Not Even 'Dracula' Is Safe From a Sequel
Filed under: Classics, Horror, Thrillers, Deals, Scripts, Newsstand, Remakes and Sequels
Call me crazy, but Bram Stoker's Dracula (the book, not the movie) ends pretty definitively. Dracula gets a bowie knife in the heart, and crumbles into dust in the red sun of the Transylvanian dawn. The wiggle room has been taken care of in a score of movies, books, and television shows -- and we have plenty of new vampire stories, so must we really dig up Dracula again? Well, according to ShockTillYouDrop, yes. They say a sequel is coming -- and this time it's getting a literary and big screen outing. For the first time, the Stoker estate has authorized an official Dracula sequel titled Dracula: The Undead. Written by Dacre Stoker, Bram's great-grandnephew, and Dracula historian Ian Holt, the story uses characters and plot threads that were edited out of Stoker's original novel in 1897. It hits store shelves in October 2009, just in time for Halloween. And don't think it's the only sequel you'll be getting -- publishing house Penguin-Canada (who describes the book as having done a"fantastic job melding the old with the new"), has already signed up for two more.
But you won't get to read it before film production starts -- Holt and Alexander Galant have already completed and sold the script, and production is slated to begin in June 2009. Jan DeBont is one of the producers and I'm sure he's debating whether or not to direct as well.
I might be interested in this if estate authorized sequels were ever good -- I can't think of one that was, but there's always a chance this could be it. Besides, I think the definitive Dracula sequel has already been made -- Dracula 2000, starring a baby-faced Gerard Butler. I just know you've all forgotten about it, like Butler and Christopher Plummer probably want you to, but why wait until 2009 for sexy vampire times? Just rent this one.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
10-06-2008 @ 9:34PM
paul said...
Dracula 2000 is cheap enough if you buy it used on Amazon. I'll pass, myself.
Reply
10-06-2008 @ 9:49PM
Just Me said...
Granted the movie isn't that great, but Gerry was very good in it. Honestly the biggest mistake was what they took out of the movie. There was some pretty good stuff in there.
Reply
10-07-2008 @ 9:25AM
Heidi said...
If Gerard is in it it's guaranteed to bring in a lot of money. He's sooooo hott....
~The future Mrs. Butler. LOL
Reply
10-07-2008 @ 10:05AM
weetiger said...
You are so right "Just Me"! The deleted scenes would have done wonders for that movie. Great new twist on the story and then had the life wrung out of it. pffft.
Gerard Butler was sex-on-a-stick though. LOL
Reply
10-07-2008 @ 10:00AM
Bryan said...
Sequels, as a general rule, are not a very good idea. That being said, exceptions do occur. The fact that the book is being written by one of Bram Stoker's relatives does give me a little bit of hope, after all, he shares at least some of the same blood and perhaps the same talent, and I would really hope he'd have at least a little bit of respect for his ancestor's memory and legacy. I have very, very mixed feelings about even a sucessful film directly attached to and, dare I say, manipulating one of the great architects of horror for the last century.
Reply
10-07-2008 @ 12:15PM
Julie said...
Leave the classics alone. Period. They tried with Gone With the Wind, and Jane Austin (just how many times can Mr. Darcy take a wife?) It didn't work then, it won't now and they make it sound ever so much more exciting because Bram Stoker's relative holds the pen. And they always have to tell you how well the old and the new blend. There's always the chance Bram is a ghost and his great grand nephew is just dictating it into his laptop like the Captain and Mrs.Muir did Blood and Swash, but I rather doubt it. LOL
Reply
10-07-2008 @ 12:27PM
darkbackwards said...
Is the world out of ideas of their own. I am sick of bastardizations of my favorite books and movies from childhood on. Just leave them be please.
Reply