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

[SoulManX]

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.

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.comMonica Bellucci will play Lucy...

My eyes just lit up.t:

 

[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

 

[Darth Elektra]

Javier Bardem Dracula:


John Hurt as Van Helsing:


Monica Bellucci as Lucy:

 

[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?!?

 

[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.