Bram Stokers Dracula Sequal

[Nostalgiabuff]

So I read a lot, and I belong to the sci fi book club and I just got a flyer for an officially sanctioned sequal...sanctioned by the Stoker estate that is....takes place 25 years after they "thought" they killed Dracula.....only a matter of time until they make a movie. I just hope that when they do, they do it right, like the one with Gary oldman...who made that? Coppola?

I actually thought the original book was kind of a dry read but I thing i will have to check out this sequal

[BlackKnight]

I wonder if Keanu is Busy ? .

[toys2cool]

I loved the one with Gary oldman , Reeves sucked but I loved the movie

[BlackKnight]

I hated that Movie.
I thought it was Horrible. Far to Slow,.. & Left me at "meh".

[Earth 2 Chris]

I really like the Coppola version. Even though it romanticizes the Dracula character and emphasizes his pre-vampire existence as Vlad, it is still the most faithful adaptation I've seen. Reeves almost botches it though. I'm not saying the guy isn't a watchable personality, but his range is far to limited for such a period piece.

An official sequel is interesting. I'm surprised the Stoker estate hasn't sanctioned one before. Although, to my knowledge, they don't own any aspect of Dracula now. It's long been in the public domain.

Chris

[Nostalgiabuff]

that may be true, but it still carries some weight that they support it...the author is actually listed as a Stoker....

[toys2cool]

I really like the Coppola version. Even though it romanticizes the Dracula character and emphasizes his pre-vampire existence as Vlad, it is still the most faithful adaptation I've seen. Reeves almost botches it though. I'm not saying the guy isn't a watchable personality, but his range is far to limited for such a period piece.

An official sequel is interesting. I'm surprised the Stoker estate hasn't sanctioned one before. Although, to my knowledge, they don't own any aspect of Dracula now. It's long been in the public domain.

Chris

I loved the Vlad part of it, It would be awesome if they could've made a film of just that

[vulcan2074]

I loved the Vlad part of it, It would be awesome if they could've made a film of just that

Now your talking. I would've loved that
Sammy

[ctc]

Hmmmm....

I REALLY hated the Coppola one. WAY too pretentious, WAY too artsy, WAY too many scenes ripped off from other sources. ("Hey! Did Drac just turn into Sting....?")

But it wouldn't surprise me if someone did a sequel. Or prequel even. It fits in well with the current post-Rice whiney, artsy vampire. (Coppola's Drac didn't sparkle in the sun, but he DID have a white suit....)

>Reeves almost botches it though.

When he escaped from the castle I was expecting him to pause mid-fall and exclaim: "this is a TOTALLY deep hole!"

Don C.

[The Bat]

I loved that Movie! It was probably the most "faithful" Dracula version yet! And Gary Oldman is alway GREAT!

[Gorn Captain]

None of the movie versions truly follow the book.
Some are close, some barely resemble the original story.

For example, the best way to describe the literary Dracula would be Anthony Hopkins, with a bushy moustache and a rather "feral" streak.

Christopher Lee wanted to make that version for years, but all the producers wanted was "sexy, snarly, no dialogue".
Everything the book was not.

[phil]

There was a Spanish film from the early '70s with Christopher Lee were he was made up to resemble the Dracula of the novel. The movie isn't so hot though. Stoker's novel has always been in the public domain in the U.S. because the copyright application wasn't filled out correctly but it was some time before anyone figured that out.
I highly reccomend the book "Hollywood Gothic" by David Skaal. There has been a couple of editions. It covers the Stoker novel, Nosferatu, the 1920s play, the Lugosi movie and the Spanish language version of the Lugosi movie. It is a very interesting read.

[Earth 2 Chris]

I re-watched Coppola's movie last night for the first time in a long time. I will say it does seem a bit over-done and overly "artsy" in spots, but movies were going through a period of that at the time. Any semblance to reality was thrown out the window. Just look at the 90s Batman films.

I still say it follows the novel closer than any version I've seen. At least it follows the beats of the novel, and all the characters are there, with no weird melding of Mina/Lucy and role changes for Holmwood and Steward. And poor Quincy P. Morris gets left out of about every version, except this one!

Oh, and poor Keanu was in WAY over his head in this one. The casting director did an A-1 job on this one, except for Ted Theodor Logan.

CHris

Chris

[Type3Toys]

Trully one of the best Dracula movies ever made. The Lugosi Dracula defined the vampire lord and to this day is just a brilliant work. Oldman brought depth and realism to the mythic character and tied both Vlad and Dracula together in a perfect knot. Anthony Hopkins IS Van Helsing. That is how I picture him.

[Brazoo]

Hmmmm....

I REALLY hated the Coppola one. WAY too pretentious, WAY too artsy, WAY too many scenes ripped off from other sources. ("Hey! Did Drac just turn into Sting....?")

But it wouldn't surprise me if someone did a sequel. Or prequel even. It fits in well with the current post-Rice whiney, artsy vampire. (Coppola's Drac didn't sparkle in the sun, but he DID have a white suit....)

>Reeves almost botches it though.

When he escaped from the castle I was expecting him to pause mid-fall and exclaim: "this is a TOTALLY deep hole!"

Don C.

Ditto - the scenes with Tom Waits were pretty fun, and the part with Winona Ryder in a silk nightgown running in the pouring rain was very, uh, moving though.