Support NeoGAF

[iuxion]

You have a good point, OP.

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

David Fincher paired with a good, dense adapted screenplay.

 

[GuitarAtomik]

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.

True. I'm not saying it's impossible but the "iron's on cool down" as far as prime time to release. That' the only reason I don't think we'll get one any time soon. Never say never though. It would definitely have it's own niche compared to the majority of other recent vampire movies.

 

[See You Next Wednesday]

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

I don't want to see a adaptation that you would probably want to see.

Shakey cam fight scenes, quick cuts, parkour chase scenes, cgi up the wazoo.

 

[mantidor]

It's almost like if it is a live action stage play that's heavily stylized if that makes sense.

Makes perfect sense, you put in words what I have been trying to say to friends about Coppola´s Dracula and why I like it and why so many others don't. It´s a good film, but it's.. well, odd. I read the book after seeing the movie and thought the atmosphere and tone of the book were lost because of the romance angle.

I don't think is such a crazy idea to revive it, while it has been done to death, there's a whole generation that is missing the original Dracula story and I would like very much to see a modern adaptation, I think it has potential, very few movies have really treated vampires well, it's pretty ironic the kind of vampires from the book are actually rare in media.

 

[GuitarAtomik]

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.

I'm going to have to agree to disagree with you. Maybe it's because I have no real connection with Bram Stoker's story beyond the movie , but none of the changes bother me and I like that it's doing it's own thing. It's an extreme twist on characters you think you know and that obviously rubs some people the wrong way. I personally don't see the problem with that unless it's advertising faithfulness which it's not. Most of the people in the OT are enjoying it though.

 

[Not Spaceghost]

I don't want to see a adaptation that you would probably want to see.

Shakey cam fight scenes, quick cuts, parkour chase scenes, cgi up the wazoo.

That isnt quite what I am l looking for when I think of a modern day dracula adaptation, I am thinking more of in a pans labryinth style except you know withour the whole spanish civil war angle haha.

But that general tone and pacing.

 

[SlipperySlope]

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

Now this I would like to see.

 

[John Dunbar]

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.

i obviously have no opinion on the quality of the show so i just take your word that it's awful, but what i gather to be your feelings about this adaptation seem to be mostly born out of a failure to recognize that dracula has become much more than the character in the original novel, and as such is subject to all kinds of portrayals. majority of people who are familiar with dracula will never read the book, so the dracula most people know might be very different from the original. it's neither a good thing nor a bad, it just is, and you should just stop watching the show if it bothers you.

and from all your posts, you seem to agree that following the novel in any significant way was not the intention of this show. they took the names of characters and appear to have invented everything else.

 

[Not Spaceghost]

Now this I would like to see.

Wait for Dracula the untold story some time this year

Spoiler

though it will likely be shit

 

[GuitarAtomik]

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

Summit and Brad Pitt's Plan B bought the rights to a Charlie Hunnam (yes that Charlie Hunnam) spec script a while ago. That was like 2009 but sometimes it just takes that long to get a movie going and they're supposedly still working on it.

 

[mantidor]

Now this I would like to see.

I saw one but I forgot the name, it was decent for being a made-for-tv movie with an obvious low budget, but it couldn't help to throw some supernatural epilogue which was laughable.

 

[rocketskates]

Wait for Dracula the untold story some time this year

Spoiler

though it will likely be shit

That's what I'm thinking too

 

[Sephzilla]

Nothing will top Oldman as Dracula

 

[Retro]

I'm going to have to agree to disagree with you. Maybe it's because I have no real connection with Bram Stoker's story beyond the movie , but none of the changes bother me and I like that it's doing it's own thing. It's an extreme twist on characters you think you know and that obviously rubs some people the wrong way. I personally don't see the problem with that unless it's advertising faithfulness which it's not. Most of the people in the OT are enjoying it though.

I don't care enough about the series to really dig into any kind of argument, so yes, we'll just have to agree to disagree. I'm not so great a Stoker aficionado to get into a long debate or proclaim that it's 'damaging the reputation of the story' (even though I think it kind of is).There's a lot worse out there doing much greater damage to vampire mythology than this series which, to be fair, at least has vampires who are menacing, immortal killers that avoid daylight (mostly). It's set in the Victorian era as well, rather than trying to push it into a modern setting (which would have been easier), so I have to give it that even if the characters behave completely contrary to Victorian attitudes.

It's a book I read growing up and usually read through once a year, so maybe I'm a bit more attached to the story than most, but not so much that I feel it's not enough that I dislike it, but that everyone else must dislike it as well. My wife watches it and seems to enjoy it, and it's not so unwatchable that I won't sit quietly and watch it with her (though I think if she'd read the book, she'd hold that version is on much firmer narrative ground).

I will say, however, that I think the problem is not that it's an 'extreme twist' on the characters, it's that they've so little connection beyond their names and basic relationships (Mina is engaged to Harker, Lucy is her friend and that's as far as that goes) as to be completely different set of characters. Van Helsing especially, a heroic, selfless, thoughtful character who shows up midway through book to stop Dracula by any means, transformed into a ruthless, violent side-villain who actually sets all of the events in motion for his own selfish revenge. It's just too big a pill to swallow.

I don't think it would offend my sensibilities so much if they'd just named the characters differently. That they kept the names is, in my mind, maybe not advertising but certainly implying faithfulness. It might even be more enjoyable (and certainly easier to make) if they didn't have the history attached to those characters (and as such, the baggage viewers will naturally bring to the table).

i obviously have no opinion on the quality of the show so i just take your word that it's awful, but what i gather to be your feelings about this adaptation seem to be mostly born out of a failure to recognize that dracula has become much more than the character in the original novel, and as such is subject to all kinds of portrayals. majority of people who are familiar with dracula will never read the book, so the dracula most people know might be very different from the original. it's neither a good thing nor a bad, it just is, and you should just stop watching the show if it bothers you.

and from all your posts, you seem to agree that following the novel in any significant way was not the intention of this show. they took the names of characters and appear to have invented everything else.

Don't take my word for it; go ahead and watch the show and form your own opinion. My feelings on the matter is that it isn't so much a failure to recognize that Dracula has become more than what's in the book (I like the 1992 adaptation even though it invents a fair share itself), it's that the series is using the novel as its core and yet getting so many of those fundamentals completely wrong. It'd be like making a Superman movie where Clark Kent isn't an alien. I don't think a network television can follow the novel and work, and I certainly wouldn't want them to try, but it feels so hacked together that I just can't help but feel like the only thing they're doing is trading on the brand recognition.

Besides, this thread isn't about the show, it's about the lack of a faithful and quality adaptation of the book. Within the context of this thread, the show is an utter failure at that task.

 

[Imbarkus]

I thought this one was pretty good, actually:

1979, Frank Langella. From Roger Ebert's review:

What an elegantly seen Dracula this is, all shadows and blood and vapors and Frank Langella stalking through with the grace of a cat. The film is a triumph of performance, art direction and mood over materials that can lend themselves so easily to self-satire. There have been so many Draculas (Bela Lugosi played him two times, Christopher Lee eight) that the tragic origins of the character have been lost among the gravestones, the fangs and all those black cloaks. This Dracula restores the character to the purity of its first film appearances, in F. W. Murnau's 1923 Nosferatu and Bela Lugosi's 1931 version.

 

[Dec]

PM Steven Moffat.

Isn't he some kind of creator on the Sherlock adaption that is both modern day and not very much like Sherlock Holmes?

 

[jstripes]

Hmm. On second thought.

Give Dracula to the team behind Breaking Bad. Make it into a short-run series.

 

[Not Spaceghost]

I thought this one was pretty good, actually:

1979, Frank Langella. From Roger Ebert's review:

I am about to watch this for the first time actually, I always sort of dismissed the 79 one but now you've got my interest piqued.

 

[Anion]

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).

Wowowow, Thats just a disgusting take on the whole story! Im actually pretty disapointed on hearing this.

Btw, thanks for summing it up. I'm glad I didn't waste time on it

 

[Charles Foster Kane]

Coppola's Dracula did give us this jewel though.

 

[Extra Sauce]

Am I insane in being curious about a Joseph Kosinski version?

Only if it's set in the far future.

 

[Not Spaceghost]

Wowowow, Thats just a disgusting take on the whole story! Im actually pretty disapointed on hearing this.

Btw, thanks for summing it up. I'm glad I didn't waste time on it

My take on it is that the show isn't actually 100% awful but as far as taking its source material and trying to do something "unique" with it, it comes off as absolutely horrible.

In fact the one thing that a Dracula adaptation would not benefit from a current day setting.

Also I'm like 40 minutes into the 1979 adaptation and while it's got a really great atmosphere it does some uh weird things...like why name swap mina and lucy if they're still going to be the characters they would have been originally?

Also I don't know how I feel about the fact that they skipped the entire transylvania sequence.

 

[jond76]

Always had a soft spot for the 1979(?) Langella version.

 

[JimtotheHum]

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.

I love Coppola's version. I mean, Keanu is awful, but Gary Oldman was amazing and Monica Belluci was topless.

That alone is worth the price of admission.

 

[Konka]

Oldman looks like an old woman as dracula, not even slightly frightening.

Ridiculous costumes.

This is dracula, not whatever Coppola invented.

 

[terrisus]

Bela is the only real vampire.


No, not this one:

That's Bella


This one:

Bela

 

[Imbarkus]

I am about to watch this for the first time actually, I always sort of dismissed the 79 one but now you've got my interest piqued.

What did you think about it?

 

[Odoul]

I've never actually washed a Dracula movie.

The book, especially the first half, would make a great horror/adventure movie if done right.

Dracula

Jonathan

Van Helsing

 

[plagiarize]

I've never actually washed a Dracula movie.

The book, especially the first half, would make a great horror/adventure movie if done right.

Dracula


Jonathan


Van Helsing

All great choices actually. Though I demand Nic Cage as Renfield.

 

[jett]

I've always liked the Coppola version despite its issues. Glorious production design from top to bottom.

 

[Cetra]

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.

I agree. The soundtrack, cinematography, Hopkin's quirky Van Helsing, and Oldman's best performance. Man, I love it. The opening scene alone give that film a pass.

 

[Hari Seldon]

I've always liked the Coppola version despite its issues. Glorious production design from top to bottom.

Yeah I don't understand the need for a remake. Modern day hollywood would just completely fuck it up.

 

[indigo-cyclops]

I agree. The soundtrack, cinematography, Hopkin's quirky Van Helsing, and Oldman's best performance. Man, I love it. The opening scene alone give that film a pass.

Absolutely, a lot of fantastic elements in it. One of my favorites. Keanu being casted is my only issue but honestly the more I watch the more I am able to ignore it.

It's got a great vibe and don't get me started on costume design and Oldman.

 

[Makonero]

I completely agree that the original Dracula would make a fantastic movie, if they stayed true to the novel.

But I also think it would be a great cross-media venture. I think that updating it a bit, incorporating blogs, youtube videos, various other forms of modern content could be a really engaging way of doing the story. I'm thinking something like an ARG, but simply engaging with new media to tell a story. An old story, sure, but the horror of reading blog posts from John Harker about his trip to Romania, the odd facebook posts between him and Mina, the terror of Lucy's obituary and the stranger in the comments section who seems to know too much...

But then, I'm crazy.

 

[mantidor]

I completely agree that the original Dracula would make a fantastic movie, if they stayed true to the novel.

But I also think it would be a great cross-media venture. I think that updating it a bit, incorporating blogs, youtube videos, various other forms of modern content could be a really engaging way of doing the story. I'm thinking something like an ARG, but simply engaging with new media to tell a story. An old story, sure, but the horror of reading blog posts from John Harker about his trip to Romania, the odd facebook posts between him and Mina, the terror of Lucy's obituary and the stranger in the comments section who seems to know too much...

But then, I'm crazy.

This could be either brilliant or a complete disaster, no room in between really.

 

[Anton Sugar]

You know who needs to play Dracula? Mads Motherfucking Mikkelsen.

Can do terrifying/charming/creepy in his sleep.

 

[Woz]

Oldman as bat-man was scary as shit. Loved the skin connecting the arms to the torso.

 

[Ahasverus]

Why not make a two part high budget movie? Cut the first one with Dracula's arrival to England and focus in the creepy castle city and the second one is of course the London siege. Hopefully by a dramatic director. I agree that this story hasn't been done justice.

 

[Cetra]

You know who needs to play Dracula? Mads Motherfucking Mikkelsen.


Can do terrifying/charming/creepy in his sleep.

Holy mother of fuck. I've never considered this, but you're right. Mads would make an excellent Dracula. His Hannibal is 90% there already. Just film the guy biting a neck and boom, there ya go.

 

[DonasaurusRex]

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.

Being Human has saved them, UK or USA version

Sorry OP but Bram Stokers Dracula was not considered ..classic,vampires have become classic in part because they are classic mythology. Stoker re invisioned the vampire in his book but meh, you should read some of the old reviews of it, more like poeple cherry picked from his image and made cool vampire stuff for decades. The book itself? not really in the same boat as other "classic" works of its time, though a lit class on the time period would probably bring it up or have it ona reading list.

 

[Not Spaceghost]

What did you think about it?

You know, I liked it but it took a while for that to set in.

It changes almost everything there is to change and really takes liberty with the story, the ending felt kind of rushed and it felt more like the climax than an actual ending. The changes weren't all bad but swapping Lucy and Mina's roles ONLY by name was rather baffling. The atmosphere was great but Dracula's Estate felt like a classic Disney's haunted mansion so that was kinda ehh.

Over all I thought it was excellent for its own thing but I still vastly prefer the 1992 film.

 

[Kadayi]

I think Dracula is so much part of the cultural grain now that it's hard to envisage anyone going back to the original narrative and coming up with anything that isn't going to come off as either derivative, campy or stilted.

Within the broader narrative of vampires I'd actually say that there's probably a lot of scope to explore the concept of immortal parasites, but it would be very much reliant on abandoning many of the familiar tropes that plague the genre.

 

[Not Spaceghost]

I think Dracula is so much part of the cultural grain now that it's hard to envisage anyone going back to the original narrative and coming up with anything that isn't going to come off as either derivative, campy or stilted.

Within the broader narrative of vampires I'd actually say that there's probably a lot of scope to explore the concept of immortal parasites, but it would be very much reliant on abandoning many of the familiar tropes that plague the genre.

You know I think the actual problem that plagues vampires is that they've gone way too far from classic mythology. They're just over powered figures that always have a huge clan or something. I think that vampires as a whole could benefit from going back to the classic Dracula / Carmilla image of the vampire instead of the over powered pretty boy that cannot die at all and can also be the good guy. I think the problem is that Vampires sort of fall to pieces when set in a more modern setting, we really need to keep them in the 1800s.

 

[plagiarize]

Being Human has saved them, UK or USA version

Sorry OP but Bram Stokers Dracula was not considered ..classic,vampires have become classic in part because they are classic mythology. Stoker re invisioned the vampire in his book but meh, you should read some of the old reviews of it, more like poeple cherry picked from his image and made cool vampire stuff for decades. The book itself? not really in the same boat as other "classic" works of its time, though a lit class on the time period would probably bring it up or have it ona reading list.

its reception when it came out has no bearing on its deserved status as a classic. Like all great novels it found its deserved recognition in time.

it remains my favorite novel. I think its highly arrogant for you to argue that it wasn't ever any good. Sure, opinions and all, but it has its place in history and continues to find new fans.

 

[140.85]

The Coppola one is amazing. So lush.

 

[radios shipping overview]

Personally, I wouldn't mind if a new Dracula movie was slow, creepy, and dry as Transylvanian dirt. I guess that's one of my favorite vampire movies is Shadow of the Vampire. I really need to watch the Herzog version again. Coppola's is a lot of fun, and Oldman's Drac is one of the best.

But horror movies are aimed at teenagers (and the teenaged at heart), by and large, so we're going to get stuff made for them.

 

[Fritz]

Oldman looks like an old woman as dracula, not even slightly frightening.

Ridiculous costumes.

This is dracula, not whatever Coppola invented.

I think the tux is way more ridiculous. the costumes of the Coppola movie are beyond awesome and especially what they did with Dracula, so weird and unfamiliar.

 

[TheKaeptain]

The Hammer films are the best.

Yes they are.

 

[Not Spaceghost]

Yes they are.

I guess I'll have to watch the 1958 one again but I rather liked it. Recently however, I did see brides of dracula and the one that was set 100 years later but I thought both of those were rather shit can't imagine the rest in the hammer series being as good as the 1958 one.

 

[Hari Seldon]

I think the tux is way more ridiculous. the costumes of the Coppola movie are beyond awesome and especially what they did with Dracula, so weird and unfamiliar.

Yeah the costume in Copolla's is more realistic with what an eastern european aristocrat from the 16th century would wear, updated to the 19th century.