Preying Mantis?


I have to admit, it's something new to Dracula or even vampire movies. But really?

reply

I agree. W.T.F.

The part in the teaser with the wolf scarring off the other wolves was pretty cool though....

reply

part in the teaser with the wolf scarring off the other wolves was pretty cool though....



I liked that part too. In the deleted chapter of Stoker's Dracula called Dracula's Guest Dracula does something similar to that while in wolf form.



reply


I think that was one of the more foolish changes. People today barely seem to remember Dracula can take wolf, bat, and mist form. Use the old classics. They had practicality for mobility and stealth. There is no practical purpose for turning into a seven foot tall mantis.



reply

From film to film, whenever Argento tries to break out of cliche and does something unprecedented, a host of viewers get all up in arms because he's not doing what everyone else does.

reply

Argento says "I wanted to insert something original, so that the audience could recognize it as a Dario Argento movie. I then thought: Dracula is a creature that could mutate into a wolf, a bat and even into fog, so why couldn’t he transform also in a insect? So my Dracula will metamorphose into flies, a rat, a giant mantis and even a spider!"

reply

I don't necessarily have a problem with the Mantis...but i hope he's shown changing into mist and a bat too so what Stoker wrote is in there aswell.

reply


From film to film, whenever Argento tries to break out of cliche and does something unprecedented, a host of viewers get all up in arms because he's not doing what everyone else does.


The thing is no one has done a Dracula that can take wolf, bat, and mist form in years. Think back. Even Gary Oldman's one didn't take full animal form (except one scene as a wolf). The last Dracula to have the wolf, bat and mist form was Frank Langella in 1979. It's been so long that it would have been innovative just to keep the wolf, bat and mist forms.

reply

I think this Dracula will turn in to a giant turd.

reply


Nothing can be worse than Dracula 3000. This one might be cheesy but it could be fun cheese.


reply

Though Dracula adaptions themselves have been lacking in the mist/wolf/bat transformations (or a decent script , good acting , yadda yadda but I digress). As I am sitting and watching Fright Night , Fright Night II & the Fright Night recent remake and they make much use of the transformations as do many others. It is odd that the actual Dracula films have neglected it. Especially with CGI being light years ahead of the old , but charming , rubber bat on a fishing line of Bela Lugosi's or Christopher Lee's days even.

reply


Buffy was the only show I've seen implement computer effects to make the bat transformation. There are good practical bat and wolf effects in Frank Langella's Dracula from 1979.


reply

The insect is actually called the "praying mantis" because of the way it holds its front legs in a position suggesting prayer.

reply

I have to admit, it's something new to Dracula or even vampire movies. But really?


Argento has a history of being fascinated by insects. I am not kidding. He had bit of the mental breakdown in mid '80s and in one interview he kept complaining that he doesn't understand why people squash insects, because they are beautiful creatures. ... so he made Phenomena.

He did similar thing with Dracula and Phantom of the Opera. He didn't make adaptation, he gave his interpretation. Except the characters concept and setting, his Phantom has no other connection to source material. (some would even say that Opera was in fact his original interpretation of Phantom of the Opera).

It wasn't a good movie at all, but it had it's charm and entertainment value because it was all over the place. Sadly, yeah, this can't even lick a boot to Argento's early movies.

reply

I've seen a lot of dracula/vampire movies, but that was probably the most out of place and ridiculous thing i've seen. I mean what the hell, a giant praying mantis stumbling up the stairwell. Either that was an inspired bit of lunacy or Argento has lost his marbles.

reply

[deleted]