It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
What would be the point of getting those two to just do a straight adaptation? I want them adding their flair to it- if you want the novel then it's on your shelf.
Besides, judging by Sherlock they're very respectful of the original material, but they add a lot more into the mix.
What would be the point? It's never been done before! And the thing with Dracula is that you don't need to add "a lot more". There's plenty in the source material already and a lot that has never been used, or very rarely.
Read the book then! Stoker's not going to give you any more, I want more stuff from Moffat & Gatiss while they're still alive :)
And that trailer has new music from David Arnold so this forum should be happy :D
I've read it more times than I can count, thank you very much. Adding on to Dracula has been done and done and done. If you want to be original, you adapt it faithfully. Gatiss and Moffat are fine and good, but they get it wrong sometimes. I haven't watched much Sherlock, but I never was a fan of their Jokerarty.
I think you know the massive logical flaws in that argument. What these people will do will just be just as original as what anyone else -including Stoker- would do, because everyone is unique. Except we already know what Stoker what do because we've read it more times than we can count. So actually way more original, to us anyway.
Quite why you'd want to watch what you've already read more times than you can count (seriously?) is beyond me.
Who's going to do the 'count' gag first? :)
Uh?
I'd love to watch a faithful adaptation of Dracula for the same reason Christopher Lee wanted desperately to play in a faithful adaptation of Dracula: because the source material is so good. Hey nobody complained that The Maltese Falcon was too close to the novel!
It's good, but you can only be disappointed because it'll never match up to what's in your head, and any change they'd (inevitably) have to make you'd be annoyed about. You've already shown that by dismissing this one so soon. There's no point.
Actually I'm not. I already said it might be a decent horror movie. But for a faithful adaptation, it'll have to wait for the next Dracula. Or the next. Or the next. If it ever happens.
And you got it completely wrong about the inevitably of my disappointment. I was never disappointed about the film adaptations of Moby Dick, The Maltese Falcon, The Phantom of the Opera with Lon Chaney, The Lord of the Rings (one movie trilogy that I'd been desperate to see done when I was a child), A Clockwork Orange, Amadeus, or the old Sherlock Holmes TV series with Jeremy Brett. As for Dracula himself, I completely enjoyed many adaptations, even some very unfaithful and flawed ones. I would like just once to see a movie version as faithful to the source material as the films I listed above. Heck, if I'm disappointed about Gatiss now, it's because I thought he did a really good job adapting M.R. James ' The Tractate Middoth. When I saw this I thought he could really make a solid and faithful adaptation of Dracula. And he seemed to get horror from that time period. Now I think I might have overestimated him.
This looks cool. Moffat did horror brilliantly when he was writing a pre watershed kids show so I can't wait to see how he does at it without those limits. Still want them both to write a Bond film one day.
In December 2018, they took an interesting look at James Bond movie posters:
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL1DHoBtqR2tNCrKa49Svik3zk6fZox6i7
The original color timing returns!
I really need to get this edition. I've hinted around since Christmas is coming.
This is incredible. Really reminds me of John Barry
Very much looking forward to this!
I sort of expect it in Disney cartoons, but not so much in an adaptation of a 19th century novel. I'm sure the writers new exactly what they were doing - only Dracula and Van Helsing seemed to adopt this way of speaking - so it may be a bit nitpicky; but occasionally it jarred.
Then again the writers are responsible for Dr Who, Sherlock and The League Of Gentlemen, so this was never going to be a production without occasional winks to camera.
First, the guy playing Dracula was brilliant, and I thought he was written really well. Those two always know how to write a good evil bad guy (Moriarty, Missy), and this was no exception. I'm glad that they didn't go for a modern sexy anti hero version or anything like that. Way more fun this way. And like I said, the actor was great. Just owned the screen. A really fun evil bad guy. And I was really impressed by how he gradually slipped into the English accent as he got younger. Good acting.
And it looked great didn't it. I'm not sure if they used more practical effects or if the CGI was just really good but either way, wow. Whenever BBC try to do CGI it's usually pretty noticeable (Doctor Who, for all the money they throw at it nowadays, still usually has at least one misjudged moment per series where the idea is too big for the budget). But this? Flawless. Properly creepy at times too, especially all those bits where he was trapped in the castle.
Smart, funny, scary, gory. Waiting for my wife to watch episode one before we push on with the rest (she couldn't fight off her hangover long enough and fell asleep halfway through, bless, at least one of us can still hack it) but I loved it. Compare this to Doctor Who that was on earlier in the night and it becomes pretty clear how badly fans of that show took Steven Moffat for granted while he was in charge. He's not perfect (Sherlock went badly off the rails by the end, I still couldn't explain to you the overarching story of Matt Smith's Doctor Who, and Peter Capaldi's first series was very rough) but he's probably the most ambitious and imaginative writer working in British TV. We're lucky to have him. Gattiss too, although I feel that he's sort of elevated by the people he's worked with to be honest (his Doctor Who episodes have never been as good as Moffat's, and Inside Number 9 is way better than The League of Gentlemen imo). Still though, he's talented too, and they work so well together.
I really want the two of them to write a Bond film. I just think it'd be a perfect fit. Sherlock and even Doctor Who cribbed a lot from Bond at times. Gattiss is a fan. Moffat has wit and imagination that Purvis and Wade would kill for. Just give them the job already EON.