MovieChat Forums > Dracula III: Legacy (2005) Discussion > Flawed from the start by a continuity sc...

Flawed from the start by a continuity screwup....

posted 20 years ago by Bad_Carrot
4 replies | jump to latest

I know this is more of an Ascension topic but,
In the epilogue of 2000 Van Helsing's daughter has a voiceover bit when she says something to the affect of "I'm taking Dracula's remains to safeguard in case any spark of life remains" We even get a visual confirming this...
And then in the first half hour of Ascension they ignore (Same production team mind you) the conclusion, with medical personel recovering the body from the place where it wasn't left in the first film. Sloppy. Blowing what's been established to make something more convenient in a followup is rubbish.

Also, the crap about Dracula regenerating forms is also suspect; In 2000 we get flashbacks to his origins as Judas, guess what it's Gerard Butler...granted they couldn't have planned the sequel and the whole changing appearance (And actor) rigamarole and I have no problem with the concept in and of itself but when Roy Schneider's character tells his subordinate about the face lift thing...HOW DOES HE KNOW? If Judas, Dracula's original appearance, was based on Butler than he's never done this before right???
It would've been easy enough to have Lee's priest find this out to his surprise.

And lastly, to head off cries of "So what, it's a movie" I just want to say that as someone who dabbles in writing myself there's nothing that pisses me off like lazy writing to make something more convenient...from the same writers who started the continuity!!!!!!

[–] king_2000x 20 years ago

I just saw it on shotime, since my blockbuster doesn't carry it... but i was thinking the same thing!

now i find out that Rutger Hauer is dracula in the third movie...what happened to the guy from part 2?

anyway, goo to see someone sees it the way i do.

[–] jdalaris 20 years ago

It seems to be dimensions trade with sequels (like halloween resurrection) to create something out of nothing for a sequel that doesnt make sense and insults the previous movie and the fans.

[–] metallik1984 20 years ago

Actually if you were to hear the commentary tracks in Ascension and 2000 you would know that this was always planned as a trilogy, and it's not something they are doing just to make money. I mean seriously how much could they make from 2 sequels that are released straight to video. And as far as the first 2 films go, i really do enjoy both I and can't wait for the third. All you out there should really take a listen to the commentary tracks to both films because the writer and director give insight on what they were thinking while writing and filming the films. And yes Mary Van Helsing does say she will hold on to the ashes of Dracula, but that doesn't mean that those are his ashes. In Ascension we see that Luke switches the body of Dracula with that of another burn victim. This body also fool's Uffizzi. So if you were to put 2 and 2 together you would realize that Mary is actually holding the ashes of that victim and not Dracula. This is the exact explanation the writer and director give in the commentary track of Ascension. Awesome!

[–] jdalaris 20 years ago

No no no no. For starters I have listened to both commentarys and the three films were not concieved as a trilogy. Patrick lussier explained that Andrew Rona, (producer) loved their original concept for dracula 2000 so much he made them write it as a sequel. I'ts dawn when Dracula burns so that Mary can take his ashes, as she says as the end of Dracula 2000, "IF THE SOUL OF DRACULA STILL FLICKERS IN HIS ASHES", so logically, there wasn't even a body left. Secondly I object to Patrick Lussier stating that Mary and Simon are none too bright due to their story fault as writers. Mary and Simon were a hell of a lot brighter than any of the characters in Ascension.