› ›

"I don t drink...wine."- The Dracula Thread

1…1718202223…35

Comments

  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Interesting trivia about Coppola s Dracula: Mike Mignola contributed to its look, not sure in what capacity.
  • GerardGerard
    edited April 2019 Posts: 5,808
    In fact, Mike Mignola drew the comic book adaptation, published in its time by Topps Comics:

    812Re12D0dL.jpg

    There was a follow-up, showing the life of Vlad the Impaler, drawn by Esteban Maroto (of Atlantis Chronicles fame):

    51dO12gdKQL._SX321_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

    I have both of them in my collection.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Would love to get hold of those, especially the Mignola book.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 14,824
    Gerard wrote: »
    In fact, Mike Mignola drew the comic book adaptation, published in its time by Topps Comics:

    812Re12D0dL.jpg

    There was a follow-up, showing the life of Vlad the Impaler, drawn by Esteban Maroto (of Atlantis Chronicles fame):

    51dO12gdKQL._SX321_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

    I have both of them in my collection.

    I read the first one. It has some scenes that were not in the movie if I remember correctly.

    They also published a novelisation of the movie. So long for their claim of faithful adaptation.
  • GerardGerard
    Posts: 5,808
    Not the first time it happened:

    007-novelisations-450x340.jpg?123


  • ToTheRightToTheRight
    Posts: 15,804
    Ludovico wrote: »
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    chrisisall wrote: »
    Thunderfinger wrote: »
    Disagreed absolutely. One of my favourite films.
    You have no idea how much I wanted to like it. Or how many times I watched it hoping I'd see it differently 'this' time. But sorry man, the film is objectively a flawed piece & a somewhat missed opportunity. Subjectively it's a pure waste of time & attention.

    Same here : I really, really wanted to like it. Especially since Coppola gloated that he was doing a faithful adaptation.

    What's even more infuriating is that he was not even original in his departures from the novel!

    I've always felt the Coppola film was an adaptation that substitutes Stoker's creation with the historical Dracula. I suppose the Palance version does as well, to degree, but I far more believe his Count than Oldman's, TBH.

    The Oscar winning costumes and make up get quite a bit of praise for the Coppola film, but it always bothered me the amount of liberties taken for Dracula. Apparently Eiko Ishioka had never seen a Dracula film or vampire film prior to being hired and was given creative licence. For me that's the equivalent to having never seen a Batman movie before and dressing the Dark Knight in red overall like Dennis The Menace.

    I'm kind of surprised she never saw a single Dracula movie, seeing that the old Dracula looked like Count Orlock in a drag. And Coppola borrowed so many things from other movies : the never drinking wine line, the sentient shadow of Dracula, the portrait of Mina, Renfield knowing Dracula before he came to England, etc. He either stole shamelessly from other films or did not bother reading the novel.

    Some was a deliberate homage. The shadow of Oldman lifting his red robe/cloak as the scene segues on Keanu apparently was Coppola's tribute to John Carradine's fancy cape work.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 14,824
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    chrisisall wrote: »
    Thunderfinger wrote: »
    Disagreed absolutely. One of my favourite films.
    You have no idea how much I wanted to like it. Or how many times I watched it hoping I'd see it differently 'this' time. But sorry man, the film is objectively a flawed piece & a somewhat missed opportunity. Subjectively it's a pure waste of time & attention.

    Same here : I really, really wanted to like it. Especially since Coppola gloated that he was doing a faithful adaptation.

    What's even more infuriating is that he was not even original in his departures from the novel!

    I've always felt the Coppola film was an adaptation that substitutes Stoker's creation with the historical Dracula. I suppose the Palance version does as well, to degree, but I far more believe his Count than Oldman's, TBH.

    The Oscar winning costumes and make up get quite a bit of praise for the Coppola film, but it always bothered me the amount of liberties taken for Dracula. Apparently Eiko Ishioka had never seen a Dracula film or vampire film prior to being hired and was given creative licence. For me that's the equivalent to having never seen a Batman movie before and dressing the Dark Knight in red overall like Dennis The Menace.

    I'm kind of surprised she never saw a single Dracula movie, seeing that the old Dracula looked like Count Orlock in a drag. And Coppola borrowed so many things from other movies : the never drinking wine line, the sentient shadow of Dracula, the portrait of Mina, Renfield knowing Dracula before he came to England, etc. He either stole shamelessly from other films or did not bother reading the novel.

    Some was a deliberate homage. The shadow of Oldman lifting his red robe/cloak as the scene segues on Keanu apparently was Coppola's tribute to John Carradine's fancy cape work.

    Even the music was borrowed in parts from Horror of Dracula. Still it begs the questions: what was truly original about the movie and how could they even claim it was a faithful adaptation?
  • ToTheRightToTheRight
    edited April 2019 Posts: 15,804
    Ludovico wrote: »
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    chrisisall wrote: »
    Thunderfinger wrote: »
    Disagreed absolutely. One of my favourite films.
    You have no idea how much I wanted to like it. Or how many times I watched it hoping I'd see it differently 'this' time. But sorry man, the film is objectively a flawed piece & a somewhat missed opportunity. Subjectively it's a pure waste of time & attention.

    Same here : I really, really wanted to like it. Especially since Coppola gloated that he was doing a faithful adaptation.

    What's even more infuriating is that he was not even original in his departures from the novel!

    I've always felt the Coppola film was an adaptation that substitutes Stoker's creation with the historical Dracula. I suppose the Palance version does as well, to degree, but I far more believe his Count than Oldman's, TBH.

    The Oscar winning costumes and make up get quite a bit of praise for the Coppola film, but it always bothered me the amount of liberties taken for Dracula. Apparently Eiko Ishioka had never seen a Dracula film or vampire film prior to being hired and was given creative licence. For me that's the equivalent to having never seen a Batman movie before and dressing the Dark Knight in red overall like Dennis The Menace.

    I'm kind of surprised she never saw a single Dracula movie, seeing that the old Dracula looked like Count Orlock in a drag. And Coppola borrowed so many things from other movies : the never drinking wine line, the sentient shadow of Dracula, the portrait of Mina, Renfield knowing Dracula before he came to England, etc. He either stole shamelessly from other films or did not bother reading the novel.

    Some was a deliberate homage. The shadow of Oldman lifting his red robe/cloak as the scene segues on Keanu apparently was Coppola's tribute to John Carradine's fancy cape work.

    Even the music was borrowed in parts from Horror of Dracula. Still it begs the questions: what was truly original about the movie and how could they even claim it was a faithful adaptation?

    I can remember the Siskel and Ebert review in which the film was described as playing out like an opera rather than a movie. I suppose in that aspect the narrative structure is somewhat original compared to other Dracula films.

    I suppose the costumes were original compared to other Dracula films. But to me, it's like making film about Santa Claus, hiring a costume designer unfamiliar with that side of Christmas mythology and instead dressing him like Hans Solo, thus changing the image completely for a new generation.

    What bothers me about the film's claim to be faithful, is that there are elements from the novel that hadn't been done before: the Count's death for instance by Bowie knives. Yet the temptation was to elaborate and expand on it making it still untrue to the book. There was no drawn out scene with Mina in Vlad's chapel, and in the novel he desinigrates to dust immediately upon impact. Had that been filmed as written, I probably would love the climax of the film. Instead my friends and I laughed and joked at Oldman's flared nostrils in the cinema.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 14,824
    Even the operatic feel is nothing new: it dates back to at least Nosferatu.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,691
    Blacula vs. Dracula AD 1972... which modern day (back then) age vampire movie rocked your world more?
  • ToTheRightToTheRight
    Posts: 15,804
    chrisisall wrote: »
    Blacula vs. Dracula AD 1972... which modern day (back then) age vampire movie rocked your world more?

    I love both but have a soft spot for A.D. 1972.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 14,824
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    chrisisall wrote: »
    Blacula vs. Dracula AD 1972... which modern day (back then) age vampire movie rocked your world more?

    I love both but have a soft spot for A.D. 1972.

    I don't like 1972, but it's sequel Satanic Rites has its moments and gets quite a few things right.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    I thought all of those were dreadful.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,691
    Oh boy, I just finished watching Dracula (the Palance/Curtis one), and please folks, do not toss away 98 minutes of your life like I just did. Palance was actually pretty good, but the film itself was slow, awkward, abysmally edited, and terribly derivative.
    I need to watch a Chris Lee one to get the taste of this one out of my mouth....
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,691
    So, as Dracula films go, my total favourites are Dracula (Horror of Dracula here in the States), Dracula A.D. 1972 (Cushing & Lee together again), and Legend Of The Seven Golden Vampires (too much fun even though no Lee)... and for vampire movies in general, Interview With A Vampire (1996 Pitt & Cruise) & The Night Stalker (1974 TV movie). Blacula, Fright Night & From Dusk Till Dawn honourable mention.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 14,824
    Thunderfinger wrote: »
    I thought all of those were dreadful.

    At least Satanic Rites had a Dracula with proper ambitions.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    On this day 122 years ago Stoker s DRACULA was first published.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 14,824
    Thunderfinger wrote: »
    On this day 122 years ago Stoker s DRACULA was first published.

    Great anniversary. Time to discuss the novel at length me think.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    The diary/letter form in Stoker s book was quite common in the 19th century. It was also a staple in Frankenstein by Mary Shelley and Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde by Robert L. Stevenson, just to name a couple of comparable novels.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 14,824
    Thunderfinger wrote: »
    The diary/letter form in Stoker s book was quite common in the 19th century. It was also a staple in Frankenstein by Mary Shelley and Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde by Robert L. Stevenson, just to name a couple of comparable novels.

    Yes it is epistolary novel. It truly started in the 18th century, if I'm not mistaken. One of the flaws many of the epistolary novels have is a lack of distinctive voices among the narrators. Which is true of Dracula, however brilliant it is.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Good point. I thought it worked better in Frankenstein.
  • GerardGerard
    Posts: 5,808
    To accompany his mini-series, Mark Gatiss prepares a documentary about the Count :

    https://www.radiotimes.com/news/2019-08-09/mark-gatiss-dracula-documentary/

    Should be interesting. Too bad it will probably not air in France.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    614285.jpg

    With BLADE returning to the big screen, I wonder if Dracula will feature. I hope so, but wonder who could play him well?
  • ToTheRightToTheRight
    Posts: 15,804
    The new BBC DRACULA..................

  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Looks pretty bad.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,949
    It looks great.
  • ToTheRightToTheRight
    Posts: 15,804
    I think it looks pretty cool.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 14,824
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    The new BBC DRACULA..................


    Will need to have a look when I get home.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 14,824
    And there goes my hope of having Gatiss making an actual faithful adaptation of the novel. Nuns with stakes? Some black guy on a ship? A Dracula looking like a poor man's Christopher Lee? And what about that "try to stay calm" line? At best we'll have a half decent vampire movie with a few good chills. But at worst, we'll have an accidental self parody. In any case, that it is not Stoker.
Sign In or Register to comment.