http://www.joblo.com/movie-news/luke-evans-to-sink-his-teeth-into-universals-dracula-year-zero (http://www.joblo.com/movie-news/luke-evans-to-sink-his-teeth-into-universals-dracula-year-zero)
Sheesh... Universal's determined to cram this half-baked idea down our throats, aren't they?
I've had it with origin stories....sigh.
So, Universal is producing a "Dracula" TV series (for NBC) and making a new "Dracula" movie? Looks like it's going to be a busy year for us fans.
Quote from: Phantom Stranger on April 10, 2013, 09:50:50 PMSo, Universal is producing a "Dracula" TV series (for NBC) and making a new "Dracula" movie? Looks like it's going to be a busy year for us fans.
Yes, lots of new projects...for me to poop on!!![/Triumph]
And, for me to fling poo at!!![/Scatter]
Please don't fill it with tons of CGI effects!! I hope it's nothing like Twilight..... please....... no Twilight!
Quote from: Count_Zirock on April 11, 2013, 08:38:48 PM
Yes, lots if new projects...for me to poop on!!![/Triumph]
And, for me to fling poo at!!![/Scatter]
Haaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!! Snort! Haaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!
Quote from: mightyquinn on April 11, 2013, 11:09:43 PMPlease don't fill it with tons of CGI effects!! I hope it's nothing like Twilight..... please....... no Twilight!
I heard Luke Evans just invested heavily in a company that makes body glitter.
Another Dracula remake??
I liked FF Coppola's picture that came out around ten years ago or so.
Quote from: Paladin on April 17, 2013, 04:51:39 PM
Another Dracula remake??
I liked FF Coppola's picture that came out around ten years ago or so.
This film actually came out in 1992 .
Quote from: Phantom Stranger on April 17, 2013, 07:57:18 PM
This film actually came out in 1992 .
Coppola's adaption was pretty thorough (IMO)...so do we we
still really need another take on the Count?
Quote from: Paladin on April 18, 2013, 02:30:46 PM
Coppola's adaption was pretty thorough (IMO)...so do we we still really need another take on the Count?
We definitely need another take on HARKER.
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_bkFIPLIOGL8/SawSeUfRguI/AAAAAAAAeLw/yGJLIeBxSyw/s320/reeves_l.jpg)
Quote from: Paladin on April 18, 2013, 02:30:46 PMCoppola's adaption was pretty thorough (IMO)...so do we we still really need another take on the Count?
We've had about 5 or 6 since then, including a British-made TV film, Argento's "Dracula 3D," a Bollywood version, the no-budget Canadian-made "Terror of Dracula," and Axel Braun's "This Ain't Dracula: A XXX Porn Parody." Universal's movie would be a reboot only partially based on Stoker, telling the story of how 15th century Voevode Vlad Dracula becomes the vampire Count Dracula. (Hint: he does it "for love" ... Aw, crap.)
Quote from: Count_Zirock on April 20, 2013, 01:48:54 PM
We've had about 5 or 6 since then, including a British-made TV film, Argento's "Dracula 3D," a Bollywood version, the no-budget Canadian-made "Terror of Dracula," and Axel Braun's "This Ain't Dracula: A XXX Porn Parody." Universal's movie would be a reboot only partially based on Stoker, telling the story of how 15th century Voevode Vlad Dracula becomes the vampire Count Dracula. (Hint: he does it "for love" ... Aw, crap.)
Wasn't that the reason that Dracula became a vampire in the Francis Ford Coppala version?
Quote from: Count_Zirock on April 20, 2013, 01:48:54 PM
We've had about 5 or 6 since then, including a British-made TV film, Argento's "Dracula 3D," a Bollywood version, the no-budget Canadian-made "Terror of Dracula," and Axel Braun's "This Ain't Dracula: A XXX Porn Parody." Universal's movie would be a reboot only partially based on Stoker, telling the story of how 15th century Voevode Vlad Dracula becomes the vampire Count Dracula. (Hint: he does it "for love" ... Aw, crap.)
I didn't realize this. I knew about
Terror of Dracula &
... a Porn Parody.
Almost everything is parodied by the porn industry :P 8)
Quote from: Scatter on April 19, 2013, 06:09:18 AMWe definitely need another take on HARKER.
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_bkFIPLIOGL8/SawSeUfRguI/AAAAAAAAeLw/yGJLIeBxSyw/s320/reeves_l.jpg)
I'm not sure the character of Jonathan Harker would be in this, given its prequel/reboot take on the material. I'm guessing he'll be in NBC's upcoming "Dracula" series, though. And, if they ever make the graphic novel-based "Harker" film, which recasts the character as a Scotland Yard inspector investigating a serial killer (Dracula, of course).
Quote from: Count_Zirock on April 21, 2013, 10:00:52 AM
I'm not sure the character of Jonathan Harker would be in this, given its prequel/reboot take on the material. I'm guessing he'll be in NBC's upcoming "Dracula" series, though. And, if they ever make the graphic novel-based "Harker" film, which recasts the character as a Scotland Yard inspector investigating a serial killer (Dracula, of course).
Oh, if they have their Harker using a telephone booth to travel through time when investigating crimes, then Bill S. Preston could join him! :P
Quote from: Scatter on April 19, 2013, 06:09:18 AM
We definitely need another take on HARKER.
That's is the one element of this film that is so damning. All of it's other faults are honest choices in the making of a film. I personally love the stylization and design work, among other often panned pieces that make up the whole. But the casting of Reeves as Harker is just so tragic in relation to how good so much of the film is. The worst part? Coopola fought and fought with the studio to cast Winnona Ryder's then boyfriend, a relativly minor televison star at the time, in the role. The studio won out, with an unnamed exec stating that the actor was unbankable. So Johnny Depp didn't get the role.
Also, hey look! The new Universal Dracula film has a release date:
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/universal-sets-release-date-dracula-446569 (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/universal-sets-release-date-dracula-446569)
August 8, 2014? Notice they've dropped the "Year Zero" from the title, and it's just being called "Dracula" now. Yet, it's not another remake of the 1931 "Dracula." Yeah, that won't be confusing at all. ::)
I can't imagine it just being called DRACULA. That is so counterintuitive.
Quote from: aura of foreboding on April 26, 2013, 01:01:40 AMI can't imagine it just being called DRACULA. That is so counterintuitive.
Like the prequel to John Carpenter's "The Thing"..."The Thing"?
Quote from: Count_Zirock on April 26, 2013, 01:13:11 AM
Like the prequel to John Carpenter's "The Thing"..."The Thing"?
Exactly. :D
The problem here is that Dracula is a literary work which expands well beyond the film. Any film simply entitled Dracula that does not relate back to the Stoker book would be doing a disservice to the author.
Quote from: aura of foreboding on April 26, 2013, 05:21:22 PMExactly. :D
The problem here is that Dracula is a literary work which expands well beyond the film. Any film simply entitled Dracula that does not relate back to the Stoker book would be doing a disservice to the author.
His own family did that, with the publication of "Dracula: The Un-Dead." Which had originally been intended as a movie, to be directed by Paul Verhoeven. When no studio bit, they novelized the screenplay. When the novel flopped, the film died a well-deserved death.
True, but at least they didn't simply release a book called "Dracula" and give it the new plot.
Pretty darn close, though. The full title of Stoker's novel is "Dracula; or, The Un-Dead." The original working title was just "The Un-Dead," and the antagonist was named Count Wampyr. Then, Stoker stumbled across a mention of Vlad Dracula in a reproduction of a German woodcutting, and the rest, as they say, is history.
Quote from: Count_Zirock on April 26, 2013, 06:52:03 PM
Pretty darn close, though. The full title of Stoker's novel is "Dracula; or, The Un-Dead." The original working title was just "The Un-Dead," and the antagonist was named Count Wampyr. Then, Stoker stumbled across a mention of Vlad Dracula in a reproduction of a German woodcutting, and the rest, as they say, is history.
Frankenstein: or, The Modern Prometheus. Sounds like Bram knew he was on to something good.
"Wampyr" is so lame. When I first read that fact many years ago, I said, "Really? Can we get any more obvious?" Dracula adds the "foreignness" and class that was needed for the story. Good choice, and the rest is history. ;)
From Dread Central:QuoteIt sounds as if the Prince of Darkness may just have found a leading lady to sink his fangs into as Sarah Gadon ("Cosmopolis," "A Dangerous Method") is now in talks for a meaty role in Universal's "Dracula" (formerly "Dracula Year Zero").
If signed, she'll star opposite Luke Evans (Dracula) in the flick. Look for "Dracula" in theatres on August 8, 2014. Universal's dramatic horror movie tells the origin story of the most famous of vampires. Michael De Luca is producing the project, and commercials helmer Gary Shore is making his directorial debut on the picture.
The script tells of a young prince who, when the lives of his wife and child are put in danger by a bloodthirsty sultan, risks his soul to save them and in the process becomes the first vampire. More as it comes.
"Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter" actor Dominic Cooper joins the cast of Universal's new "Dracula." (http://www.dreadcentral.com/news/66480/dominic-cooper-sets-his-sights-dracula)
What a horrible title! ;D
I'd rather see a disgusting, viscous, and homicidal take on Dracula with an appearance similar to 'Nosferatu'. I could write a decent Dracula film or TV series.
Quote from: Scatter on April 19, 2013, 06:09:18 AM
We definitely need another take on HARKER.
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_bkFIPLIOGL8/SawSeUfRguI/AAAAAAAAeLw/yGJLIeBxSyw/s320/reeves_l.jpg)
What is that Scatter?? Cast thou aspersions on the magnificent Keanu Reeves?? He would play a great living dead role because he doesn't even have to act -- he is living dead!! George Reeves has more life than Keanu Reeves!