The Un-Dead (Dracula)

[El Rooto]

A new Dracula film (http://www.movieweb.com/news/35/12435.php) is on the way.

Jan De Bont has agreed to produce The Un-Dead, a sequel to the classic Dracula series.

The film will be set 25 years after the events of Stoker's novel, with the surviving characters resurfacing, reports Variety. Writer Ian Holt has also added an Inspector Cotford character, which was edited from Stoker's manuscript prior to publication.

De Bont is seeking a director for the project, the first sequel authorized by the descendants of Dracula author Bram Stoker since the 1931 original, starring Bela Lugosi.

Holt has scouted locations in Whitby, England, and Transylvania, Romania, including a visit to the ruins of Dracula's castle. No production date has been scheduled for The Un-Dead.

[Michellemabelle]

I read a summary for this film... Wow, does this sound fucking stupid.

The Un-Dead (From Cracked.com) (http://www.cracked.com/article/168_5-horror-novels-that-will-shrivel-your-balls-this-halloween/)


Finally we get a return to real freaking vampires. Dracula: The Un-Dead is a direct sequel to Bram Stoker's Dracula, written by one of Stoker's descendants. We've been so saturated by the bullshit vampires, from The Lost Boys to Twilight, that we forget how little they have in common with the original.
The vampires as Stoker imagined them could not transform into bats (they instead are carried from place to place by several dozen trained bats), they don't burst into flame when exposed to sunlight (but can shoot flames from their eyes), do not have superhuman strength (they instead are experts with throwing knives) and do not drink blood (but do have long, poisonous tails like scorpions).
Dracula: The Undead was pieced together from Bram Stoker's own handwritten notes, a choice that I think actually holds back this wonderful book (we wind up with an entire chapter on a character "remembering to get milk" at the grocery store, and another chapter made up of nothing but humorous doodles of large-breasted women).
The story takes place 200 years after the original, in 2097, when the earth has been overrun by zombies. Dracula rises from the grave, knowing he has to restore the race of vampires to the planet. However, he finds his bite has a strange effect on the zombies: They are immediately imbued with the ancient vampire martial art of Chainkata (a.k.a. fighting with chainsaws).
As Dracula's growing vampire zombie chainsaw army leaves a trail of hacked limbs across the land, he soon clashes with a new threat: A horde of human refugees who have survived the 70-year zombie war thanks to nothing more than their wits and gigantic mechanized battle suits.

EXCERPT:

"I guess you're not undead any more, asshole," said Dracula as he yanked his tail out of the zombie's pierced skull.

"DRACULA! LOOK OUT!"

Dracula turned, the roar of the speeding train pounding his ears. It was Jameson, standing atop the car behind him, wind whipping through his cloak.

"THE TRACKS END!"

Dracula spun and saw that in fact the train was running out of track, the bridge ending in a tangled ruin jutting over a 500-foot drop into the lava below. Dracula and Jameson jumped from the train just as it flew off into the boiling expanse. As Dracula tumbled to a stop, he saw the face of the Zombie King frozen in the rear window of the plummeting train. It's mouth opened wide to scream, "SHIIIIIIIIIIT!!!"

Then, there was nothing. The zombie hordes had been defeated once and for all.

THE END.

[The Tall Man]

Are you shitting me???

T.M., Esq.

[Michellemabelle]

Are you shitting me???

T.M., Esq.

That's exactly what I thought when I first read about it....:X
ADDED:
Actually.... apparently it's a joke from the author of John Dies At The End. :X Sorry.

[The Dream Master]

Wait, since when does The Lost Boys feature "bullshit vampires?" :X

[Michellemabelle]

Wait, since when does The Lost Boys feature "bullshit vampires?" :X

It was a joke by that author. That's not even the real plot of The Un-Dead.

[The Dream Master]

Oh, I was thinking just the script part was the joke. :X

[Brett H.]

Well, in the book, Terror on Tape, the author wrote in the mid-nineties that "these MTV vampires... ehhh... lack bite." Take that, Lost Boys 2 haters. :X

[The Tall Man]

Wait, since when does The Lost Boys feature "bullshit vampires?" :X
Somehow I knew you'd jump on that...

even though it's completely true.

Wait, what?

T.M., Esq.

[DouglasJ]

I've read the book. It was awful, and really shouldn't be considered a sequel as it retcons just about everything in the original novel...

I wrote a review here (http://turtlespopculturereference.blogspot.com/2009/10/dracula-un-dead-review.html)

[Darth Sinister]

Looks like it is more of a sequel to the 1992 film, than the 1897 novel.

[Rich]

The 1992 film was not very faithful to the book. They took a lot of character liberties. They turned Lucy into an absolute whore and Van Helsing into a horney old man who would hump anything in sight. Come to think of it, it's probably Rob Zombie's favorite Dracula film. :x

[DouglasJ]

It's not a movie I'm very fond of. Not least because a large number of the cast playing English characters are made up fo Americans... which results in awful accents. The changes to the book are much for the worse, in my opinion and it may be the only Gary Oldman performance I don't like... very panto.

[Natman]

I'll admit that the 1992 film was not overly close to the book...

but compare it to EVERY OTHER film based on said book...

[The Tall Man]

Natman, inept as it is, "Bram Stoker's Count Dracula" (1970) is somewhat more accurate than "Francis Ford Coppola's Dracula" (I know that's not it's title, but it sure as hell isn't Bram Stoker's).

T.M., Esq.

[Natman]

I did not say it's the most accurate. But compare it to 1931 Dracula (the most famous incarnation without hope of argument), which include Dracula 1979 and, to an extent, Horror of Dracula.

In Bram Stoker's Dracula (or Dracula 1992, if we prefer):

-There's no Mina/Lucy swapping of names, like these movies love to do. And neither of them is any other character's daughter.

-Quincey and Arthur are actually, you know, THERE. This applies more to Quincey than Arthur, as the latter makes his rounds. I believe Quincey has only been in one other film other than this. It kind of seems like he should be included, being the guy that, you know, actually killed The Count.

Now, I am NOT saying that Dracula 1992 is totally accurate. The problem is that, while most of the novel's major details are there, they are pushed to the background to make way for a plot, the movie's main plot, which has nothing to do with the book at all. That's the issue, not that details are omitted, just that they aren't dwelled upon because the whole point of the movie is a romance that wasn't in the book.

But, I will say that making Mina brunette, Lucy a redhead, having old Dracula not in black, much smaller changes than say making Mina Van Helsing's daughter. Or Seward's daughter. Or both.

Making Harker Keanu, however... tragic, tragic mistake.

[Just Jeans]

It was a joke by that author. That's not even the real plot of The Un-Dead.

I take it that, prior to stumbling across that article, you'd never encountered Cracked.com before? I knew it was a joke the minute I saw the website link. :X

[Michellemabelle]

I take it that, prior to stumbling across that article, you'd never encountered Cracked.com before? I knew it was a joke the minute I saw the website link. :X

I actually read Cracked pretty regularly...

[Darth Sinister]

First, all I was saying is that this book sounds more like a continuation of the 92, than the novel.

Second, I dig the 92 film. Yes, it's not 100% accurate, but it is closer than the other adaptations. I haven't seen the 70 film, so I cannot say with any degree of certainity.

[Dave Dunwoody]

The novel co-written by Holt and Stoker's great-grandnephew or whatever has been getting a lot of positive buzz, but from the reviews I've read (edit: which echoed Turtle's above review), it doesn't sound much better than what David Wong wrote on Cracked. ;)