The Un-Dead (Dracula 2)

[Horrorfan]

Uhh, he's just one of the greatest actors to ever grace the horror genre.

While his performance may hardly be horrifying among today's jaded audiences, few can deny the excellence of his performance in not just Dracula, but countless other horror films.

You may not think him to be anything special, but don't diminish him by calling him nothing more than an "old man in a tux." My god man, have some class.

OK he came first, but he wasn't a very good actor imo....I find it hard to believe anyone these days does. At least back then they had nothing else. But he's not exactly Gary Oldman when it comes to diversity and talent.

I respect he has his place in movie history, for sure...but the actual movie isn't actually very good.

 

[Leto Atrides]

OK he came first, but he wasn't a very good actor imo....I find it hard to believe anyone these days does. At least back then they had nothing else. But he's not exactly Gary Oldman when it comes to diversity and talent.

I respect he has his place in movie history, for sure...but the actual movie isn't actually very good.

Just because he doesn't have diversity doesn't mean he wasn't excellent at what he did. Gary Oldman is a better actor in general, yes, and iis good in many different roles. But Lugosi was a great horror actor, and that's what he's hailed for today.

Oldman is the better actor in general, but that doesn't mean he was better in this role.

And as far as the movie, it's more a matter of taste whether it is a good movie or not. It is actually widely thought of as one the best horror films made.

 

[Everyman]

Why do you keep going about what the "true fans" want? Is there some kind of club? Did you all reach a conscensus? I've read the novel 4 or 5 times and seen most of the movies. I think that qualifies me as a fan.

And my point was BSD WAS the last major adaptation of the book. All of the "rubbish films" were things like Dracula 2000 (or 3000 or whatever) that had nothing to do with Stoker's story. Any one now would be the second in a row claiming to be loyal, do you think people would believe it? Besides, fans of the book care about that sort of thing, but we are the minority.

Studios don't make movies to please fans, they make them to make money. My point has nothing to do with whether they should artisistically, or what a fan of the book would want. It has to do with business. No one would be willing to make another "authentic" version of a 100 year old novel when ones that change the story make plenty of money.

I was refering to De Bont, who said "true fans" want a Dracula sequel. No, if there are such true fans (and I think yes, there are), I bet a lot of them want a real, faithful adaptation. Fans like me yes, but I have seen a few of them in these forums. There is also Christopher Lee, who often complained about the absence of a real adaptation of Dracula. Yes, fans of the book are a minority, it never had the chance to become mainstream as a book like let's say LOTR did. But still... It doesn't give Coppola's movie the monopoly of legitimacy in adapting the novel, because he claimed it was a faithful one. And it doesn't make a possible faithful adaptation less profitable per se: there is enough gore and violence in the source material to please a horror fan, some interesting characters, a great archetypal villain you love to hate... Even the strong Christian moral of the book (something Coppola had only contempt for) wouldn't be an obstacle for profit. Mel Gibson, after all, made The Passion Of Christ a blockbuster. And the story of Jesus's crucifixion has been done voer and over again.

 

[Leto Atrides]

I was refering to De Bont, who said "true fans" want a Dracula sequel. No, if there are such true fans (and I think yes, there are), I bet a lot of them want a real, faithful adaptation. Fans like me yes, but I have seen a few of them in these forums. There is also Christopher Lee, who often complained about the absence of a real adaptation of Dracula. Yes, fans of the book are a minority, it never had the chance to become mainstream as a book like let's say LOTR did. But still... It doesn't give Coppola's movie the monopoly of legitimacy in adapting the novel, because he claimed it was a faithful one. And it doesn't make a possible faithful adaptation less profitable per se: there is enough gore and violence in the source material to please a horror fan, some interesting characters, a great archetypal villain you love to hate... Even the strong Christian moral of the book (something Coppola had only contempt for) wouldn't be an obstacle for profit. Mel Gibson, after all, made The Passion Of Christ a blockbuster. And the story of Jesus's crucifixion has been done voer and over again.

Good point about The Passion. I don't know, there probably should be a good version, but I don't see it happening. Just me. I can't really explain it, but I think this sequel will have more of a chance to adhere to Stoker's vision than would a direct version. Who knows, though.

 

[Everyman]

Good point about The Passion. I don't know, there probably should be a good version, but I don't see it happening. Just me. I can't really explain it, but I think this sequel will have more of a chance to adhere to Stoker's vision than would a direct version. Who knows, though.

I think there is more risks to depart from the source material if you make a sequel, especially a sequel that the writer never wrote or conceived in the first place. And I know a possible faithful version is very unlikely in the near future (nowadays the genre is in a hiatus: original horror movies are usually not very good and the remakes are often worst), but as you say, who knows?