Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Fallingtower

Van Helsing?

Recommended Posts

EzekialLockhart

Ahem, I was flaming the films not the books. Bram Stoker and Mary Shelley's creations were a blessing to horror, but those films are the abomination. Just thought I'd clarify that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Badger

Just to respond to the James Bond items...

 

Didja know that the first choice for Bond was none other than Patrick MacGoohan? After his stint on Danger Man (aka Secret Agent Man), the studio was high on MacGoohan for him to take the part of 007.

 

He turned them down, and went on to do The Prisoner instead. :D

 

-Badger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cynick
Just to respond to the James Bond items...

 

Didja know that the first choice for Bond was none other than Patrick MacGoohan?

If we are getting down to geeky trivia, the first person to play Bond was an American, Barry Nelson, in a 1954 TV adaptation of Casino Royale. And a radio version of Moonraker in 1956 starred none other than Bob Holness (of Blockbusters fame for those Brits old enough to remember it)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Willowhugger

Flemming was so happy with Sean Connery's portrayal in Doctor No that James Bond was retconned into being Scottish descended (i.e his father).

 

Hence...its canon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Deadly_Stardust

As I said before in my post , I apologise that I misunderstood. But it did seem that way, and it was early in the morning and the Shan in my head told me to! As for abominations watch any Full Moon production, it'll make the 1950's Universal Horrors look so good.

Connery Rocks :!:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cynick
Lets see next 3 monsters to be served up to VH?

 

Invisible Man, The Creature from the Black Lagoon and Brendon Frazier.

Hardly of the same calibre as the 3 from the movie (and I believe Jekyll & Hyde feature in the opening scenes). Plus I can't see Stephen Sommers wanting to do another Mummy movie.

 

Brendan Fraser - Gods & Monsters proves he can act. Looney Tunes: Back in Action proves he has no taste.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cthulhudude

At its best this movie *might* be mindless eye-candy to much popcorn to. Something that can be enjoyable if you turn off your brain and just enjoy the pretty pictures (not to mention the three hot Dracua-babes and the way sexy leading lady 8) ). At its worst, well this movie will be exactly like I think it’s going to be; that being a big steaming pile of monkey dung.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nick_B
It's the literature that started it all man. Without Shelly and Stoker we'd have no Poe. Without Poe we'd have no Lovecraft, etc.!

 

Errm, sorry, but no.

 

Obviously Frankenstein predates Poe (1818, I believe), but Poe (1809-1849), Le Fanu (1814-73), James (1862-1936) and Machen (1863-1947) were all being published before that hack Stoker managed to convince someone that Dracula (1897) deserved to see the light of day.

 

The influence Shelley and Stoker continue to exercise over the horror genre is down almost entirely to the cinema versions of their (IMHO) rather uninspiring novels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fallingtower
At its best this movie *might* be mindless eye-candy to much popcorn to. Something that can be enjoyable if you turn off your brain and just enjoy the pretty pictures (not to mention the three hot Dracua-babes and the way sexy leading lady 8) ). At its worst, well this movie will be exactly like I think it’s going to be; that being a big steaming pile of monkey dung.

 

I think you have it...it might be mindless fun in black leather or a black leather Poo-rito.

 

As far as worst possible outcomes...Van Helsing 2 and the continuation of Stephan Sommers career.

 

Who knows maybe he can jump on the Del Toro bandwagon and start making Lovecraft based films? Van Helsing is soon to run out of Universal Monsters and the Mythos :8E: has tons of untapped monster potential for VH to whizz his buzz saw monsterrangs through :!: :!: :idea:

 

[ahem..sorry]

 

One ability I have gained with age is the ability to turn my mind down to zero...I call it turning down my Snob Factor.

 

I am picky enough. Without this ability I wouldn't be able to enjoy anything :wink: .

 

I saw Hugh on Leno last night...he prefers to sing songs, shuffle about and prance himself silly in musicals, rather than be the tough guy.

 

For all you Jackman lovers here's his website. http://www.jackmanslanding.com/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cthulhudude
I guess I might be wrong...super positive Van Helsing review.

Well I’ve read a few positive reviews of it so far but that doesn’t mean that the flick won’t still suck. A review is just an opinion and opinions are like a**holes, everybody’s got them and often they are full of s***.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
KenFinlayson
Okay they may not be the penultimate roots to horror but they are damn close and damn influential to what the horror genre is toady.

 

Ia! Tsathoggua!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Deadly_Stardust

While Stoker may not have been the greatest writer he did popularise the genre. My point had nothing to do with the quality , but the influence. And really if ya wanna get down to it Lovecraft wasn't the best writer either. he had good concepts but couldn't write dialog to save his life.

 

Yes I got my dates mixed up it happens. However both ( and all the authors you listed ) wrote before 1900 therefore affecting everything after 1900. Seeing as Modernity starts circa 1912-14 ( TS Elliott, Ezra Pound, Picasso, Duchamp, et al. The Basics of both Modern Art and Lit.) True the birth of Film spread Dracula's fame from the get go. But Reading was still a primary source of entertainment at that time.

 

 

My argument was ( aside from being based on a misunderstanding on my part) that without said litereature we would not have the horror genre we have it today. Whether any of us like Dracula has no effect on the influence of the novel. Like it or not the novel has influenced a great many people and gotten them to read LeFanu and Machen and Poe. Let me put it this way ask any middle america horror fan about Machen or LeFanu, or Polidori and I will lay money odds that they will give you a blank stare. mention Bram Stoker or Mary Shelly however. That is where the influence lies it starts with those two ( or recently Rice or King) and spirals from there.

 

 

And if you want to get down to brass tacks Dracula must have been somewhat inspiring as people as early as 1922 (Nosferatu) were inspire to bring Dracula to the Big Screen(albeit silent at the time).

 

 

While I will back down somewhat on Dracula as it is not the best written, I will not back down with Frankestein.

1 Frankenstein predates all the others as you skillfully pointed out.

2 Frankenstein is an original concept not a folk-tale rehash

3 Frankenstein is very well written.

4 Frankenstein is one of the first Horror novels ever written and as far as I can tell the first sci-fi horror.

5 where do you honestly think HPL got the idea of Herbert West from? I sincerely doubt he had never read Shelly before he wrote West.

 

 

Again I end stateing that it is entirely possible I am somewhat wrong on my facts. However it is the spirit of my argument that I hold to.

I mean no disrespect etc., just trying to make my point clear.

 

(P.S. - If I seem at all psychotic at the moment, it's the week before finals for me and I have multiple Papers and Artwork due at the moment lending me the sanity of a chicken sans head. As such I apologize if I get/got too out of hand and vehemnent. Gotta alotta love for this board and Everyone who posts here rocks, esp. since I can get into intellectual debates that do not turn into full-fledged flame wars. Now excuse me while I go beat my head up against a poetry term paper. :evil: )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TheKingInYellow
2 Frankenstein is an original concept not a folk-tale rehash

 

Actually, as I recall, Frankenstein is loosely taken from a Hebrew tale. I don't remember the story all to well, but someone built a golem to protect his people, but the golem went on a rampage or something to that effect. When the golem's creator tried to stop him, the golem asked him "Who are you to play God", and that's more or less the moral of the story, as well.

 

That said, I think the stories that preceded Lovecraft or whichever author had some effect in one way or another. Personally, I felt Stoker's Dracula was excellent, and even if Lovecraft to never have even looked at the book, it helped cultivate a demand for horror literature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Deadly_Stardust

I didn't think that Shelly had pulled fromt he Golem tale, however now that you mention it...hrmmm this bears research. Like I said my brain isn't on full right now..... Anyone else got finals psychosis or is it just me?

*Le Sigh*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cthulhudude

Yes, Frankenstein is based off of the classic Golem myth. A man creates life for noble reasons but his creation goes out of control. When he tries to stop his out of control and very large monster by erasing the first letter of the word EMETH (for God) carved into the creature’s clay forehead and thus change it into METH (he is dead) the misguided rabbi ends up dying to it as the huge creature falls on top of him once it is dead. At least, that’s one version of the story. There are many others but they all have the same central ideas to them, that being man is not meant to play God and if you do your creation will be the death/doom of you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Deadly_Stardust

*Bows out*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fallingtower

I must commend all you folks....

 

You have put more thought and displayed more wisdom in your replys on this thread, than Van Helsing director Stephan Sommers put into the screenplay and direction of said movie.

 

Have you read some of the reviews :( Yikes!

 

How many of you are going to see it anyway??

 

I was planning on seeing Hellboy again, after Van Helsing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Deadly_Stardust

I'm always up for some silly action revisualization of old stuff, otherwise I wouldn't own the 2 Mummy movies or Brotherhood of the wolves. Historic accuarcy is great , however I go to the movies to be entertained. I loved reign of fire, which I heard got pretty badly panned by critics. But thats me .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nick_B
Yes, Frankenstein is based off of the classic Golem myth

 

And of course, it was subtitled 'The Modern Prometheus'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tittan

Well, I've seen the movie - outdoors in Trondheim, Norway, and I must say it's better than you'd expect - IF...

 

IF you don't care that the old myths get raped

IF you don't care about the script being written by seemingly a guy with to big a drug-issue

IF you don't mind heavy graphix

IF you just want to go out, have a laugh and not get too scared

IF a lot of other things...

 

There was a few nice comments though, like when Igor is torturing a (um... something -werewolf I think) and Dracula asks "Why do you keep torturing that poor thing?" and Igor answers: "Um.. That's what I do, master!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Innominandum
wRx[/url'>]Van Helsing [2004]

Directed by Stephen "The Mummy" Sommers

Starring Hugh Jackman, Kate "Yum yum" Beckinsale and Richard Roxburgh.

 

This is a popcorn movie. Mary Shelly fans run and effin hide because they'll leave not one thing standing of your beloved books. Van Helsing, who really is a cross between Buffy the Vampire Slayer, James Bond and Batman fight the Forces of Darkness (capital F, capital D), not one at a time, no...all at once! If you're hoping it sounds worse than it is, tough luck. It really is pretty shite, story-wise. It's fun-filled and action packed, but the story is as flimsy as the clothing on Dracula's brides.

 

Good things? Sure. The single coolest thing about this film is the atmosphere, which is rich and beautiful. They had a lot of money and they sure used it. It looks beautiful, even if some of the CGI wasn't always up to snuff. The Victorian atmosphere is almost Burton-esque, and very well maintained. Too bad Van Helsing - who's name is Gabriel, and not Abraham for some reason - is walking around with hand-powered circular saws and a gas-powered, high velocity, full automatic...crossbow. It's just a little weird.

 

Another good thing about the film is Richard Roxburgh's acting, which is rather good, if comical at times. He certainly lends some credibility to the acting department.

 

Another good thing is Ms Beckinsale's hot body. Yes, she does it again, she never ceases to satisfy. After Underworld and Van Helsing, she should beware of being type-cast, though.

 

Shite, but amusing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Haplo781

Just FYI, I saw a preview of VH on E! and Beckinsdale's character was heard screaming "Aaaaah! The Frankenstein Monster!"

 

So there you go. One pet peeve this film WON'T be responsible for perpetuating.

 

Also, I want to see it because it looks like a big-screen Castlevania.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TheCrawlingChaos

ok, just something i think i need to point out here.

 

frankenstein isn't based on hebrew foklore.

 

as someone pointed out (in connection with the hebrew bit for some bizzare reason) it's subtitle is the modern prometheus.

 

prometheus was a titan in grecco-roman myth. he created man, along with his brother.

 

mary shelley was writing in a time when educated people knew grecco-roman myth. i somehow doubt she knew that much hebrew folklore, if any.

 

look at some romantic poetry. the likes of keats, byron and shelley (mary shelley's husband). it's FULL of grecco-roman references.

 

there are similarities to the golem myth, but these are coincidence. the story is about playing god, not about playing a rabi playing god.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.