Dracula: The Un-Dead, Stoker Family-endorsed novel and film

[LadySoth]

Got started onto this topic on the "Horror Film Remake" thread, and thought it deserved its own thread. There are some interesting things happening in the world of "Dracula" . . .

Seems like everything began in 2006 with Universal's announcement of a reboot of the original 1931 Dracula:

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/news/1647 ... igin_story

And then, it seems like the film got canned by Universal, so the Stoker family decided to take the bull by the horns, and have produced their own sequel to the original book, with plans for a movie which is supposed to begin shooting this year, seemingly NOT filmed by Universal. Details on this website.
http://www.draculatheun-dead.com/

Rumors here that the film will involve Jack the Ripper/Elizabeth Bathory Storylines:
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/news/1648 ... uot_sequel

Thoughts/opinions? IMO Universal's original concept for the film sounded interesting . . . wonder why they never followed through with it?

[Gonzoron of the FoS]

Man, I read the book summary on the Stoker family page... ugh, sounds pretty awful. Fourth-wall breaking can be done well, but really, when making a sequel to something, it's kind of indulgent. You really want the sequel to be in the same style and feel in the same world, IMHO.

[LadySoth]

I agree with you completely. That was a strange decision on the author's part. This just seems like another way to "cash in" on the franchise. One would think the family would want to retain the original concept.

[Rotipher of the FoS]

Eh. Stoker himself wrote some pretty weak follow-ups to Dracula, IIRC, although they didn't come close to touching his original novel and are therefore largely unknown. If this new book constitutes a sell-out, at least it's a bit of a family tradition too.

[LadySoth]

^So far as I know, Stoker himself never wrote any direct sequels to Dracula. His only other real "vampire" story to my knowledge is "Lady of the Shroud" which is not related to Dracula at all . . .

. . . so now you have me really interested. What Stoker stories/books were you thinking of? LOL yeah, I agree with you, at least they're kind of keeping it "in the family", will have to read the book to see if it is any good.

[Ornum]

So...the sequel is basically treated the first story as "true events" where Stoker either was a witness to the events or was at least informed of them?

If that's the case, I'm not sure how that would work. If it absolutely had to have that sort of storyline, I would have preferred that the sequel reveals that Stoker was actually Dr. Jack Seward. Stoker just editted his own name out of the original story because no one believed him due to the addiction and he just turned it into "fiction" to get the story out. Or something along those lines.

As it stands...I'm not sure I like what I'm seeing. Of course, before I complain too loudly I'll have to give it a shot.

[lostboy]

***spoilers****





















Well I got a copy of this and I have to say Im not greatly impressed. For all the hype this reads more like comic book than gothic masterpiece. True the original is a difficult standard to reach, but I came away form this book feeling distinctly unsatisfied.

The story itself essentially takes all the truths we establish from Dracula and throw the out the window claiming it was written from a certain point of view. As a plot device its an interesting concept but quickly gets made irrevalent by the cartoon super villainy of Elisabeth Bathory (the real bad guy/girl - Dracula being a poor mistaken soul), which reaches its climax when she turns into some kind of dragon/gargoyle thing and attacks Dracula and Mina on the underground.

And thats where my biggest problem witht he novel is, its written by someone who has watched modern Hollywood movies and derives their dramtic sense from them, as such it doesnt work as a sequel to a victorian novel very well.


Overall give it go for interests sake, but dont expect anything eart-shattering form it.

[Le Noir Faineant]

To be frank, this was the outright *my grandmother would object if I used this adjective in her presence* horror novel I got my hands upon in years.

"The Poe Shadow", for comparison, had already been a major yawner, but this was an outright insult, compared to its self-marketing.

Think "another Anne Rice novel". If you like Anne Rice, it can be fun.
If you actually liked the original Dracula novel, and not just the FF Coppola movie, better spend your money on "Lair of the White Worm",
or one of the luxury editions of "Uncle Silas" or "Varney the Vampire".

[Ail]

^So far as I know, Stoker himself never wrote any direct sequels to Dracula. His only other real "vampire" story to my knowledge is "Lady of the Shroud" which is not related to Dracula at all . . .

. . . so now you have me really interested. What Stoker stories/books were you thinking of? LOL yeah, I agree with you, at least they're kind of keeping it "in the family", will have to read the book to see if it is any good.

There's at least one other work by Stoker with relation to Dracula, in the title but not anywhere else. Anyway, it's not posterior to the novel, as far as I know. And it might be a good question for the Gothic Trivia, though I was under the impression it was widely known

[LadySoth]

There's at least one other work by Stoker with relation to Dracula, in the title but not anywhere else. Anyway, it's not posterior to the novel, as far as I know. And it might be a good question for the Gothic Trivia, though I was under the impression it was widely known

Are you referring to "Dracula's Guest"? That was the original first chapter of the novel, but was cut by the publishers who felt it was too repetitive and that the story should actually begin on the second chapter. It wasn't a separate short story originally. It was only given that title later, after it was published by Stoker's widow years after his death in a collected storybook. And Dracula makes two appearances in that story. Excuse my giving away the title, but like yourself I was under the impression this story was widely known.

Other than that the only other "book" by Stoker to include Dracula was the "Notes on Dracula" (his original notes and outlines for the book which I also believe was published after his death). But to my knowledge there's no other Dracula writings of his at all. Were you maybe thinking of "Lady of the Shroud?"

[Ail]

No, Dracula guest was indeed the one, and as you said it was to be the first chapter. I actually liked it very much, in some parts more than the rest of the book, but of course as a first chapter it is totally out of sync: not exactly a diary, the characters don't appear anywhere else at all, it is set in Germany, if I'm correct, so there are lots of incongruences, unless, of course, these were changed after the fact.

But I don't remember any appearance from Dracula per se at all. There might be a suspicious wolf, but he is not seen in human form nor revealed to properly be a vampire, so it might be Dracula, it might be someone else.

P.S.: I read it too long ago, my memory may not be accurate.