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

1262729313235

Comments

  • Posts: 14,816
    Gerard wrote: »
    Not Guy. George. And I like Love at first Bite, so there.

    Oops. My mistake. Don't know why I said Guy.
  • Posts: 14,816
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    I remember the 1989 airing of DRACULA LIVE FROM TRANSYLVANIA and still have my VHS recording. Mostly George Hamilton cracking jokes, but I do like the location and atmosphere. Also, I like his interviews with Bernard Davies of the Dracula Society and Radu Florescu and Raymond McNally. Interesting stuff amid the jokey hosting.
    I do NOT like George Hamilton's haircut here. Dare I say, even worse than Timothy Dalton's 1989 LTK cut.

    With the budget, they might have been able to do a decent adaptation.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 17,772
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Gerard wrote: »
    Not Guy. George. And I like Love at first Bite, so there.

    Oops. My mistake. Don't know why I said Guy.

    It's an easy mistake to make on a James Bond forum. ;)
  • Posts: 14,816
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Gerard wrote: »
    Not Guy. George. And I like Love at first Bite, so there.

    Oops. My mistake. Don't know why I said Guy.

    It's an easy mistake to make on a James Bond forum. ;)

    "And I thought DAF was comedic, but Hamilton's stupid Dracula TV special sure takes the cake!"
  • Posts: 14,816
    Sorry if I'm asking a dumb/uninformed question, but is the Dark Universe still happening?
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,441
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Sorry if I'm asking a dumb/uninformed question, but is the Dark Universe still happening?

    From what I understood, it began and concluded with the failures of The Mummy in 2017 but I see that the 2020 adaptation of The Invisible Man is considered part of the universe, so I really can't tell.
  • Posts: 14,816
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Sorry if I'm asking a dumb/uninformed question, but is the Dark Universe still happening?

    From what I understood, it began and concluded with the failures of The Mummy in 2017 but I see that the 2020 adaptation of The Invisible Man is considered part of the universe, so I really can't tell.

    It seems that Universal is making more mistakes than DC adapting their content.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,441
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Sorry if I'm asking a dumb/uninformed question, but is the Dark Universe still happening?

    From what I understood, it began and concluded with the failures of The Mummy in 2017 but I see that the 2020 adaptation of The Invisible Man is considered part of the universe, so I really can't tell.

    It seems that Universal is making more mistakes than DC adapting their content.

    It speaks volumes when the universe essentially spawned and died off just one misfire.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,522
    I don't get it. On paper, a dark universe should work. The Mummy wasn't a bad film, just nothing particularly great. But The Invisible Man, not intended as a DU film, could have accidentally spearheaded their planned series, seeing how well-received it was.

    So what stopped them? Too many suits, not enough artists? Too many artists, not enough suits? Too many safe bets, not enough risks? Too many risks, not enough safe bets? Still, it can't be that hard. Think outside the box. Write Dracula, the Mummy, the Invisible Man, the Frankenstein Monster, the Creature, and the Wolfman into the 21st century. Just don't throw an old-school Tom Cruise adventure flick made for a 2002 audience into 2017, expecting us to want more.

    The Invisible Man did it right. Pristine, modern, slick, elevated and brisk. Forget Dracula Untold and The Mummy; carefully ease new iterations of the old characters into the modern world. No Lugosi 2.0 or Karloff redone, no Gothic nightmare stuff but adequate metaphors of the post-9/11, post-COVID fears that haunt us today. The Invisible Man tackled the #MeToo debate. Now reconfigure the others too. There is always interest in Draculas and wolfmen, but not necessarily in the original (literary) characters.

    Marvel created a universe like an ever-expanding theme park, the fun factor pushed to eleven. Universal can aim for smarts. Keep the budgets low enough; write clever scripts; address the modern fear of the collapse of our society; forget ghouls and things that go bump in the night. Before long, you can have a few hits in your pocket. And then you can build. Make it happen without people seeing it coming, like Split. A Dark Universe? Yes, please! But as soon as you're thinking Marvel, you lose. It can't be Marvel. This can only work if you make films that A24 would release, rather than Disney. This can only work if you start small (The Invisible Man) rather than loud, spectacular, and pretentious (The Mummy). The children of the night won't start making music again unless people stop thinking about big cash, Hollywood blockbusters and cheap universe set-ups.

    This Dark Universe will not come easily. Universal is going to have to work for it. As soon as they realise that and commit to it, we can see it happen and scream that "it's aliiiive!" Until then, it'll just be one false start after another.
  • Posts: 14,816
    I think it's not so much thinking outside the box as thinking inside it: Universal has the most iconic horror characters in history. Maybe they should focus on them,
    doubling down on what makes them recognisable instead of going for more obscure characters and trying to reinvent the wheel.
  • They also seem to want these (or at least used to want these) to be big, globetrotting action adventure blockbusters filled with special effects and whatnot. That not only plays against the strengths of the material, but it also forces them to compete with much more established blockbuster franchises and superhero fare. There’s too much margin for error there and was a wrongheaded direction. Lean in to what made these monsters successful in the first place: they’re *horror* movies. The Invisible Man did that and was quite successful for it. On top of that it makes good business sense because the cost/reward ratio is much more favorable to a studio. Of course they still have to make the movies good, and figure out exactly how a shared universe should work, but at least they’d be starting off on the right foot. In a perfect world they’d go full gothic period piece with then and hire a murderer’s row of contemporary horror talent behind the camera (Robert Eggers’ Dracula, Ari Aster’s Frankenstein, Fede Alvarez’s Wolfman, etc) but I know there are a multitude of reasons both from a business & creative standpoint that that will never happen.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,522
    They also seem to want these (or at least used to want these) to be big, globetrotting action adventure blockbusters filled with special effects and whatnot. That not only plays against the strengths of the material, but it also forces them to compete with much more established blockbuster franchises and superhero fare. There’s too much margin for error there and was a wrongheaded direction. Lean in to what made these monsters successful in the first place: they’re *horror* movies. The Invisible Man did that and was quite successful for it. On top of that it makes good business sense because the cost/reward ratio is much more favorable to a studio. Of course they still have to make the movies good, and figure out exactly how a shared universe should work, but at least they’d be starting off on the right foot. In a perfect world they’d go full gothic period piece with then and hire a murderer’s row of contemporary horror talent behind the camera (Robert Eggers’ Dracula, Ari Aster’s Frankenstein, Fede Alvarez’s Wolfman, etc) but I know there are a multitude of reasons both from a business & creative standpoint that that will never happen.

    You just made me cry, sir. I want this.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,441
    I'd lose my mind (in a great way) if we got those. It'd be a crime in modern day cinema if Eggers doesn't get to do his Dracula film.
  • Posts: 14,816
    They also seem to want these (or at least used to want these) to be big, globetrotting action adventure blockbusters filled with special effects and whatnot. That not only plays against the strengths of the material, but it also forces them to compete with much more established blockbuster franchises and superhero fare. There’s too much margin for error there and was a wrongheaded direction. Lean in to what made these monsters successful in the first place: they’re *horror* movies. The Invisible Man did that and was quite successful for it. On top of that it makes good business sense because the cost/reward ratio is much more favorable to a studio. Of course they still have to make the movies good, and figure out exactly how a shared universe should work, but at least they’d be starting off on the right foot. In a perfect world they’d go full gothic period piece with then and hire a murderer’s row of contemporary horror talent behind the camera (Robert Eggers’ Dracula, Ari Aster’s Frankenstein, Fede Alvarez’s Wolfman, etc) but I know there are a multitude of reasons both from a business & creative standpoint that that will never happen.

    That's pretty much the issue: they tried to use a label and a brand with no regard on content.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    Posts: 2,914
    Ludovico wrote: »
    That's pretty much the issue: they tried to use a label and a brand with no regard on content.
    Yes, that's exactly it.
  • Posts: 15,798
    They also seem to want these (or at least used to want these) to be big, globetrotting action adventure blockbusters filled with special effects and whatnot. That not only plays against the strengths of the material, but it also forces them to compete with much more established blockbuster franchises and superhero fare. There’s too much margin for error there and was a wrongheaded direction. Lean in to what made these monsters successful in the first place: they’re *horror* movies. The Invisible Man did that and was quite successful for it. On top of that it makes good business sense because the cost/reward ratio is much more favorable to a studio. Of course they still have to make the movies good, and figure out exactly how a shared universe should work, but at least they’d be starting off on the right foot. In a perfect world they’d go full gothic period piece with then and hire a murderer’s row of contemporary horror talent behind the camera (Robert Eggers’ Dracula, Ari Aster’s Frankenstein, Fede Alvarez’s Wolfman, etc) but I know there are a multitude of reasons both from a business & creative standpoint that that will never happen.

    Couldn't agree more.
    I tend to believe studio tendancies to update and modernize classic characters more than often go wrong and fall flat.
    The VAN HELSING film from 2004 (hard to beleive that 's been nearly 2 decades ago), might've been decent had it not been turned into an action adventure. There's quite a bit I liked about that film: the characters' physical looks; Dracula, The Frankenstein Monster and so forth somewhat updated, but still recognizable.
    It's reasonably fun, but I never had the desire to watch it again.
  • Posts: 14,816
    Seems like Universal is doing with its monsters what Disney is doing with its classic animated movies.
  • Posts: 14,816
    I'm rewatching the 1977 Dracula from the BBC. It's flawed, but they got many things right. For instance, I love how it starts not in gloomy Transylvania, with a dark and scary atmosphere, but in England, on a sunny day.
  • Posts: 15,798
    Happy birthday to one of my favorite Draculas, UDO KIER!

    MV5BYmU1ZWUxNzMtNTMwNy00MDcyLTlkY2QtZGZmOTRjNmYzYWZhXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyMTI4MTk2NzMz._V1_.jpg

    Blood-for-dracula.jpg

    BloodForDracula1.jpg

    7ac1191ecb5134e04f058339f4d496b360f0af95.jpg



  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    I remember seeing that in the cinema as a teen. It was a laugh.
  • edited October 2022 Posts: 14,816
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    Happy birthday to one of my favorite Draculas, UDO KIER!

    MV5BYmU1ZWUxNzMtNTMwNy00MDcyLTlkY2QtZGZmOTRjNmYzYWZhXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyMTI4MTk2NzMz._V1_.jpg

    Blood-for-dracula.jpg

    BloodForDracula1.jpg

    7ac1191ecb5134e04f058339f4d496b360f0af95.jpg



    Haven't seen that one.

    Slowly rewatching the 1977 BBC Dracula. A lot is hit and miss, but really love the sober, naturalistic approach. The three brides showing up is a bit silly with the psychedelic images, otherwise it's suitably creepy, the brides being both sexual and repellent. The scene is spoiled when Dracula shows up. Jourdan lacks the menace to convey "diabolical rage". Oh how I wish Christopher Lee had been cast instead!

    And I think I might have been unkind to Frank Finlay in this thread and others. He may not have been the ideal Van Helsing, but he has presence and is fairly close to the novel counterpart. Less of an action man, more of an academic and like the novel's VH, warm and kindly.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,441
    I wasn't too crazy about them but Udo Kier was campy and chewing the scenery in both Blood For Dracula and Flesh For Frankenstein. He always delivers.
  • Posts: 15,798
    I tend to think of FLESH FOR FRANKENSTEIN and BLOOD FOR DRACULA as an acquired taste. I can see why they're not for everyone. I love both films regardless. Udo is amazing.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    Posts: 2,914
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Slowly rewatching the 1977 BBC Dracula... it's suitably creepy, the brides being both sexual and repellent.
    The bit at the end of the library scene where Dracula gives the baby to the brides was apparently cut from the US tv broadcast - is it on the dvd?

  • ToTheRight wrote: »
    I tend to think of FLESH FOR FRANKENSTEIN and BLOOD FOR DRACULA as an acquired taste. I can see why they're not for everyone. I love both films regardless. Udo is amazing.

    It is an oddly compelling film. It plays like a comedy though you can tell nobody making the film thought of it as one. Udo Kier’s performance is so ridiculous yet so full of passion at the same time. It’s fascinating to watch. I don’t mean that in a derisive way either. That’s simply what it is. His performance is ridiculous, overspilling with passion, and downright fascinating. The whole film is too. You can't help but admire it.
  • Posts: 15,798
    Venutius wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Slowly rewatching the 1977 BBC Dracula... it's suitably creepy, the brides being both sexual and repellent.
    The bit at the end of the library scene where Dracula gives the baby to the brides was apparently cut from the US tv broadcast - is it on the dvd?

    Yes.
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    I tend to think of FLESH FOR FRANKENSTEIN and BLOOD FOR DRACULA as an acquired taste. I can see why they're not for everyone. I love both films regardless. Udo is amazing.

    It is an oddly compelling film. It plays like a comedy though you can tell nobody making the film thought of it as one. Udo Kier’s performance is so ridiculous yet so full of passion at the same time. It’s fascinating to watch. I don’t mean that in a derisive way either. That’s simply what it is. His performance is ridiculous, overspilling with passion, and downright fascinating. The whole film is too. You can't help but admire it.

    Exacty. I love the over the top tone in his performances . Really perfect for those types of films. I believe Kier once said his favorite film of his was Blood For Dracula .
  • edited October 2022 Posts: 6,844
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    Exacty. I love the over the top tone in his performances . Really perfect for those types of films. I believe Kier once said his favorite film of his was Blood For Dracula .

    I can definitely see why. He really went all out in it. I'll have to give this one a rewatch sometime. Flesh too.

    Kier would have been a fantastic addition to the Bond canon at some point (still could be) or to any kind of pulp cinema. He did voice Mister Toad in Beware the Batman.
  • Posts: 15,798
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    Exacty. I love the over the top tone in his performances . Really perfect for those types of films. I believe Kier once said his favorite film of his was Blood For Dracula .

    I can definitely see why. He really went all out in it. I'll have to give this one a rewatch sometime. Flesh too.

    Kier would have been a fantastic addition to the Bond canon at some point (still could be) or to any kind of pulp cinema. He did voice Mister Toad in Beware the Batman.

    I could see Kier as a Bond villain. He'd be great.
  • edited October 2022 Posts: 14,816
    Venutius wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Slowly rewatching the 1977 BBC Dracula... it's suitably creepy, the brides being both sexual and repellent.
    The bit at the end of the library scene where Dracula gives the baby to the brides was apparently cut from the US tv broadcast - is it on the dvd?

    Don't know, but it's on the version I'm watching on YouTube.

    Talking of children, anybody noticed that the whole Bloofer Lady subplot is often glossed over, if not entirely omitted in the adaptations? I wonder why is that, although I have a few theories.
  • Pacing? Too difficult to show on screen? Preference to sticking with adult characters? What are your theories?
Sign In or Register to comment.