Halloween Discussion Forums, Costumes, Horror!

Watched Dracula 2000 the other night for the first time in several years. I liked it when it first came out and it hasn't lost anything in the past 13 years. I really enjoyed the way they tied it into the original movie with Bela Lugosi, while giving it a 21st century feel. I also enjoyed the subtext which you had to be careful not to miss, because of the way it was presented. All in all one of the best modern tales of Dracula I've seen. Going to add this movie to my Halloween list this year.

And we now have two of the stars of Dracula 2000 as weekly detectives on TV here. Nathan Fillion who played the priest in Dracula 2000, is Castle, on the TV show of the same name and Johnny Lee Miller who was Christopher Plummers aide, plays a modern Sherlock Holmes in Elementary along with Lucy Lu. Both pretty good shows, imho.

Nathan Fillion = Captain Mal Reynolds. Did you see the Halloween episode of Castle where he wears a brown coat? A tribute to Firefly.

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3scNxCMNN4c

NeverMore wrote:
Nathan Fillion = Captain Mal Reynolds. Did you see the Halloween episode of Castle where he wears a brown coat? A tribute to Firefly.

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3scNxCMNN4c

Yea I saw that one and enjoyed it too. Did you see the one where they run into the Men in Black?

Lyle Lovett played one of the Men in Black. I guess if the X-Files can have Alex Trebek and Jesse Ventura as Men in Black; Castle can have Lyle Lovett as one too!

Pumpkin_Man wrote: I saw "Dracula 2000" when it was out in theatres. It was an okay movie, but not what I would consider a classic horror film. The trouble is I prefer the creepy old fashioned vampire story that involves an old house, a monster in a coffin and a creepy looking country side. I don't go for the "Twilight" type vampires who play back-yard baseball and cook Italian food.

"Dracula 2000" was an okay 'pop corn' flick with a basicly interesting story, but I didn't go for the modernistic aspect of it.

Mike

Subtext Bro. Its strength was in the subtext. The modernistic aspect was the whole selling point, that's why it was called Dracula 2000, instead of Dracula 1932.

Mike, the issue of TV Guide on the stands right now has a list of the "50 Greatest TV Moments of All Time," and I was delighted to see that one of them was the debut of Barnabas Collins on Dark Shadows. It is hard for younger people to grasp how original and creative that particular take on the vampire was. Barnabas was absolutely the first of the "conflicted" vampires. Every single vampire story since his has adopted this approach, but Barnabas was the very first.

My daughter was in late grade school when the Twilight series blew up, so I read those books, as she did. She was initially enthusiastic but got over that franchise pretty fast. Both of us agreed it got weirder as it went along. I privately believe the real hook to that series was that the young couple weren't intimate until after they were married. The whole idea was that this boy totally, completely loved this girl, but he was afraid he would harm her if they slept together, so their passion was kept at the boiling point because it was never consummated (until quite late in the series). This is a real insight into the psychology of young females. Absolutely nothing is more romantic to them than this idea. As a middle-aged woman it is a little sad to me that our culture has gotten to the point where the only way to make this kind of relationship believable to young people is to make one of them a vampire. Otherwise, presumably, they would be tearing each other's clothes off on the first date.

Did you ever watch the TV series Moonlight? It premiered during the season of the writer's strike (07-08), which killed it (only 16 episodes). However, our family loved it. Alex O'Loughlin (Hawaii Five-O) played one of those modern vampires, but the story line was excellent, we thought. Too bad the networks didn't give it a chance.

I understand where Mike's preferences are coming from. But i'll admit, I love seeing these new artist's interpretations of stories or their view on the continuation of a story. in Ex. John Carpenter's HALLOWEEN is my favorite all time movie. but I absolutely LOVE both of Rob Zombies remake. if I wanted to see the same old Michael I'd have simply put my old VHS in. but seeing a more violent and sinister Michael was refreshing and I think it also opens doors to other artists (film makers) to give me other movies based on a character and story I love.

I wonder what the next monster mania character will be? I thought that with Twilight, werewolves might begin to start getting some spot light but I haven't seen anything in IMDB in regards to big release werewolf movies

I guess we all realize the motivation behind ALL these tales, regardless when the were penned, was MONEY! Ain't much changed since Stoker decided to give us Dracula. The way to make more money and give things a different bend is to change the time, location, hero/heroine.

We need to remember that the original movie Dracula, was based on the PLAY written by Bram Stoker and not the BOOK written by Bram Stoker.

I'll wager money that if you go out on Halloween and ask people HOW did Dracula die in the NOVEL, they'll tell you it was by a wooden stake in the heart.

Maybe one in one hundred will know that in the novel, Dracula was killed by a Texas cowboy with a Bowie knife!

Pumpkin_Man wrote: I agree with you on the modernistic apsect to that movie being a selling poing, but I was born and raised with an entirely different kind of a vampire story. Barnabas Collins lived in a 300 year old house, and had to return to his coffin by night. Count Dracula had a 7000 year old Castle and had to return to his coffin at night. The whole idea of a vampire to me, is that of a very Halloween, type creatur of the night, and not some "cool dude" who lives in a big city and works in an office building. It's what I'm use to, but that's not to say that I didn't like "Dracula 2000." It was not a bad movie, it just wasn't, IMHO, a horror classic like the Bela Lugosi rendition.

Also, there are a lot of great vampire, wearwolf and haunted house films that take place in modern times. The original book by Bram Stokes actualy takes place in his time, so the original story was set in Stoker's contemporary time frame. It's just that I am not use to these "new fangled' creatures of the night, that live in newly built mansions, cook Italian food, play back-yard Baseball and can come out during the day time, but will glisten like diomands like in the "Twilight" movies. In fact, while "Dracula 2000" had some redeeming qualitys, I couldn't stand "Twilight" at all.

Mike

We're all going to have our preferences for sure. But I'm reminded of an argument I listened to many years ago.

Two guys were arguing about types of music. Dude #1 liked one kind of music and Dude #2 liked a different type. They went back and forth on why ones music was better than the other.

Finally a third party walked up and asked the two guys if they were music lovers? They both said they were. The third party said, No You're Not. He said to be a TRUE music lover you must be opened eared enough to appreciate that ALL music is worth listening to. Yes, you might have one particular type that stands above the rest, but you can NEVER be a true music LOVER until you acknowledge that different people have different tastes. That doesn't mean better or worse, it just means different. When we allow those differences to come out, it allows for greater expression and a more enjoyable and even fuller life.

I'm over 50 and tend to look at older stuff as being better than stuff today. But I know from an intellectual and emotional point of view that its not true. My age, my life experience all color my perception. So when it comes to music, food, art and horror movies, its not that one is better than the other. Its only different. And differences are what make the world more fun.