Castlevania Dungeon Forums

The Castlevania Dungeon Forums => General Castlevania Discussion => Topic started by: SiFi270 on November 04, 2012, 01:53:47 PM

Title: Dracula: The Un-Dead (The "Official" Sequel)
Post by: SiFi270 on November 04, 2012, 01:53:47 PM
Would this go with the Castlevania threads or in off topic discussion?

Anyway, I'm halfway through this tripe and it's hella dumb. Jonathan Harker dies solely so that Mina can fall in love with her metaphorical rapist, words are misspelled, nothing fits with the original book's canon, and the method of killing a vampire is changed solely so that Van Helsing can be connected to Jack the ripper.

Has anyone else suffered through this book?
Title: Re: Dracula: The Un-Dead (The "Official" Sequel)
Post by: X on November 04, 2012, 04:53:27 PM
I 've read the book wad was satisfied with it. If you want an explanation to all the questions that you have about it then flip to the back of the book and read the author's notes. It will tell you all you need to know about why the story is what it is. It will explain the connections of fictional characters and their real-life counterparts, and other things as well.
Title: Re: Dracula: The Un-Dead (The "Official" Sequel)
Post by: Chernabogue on November 04, 2012, 05:08:15 PM
I found the book okay. Not necessary but it was cool to see what happened after (even if the story was a bit disapointing IMO)
Title: Re: Dracula: The Un-Dead (The "Official" Sequel)
Post by: SiFi270 on November 04, 2012, 06:54:34 PM
What's that, Ryan North, AKA funniest human alive? "Stop putting words in [your] mouth"? Why, I oughtta...

(https://castlevaniadungeon.net/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fzmxsf.png&hash=4a377614288e9241063ce4d21c98ee7bf0a1c0e8)

For some context to the more fortunate, at one point Mina is raped both metaphorically and literally by Elizabeth, the book's main antagonist, and she actually enjoys it at first, thinking it's Dracula, like it was in the first book. However, when she realizes it isn't him, she goes all double standard and declares it the worst thing that's ever happened to her.
Title: Re: Dracula: The Un-Dead (The "Official" Sequel)
Post by: Fofa on November 04, 2012, 07:59:09 PM
There are only so many ways I can say "I hate this book with a passion", and there are so many things wrong with it you'd have to write a novella to point them all out.
Title: Re: Dracula: The Un-Dead (The "Official" Sequel)
Post by: SiFi270 on November 04, 2012, 08:41:06 PM
Well, there is one good thing about it: It isn't Hotel Transylvania.
Title: Re: Dracula: The Un-Dead (The "Official" Sequel)
Post by: Inccubus on November 05, 2012, 03:31:17 AM
Never heard of this "Official Sequel", but it sounds like drivel from the wikipedia description. Really? You got a B-movie script writer and a Stoker-descended coach? Sounds like the chemical formula for "suck-ass". Plus making Jack Seward into Jack the Ripper was totally RIPPED-off from the 1992 novel, "Anno Dracula". Which is a great book which is a "what-if" sequel to "Dracula" that assumes, that the heroes actually failed to kill Vlad III. And the cherry on top is the inclusion a Jiangshi assassin that is sent to kill... Jack IIRC.
Title: Re: Dracula: The Un-Dead (The "Official" Sequel)
Post by: Jorge D. Fuentes on November 05, 2012, 11:59:13 AM
Quote from: SiFi270 on November 04, 2012, 08:41:06 PM
Well, there is one good thing about it: It isn't Hotel Transylvania.

Actually that was a pretty cute movie.
Title: Re: Dracula: The Un-Dead (The "Official" Sequel)
Post by: Sumac on November 05, 2012, 12:38:04 PM
Quote
Plus making Jack Seward into Jack the Ripper
Wait, WHAT?!
I don't even... :o
Title: Re: Dracula: The Un-Dead (The "Official" Sequel)
Post by: Kaori on November 05, 2012, 08:40:06 PM
Quote from: SiFi270 on November 04, 2012, 08:41:06 PM
Well, there is one good thing about it: It isn't Hotel Transylvania.

I happen to like Hotel Transylvania... :(

Assuming we are talking about the book with Saint Germain, and not the movie. I have not read any of the other books in the series. And I have not seen that animated movie that shares the same name as the book, even though they are two different things, lol.

On another note, I should at some point at least try to read the sequel to Dracula. I liked the original, so I'm curious about the sequel.
Title: Re: Dracula: The Un-Dead (The "Official" Sequel)
Post by: SiFi270 on November 07, 2012, 02:11:13 PM
So Mina has just referred to herself, proudly I might add, as "Dracula's Adulterous Whore".

I'm becoming increasingly tempted to ram a stake through this book.
Title: Re: Dracula: The Un-Dead (The "Official" Sequel)
Post by: Flame on November 07, 2012, 05:24:15 PM
I read the plot summary. basically, TL;DR,

(click to show/hide)

The fuck Dacre. Your cool name will not save you. Stoker or not, DIE MONSTER. YOU DON'T BELONG IN THIS WORLD. srsly, please never write again... Sherlock Holmes vs Dracula was better connected to the original book than the sequel written by Stoker's own descendant! just WOW!
Title: Re: Dracula: The Un-Dead (The "Official" Sequel)
Post by: Fofa on November 07, 2012, 08:35:22 PM
Quote from: SiFi270 on November 07, 2012, 02:11:13 PM
So Mina has just referred to herself, proudly I might add, as "Dracula's Adulterous Whore".

I'm becoming increasingly tempted to ram a stake through this book.

I'm actually surprised that the "adulterous whore" line hasn't been turned into an internet meme yet.
Title: Re: Dracula: The Un-Dead (The "Official" Sequel)
Post by: Flame on November 08, 2012, 04:55:18 AM
While we are on the subject, happy 165th birthday to Brahm Stoker.

(https://www.google.com/logos/2012/bram-stoker-2012-hp.jpg)
Title: Re: Dracula: The Un-Dead (The "Official" Sequel)
Post by: TheCruelAngel on November 08, 2012, 03:51:38 PM
Quote from: Inccubus on November 05, 2012, 03:31:17 AM
Never heard of this "Official Sequel", but it sounds like drivel from the wikipedia description. Really? You got a B-movie script writer and a Stoker-descended coach? Sounds like the chemical formula for "suck-ass". Plus making Jack Seward into Jack the Ripper was totally RIPPED-off from the 1992 novel, "Anno Dracula". Which is a great book which is a "what-if" sequel to "Dracula" that assumes, that the heroes actually failed to kill Vlad III. And the cherry on top is the inclusion a Jiangshi assassin that is sent to kill... Jack IIRC.
I've been tempted to pick up Anno Dracula, hearing great things about it, especially since there's a reprint of it. I take it you would whole heartedly recommend it?
Title: Re: Dracula: The Un-Dead (The "Official" Sequel)
Post by: James Belmont on November 08, 2012, 03:56:41 PM
What's even more infuriating to me is the Afterward. Read the whole book and then read the authors talking about the book, and two glaring contradictions are made:

1. They wanted to wipe clean all the years of revision and retcon that have occurred thanks to countless other books and movies that both added and subtracted from Dracula as Bram Stoker wrote it.

2. They wanted to incorporate all the revisionist retconned stuff that occurred so that people who are only familiar with Dracula thanks to those countless other books and movies won't be lost and confused.

Just goes to show how stupid and transparent the book really is. It's no attempt at honoring Bram Stoker, it's a cash-grab, plain and simple. The audacity to pass off a lame cash-grab as an official sequel is just...blasphemous. I don't care if one of the authors is a Stoker, it's a travesty.

The one part that ticks me off the most about it is that they had the audacity to suggest that the original novel, as Bram Stoker wrote it, was wrong. That Bram was wrong, and that the novel as he wrote it isn't what really happened. I don't mind liberties being taken sometimes, but this meta-fictional dump they take on Bram Stoker is incredibly disrespectful. That's a huge, huge pet peeve of mine in any Dracula fiction, and I can't stand it that something calling itself an official sequel would do that.
Title: Re: Dracula: The Un-Dead (The "Official" Sequel)
Post by: Sumac on November 08, 2012, 05:20:29 PM
Quote
That Bram was wrong, and that the novel as he wrote it isn't what really happened.
That's rather stupid thing to say on their side.
Smells of disrespect to the original work and its creator. "We know better what author wanted to say" - sound like some "deepdiving" fans, however in this case it's a simple attempt to justify a cash-in.

I haven't read Dracula (yet) and I haven't read that novel (and I don't have such desire), but such works by descendants of the famous writers, that try to pass their works as "official sequels" are bordering on disgusting. It is obvious that they doing it not because of the respect, but because they want to make easy money on the famous stories.
Title: Re: Dracula: The Un-Dead (The "Official" Sequel)
Post by: Inccubus on November 08, 2012, 07:21:13 PM
Quote from: TheCruelAngel on November 08, 2012, 03:51:38 PM
I've been tempted to pick up Anno Dracula, hearing great things about it, especially since there's a reprint of it. I take it you would whole heartedly recommend it?

Yes. I thought it was pretty damn good.
Title: Re: Dracula: The Un-Dead (The "Official" Sequel)
Post by: James Belmont on November 08, 2012, 07:54:20 PM
Quote from: TheCruelAngel on November 08, 2012, 03:51:38 PM
I've been tempted to pick up Anno Dracula, hearing great things about it, especially since there's a reprint of it. I take it you would whole heartedly recommend it?
Definitely check it out. While it is rooted in a "what if?" alternate ending to Bram's novel, it's not disrespectful at all. If Dracula: The Un-Dead was a failed attempt to simultaneously pay tribute to Bram Stoker's original novel AND acknowledge the history of vampire film and literature since then, Anno Dracula can really be considered a successful attempt at the same sort of thing. It doesn't piss on Bram's story, it acknowledges and accepts whatever changes it does make as just that, and it manages to incorporate the literary and cinematic mythology of the vampire across many different stories in a very clever way. Characters from all over film and literature, and especially vampire film and literature, are borrowed and used in very cool ways. Name any famous vampire character and there's a good chance he or she makes an appearance or is referenced in some form, from Blacula to Count Orlock to the Count from Sesame Street.

But the shadow of Count Dracula himself looms over all of it, even if he doesn't take center stage.
Title: Re: Dracula: The Un-Dead (The "Official" Sequel)
Post by: SiFi270 on November 08, 2012, 07:57:16 PM
What really bothers me about the "Bram Stoker is WROG" dealie is that the idea is first fully introduced when Dracula himself reads the novel, then proceeds to chew out Bram for all the 'inaccuracies', and then kills him.

I'm sure Dacre Stoker didn't actually do much and was only said to be the main author for publicity, but if he was okay with this scene, then that's just cruel.
Title: Re: Dracula: The Un-Dead (The "Official" Sequel)
Post by: Fofa on November 08, 2012, 08:13:18 PM
I remember reading somewhere (can't remember where though) that Ian Holt was the actual writer of the pair. Dacre Stoker was a track-and-field coach.