I hope so, it's my favourite book, and I like many of the films adaptions of it thats has been made, but it'd be great to truly have a faithful version, unlike Francis Ford Coppola's decievingly titled 'Bram Stoker's Dracula' which isn't a bad film but it features the count as a drag queen and turns the whole thing into a love story, which the novel certainly isn't.
shareWell.....this is what's being said in the press.........
"Stewart Harcourt's extraordinary script introduces some bold new elements and unexpected twists to the Dracula legend. It's emotionally hugely powerful and genuinely terrifying!"
************
“Stewart Harcourt’s script paints a compelling and intelligent new adaptation of this classic story. Riddled with syphilis and sex, it penetrates the surface of Victorian society and plunges us into the dark heart of Dracula. This is my personal take on the classic Bram Stoker novel. And I hope its scenes of sex, horror and disease will blow the cobwebs off traditional period drama, and provide a classic literary chiller perfect for a dark winter night.”
************
"Stewart Harcourt's adaptation is a visceral, sexy and bold re-telling of Bram Stoker's classic chiller, ............ and we've brought together a cast of thrilling young talent to bring it to life."
I don't think it will ba an exact re-telling.........but it may come close
----------------
MARC WARREN FORUM : http://s7.invisionfree.com/Marc_Warren_Online/index.php?
Thanks for the info TipsyGypsy
shareWell, if it's being done by the BBC I have high hopes that it will be faithful to the novel.
The previous adaptation by the BBC, the 1977 production of Count Dracula, starring Louis Jourdan and Frank Finlay, is easily the most faithful film version yet.
Yes, besides the fact that the count wasn't an old man, who got younger and Arthur and Quincy were made into the same character it was very faithful, lets hope this ones similar.
shareNumber one most of them have NOT been faithful to the novel at all. The novel was not based on Vlad Tepes. That has been debunked for years now. The character says in the book he is a Székely, which were Hungarian warriors. He wasn't Romanian and all of them use garlic cloves and the book says garlic flowers which is something different. This interpretation was interesting I thought and very dark in nature. Seems to me that those saying they have read the novel and love it haven't paid attention to detail.
shareI'm not terribly thrilled that the BBC thinks it has to 'sex up' what was a brilliant piece of fiction to begin with. It seems rather more like Hollywood than the kind of adaptation quality we're accustomed to from their writers. Dracula is sexy enough without sex scenes.
shareI whole-heartedly agree. My feelings went down from EXCITED to CAUTIOUSLY OPTIMISTIC when I read; "Stewart Harcourt's adaptation is a visceral, sexy and bold re-telling" and "Riddled with syphilis and sex, it penetrates the surface of Victorian society."
The whole Dracula-sex-VD-Victorian-prudishness-and-hypocracy has been done many times before. Still, I'm hoping it'll turn out well, and hopefully it'll remain DECENTLY faithful to the book.
This is not a signature.
"I was hoping for a faithful adaptation, but seems the script writer has other ideas. Read the following synopsis from Granada International...
...is proud to present a stunning new television dramatisation of Bram Stoker’s terrifying horror story Dracula (1 x 90 minutes). A young aristocrat with the world at his feet is about to marry the love of his life when he discovers he’s inherited an horrific disease. His desperation to cheat death is set to bring destruction to all those around him – including his new wife – as he becomes embroiled with a sinister cult, sends an innocent man to meet a grizzly fate and unleashes the evil force of the fatally charismatic Count Dracula. Adapted by Stewart Harcourt (Agatha Christie’s Marple; Jericho), directed by Bill Eagles (CSI; Cold Case) and featuring incredible CGI and effects, the film contrasts the beauty of Victorian England with the corrupted sex and dark horror of Dracula’s world.
Dracula is spectacular event television at its very best...
Erm...this doesn't read much like Stoker's story to me."
The above synopsis shown by blackharrypotter in his post means that all hopes of this being a faithful adaptation are pretty much non existant now. Why add drastic changes to a classic story that can't be improved upon?
Bummer. That's a letdown. Not sure I'll bother watching it anymore.
This is not a signature.
damn I'm gonna kill myself now I was really looking forward to this!!!!
shareI would urge everyone to at least give this version a chance. It may not be faithful to the letter of the book, but if it's at least faithful to the spirit I'll be satisfied. Just about every version there is puts their own spin on the story, why should this be any different? Renfield is dropped from some versions, Morris from most. My main concern with this one is that they get the book's best parts right: Harker's ordeal at Castle Dracula (particularly his episode with Dracula's brides); the stalking of the vampiric (bloofer lady) Lucy; Dracula's attack/enslavement of Mina; the confrontation at Carfax; the pursuit/final confrontation with Dracula and the brides in Transylvania. These are the major set pieces I hope will remain intact.
shareJohnny, I'm watching it as I write this (which tells you how gripped I am) and I'm afraid it looks like another 're imagining'. Where the hell is Castle Holmwood? In other words, just the characters and the merest hint of the original story. The novel is a classic and I fear we will have to wait for a faithful version of it for a few years longer.
shareYeah I've just watched it, and totally agree, what a pile of crap, nothing like the novel, and the weak pathetic storyline it had was rushed, but it still felt tediously long to watch, Marc Warren seemed alright but his role was just badly written.
shareI read in some magazine that it will stick to the main plot of the story but it's gonig to be more based on the relationship between Dracula and Lucy and Dracula and Mina. According to i think marc warren this version is going to explore the sexual side of the story.
shareOh no! I was looking forward to this too, but it's looking more like it's gonna be all about sex! I'm not a prude but I like to watch horror with the family, and it's kinda embarassing when they throw in sex scenes everywhere! I think Dracula could easily be made sexy without having to have tons of gratuituous sex in it, like the 1979 Frank Langella version. Anyone here seen it? He was one hot Dracula!!
Whatever you tell me, its gone in three, c'est la vie!
in an interview with the "Radio Times" Marc Warren said something along the sides of "...I suggested doing one of mine and Sophia's scenes naked ..." :S Although haven't seen the Frank Langella version, I agree with MrsSeanBean's view (that "Dracula could easily be made sexy without having to have tons of gratuituous sex in it") entirely!
share[deleted]
In answer to the original question: No, not even close. Some of the character names were the same but that was about it.
What I'm about to say is true. My previous sentence was a lie.
Even those characters with the right name were changed! Holmwood has syphillis, invites Dracula to London to cure him and then has his head ripped off? Harker never makes it out of Castle Dracula? Van Helsing is a frightened old man who has to be rescued from a cellar? No Renfield, no weird sisters, no Quincey Morris. Appallingly bad.
shareI loved it. It is so well written and acted. There are major changes to the book (which I hated, personal opinion) most of which are improvements and a very believable interpretation of the Dracula story. In fact, much better then the book Bram Stoker attempted to write.
shareUtterly ruined a classic Gothic novel! Whoever came up with the ludicrous premise of having a syphilitic Arthur Holmwood in desperate search of a miracle cure which only Dracula can provide must have done it as a joke! Too many liberties taken with the original work, and the "re-imagining" of the story (for want of a better word) was just plain daft. This failed miserably to live up to expectations, and comes nowhere near being a decent adaptation of Bram Stoker's work. A terrible waste of a good cast too. I would avoid it like the plague!
shareyou'd all have been better off watching benny hill. wot? no renfield? don
share
'There was one, nudity free, scene of a sexual nature.
What version did you lot watch? The one in your heads?'
No, it turned out to have no sex in it really. It was the write-ups on the BBC website I saw before I watched it that made me think it would be cheap and nasty. But it turned out to be not as full of sex as the BBC made me expect!
Whatever you tell me, its gone in three, c'est la vie!
I agree with every one of your points. Why does everything have to have a trendy subtext these days? The old subtext was fine.
share