Gothic.net Community - View Single Post

ThreeEyesOni · 05-24-2008, 05:12 PM

I didn't mean that Angel was in college, more referring to the differences in tone between the two shows. And yeah, I'm generalizing, mostly because I was trying to be brief.

Dracula, Let The Right One In, and Interview With The Vampire are all movies versions of successful books that (which the exception of Let The Right One In, which I have only barely heard about before now) bad been long-standing and highly developed over years. Dracula was written 35 years before it was made into a film, and it was 100 years before Bram Stoker's Dracula was made; while the classic version is a classic, I don't think it did the story nearly as much justice as the more recent one.

My point being that (when created from scratch) movies, television shows and written fiction are all designed (with a few exceptions) in rather different methods. Of the three, a movie is the hardest one to try and bring across radically different ideas. Vampires have a pretty strong sterotype in fiction (on an unrelated note: one of these days I'd like to do a vampire movie with the vampire is a tradidional floating corpse with it's power in a hat, or maybe a floating chinese head trailing entrails from the stump. just to make people go "gwuh? that's a vampire?"), but there is still a certain amount of explanation needed to show how they work in your setting (for instance: name me 5 vampire movies that don't have some variation on the explanation/questioning about sunlight/garlic/holy water/etc).

The best/best known (certainly not one and the same, but there's a good amount of overlap) vampire movies have been based on these long narratives which have allready put a clear picture in both the readers' and the director's eye. Most good scripts don't actually have much of this narrative wording (anything that isn't a character's actions/dialog/etc) because the film isn't going to read the character's mind.

I'm rambling...

My point is that for every Dracula (or for that matter Dead and Loving it (one of my favorite under-rated films) or Vampire in Brooklyn) there are a half-dozen Blades (it will be a sad day when there are literally a half-dozen Blade movies) and the like, and I still stand by the fact that it is harder to make a good non-vampire-monster/mook movie than it is to write a book of the same sort.

05-24-2008, 05:12 PM	#14
ThreeEyesOni Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 273	I didn't mean that Angel was in college, more referring to the differences in tone between the two shows. And yeah, I'm generalizing, mostly because I was trying to be brief. Dracula, Let The Right One In, and Interview With The Vampire are all movies versions of successful books that (which the exception of Let The Right One In, which I have only barely heard about before now) bad been long-standing and highly developed over years. Dracula was written 35 years before it was made into a film, and it was 100 years before Bram Stoker's Dracula was made; while the classic version is a classic, I don't think it did the story nearly as much justice as the more recent one. My point being that (when created from scratch) movies, television shows and written fiction are all designed (with a few exceptions) in rather different methods. Of the three, a movie is the hardest one to try and bring across radically different ideas. Vampires have a pretty strong sterotype in fiction (on an unrelated note: one of these days I'd like to do a vampire movie with the vampire is a tradidional floating corpse with it's power in a hat, or maybe a floating chinese head trailing entrails from the stump. just to make people go "gwuh? that's a vampire?"), but there is still a certain amount of explanation needed to show how they work in your setting (for instance: name me 5 vampire movies that don't have some variation on the explanation/questioning about sunlight/garlic/holy water/etc). The best/best known (certainly not one and the same, but there's a good amount of overlap) vampire movies have been based on these long narratives which have allready put a clear picture in both the readers' and the director's eye. Most good scripts don't actually have much of this narrative wording (anything that isn't a character's actions/dialog/etc) because the film isn't going to read the character's mind. I'm rambling... My point is that for every Dracula (or for that matter Dead and Loving it (one of my favorite under-rated films) or Vampire in Brooklyn) there are a half-dozen Blades (it will be a sad day when there are literally a half-dozen Blade movies) and the like, and I still stand by the fact that it is harder to make a good non-vampire-monster/mook movie than it is to write a book of the same sort.