(The date is never given, but it was a long time ago). Dracula isn't a vampire yet, but he's a cruel count. There's a segment in which a young female is waiting for her lover and is getting worried. But then he shows up, and she knows it's her lover by the ring on his hand. She runs to him, and the man is revealved to actually be Dracula in disguise, holding the severed arm of the woman's lover. He then proceeds to have his way with her.

Later on, a local wizard, fed up with all the madness at Dracula's doing leads a revolt to the castle and turns all of Dracula's evil guests into pigs and Dracula into a vampire.

There was a special effect in which after the Wizard casts his spell, time was supposed to flash foward. The castle would start to crumble and the pigs and everything in the castle would begin to age and decompose and rot and so forth.

The cast of the first film was to return, and the film was set to be a starring vehicle for Lugosi and Jane Wyatt who would be playing his daughter.

And if you think that cast is impressive, get this: Karloff was set to play the wizard who turns Dracula into a vampire!

Of course, this freaked out Universal, who hired Whale after the great sucess of "Bride of Frankenstein" and optioned to make another horror film with a female monster, and fired Whale and screenwriter R.C. Sheriff. Lugosi, Wyatt, the rest of the cast except Edward Van Sloan and the character of Dracula(save a wax dummy of him) were dropped from further production.

Details about the rest of the plot, again, are scarce, but apparently, David J. Skal is trying to get the script published.

If only.:csad:

Wow that sounds like a great movie that could have been up there with Bride of Frankenstein. Why would Universal scrap this after Whale gave them their most respected and successful horror film? We could have seen Lugosi back as the count before Abbot and Costello and it sounds like Whale would push the buttons on sex again.

If only.

[DACrowe]

Dracula: The Undead Trailer Arrives
Source: Official Site September 17, 2009


Dacre Stoker and Ian Holt's "Dracula the Undead," a sequel to Bram Stoker's classic tale first announced nearly a year ago, is ready to hit bookshelves on October 13. A full description of the 336-page novel is below along with a "trailer" that was conjured up to promote it.

While there's been a lot of speculation regarding who had the movie rights to the property, Holt explains in this blog that there is nothing official to report. Two major studios are currently in negotiations and big news is coming within the month.

Synopsis: Dracula The Un-Dead is a bone-chilling sequel based on Bram Stoker's own handwritten notes for characters and plot threads excised from the original edition. Written with the blessing and cooperation of Stoker family members, Dracula The Un-Dead begins in 1912, twenty-five years after Dracula "crumbled into dust." Van Helsing's protégé, Dr. Jack Seward, is now a disgraced morphine addict obsessed with stamping out evil across Europe. Meanwhile, an unknowing Quincey Harker, the grown son of Jonathan and Mina, leaves law school for the London stage, only to stumble upon the troubled production of "Dracula," directed and produced by Bram Stoker himself.

The play plunges Quincey into the world of his parents' terrible secrets, but before he can confront them he experiences evil in a way he had never imagined. One by one, the band of heroes that defeated Dracula a quarter-century ago is being hunted down. Could it be that Dracula somehow survived their attack and is seeking revenge? Or is their another force at work whose relentless purpose is to destroy anything and anyone associated with Dracula?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJJCiQ6GgI0&feature=player_embedded

A glorified fan fiction? Meh. At least it's not about Mina being haunted by her lover Drac. as most fan fics are (even though in the original book he for all intensive purposes raped her and that was the extent of the interaction).

With that said, I'll probably read it, anyway. ;)