Support NeoGAF

[Not Spaceghost]

So I was rereading Dracula because it's definitely one of my favorite novels of all time and I was really into the amazing atmosphere that Bram Stoker manages to build when I caught myself wanting to watch a film adaptation.

Well I looked through wikipedia and uh...the last actual adaptation of Dracula was seriously the 1992?

Fuckin what?

This is goddamn Dracula, one of the most iconic and recognizable works of literature and you're telling me it has been over 20 years since some one decided to make a proper film adaptation?

I mean we get Dracula movies all the time but they're just shitty vampire flicks, there hasn't been an actual attempt to adapt this into an actual good film at all and that's kind of ridiculous. Especially when you consider how it would tap into at least three things that are super popular right now

1) 19th century London
2) Vampires
3) Spooky shit

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dracula_3D

This was the last attempt at a film adaptation and it was a total shit show and disaster.

The 1992 film adaptation is really solid despite some questionable costume choices and casting decisions, as well as molasses level pacing. The sound track is deliciously spot on just listen to this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e817qtDsIo4 especially from 5minutes till the end holy shit.

However it has been 20 goddamn years, why don't people treat Dracula with respect and instead we just get shitty Dracula 2000 films and not even so bad it's good grind house level horror?

Dracula desperately needs its modern day definitive film adaptation, or at least something to match the legendary 1931 film. The 1992 one is great and all but it has a peculiar atmosphere about it that makes the whole thing feel a bit uh...colorful? Fantastical? It's almost like if it is a live action stage play that's heavily stylized if that makes sense.

I just can't believe that more directors aren't gunning for the chance to make a faithful Dracula Adaptation.

 

[Rimon-hanit]

PM Steven Moffat.
Edit:Seriously that's like he's thing.

 

[odiin]

Sorry to be the one to tell you this but, while they had a good run, Twilight ruined vampires for the rest of eternity.

RIP in peace the living dead.

 

[The_Hitcher89]

Give me a well-made Salem's Lot miniseries if Dracula is too hard

 

[GraveHorizon]

Dracula

Spoiler

2000

 

[Uncle Rupee]

Coppola's is fine. A lot of people rag on it because of Keanu Reeve's hilariously bad English accent, but I actually sort of think that adds to it. It's cheesy good fun.

 

[Wiktor]

Because it would be boring. Everybody knows the story, it's been adapted countless times and currently people are tired of classic vampires. Which is why the most you can hope for is something like Dracula show on NBC, where they played around with original's elements heavily.

 

[Ratrat]

Coppola's is fine. A lot of people rag on it because of Keanu Reeve's hilariously bad English accent, but I actually sort of think that adds to it. It's cheesy good fun.

It's a bastardization of the story. It's someone's retelling that changes all the characters and trades the horror for romance. I hated it even ignoring Keanu's laughable performance. Nice song though.

I liked Nosferatu at least.

 

[Oersted]

Nosferatu is still the best vampire movie

 

[Lamel]

No movie is going to live up to that novel. The atmosphere created is too good.

 

[Fari]

Nosferatu is still the best vampire movie

I find the Herzog version to be much more enjoyable.

Not sure if that makes me a philistine or a hipster.

 

[LiveFromKyoto]

Um, hello?

 

[Despera]

You have a good point, OP.

But who would be the best director for said adaptation? I vote for Darren Aronofsky.

 

[DiscoJer]

Because it would be boring. Everybody knows the story, it's been adapted countless times and currently people are tired of classic vampires. Which is why the most you can hope for is something like Dracula show on NBC, where they played around with original's elements heavily.

That's the thing though - almost from the beginning people have said that, always screwing around with the original elements.

I'm not sure any movie is really all that faithful to the book. While the 1992 version is good, it borrows the plot about his wife from Ravenloft (a D&D module, of all things).

 

[Oersted]

I find the Herzog version to be much more enjoyable.

Not sure if that makes me a philistine or a hipster.

You have a good point, OP.

But who would be the best director for said adaptation? I vote for Darren Aronofsky.

Herzog. Obvious things being obvious.

 

[Santerestil]

The 1992 film adaptation is really solid despite some questionable costume choices and casting decisions, as well as molasses level pacing.

Even this way, it was an improvement compared to the book.
The original novel was a brick of hundreds of pages, consisting exclusively of excerpts from letters and diaries where every little action is described and commented with a neverending annotation of every detail - these Victorians were really some scribblers, after all.

And the irony is that we originally had "derivations" as Nosferatu and the "Count" Dracula to avoid paying the rights to Stoker's estate.

 

[Always-honest]

Coppola's is fine..

This.

Twilight ruined vampires for the rest of eternity.
.

I think so. I've watched a movie to see what the hype was all about. I lost hope for humanity. Goddamn it's embarrassing to watch.

 

[Forkball]

I think it's largely because of the structure of the original novel. It's in an epistolary style (a collection of documents), which is hard to translate into a narrative on the screen. Not to mention there is just so much mystery surrounding Dracula, his origins, and motives in the novel that any attempt to fill those blanks in results in a lot of guessing and poor results. Plus I think a lot of people think Dracula has been done to death already and want their own vampire world.

 

[Ratrat]

Even this way, it was an improvement compared to the book.
The original novel was a brick of hundreds of pages, consisting exclusively of excerpts from letters and diaries where every little action is described and commented with a neverending annotation of every detail - these Victorians were really some scribblers, after all.

And the irony is that we originally had "derivations" as Nosferatu and the "Count" Dracula to avoid paying the rights to Stoker's estate.

It's called an epistolary novel and is nothing new. Also you are wrong.

 

[drugstore_cowboy]

Rewatched the 1992 movie a couple of years ago and surprisingly it was better than I remembered. I still prefer John Badham's 1979 version, it's based on the Broadway show though. Great soundtrack too.

 

[Not Spaceghost]

Oh god never make a thread at 3am and then go to bed instantly afterwards, especially when you're really interested what people have to say.

I think it's largely because of the structure of the original novel. It's in an epistolary style (a collection of documents), which is hard to translate into a narrative on the screen. Not to mention there is just so much mystery surrounding Dracula, his origins, and motives in the novel that any attempt to fill those blanks in results in a lot of guessing and poor results. Plus I think a lot of people think Dracula has been done to death already and want their own vampire world.

You know, I think that the style that Dracula is written in should help translate into film since you're given multiple points of view and since the whole novel is written like a collection of letters you've also got a ton of descriptive text that really help set the tone. The one scene that comes to mind is the Demeter ship sequence which is never told directly and just through eerie word of mouth and news papers and a crazy dude. I like the way the 1992 film handled that where it super imposed a bunch scenes of the boat with narration behind it, they were messy sequences that felt almost like a dream sequence. It was cool because it captured the heart of how mysterious the events that happened on the boat were while leaving the impression that it wasn't the whole story / truth.

As for the fact that people think Dracula has been done to death well it's sad but I can see that, Dracula has gotten abused in film there are a whole bunch of trash films that use vampires or his character in them but aren't exactly you know, bram stoker's novel or story.

 

[kame-sennin]

Be careful what you wish for. The 1992 film was pretty great, if flawed. A modern Dracula film might be written by Orci and Kurtzman. Also, the 1992 film looked amazing. It came at the perfect moment when conventional effects reached their pinnacle, but cgi was too new to be used on that kind of project. Today, a Dracula film would be all cgi, and the effects would actually look worse. Dracula's monster forms in the Coppola move scared the shit out of me, and they look fucking real. A modern film wouldn't even come close.

 

[Parch]

Twilight ruined vampires for the rest of eternity.

Yes. Although vampires have frequently been silly and campy, Twilight puts the final stake in that heart.

 

[Matt_C]

Del Toro can pull this off, if he is motivated or the studio doesn't meddle in.

 

[Not Spaceghost]

Be careful what you wish for. The 1992 film was pretty great, if flawed. A modern Dracula film might be written by Orci and Kurtzman. Also, the 1992 film looked amazing. It came at the perfect moment when conventional effects reached their pinnacle, but cgi was too new to be used on that kind of project. Today, a Dracula film would be all cgi, and the effects would actually look worse. Dracula's monster forms in the Coppola move scared the shit out of me, and they look fucking real. A modern film wouldn't even come close.

If I remember right the 1992 film didn't use much if any CGI it was all hand done special effects, they helped give the movie a "stage like" feeling. But yeah a modern day Dracula film would be asy to fuck up to say the least lmao.

Del Toro can pull this off, if he is motivated or the studio doesn't meddle in.

Definitely my top choice.

 

[jstripes]

You can't remake a serious movie like that these days because people like ridiculous amounts of action and fly-through scenery.

The Great Gatsby could have been amazing, but the entire movie was a camera flying around all over the place, and that's what would happen to Dracula.

 

[Rocket Scientist]

Reminds me I should re-watch Vampire in Brooklyn. One my faves.

 

[Not Spaceghost]

You can't remake a serious movie like that these days because people like ridiculous amounts of action and fly-through scenery.

The Great Gatsby could have been amazing, but the entire movie was a camera flying around all over the place, and that's what would happen to Dracula.

Yeah that is kind of the thing about Dracula it doesnt actually have a lot of straight up action sequences so you have to wonder how they would meld that with the pacing. You would have a whole bunch of nothing happening for a long time.

 

[Allforce]

We already got one bro

 

[rocketskates]

I really hope Dracula Untold will be good.


But it probably won't be...

 

[injurai]

Um, hello?

to this day, still my favorite adaption

 

[bengraven]

Why can't we get a non-supernatural Vlad the Impaler biopic?

 

[Anton Sugar]

I love Coppola's, for what it is. Oldman as Dracula=best Dracula, plus there was some great production design/ideas, overall.

 

[bengraven]

I love Coppola's, for what it is. Oldman as Dracula=best Dracula, plus there was some great production design/ideas, overall.

It's one of the most beautiful, awesome films of all time. Keanu and Winona were poor choices, but everything else about that film is perfect.

 

[teruterubozu]

The pervy daddy-figure vampire and the virgin-turned-strumpet story just isn't sexy these days. People want horny young, dashing and rebellious vampires like Lost Boys, Twilight, True Blood, etc.

 

[inky]

Del Toro can pull this off, if he is motivated or the studio doesn't meddle in.

He is my top choice too, but I doubt any of those things would happen.

 

[Joe Shlabotnik]

I don't think I've watched Coppola's since the '90s. Time to throw it on the Netflix queue!

And yeah, Del Toro would be a pretty obvious contemporary choice. Am I insane in being curious about a Joseph Kosinski version? It would be slow as shit but fucking beautiful.

 

[Count Dookkake]

The Hammer films are the best.

 

[Ashes]

I find the Herzog version to be much more enjoyable.

Not sure if that makes me a philistine or a hipster.

Neither. I think it's a common enough viewpoint.

 

[Jack_AG]

Sorry to be the one to tell you this but, while they had a good run, Twilight ruined vampires for the rest of eternity.

RIP in peace the living dead.

I remember when vampires used to be in horror movies. The good ol days.

 

[keltickennedy]

There is still hope for vampires folks, Penny Dreadful is coming out in May...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFXHfEqMcis

Speaking to the Bram Stoker stuff...

I liked the Coppola movie.

Herzog's Nosferatu I also liked. It starts really strange, almost like a soap opera or something but it eventually get darker and depressing. Maybe it was his intention to have such a stark contrast.

Vampires have been taken totally the wrong way as of late. We will have to go through a drought without them for a bit I think. Then someone will make something to bring it back (hopefully in an awesome way). Kind of how zombies were overdone throughout the 80s, then went away for a time. Then, BAM. Dawn of The Dead Remake and Walking Dead.

 

[Arrowgigantic]

Why will no one make a decent film adaptation of Bram Stoker's Dracula?

Because it's too much literature and not enough story.

 

[Napoleonthechimp]

The structure of the original novel makes it more difficult than usual, but I personally think the Coppola version was pretty decent.

 

[Retro]

The 1992 film adaptation is really solid despite some questionable costume choices and casting decisions, as well as molasses level pacing. The sound track is deliciously spot on just listen to this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e817qtDsIo4 especially from 5minutes till the end holy shit.

However it has been 20 goddamn years, why don't people treat Dracula with respect and instead we just get shitty Dracula 2000 films and not even so bad it's good grind house level horror?

It's pretty simple; going at the source material head on means a direct comparison to Francis Ford Coppola's film, which while heavily flawed, is still about as true to the novel as you can get and still get people to watch the film. That so much of the novel made it into the film always surprises me, as the combination of age, format (the book is essentially a scrapbook of a half dozen journals, diaries, newspaper clippings and phonograph recordings) and the century of muddied vampire mythology (not to mention everything that came before) makes it so easy to play fast and loose with the plot.

I'd love someone to make a serious attempt at it again though. Preferably before Christopher Lee passes away, as a cameo is essential. I think nobody wants to try and outdo the 92 version, or can resist putting their own spin on the story, or try to make it more marketable.

Also, as an aside, I hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate what NBC is doing with their show. Apart from the names and that it's about vampires, it has fuck all to do with the book. My wife insisted on giving it a chance and every episode makes me want to be one of those people who has to point out how far it is from the book... and I usually despise those people.

 

[John Dunbar]

Also, as an aside, I hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate what NBC is doing with their show. Apart from the names and that it's about vampires, it has fuck all to do with the book. My wife insisted on giving it a chance and every episode makes me want to be one of those people who has to point out how far it is from the book... and I usually despise those people.

i haven't seen a single episode, but does the show even have any pretensions to being faithful to the book? i thought it was just the character and then pretty much whatever they thought would be cool, so seems a bit silly to get worked up on any changes.

 

[Santerestil]

It's called an epistolary novel and is nothing new. Also you are wrong.

It's a really verbose epistolary novel and please explain where you think I'm wrong.

 

[inm8num2]

I love Coppola's film. It has some small setbacks as mentioned in the OP, but it's still a pretty damn good adaptation.

Horror of Dracula takes some liberties with the story, but it's probably the best 'Dracula movie.'

 

[GuitarAtomik]

I think it's a little too late unfortunately as the vampire craze reached a saturation point a while ago. We might have to wait until it's back on the upswing but it's definitely something I'd like to see.

i haven't seen a single episode, but does the show even have any pretensions to being faithful to the book? i thought it was just the character and then pretty much whatever they thought would be cool, so seems a bit silly to get worked up on any changes.

No it doesn't. I've always found it weird that people hold it against it. It is very clearly doing it's own thing and it is awesome for it.

 

[Not Spaceghost]

I think it's a little too late unfortunately as the vampire craze reached a saturation point a while ago.

While it might have reached over saturation, there are other elements of Dracula that are still fashionable. Like the RDJ Sherlock movies have shown that the setting and time period is still "in". Classic horror also feels like it is having a resurgence.

 

[Retro]

i haven't seen a single episode, but does the show even have any pretensions to being faithful to the book? i thought it was just the character and then pretty much whatever they thought would be cool, so seems a bit silly to get worked up on any changes.

Um, Spoilers, I guess?

Spoiler

Jonathan is a low-level reporter, not a solicitor. He later works for Dracula as a go-between for information and political maneuvering. Rather than an everyman who discovers a horrible secret, he's an idiot who creates drama only to push Mina towards Dracula (she is obviously an independent, career-minded doctoral student, and he obviously knows this and admires it, but then he talks about making her a doting housewife out of the blue in one scene). He also sleeps with Lucy, for reasons. He's gullible and lacks any sense of curiosity. Keanu played a better Harker, not in the 1992 film but in Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure. At least there he seemed to piece shit together, this Harker has to have shit spelled out for him at every turn.

Mina is a medical student, not a school mistress. She studies under Van Helsing and bears a resemblance to Dracula's long-dead wife (so they're ripping off the 92 film's romance angle). By the end of the season, it's not just a resemblance but a resurrection, as she has the memories of Dracula's wife.

Lucy Westenra is publicly an obnoxious socialite but privately a shy lesbian who lusts after Mina and, on the advice of a vampire hunter, seduces Jonathan for reasons.

Van Helsing seeks out and resurrects Dracula and helps him in exchange for Dracula's help in killing the "Order of the Dragon", a secret anti-vampire society which he was a former member of until they had a falling out and they killed his family. He also builds a machine that injects a serum and jump-starts Dracula's heart so he can walk in daylight. After he gets his revenge in the season finale, settling for killing the head of the order and turning his children into vampires instead of destroying the whole thing, and without so much as an ounce of help from Dracula he spent so much time and energy bringing back to life and then helping, decides he should kill Dracula for reasons (clearly not his conscience, as he just basically killed two children).

Renfield is an American bartender on a train who steps into a fight to help Dracula and ends up his right hand man. For some reason, they have decided instead of a lanky, bookish older englishman, he is now a tall, muscular black man who seems to just wander around doing odd jobs for Dracula and demonstrating his loyalty while trying to save Dracula from his own youthful(?) impulses.

Dracula himself is posing as an American business man trying to undermine the Order of the Dragon by developing an alternative energy source to undermine their oil investments (seriously). They're trying to play up his humanity (he has Van Helsing working on a 'cure', wants to walk in daylight, resists feeding, etc.), while throwing in some backstory about the Order of the Dragon cursing him and killing his wife, also for reasons. Oh, and for some reason, he has a katana, even in the flashbacks where that sort of weapon would have no business or reason to exist in that time and place. I can't tell you how much that jumps out at me as an incredibly stupid thing they threw in because it's cool.

There's also a female vampire hunter who despite seeming to be really fucking good at hunting vampires, doesn't realize who Dracula is despite sleeping with him repeatedly (didn't she notice he's cold to the touch or has no heartbeat?). The head of the Order of the Dragon also makes an appearance frequently to try and stop Dracula (who he thinks is just a brash American tycoon), bitch about vampires on the loose and to induct Jonathan into the Order (yes, really).

The show is garbage, those are like, quick descriptions but seeing it all happen with the careful attention to details that fly in the face of everything that was good or even decent about the book is just upsetting.

No it doesn't. I've always found it weird that people hold it against it. It is very clearly doing it's own thing and it is awesome for it.

Ehhh... it feels like somebody at NBC said "vampires are in right now!" and somebody else said "Well, Dracula is a vampire, and nobody holds the rights to it, so let's do that" and somebody sent their secretary out to Barnes and Noble to get the Cliff Notes for the novel, but her card was declined so she just used her phone to take pictures of the pages and was only able to get the blurbs about the characters before security escorted her out. It doesn't feel like it's "trying to do it's own thing" because there's no connective tissue; this is not a variation, retelling, rift or reimagining on Dracula, it's a story with a vampire and the same character names and nothing else. This is not 'somebody's new vision of Dracula', which I could at least tolerate; it's just soulless network garbage that somebody skimmed the Wikipedia article on Dracula for character names.