MovieChat Forums > Dracula 3D (2013) Discussion > Full Synopsis reads like a Horror of Dra...

Full Synopsis reads like a Horror of Dracula remake (could be cool)





Well, it's not an adaptation of the novel Dracula, in fact it feels more like the plot of a Hammer horror movie but it looks like a lot of fun. In fact, I've been eager for a Hammer Horror style Dracula movie! In fact this feels like a remake of Horror of Dracula.

Here's the full synopsis for Dracula 3D. I knew that last "official synopsis" sounded a little too much like the Wiki plot summary for the original novel.

And yay for bat form even if it's only at the end.

http://www.dreadcentral.com/news/45706/go-behind-scenes-argentos-dracu la-3d-new-video

Synopsis:
TRANSYLVANIA, 1893.

One night in the woods adjacent to Passo Borgo, at the foot of the Carpazi mountains, a couple of young lovers, Tania and Milos, secretly meet. On her way home, Tania is chased and overcome by a "dark shadow" that kills her. In those days Jonathan Harker, a young librarian, arrives at the village hired by Count Dracula, a nobleman from the area. Tania's body mysteriously disappears from the cemetery. In the meantime Harker, before going to Count Dracula's castle, takes the opportunity to visit Lucy Kisslinger, his wife Mina's best friend as well as the daughter of the local mayor.

Upon arriving at the castle, Harker is greeted by Tania, brought back to life from the dead and made vampire, who tries from the very beginning to seduce him; however, they are interrupted by Dracula's entrance welcoming Harker. The following night Tania tries again to bite Harker; she is close to his neck when she is stopped by the count, who gets the upper hand, and it is he himself who bites Harker's neck, however allowing him to live. The following day, weakened but still conscious, Harker attempts to escape, but as soon as he is outside the castle, a large wolf with a white lock assaults and savagely kills him.

Meanwhile, Mina, Harker's wife, arrives in the village and is guest for a few days at the home of her dearest friend Lucy Kisslinger, who will also be bitten and vampirized. The day after, Mina, worried about her husband, goes to Count Dracula's castle.

Their encounter makes her forget the reason for her presence there. She is completely under the count's influence; the count had orchestrated the events leading up to their encounter; in fact Mina looks exactly like his beloved Dolinger, who died some centuries ago. Upon her return to the Kisslinger house, Mina learns of the death of her dear friend Lucy.

The sequence of such strange and dramatic events summons the aid of Van Helsing, vampire expert of the techniques used to eliminate them. Van Helsing, aware of the circumstances, decides to act swiftly and prepares the tools needed to combat vampires. He directs himself to the center of evil, Count Dracula's castle.

Meanwhile Dracula, in the village, kills the inhabitants who rescinded their pact, while Van Helsing, inside the castle, is able to definitively eliminate Tania. Dracula, intent on his desire to reunite with his beloved wife, leads Mina, completely hypnotized, to the castle where Van Helsing is waiting. He has decided to engage in a deadly fight with his evil foe. During the struggle Van Helsing loses his gun with the silver bullet, and Mina, still under Dracula's spell, gathers it and tries to aid Dracula, but she misses the target and involuntarily kills him. The special silver bullet transforms Dracula into ashes; but his spirit lifts the ashes into the air and uniting, they shape into a large bat with a mocking grin.

reply

I'm disappointed. i thought we were finally getting an accurate translation of the book.

reply


Once I saw the production pictures and cast list (lacking names like Quincey Morris and Dr. Seward) I figured it would go in a Hammer Horror direction. I'm just happy to see a traditional Dracula film again but now, more than ever, I feel they should change the name.

Also I think a lot of film makers might be too intimidated to try to do a faithful adaptation because they have to live up to Coppola standards.



reply

Coppola's version was horrendous. It didn't follow the book either. The closest FAITHFUL adaptation we have was back in 1977 when Louis Jourdan did it for the BBC.

reply


Louis Jordan's one was good but Coppola's did follow several scenes of the novel. I'd say at least 75% of it (save for some liberties with character appearances) followed the book. I happen to like Coppola's version because it added depth adn motive to Dracula that wasn't originally there.

reply

OK--I agree with u to a point. They added the stupid back story about Mina being a reincarnation of Dracula's wife (that was never in the book) and had her kill him alone (also not in the book). Sure, it added a motive but when you quote the author of the book in your title u would assume that u would be faithful to the book! And what was this about a lesbian kiss between Lucy and Mina? Where did that come from? I hated Coppola's version because the title was incorrect (it should have been called "Francis Ford Coppola's Dracula"), there were changes (VAST chnages) from the book, Keanu Reeves was hysterically bad (although in Coppola's denfense he was forced to hire him) and Gary Oldman just wasn't Dracula like Lugosi or Lee were.

reply


OK--I agree with u to a point. They added the stupid back story about Mina being a reincarnation of Dracula's wife (that was never in the book)


I don't think it was stupid. But no, it's not from the book. It's from Dan Curtis, creator of Dark Shadows. He first used that for his vampire, Barnabas Collins in 1966 and later for a made for TV version of Dracula starring Jack Palance. Coppola's version was more of a remake of that movie than actaul adaptation of the book. There are hints of some romance based tragedy in Dracula's past in the novel though. When the three female vampires taunt him that he has never loved he legitimately gets upset.

By the way, it's only called Bram Stoker's Dracula in certain countries. the IMDB title is just "Dracula"

I agree about Keanu but Gary Oldman went out of his way to learn Romanian for the part. I have to respect him for that.


reply

Yeah--I know it was from Dan Curtis. My issue is if you're going to name the movie with tht author be faithful to the book...and it wasn't! Even worse when the movie come out they reissued Dracula in paperback---but it was just the screenplay of the movie in novel format NOT the book! Oldman is a great actor but I just never believed him as Dracula. Also I couldn't figure out WHY Mina was attracted to him. He's supposed to be handsome but Oldman looked ugly with that mustache and all. I didn't even get into what Anthony Hopkins did to van Helsing! I guess we have to agree to disagree on this one...but most people would probably agree with u. The movie was a big hit and people still defend it to this day. To me it's like Stanley Kubrick's "The Shining"--a great book totally trashed in a loust film. Even King didn't like Kubrick's movie!

reply



I was disgusted that BRAM STOKER'S Dracula needed a "novelization" too. Though I did like the film. If it's Faithful to the book it shouldn't need that. Mary Shelley's Frankenstein strayed too, it followed the book up until it had Victor resurrect Elizabeth. I don't know what they were thinking with that. Also there was NO reason for her face to be disfigured like that. She wasn't put together with pieces. The only part of her damaged was the heart.

As for Van Helsing, in the novel he was kind of raunchy and eccentric, he made a sexual joke about them all having been inside Lucy during the blood transfusion in the novel.


reply

"Mary Shelley's Frankenstein" was, as u said, faithful till the end. I guess they needed a big fire and another monster roaming around to give the audience what they think it needed. I didn't like that one either but it was more because of the dizzying camerawork which made me feel like I needed Dramamine:)
Van Helsing was eccentric but raunchy? I never really got that. Hopkins overplayed him to a degree that was almost embarrassing...and what was that part where he killed all of Dracula's brides (or whatever they were). Not in the book at all.

reply


Van Helsing cracks a sexual joke in the original novel. Pay attention during the blood transfusion.

reply

Yeah--but one sexual joke does not make him randy. And I remember the comments during the blood tranfusions. I didn't take them as sexist comments but I can see how someone might.

reply


I didn't say sexist, i said sexual. The other characters are shocked when he mentions that all these men had one thing in common, they had all been inside Lucy.


reply

Sorry--I meant sexual not sexist. It's been a long day st work:) And the inside Lucy obviously meant their blood and that's how I took it.

reply


I know he meant the blood but there was a double implication and the characters even noticed it. It was no innocent mistake.

reply

LOL True but one comment like that doesn't make him like he was portrayed in the movie. And Lucy wasn't a nympho in the book like the movie made her out to be.

reply

Hmmm, Lugosi??? I love Oldman, I admire Lee, but Lugosi performed an undead... actor!!!

reply

Lugosi was good but Lee REALLY played up the sensuality AND viciousness of Dracula better than anyone else.

reply

My main issue with Coppola's version is Dracula himself; they turned him into a hero and a main villain of the same movie leaving us with mixed feelings. Pardon me, with no feelings at all cos love story between him and Mina was underdeveloped; I didn't get the feel of lost lovers that were taken by the destiny but it surely made me to loose the feel of Dracula being souless and lifeless monster which he was in a novel.

reply

Coppola is no more faithful then any other film. And his sucked the worst, so he's what's your shooting for your guaranteed to fail.

"When the chips are down... these Civilized people... will Eat each Other"

reply


I liked Coppola's film. You rant about Faithfulness but you don't even know how to spell Van Helsing's name, or that Dracula could summon wolves and take wolf form, or why the shapeshifting is important and why a shapeshfiting dinosaur is a stupid idea...

Considering your judgement I'm starting to think anything you hate must be good by default.


reply

You taking allot of things out of Context here.

reply

It doesn't surprise me that it is similar to the Hammer version and sequels (Tania was the name of the female Vampire in the 1970 sequel 'Scars of Dracula'... and the little girl in the original 1958 film incidentally... oh! and Isobel Black's Vampiress in 'Kiss of The Vampire') as the Hammer version is probably the most iconic version in Eurasia (arguably on the continent even more so than in the UK as many UK films such as Hammer ones don't get as much respect as they should, just look at the DVD of 'Dracula' that uses the American title 'Horror of Dracula', has an American trailer and has no special features or indication to how important a film it is). Almost every Dracula film since the 60s from Europe has had some influence (and to a lesser extent, the Americas, where many films have things such as the fangs, certain stylings; but too a lesser extent than elsewhere... though saying that the Langella version had many references and Dan Curtis's was almost a pastiche or lose remake at times... it was a good version incidentally). Even computer games reference it (such as 'Dracula: Origin' from Germany) and I have noticed many have made Harker a librarian (such as this film and the aforementioned PC game), whereas, he is a solicitor in the novel.

I miss the "old school" Dracula films. Though the one by Terence Fisher isn't the closest to the novel by any means it is my favourite (followed very, very, very closely by the two 'Nosferatu' films) and I hope this new film could at least capture something of what made those older films great.

"Nothings gonna change my world!"

reply