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
I try to celebrate it every year, if only by tweeting about it, or mentioning it on Facebook. I have a long love story with the novel.
You could say that it was love at first bite.
I've always loved the novel. I still think the film with Louis Jourdan captures some of the novel's essence fairly closely. I actually like the Franco version for the simple reason Christopher Lee was made up to resemble the character's description in the book.
You could say that. It really opened my literary mind. That and A Clockwork Orange. But right after Dracula I read Carmilla, years later I read The Picture of Dorian Gray because it had been mentioned in the introduction of the edition I had borrowed from the library, etc. I had read other classic gothic horror stories before, but it is Dracula that got me hooked.
The Louis Jourdan version is very flawed, but they got so many things right. The naturalistic way they depict the supernatural is spot on. And it has the best Mina imo. Jesus Franco's version I hate almost everything about it, except a few scenes and Lee's appearance. Had they cast Christopher Lee instead of Jourdan in the BBC version... oh what could have been.
And turned it into the definitive version.
Jourdan is far from the best Dracula though: too suave, not feral enough, too French as well. The merit of this version goes in its naturalism. Real sets, real places, the supernatural played down instead of being overblown, there's a pseudo documentary feel to it. The fx are a bit shoddy at times, but that's a strength more than a weakness: you don't get distracted by them, you're not taken away from the settings and characters. Unlike say the latest BBC version.
Yet another one. Do we really need this?
Looks like any handful of direct to video Dracula films that have come out in the last 30 years. That said, I'd probably still watch it.
Interesting!
We don't. I can see two potential, hypothetical Dracula projects working:
1)a proper, faithful adaptation of the novel (my dream).
2)A Universal Dracula from their Dark universe, inspired heavily by the Lugosi version. Not my favourite idea, but I could see it working .
You know what, there's a lot of potential there. So much so, it's one of those ideas that once you hear it, you're amazed that no one thought of it earlier!
It does sound good, but I'd still rather have a faithful adaptation of the novel.
I can't believe though (looking at Bond) I'm not surprised they haven't done that before. It's probably the same with Mary Shelley's Frankenstein. I'm no expert on the horror genre, but has that novel ever been filmed faithfully either?
Not sure that many people will even make the connection with Dracula, according to the title alone. And let's not forget they might completely change the narrative and the story. I'm not so sure about the casting overall. Bardem as Dracula? Not only Drac should not have a cheesy accent, but he'd now have a very wrong accent.
What's happening at Universal, with their dark movieverse franchise, or whatever it is named? It's seems to me they keep taking the wrong decision: first they start their new franchise with their most obscure character, then they do a Renfield movie? I mean with the Monster of Frankenstein and Dracula, they have two of the most iconic looking horror characters in movie history. Why don't they make movies on these ones?
They don't seem to know what they're doing.
The worst thing is, I could see it working. Maybe not as a "pure" horror series as I think it would be difficult to keep the fear factor high with recurring villains and monsters, but as a fairly successful film franchise with horror elements, overall darker than Marvel or DC.
From my understanding, and please bear in mind I haven't been following it much AND haven't seen the film, but Invisible Man was initially meant to be part of the Dark Universe, but when the other movies flopped they released it as an independent movie. But since it became a success they sort of decided it's now part of the Dark Universe? Or something like that.
I can see it working too, and I might even enjoy some of them. They have lots of source material from the 30s and 40s as you said, they can build on it. But they should bet on their biggest names: Frankenstein and of course Dracula. Bela Lugosi is not my favourite Dracula, neither is Dracula 31 my favourite Drac movie, but they are both iconic and the aesthetic still holds on. I'm not expecting Universal to make a faithful adaptation of the novel, that would be for another studio (a British one?), but can't they just use what they have and build on their past success and nostalgia?
From a Dracula porn.
He looks like a 1970's country singer in a Dracula costume. Eddie Rabbitt or somebody.
Caught this one recently and actualy came away surprised it attempts a remake of the 1931 classic.
But does it suck?
Literally. Must admit I kind of liked it, though.