The Un-Dead (Dracula 2)

[zer00]

Are we also supposed to ignore "Son of Dracula", "House of Frankenstein", "House of Dracula" and "Abbot and Costello meet Frankenstein"?


And are they doing it in black and white with old school effects?

Don't ever insult Abbot and Costello meet Frankenstien

 

[thealiasman2000]

I'm not insulting them, I'm asking why are they Nolan-izing a classic saga.

 

[Horrorfan]

I thought the Dracula 2000 movie and its sequels were pretty good contiuations of the novel with a lot of good mythology and ideas behind them.

 

[Everyman]

You guys are missing one major thing...the Stoker family approved of it.

...And the Time Machine was directed by a descendant of H.G. Wells, it didn't make it any better.

What we need is a real Dracula movie, close to the book (and not to the historical figure of Vlad Tepes, who'se Stoker barely knew about), we don't need a sequel to the arrogant pseudo-Dracula movie Coppola made.

 

[Everyman]

The best Dracula movie is not 'Bram Stoker's Dracula', it's not very faithful to the book at all. It makes Dracula a tragic romantic hero. The best Drac films are the 1931 Universal version and Hammer's Prince of Darkness.

And Jan De Bont....? Not exactly a great director. And how much he loves Dracula and is a fan is irrelevent. Joel Schumacher is a big Batman fan and read loads of comics. Doesn't mean much by itself.

Agreed to everything. Except the best Dracula adaptation is Murnau's Nosferatu. I would say the actor who played Dracula closer to the book is probably Christopher Lee.

 

[Everyman]

Well, it may not have been entirely faithful in that aspect, but it was still a damned good film.

It has been faithful in no aspect but the linearity, and it was filled with ludicrous moments and hammy acting. Probably one of the worst interpretations.

 

[Horrorfan]

I still say BSD is the best Dracula movie. I do not understand how anyone ever thought Bela Lugosi was scary (he was an old man in a tux for gawd's sake).

 

[CConn]

I still say BSD is the best Dracula movie. I do not understand how anyone ever thought Bela Lugosi was scary (he was an old man in a tux for gawd's sake).

It's Bela ****ing Lugosi.

Wait, wait. Let me explain this better...

It's Bela ****ing Lugosi.

 

[zer00]

It's Bela ****ing Lugosi.

Wait, wait. Let me explain this better...

It's Bela ****ing Lugosi.

Sometimes I do wonder why I come here

 

[GoldGoblin]

This is either the most genius thing ever. Or just something to piss people off more. I'll lean towards genius for now. Least till a cast

^

 

[Horrorfan]

It's Bela ****ing Lugosi.

Wait, wait. Let me explain this better...

It's Bela ****ing Lugosi.

So?

 

[JackBauer]

meh, I'll keep waiting for Blackula with Samuel L.

 

[zer00]

So?

Leave this forum.

 

[CrimsonMist]

i think it's a sequel to the book. Had it been a sequel to Coppola's film, i think his name would have been mentioned and that instead of saying Bram Stoker's Dracula, it would have said "BRAM STOKER'S DRACULA", becuase all other movies mentioned in that article are capitalized.

Now, a sequel to the book would be interesting. But a big budget gothic horror film based strictly on the book itself would be even cooler

 

[Everyman]

I still say BSD is the best Dracula movie. I do not understand how anyone ever thought Bela Lugosi was scary (he was an old man in a tux for gawd's sake).

I guess the lovestruck Gary Oldman's Drac with his potbelly, weird hairdo (when old) and John Lennon look (when young) was much scarier for you?

As an adaptation, it was crap. As a movie, it was still horrible, filled with clichés characters and a caricature of XIXth century with phoney British accents. And a plot that was closer to a Barbara Cartland novel than Stoker's classic.

 

[Everyman]

i think it's a sequel to the book. Had it been a sequel to Coppola's film, i think his name would have been mentioned and that instead of saying Bram Stoker's Dracula, it would have said "BRAM STOKER'S DRACULA", becuase all other movies mentioned in that article are capitalized.

Now, a sequel to the book would be interesting. But a big budget gothic horror film based strictly on the book itself would be even cooler

But why don,t they make a proper, faithful adaptation of the book first? That would be original. Why make a movie sequel of a book that have not yet been adapted faithfully on the big screen?

 

[Leto Atrides]

But why don,t they make a proper, faithful adaptation of the book first? That would be original. Why make a movie sequel of a book that have not yet been adapted faithfully on the big screen?

Because they made too much of a big deal about Coppolla's being authentic. Now I like the film, and thought it was stylistically faithful, but thematically it was ruined. Even though it was what, 15 years ago?, it still hangs that was supposed to THE definitive film version of Dracula.


(BTW The spoliers are for if you didn't read the book)
If done well, this film could be amazing. Hopefully they preserve the characters, and don't try to make Seward Lucy's father and leaving out Quincy Morris (

Spoiler

mention him at least, he didn't survive

) and other such shennanigans like Universal and Hammer Film's movies.

Whenever a director makes a film they're always going to want to add their own stamp on it. I'd rather it be something like this, where there is a new story, than changing an existing one.

Also, if

Spoiler

Quincy Harker

isn't in this I will be very mad. That's one thing I hated about LoEG. Moore completely ignored the fact that

Spoiler

Mina and Jonathon had a son

.

 

[CConn]

So?

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.

 

[Everyman]

Because they made too much of a big deal about Coppolla's being authentic. Now I like the film, and thought it was stylistically faithful, but thematically it was ruined. Even though it was what, 15 years ago?, it still hangs that was supposed to THE definitive film version of Dracula.


(BTW The spoliers are for if you didn't read the book)
If done well, this film could be amazing. Hopefully they preserve the characters, and don't try to make Seward Lucy's father and leaving out Quincy Morris (

Spoiler

mention him at least, he didn't survive

) and other such shennanigans like Universal and Hammer Film's movies.

I think Coppola's Drac is not considered the definitive version, not by the fans of the book anyway, and not by the connaisseurs. It was labeled as such by Coppola himself, but it was far from accepted by all. How could this sequel project work since the "original" movie did not follow thematically the original novel?

 

[CrimsonMist]

they should just make a new Dracula movie based on the book 100% faithful, or as close as possible.

Coppola's Dracula had it's faithful moments. But other than that, i found the whole tragic romantic story plot to be ******ed. Not really my favorite. Gary Oldman was good in it, but it was really cheesy. Too much blood and crap in it too. It's scarier when things are subtle or hinted at, especially with Dracula. I dont need to see blood explode everywhere as Dracula is attacking Lucy or any of that. I WAS, however, happy they kept the baby scene in there. Unfortunatly, they didnt keep the part with the mother.

but with this movie sequel to the book, i'd imagine

Spoiler

Quincy Harker

would be in it. Wouldn't make sense if he wasnt. It would be interesting to see how they handle it.

 

[Leto Atrides]

(This is in response to Everyman)

I didn't mean the film turned out to be definitive. I said it was SUPPOSED to be. That's how it was marketed, and that's how it was hyped. And that was the last major attempt at making an adaptation of the book Dracula. A new true-to-the-novel version would be the second one in a row trying to be a "true" adaptation. It would be seen as a retread. I doubt many people, and studios especially, would go in for it.

Besides, this new movie has no direct connections to BSD, so it doesn't matter how authentic it was or wasn't. It seems like a sequel to the book.

 

[CConn]

Yeah...don't count that

I liked Dracula's Daughter.

I'm not insulting them, I'm asking why are they Nolan-izing a classic saga.

Why everything has to be about you *****ing out Nolan, I'll never know.

Technically, it would be more like Singer-izing. And we don't even know that. It could very well just be a movie sequel to the book. Since the Lugosi was based on the novel, sure you could watch that with this new film, but that's hardly reason to get overly confused or critical.

 

[Leto Atrides]

Lugosi's changed things around quite a bit as far as the plot goes, actually.

The way they word it ("25 years since the events of the book") it seems like this is a sequel to the novel.

 

[Everyman]

(This is in response to Everyman)

I didn't mean the film turned out to be definitive. I said it was SUPPOSED to be. That's how it was marketed, and that's how it was hyped. And that was the last major attempt at making an adaptation of the book Dracula. A new true-to-the-novel version would be the second one in a row trying to be a "true" adaptation. It would be seen as a retread. I doubt many people, and studios especially, would go in for it.

Besides, this new movie has no direct connections to BSD, so it doesn't matter how authentic it was or wasn't. It seems like a sequel to the book.

I know it was labelled as the definitive version, but whatever COppola's Drac was supposed to be, it wasn't. My point is: why not come back to the source material, and make a Dracula movie faithful to the story and the spirit of the book? A lot of people would pay to see this. Coppola's pseudo-Dracula is mroe than ten years old now, and we had a lot of rubbish Draculas after BSD too... I think it is time for a more classic version. A sequel to a book that a lot of movviegoers don't really know about is kind of pointless. True fans have been waiting for the ORIGINAL Dracula onscreen, not a sequel...

 

[Leto Atrides]

I know it was labelled as the definitive version, but whatever COppola's Drac was supposed to be, it wasn't. My point is: why not come back to the source material, and make a Dracula movie faithful to the story and the spirit of the book? A lot of people would pay to see this. Coppola's pseudo-Dracula is mroe than ten years old now, and we had a lot of rubbish Draculas after BSD too... I think it is time for a more classic version. A sequel to a book that a lot of movviegoers don't really know about is kind of pointless. True fans have been waiting for the ORIGINAL Dracula onscreen, not a sequel...

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.