New Dracula movie connected to Stoker estate?
Various sources are reporting a new Dracula movie project, with a link to Bram Stoker's estate. I haven't been able to verify this further, but would venture a correction: "The Un-Dead" wasn't Stoker's subtitle, but draft title for the novel itself.
Unfortunately, Variety pegs Jan de Bont as the director. Since he helmed the vile, wretched, horrendously awful 1999 "remake" of The Haunting, I expect only bad things. (Go see the Robert Wise film (1963) instead, and read Shirley Jackson's novel (1959))
(thanks to Steven Kaye)
I have some info on this. The script is by Ian Holt on NYC whom I met at the World Dracula Congress in 1995. A few years later he asked me if I would have a look at a script he was writing entitled "The Un-Dead." If this is the same one, then it is a sequel to "Dracula" rather than an adaptation of it.
As for the title "The Un-Dead" - that was indeed Stoker's original title for "Dracula" (as recorded in his Notes, in the Typescript and on his contract with Constable) and it was the sub-title of a dramatic reading of "Dracula" that he cobbled together for a one-time presentation at the Lyceum Theatre in May 1897.
As for the "Stoker estate" - I am not sure what the significance of this is. Given that the novel is in the public domain, there would be no need to get permission. The endorsement of the Estate? That's another matter. There is one direct descendant in London - maybe Holt got his endorsement. Or maybe it is a publicity ploy. I do not know.
Posted by: Elizabeth | May 08, 2006 at 03:25 PM
As far as I've heard the new movie is a direct sequel to the 1931 movie. This may not be a disaster as that movie is already a big departure from the novel.
However most of the sequels to Dracula suck beyond reckoning. Even Warringtons "endorsed" sequel was awful. It was a horrible feminist rewrite of the original.
Posted by: Jack Thursby | May 08, 2006 at 08:17 PM
"As far as I've heard the new movie is a direct sequel to the 1931 movie."
I hope not! Also read somewhere that it's a sequel to the Coppola (1992) movie. Even worse!
For certain, the draft of the script I read a few years ago was a sequel to Stoker's novel. But that was a few years ago - and the writer may well have changed direction. I will try to find out from him and let you know.
Posted by: Elizabeth | May 09, 2006 at 06:43 AM
I heard back from Holt. The screen play is a sequel to Stoker's novel - not to the Lugosi (1931) nor the Coppola (1992) versions.
Posted by: Elizabeth | May 09, 2006 at 01:19 PM
"As far as I've heard the new movie is a direct sequel to the 1931 movie."
"Dracula's Daughter" (1936) is the Universal sequel to "Dracula" (1931). The movie opens in the crypt where Dracula was destroyed in the 1931 movie. It even has Edward van Sloan playing Van Helsing. Dracula's daughter is Countess Marya Zaleska, and the movie deals with her attempts to release herself from the vampire curse (she's unsuccessful). Unfortunately, the movie never explains how Dracula came by a daughter.
Posted by: Baby Jinx | May 09, 2006 at 03:25 PM
Oh Lord. Well lets just hope its nothing like Warringtons oddesy of trash "Dracula: The Undead"
Posted by: Jack Thursby | May 09, 2006 at 08:31 PM
Oh and I've seen Dracula's Daughter. What a bad film. I was hoping that if the new film was a sequel to the 1931 movie it would simply gloss over this "blip" of a film. Although Nadja (which is kind of a retelling of Dracula's Daughter is quite an interesting film. Go figure.
Posted by: Jack Thursby | May 09, 2006 at 08:36 PM