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

[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. t:

 

[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. t:

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!

 

[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.

 

[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.

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.

If only for sure. Thanks Crimson!

 

[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.

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.