Dracula Untold Trailer... Tells. About Dracula.
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
Who came actually up with the fact that vampires are burned by the sun? Bram Stoker was not it. In the original book Dracula wore a straw hat to protect himself from the sun that was enough, no burning, no sparkling.
Somewhere down the line sunlight just became a death sentence for vamps as opposed to a power limiter/weakener. Honestly the way I interpret it is you have to be an old as hell badass vampire to be able to walk in the sun.Symbio Joe said:
I've been thinking that for years. I'd think Benedict Cumberbatch would be Alucard in it. Probably won't work out though since Hollywood's track record of adapting anything that isn't based from theatre, a book, or western comic tends to be average or terrible.Burchy22 said:
Forget Dracula. I want a movie about a time traveling Sherlock Holmes solving a murder mystery during the crusades now... That sounds like it would be incredibly, stupidly, entertaining!Pseudonym2 said:
You know I imagine that casting Cumberbatch would be the popular, and most probable, decision in that circumstance, but I don't think it would be the best one, personally. You know who I think would make the best choice for Alucard? Daniel Day Lewis. No seriously, think about it, almost all of his best known characters (with the exception of Lincoln)are some variation of "Absolute monster barely hiding his true nature until such time he is immune to the consequences of his actions", which to me follows perfectly into Alucard's position as somebody who is nearly completely isolated from anything approaching real consequences. Not to mention that his delivery and presence would probably be perfect for the character, I mean imagine the guy who did this.Michael Tabbut said:
Doing this.
To me it's just too perfect an idea to pass up. Although yeah, if they ever actually made a Hellsing movie it probably wouldn't actually be that awesome.
No, we really shouldn't. Hellsing is the type of anime I never ever want to see done with real people. It's just such a mess when it leaves its own niche that I wouldn't be able to watch it without cringing, and this is from someone who actually enjoyed the damn thing. It's just too much. If a movie comes out under that title, it would have to strip away 90% of the original to even be considered decent.Burchy22 said:
Just a little... clarification, from what I can gather about Vlad here.
Vlad III, was the son of Vlad II, Dracul, Dracul being his name because he was inducted into the Order of the Dragon, a Christian chivalric order, which at the time composed a number of nobles, almost all of which were opposed to the Ottoman Empire's expansion (hence the patronymic "Dracula", meaning "Son of the Dragon". Dracula has since that time come to mean "Son of the Devil", but this was not the connotation at the time, from what I can tell, and both Vlad II and Vlad III were reportedly quite pious, to some extent).
A little note about his name: Vlad wrote his name as "Wladislaus Dragwlya", which might mean he'd have gone by "Vladislav Dracula", but I'm not certain. "Tepes" is simply Romanian for "The Impaler", and he wasn't called this during his life, only after. However, the Turks did call him "Kazikli Bey" during his life, which means "Sir Impaler" or perhaps "Impaler Prince".
Despite his father's induction into the order, he felt the need to secure power in his country, which was constantly shifting rulers, and so Vlad II paid tribute to the sultan, and gave him his younger sons: Vlad III and Radu cel Frumos ("The Handsome") in order to secure the throne. Mircea II, Vlad II's oldest son, fought against the Ottomans openly with his father's knowledge, but without his support. He even captured a fort, but Vlad made more deals with the Ottomans and they basically got it back. The Hungarians started a campaign against the Ottomans but the battle was a failure. Mircea II and Vlad II (who had to at least look like he was siding with the Hungarians) blamed it on the commander, John Hunyadi.
Later on, boyars (nobles, basically) in league with Hunyadi attacked and killed Vlad II and Mircea II. It's said that Mircea II was blinded with iron stakes, and buried alive at Targoviste...
All this was going on while Vlad III and Radu were under the care of the Ottomans. Radu converted to Islam, and ingratiated himself to the sultan's son (and future sultan), Mehemed II, but by all reports Vlad III remained defiant, and was constantly punished for his insubordination.
(A quick footnote about Vlad's other half-brother, Vlad Calugarul ("The Monk"). He never really participated in the affairs described herein, and was rather pious. He did take the throne for a short while, but this was a while after the events of his brother's affairs.)
Despite this, when Vlad II (who remember, was backed by the Ottomans) was killed, the Ottomans marched to Wallachia and sat Vlad III on the throne as a proxy. This didn't last long before the Hungarians came in and put Vladislav II of the Danesti clan on the throne. Vlad III managed to flee to his uncle's in Moldovia, who was promptly assassinated, so Vlad III fled to Hungary, where he pleased the nobles with his extensive knowledge, and unyielding contempt for the Ottomans.
Mehmed II captured Constantinople, and Hunyadi (I think he was a regent, or governor, but I'm gonna call him "ruler" for now, despite the inaccuracy) launched a counterattack, while Vlad made his way back home, and reportedly defeated Vladislav II of Danesti. And this is finally where we get into the meat of his "reign of terror".
Wallachia was in an AWFUL state at this point, and whether or not you agree with stringent intimidation and harsh punishment for minor offenses, holy crap did it work. It's rumored that he placed a golden cup on a fountain in one town, knowing that nobody would steal it, and that nobody ever did. Vlad III eliminated most of the boyars, and replaced them with foreigners, or others who were inclined to be loyal solely to him. In lower positions, he preferred knights and free peasants. At one point, it's said that he gathered the homeless, poor, or other people he might have considered generally useless into a wood hut on the pretense of a feast, and then burned the building with them in it.
But he also strengthened the country's economy with new villages, farmland, and limited foreign traders to three towns, allowing local merchants more range, which built a stronger internal economy.
He blamed some Transylvanian Saxons about as much as he blamed the boyars for his country's problems, and raided their castles, impaling some nobles, and using the loot to pay his armies and mercenaries.
There was impaling, nailing turbans to people's heads, impaling, burning, impaling, SURPRISE ATTACK! Lots of guerrilla warfare, since Vlad spoke fluent Turkish and knew their customs and whatnot.
He killed thousands upon thousands of Turks (not all of them personally, though reports say he liked to be directly involved), and sometimes didn't bother counting the ones he burned or beheaded. Christians across Europe celebrated Vlad's massively successful campaigns. But eventually, Vlad had to withdraw to Moldovia, his brother Radu led a contingent of janissaries who were able to move in, and Vlad ran out of money, so he went to Matthias Corvinus, John Hunyadi's son. Who imprisoned him, on accusation of treason, because Matthias had spent all the money the Pope gave him to use in the war effort on hookers and blow (not literally, but seriously, up in smoke).
Look, I think you guys get it at this point. As far as the historical Vlad the Impaler goes, well... I don't see psychopathy or even sociopathy in his profile. I see a warlord, yes, but despite his insidious tactics, he was hardly considered worse than his adversaries, or many of the other famous warlords before him. He was a military intellect, a tactician, and the victim of a number of betrayals: his father's betrayal, his brother's betrayal, and the betrayal of a lot of allies.
I don't know about "tragic anti-hero", but he definitely wasn't a blatant monster. Not the historical Vlad Dracula. The one in the books even, is sort of more a "romantic villain".
Also, in the books, many of Dracula's abilities were learned from some academy of Satan in the Carpathians, where they taught black magic. In fact, it was presumed that this was the source of his shapeshifting, which also extended to a wolf, a cloud of mist, and a rat/pack of rats(?) (it's been a while). The vampirism itself doesn't seem to have anything to do with shapeshifting.
I'm... curious about this movie, but also very heavily invested in trying to learn more about the historical Vlad Dracula, so I feel like I'll grind my teeth at some of the inaccuracies, despite knowing that I can't expect them to do a documentary. I think I'll see it, but I don't know if I'll like it. Maybe I'll rent it or something.
Vlad III, was the son of Vlad II, Dracul, Dracul being his name because he was inducted into the Order of the Dragon, a Christian chivalric order, which at the time composed a number of nobles, almost all of which were opposed to the Ottoman Empire's expansion (hence the patronymic "Dracula", meaning "Son of the Dragon". Dracula has since that time come to mean "Son of the Devil", but this was not the connotation at the time, from what I can tell, and both Vlad II and Vlad III were reportedly quite pious, to some extent).
A little note about his name: Vlad wrote his name as "Wladislaus Dragwlya", which might mean he'd have gone by "Vladislav Dracula", but I'm not certain. "Tepes" is simply Romanian for "The Impaler", and he wasn't called this during his life, only after. However, the Turks did call him "Kazikli Bey" during his life, which means "Sir Impaler" or perhaps "Impaler Prince".
Despite his father's induction into the order, he felt the need to secure power in his country, which was constantly shifting rulers, and so Vlad II paid tribute to the sultan, and gave him his younger sons: Vlad III and Radu cel Frumos ("The Handsome") in order to secure the throne. Mircea II, Vlad II's oldest son, fought against the Ottomans openly with his father's knowledge, but without his support. He even captured a fort, but Vlad made more deals with the Ottomans and they basically got it back. The Hungarians started a campaign against the Ottomans but the battle was a failure. Mircea II and Vlad II (who had to at least look like he was siding with the Hungarians) blamed it on the commander, John Hunyadi.
Later on, boyars (nobles, basically) in league with Hunyadi attacked and killed Vlad II and Mircea II. It's said that Mircea II was blinded with iron stakes, and buried alive at Targoviste...
All this was going on while Vlad III and Radu were under the care of the Ottomans. Radu converted to Islam, and ingratiated himself to the sultan's son (and future sultan), Mehemed II, but by all reports Vlad III remained defiant, and was constantly punished for his insubordination.
(A quick footnote about Vlad's other half-brother, Vlad Calugarul ("The Monk"). He never really participated in the affairs described herein, and was rather pious. He did take the throne for a short while, but this was a while after the events of his brother's affairs.)
Despite this, when Vlad II (who remember, was backed by the Ottomans) was killed, the Ottomans marched to Wallachia and sat Vlad III on the throne as a proxy. This didn't last long before the Hungarians came in and put Vladislav II of the Danesti clan on the throne. Vlad III managed to flee to his uncle's in Moldovia, who was promptly assassinated, so Vlad III fled to Hungary, where he pleased the nobles with his extensive knowledge, and unyielding contempt for the Ottomans.
Mehmed II captured Constantinople, and Hunyadi (I think he was a regent, or governor, but I'm gonna call him "ruler" for now, despite the inaccuracy) launched a counterattack, while Vlad made his way back home, and reportedly defeated Vladislav II of Danesti. And this is finally where we get into the meat of his "reign of terror".
Wallachia was in an AWFUL state at this point, and whether or not you agree with stringent intimidation and harsh punishment for minor offenses, holy crap did it work. It's rumored that he placed a golden cup on a fountain in one town, knowing that nobody would steal it, and that nobody ever did. Vlad III eliminated most of the boyars, and replaced them with foreigners, or others who were inclined to be loyal solely to him. In lower positions, he preferred knights and free peasants. At one point, it's said that he gathered the homeless, poor, or other people he might have considered generally useless into a wood hut on the pretense of a feast, and then burned the building with them in it.
But he also strengthened the country's economy with new villages, farmland, and limited foreign traders to three towns, allowing local merchants more range, which built a stronger internal economy.
He blamed some Transylvanian Saxons about as much as he blamed the boyars for his country's problems, and raided their castles, impaling some nobles, and using the loot to pay his armies and mercenaries.
There was impaling, nailing turbans to people's heads, impaling, burning, impaling, SURPRISE ATTACK! Lots of guerrilla warfare, since Vlad spoke fluent Turkish and knew their customs and whatnot.
He killed thousands upon thousands of Turks (not all of them personally, though reports say he liked to be directly involved), and sometimes didn't bother counting the ones he burned or beheaded. Christians across Europe celebrated Vlad's massively successful campaigns. But eventually, Vlad had to withdraw to Moldovia, his brother Radu led a contingent of janissaries who were able to move in, and Vlad ran out of money, so he went to Matthias Corvinus, John Hunyadi's son. Who imprisoned him, on accusation of treason, because Matthias had spent all the money the Pope gave him to use in the war effort on hookers and blow (not literally, but seriously, up in smoke).
Look, I think you guys get it at this point. As far as the historical Vlad the Impaler goes, well... I don't see psychopathy or even sociopathy in his profile. I see a warlord, yes, but despite his insidious tactics, he was hardly considered worse than his adversaries, or many of the other famous warlords before him. He was a military intellect, a tactician, and the victim of a number of betrayals: his father's betrayal, his brother's betrayal, and the betrayal of a lot of allies.
I don't know about "tragic anti-hero", but he definitely wasn't a blatant monster. Not the historical Vlad Dracula. The one in the books even, is sort of more a "romantic villain".
Also, in the books, many of Dracula's abilities were learned from some academy of Satan in the Carpathians, where they taught black magic. In fact, it was presumed that this was the source of his shapeshifting, which also extended to a wolf, a cloud of mist, and a rat/pack of rats(?) (it's been a while). The vampirism itself doesn't seem to have anything to do with shapeshifting.
I'm... curious about this movie, but also very heavily invested in trying to learn more about the historical Vlad Dracula, so I feel like I'll grind my teeth at some of the inaccuracies, despite knowing that I can't expect them to do a documentary. I think I'll see it, but I don't know if I'll like it. Maybe I'll rent it or something.
I continue to be exasperated by how no one seems to be able to do anything more interesting with mythological/literary/fairy tale adaptations and spin-offs than ape the Lord of The Rings. The second I heard "Dracula origin story" the first thing I thought was "so it will involve big armies fighting in a vaguely magic-tinged past" and lo and behold, I was right. They even subjected ALICE IN WONRDERLAND to this treatment, for fuck's sake.
The only counter-example I can think of off the top of my head is Oz: The Great and Powerful which as far as I can tell was content to tell a smaller character-focused story. I wish more of these movies would take that approach.
The only counter-example I can think of off the top of my head is Oz: The Great and Powerful which as far as I can tell was content to tell a smaller character-focused story. I wish more of these movies would take that approach.
Ehh.
I too would rather have a more even blend of Vlad Tepes gradually turning into The Dracula. Maybe while actually including his brother and the intrigue with his nobles and portraying the Ottomans as something more than ostentatious boy killers.
Something more in the way of the manga/anime Berserk than what this will be.
Also Daniel Day Lewis as Vlad would be amazing.
I too would rather have a more even blend of Vlad Tepes gradually turning into The Dracula. Maybe while actually including his brother and the intrigue with his nobles and portraying the Ottomans as something more than ostentatious boy killers.
Something more in the way of the manga/anime Berserk than what this will be.
Also Daniel Day Lewis as Vlad would be amazing.
In truth, the only real accounts of Vlad's cruelty came from those who wanted him deposed in the first place. Some accounts point to the Ottoman (and exclusively Ottoman) impalement victims having been already dead, pointing towards grisly shows of dominance rather than over-the-top torture. History is history, and there's little we know for sure, but I personally see Vlad as what you would call a "hero" of the Crusades, keeping his enemy from expanding westward at all costs. Did he do anything remotely dark though? Well, sure. Just about every nation implemented torture back then, I doubt he was special.canadamus_prime said:
I wasn't talking about Vlad though. I was talking about Dracula, the entirely fictional character who's loosely based on Vlad. However much of an irredeemable bastard Vlad may or may not have been is not what I was asking about.Nieroshai said:
Looks interesting to me. I don't see a problem except for the part where everyone on the internet has seen everything and are morally obligated to be completely cynical about every single thing. Also, for those questioning it, turning a villain into a tragic anti-hero is not new by a long stretch, it's just new to the movie industry. I for one am glad to see it happen. Yes, we will probably be inundated with movies that do this very thing, but then it'll fade into the background and we can add it to a whole lot of potential character arcs in movies that we will never see.
Looks pretty cool, would like to see more Alucard from Hellsing though, but what can ya do...
Alas the closest we'd get to that is watching the Ultimate episodes back to back.KingPiccolOwned said:To me it's just too perfect an idea to pass up. Although yeah, if they ever actually made a Hellsing movie it probably wouldn't actually be that awesome.
Dracula means not "Son of the Devil" but Son of the Dragon. And considering his father was called Dracul or The Dragon, it has nothing to do with the devil. His father was a part of a group known as The Order of The Dragon and thus he was Dracul.RJ 17 said:Actually that's been part of Dracula's lore for a very long time, ever since he was considered to be something more than human. The name "Dracula" means "Son of the Dragon", which back then was another way of saying "Son of the Devil". So yeah, it's always been part of his mythos that he's in some way connected to Satan, be it because he was a warlord who cursed the name of God to the point where Satan "blessed" him with vampirism or, as this movie implies, that he willingly sold his soul to become what he is.Exterminas said:
Of course, in real life he earned that nickname because of the horrific atrocities he committed, such as terrifying the invading army by lining the road to his castle with rotting, festering corpses impaled on spears. However for the purposes of fiction, there's nothing wrong or out of place by depicting a "deal with the devil" scenario regarding Dracula.
On another note, seeing a couple of people compare this to Lords of Shadow actually makes me wonder how a live action Castlevania movie would turn out.
That's all very fascinating, but again I wasn't talking about Vlad the Impaler. I was talking about Dracula, as in Bram Stoker's Dracula. While Dracula was loosely based on Vlad the Impaler, they're not the same guy. Dracula, as far as I'm aware has always been written as an irredeemable bastard. This new movie seems to want to change that by casting him as a sympathetic anti-hero who just wants to save his family and empire by surrendering to dark powers. Following in the wake of the success of Maleficent no doubt.DANGER- MUST SILENCE said:
I'm not. If you'd noticed, I was originally discussing the soon-to-become-a-phenomenon of reimagining villains as sympathetic anti-heroes.DANGER- MUST SILENCE said: