Recent Related Items:

9 Comments


Bill Blume says:

I was one of the people horribly disappointed in the inappropriately-titled “Bram Stoker’s Dracula.” Never mind the poor acting, but the film could never make up its mind as to whether Dracula was a good guy or a bad guy. Sadly, where vampire films are concerned, if they want to do something original with Dracula, then they should actually make him a bad guy without any type of conscience. We have enough of these “whiny vampires with a conscience” films.

Then again, how about actually making a Dracula film that really does follow the book? Perhaps that would be too original an idea for Hollywood to stomach.

Craig says:

Maybe they will make a darker version to Dracula and go all out. I have a recent Vampire fix with all the books and shows that have recently been out. Wouldn’t mind seeing this if done the right way.

heath says:

Vampire films are the ultimate cliche nowadays. Let ‘em rest for a while, unless it’s a big screen version of Angel.

heath

Reverend says:

They need to base a movie off the book The Historian.

Rev

Gary says:

I would interested in this as long as its not too much “young Dracula”.
I have had enough of teen or Generation X Vampires.

Bill Blume says:

@Rev
Sorry, gotta disagree about The Historian. The plot wasn’t very good, but in its defense, The Historian was more of a literary novel than a horror, adventure story. I won’t say anything here to spoil the book for any who try to read it, but the “payoff” to that book was just awful.

Reverend says:

Bill,

But that’s my point exactly! The Historian was a take on the story that I think needs to be told. All of these movies seem to just re-hash the same thing over and over. The “New Take” on Dracula in his earlier years is probably he had a homosexual relationship at some point.

Sleuth, anybody?

Rev

Bill Blume says:

The Historian has potential, but it also has a lot of problems to overcome. This is one case where I would truly hope the film takes liberties. After all, the book doesn’t offer much action and has enough plot holes to resemble a massive chunk of swiss cheese. Honestly, this was one of those books I wanted to throw across the room. It disappointed me that much.

Josh says:

Why why why? I like vampire movies as much as the next guy, and I’m all for some original vampire stories, but why do we need to keep going back to Dracula? He was scary and original back in the day, but now he’s ridiculously cliche and just doesn’t hold the same connotations as he used to.

A “re-imagining” of the character won’t help either. The Dracula story is too ingrained in our heads already, so we’re either gonna get another rehash of the same boring story, or something so different that its only real connection to the original story is the name. If that’s the case, then I’d prefer they just call it something different.

What's your opinion? Leave a Reply!
GravatarWant to change your avatar?
Go to Gravatar.com and upload your own (we'll wait)!

 Name (*required)

 Email Address (*private)

 Website (optional)

 Rules: No profanity or personal attacks.
 Use a valid email address or risk being banned from commenting.


If your comment doesn't show up immediately, it may have been flagged for moderation. Please try refreshing the page first, then drop us a note and we'll retrieve it.