Dracula | Blumhouse

Well a new approach with Dracula in modern times could work out if handled right.
Just like the Invisible man was handled.
However, Dracula presents a somewhat different challenge.
He is ,in essence supernatural, so how would you go about bringing that to a modern setting?
Invisible man was a success because, at least you could explain the suit technology & it makes us believe it somewhat. AT least explainable.
But a supernatural being who is undead & requires feeding on blood........how do you go about doing that for modern times?

I mean...

Here's Why Peter Thiel May Be Interested In Younger People's Blood
 

Sithborg, that makes a very interesting idea & can be turned into a GREAT sci-fi movie if handled right & I would be in favor of seeing that idea developed .....but is that really Dracula?
Why not just take that idea & run with it as an original movie?
I would have to vote a big NO if thats the new idea for Dracula, instead just film an original movie & if it develops a new vampire character even better.
Possibly starting a new franchise for Universal.
 
Last edited:
So there isn't a big enough group in 1 camp or the other for modern vs. more gothic?
 
After watching The Lodge last night I definitely think Richard Armitage would make a good Dracula. He definitely has the look for it at least, but I'd also be curious about Sebastian Stan playing a younger version of Dracula if that's what they are indeed going for.
 
Here's a casting choice for Dracula............Because Dracula is 'undead' his screen presence is central to his character. (IMO)
SO how about an actor who has above average acting skills, ( Academy Award winner for Best supporting actor 2011 & Golden Globe winner for Best actor 2019) , he played a creature of the night before as well.

Christian-Bale-Skips-Golden-Globes-2020.jpg
 
Basically American Psycho but as Dracula.
 
Basically American Psycho but as Dracula.
Kind of yes. We know he can act like a killer.
Only thing that goes against him being Dracula is, they seem to be wanting to go the cheaper route & keep the budget down.
So casting him would would jack up the budget right from the start.
 
Probably, but Bale is that kind of actor who could take a paycut.
 
He probably would, but I doubt he would do it for a major studio Dracula.
 
He's an interesting choice I threw out there.
Not sure if he would want it or not.
Not sure how he would negotiate his pay either.
But S. Stan is a choice that wouldnt be terrible.
I like Bale's look more for Dracula, he has more of that menacing stare .
 
What if this whole 'modern' take on Dracula was simply portraying him as a psychopath.
Someone who hears voices and is just a serial killer in a way.
His M.O. is drinking the blood of his victims after he kills them.
The whole time , this voice is driving him to do it...making you think he's just psychotic when at the end it is revealed ( 1 of 2 possibilites)

1) His name is Renfield, this whole time being directed thru Dracula telepathically to kill or....
2) It is Dracula , who after getting shot by a cop in the act of killig someone, has all his past memories of Transyvania & Van Helsing rush back thru him when he realizes the gun shot doesnt kill him.
Trying to figure out why his memory was lost.
 
Karyn Kusama was a guest on The Kingcast podcast this week, discussing Carrie with the hosts. At the end, they got her to say a little about her approach to Dracula. She said she’s looking to keep it more faithful to the Stoker novel with the POV of the characters around Dracula rather than Dracula himself.
 
Karyn Kusama was a guest on The Kingcast podcast this week, discussing Carrie with the hosts. At the end, they got her to say a little about her approach to Dracula. She said she’s looking to keep it more faithful to the Stoker novel with the POV of the characters around Dracula rather than Dracula himself.

This can actually work to keep him mysterious and amp up the tension. Part of what made the novel scary was that the characters (and thus the readers) didn't have the whole story and didn't know what were they dealing with for most of the book.
 
She also teases her take on Dracula himself:
https://www.syfy.com/syfywire/dracula-director-karyn-kusama-adaptation
Dracula director Karyn Kusama promises 'faithful' adaptation that tackles 'overlooked' elements of the novel

Kusama said. "In fact, the book is filled with different points of view, and the one point of view we don't get access to, and most adaptations give access to, is Dracula himself. So I would just say, in some respect, this is going to be an adaptation called Dracula, but it's perhaps not the same kind of romantic hero that we've seen in past interpretations of Dracula.”
 
Last edited:
Yeah, the “love story” of Dracula was pretty much a movie invention wasn’t it? Or at least embellished. In the book, it’s never specifically stated what Dracula’s feelings are towards Mina Harker or anyone since it’s everyone else writing about their feelings towards the situation.
 
Yeah, the “love story” of Dracula was pretty much a movie invention wasn’t it? Or at least embellished. In the book, it’s never specifically stated what Dracula’s feelings are towards Mina Harker or anyone since it’s everyone else writing about their feelings towards the situation.
It was especially embellished in the 1992 film. Even so, out of all the Dracula films through the years, that one is still probably the most accurate to the book even with the added romantic subplot. Speaking of which, for me, Gary Oldman's Dracula is the benchmark for the character even though the movie isn't perfect. Bela Lugosi may come to mind when you think of Dracula but Oldman really brought him to life. I hope that whoever plays him in this one draws a little inspiration from Oldman.
 
I do find it a little odd that they called it "Bram Stoker's Dracula", suggesting that they were focused on the book, and then made up Dracula's motivation and backstory and camped it up at times. Mary Shelley's Frankenstein earned the title more; of course, Frankenstein up to that point was a very loose adaptation of the novel.

For me, Horror of Dracula is the best movie and best movie version of the character (even though I'll grant you Oldman gave the strongest performance), but there hasn't been a definitive version. There are things Bram Stoker's Dracula did so right and then other things it messed up. I don't know that I can ever expect a One True Dracula since each version now has to mix it up in one way or another.
 
It’s fascinating to think that the most recognizable versions of Dracula or Frankenstein’s Monster are not their literary source material, but the Universal films from the 1930s. Even kids today who haven’t seen them, know them from that. I guess it helps that cartoons have spoofed those versions up to this day.
 
Yeah, the “love story” of Dracula was pretty much a movie invention wasn’t it? Or at least embellished. In the book, it’s never specifically stated what Dracula’s feelings are towards Mina Harker or anyone since it’s everyone else writing about their feelings towards the situation.
In the book, his attack on Mina is much more of a spiteful assault in response to her and the crew that was all dating Lucy following Van Helsing’s recommendations to try and stop him - it’s a lot more analogous to a sexual assault in presentation than to any kind of pseudo-romance.

One of the things that I kind of want to see is a Dracula who’s mostly just a spiteful, arrogant prick rather than some charismatic and seductive figure. Frankly, the character in the book feels a lot more similar to Voldemort than anything else - his implied backstory is that he’s a former warlord who attended a literal school of black magic school run by the Devil called the Scholomance, and he’s a guy who literally eats babies and feeds them to his clearly beaten-down “wives”, and who’s capable of shifting into fog and several different animals.

Frankly, I’m a bit surprised that no one has tried doing a found-footage version of the story all the way through - you could even drop the Dracula name and have a fairly strong plot for one of those films.
 
One of the things that I kind of want to see is a Dracula who’s mostly just a spiteful, arrogant prick rather than some charismatic and seductive figure. Frankly, the character in the book feels a lot more similar to Voldemort than anything else - his implied backstory is that he’s a former warlord who attended a literal school of black magic school run by the Devil called the Scholomance, and he’s a guy who literally eats babies and feeds them to his clearly beaten-down “wives”, and who’s capable of shifting into fog and several different animals.

I like that, which is in line with her quote about avoiding the "romantic hero". Which would also cast out a much larger net than the typical dark, brooding, handsome Dracula that people typically try to fancast.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"