The Quentin Tarantino Archives logo

Quentin Tarantino's Dracula


#1

… this is a response to sebastian’s may 24, 2010 news story about quentin possibly scouting locations in vienna for a dracula movie. let me say this: a dracula movie from the genius filmmaker quentin tarantino would be awesome. and of course it would surely do well at the box office as well. how could you go wrong? q.t.'s style is perfect for a dracula movie. it’s mandatory that quentin would have to write the dracula movie as well as direct it. i almost faint when i consider the possibility of dracula the prince of darkness uttering dialogue composed by the supreme master of dialogue himself…



… but who would quentin cast as his dracula? christoph waltz? an excellent choice. or perhaps some other gaunt european who’s unknown to western audiences instead. samuel l. jackson cast by quentin in a campy remake of blacula?



… oh god, could you imagine what it would be like if quentin brought gary oldman back to the role? no other actor has captured the pathos and drama of dracula like gary oldman did in bram stoker’s dracula and another outing in the role is required for him to solidify himself alongside bela lugosi and christopher lee (cameo possibility) as the third in a trio of great draculas. oldman should do a sequel to bram stoker’s dracula anyway …



… let’s see if this gossip is justified or if it’s just another false rumour like quentin’s jimi hendrix biopic rumour from a few years back …


#2

NO! Make Kill Bill Vol.3 or a Good ol’ boys/hixploitation/Dukes of Hazzard style movie.

The whole Dracula vampire thing is boring to me. True, QT would make it awesome, but still. If it were true, I wouldn’t be that excited.



It’s cool that QT is in Vienna, I’m in Vienna too. Maybe I bump into him.


#3

Quentin needs to do something original for once. Oh Snap! No I didn’t! ;D


#4

[quote=“G”]Quentin needs to do something original for once. Oh Snap! No I didn’t! ;D[/quote]

Really, what does he have to say about vampires that he didn’t say in From Dusk Till Dawn already?



Interesting to think about but I’d kinda prefer something else. Period gangster, basterds sequel, Howard Hawks romcom, western for sure.


#5

[quote=“Ordell Rodriguez”][quote=“G”]Quentin needs to do something original for once. Oh Snap! No I didn’t! ;D[/quote]

Really, what does he have to say about vampires that he didn’t say in From Dusk Till Dawn already?



Interesting to think about but I’d kinda prefer something else. Period gangster, basterds sequel, Howard Hawks romcom, western for sure.[/quote]

I forgot all about From Dusk Till Dawn and I have it. ;D



I was getting at him doing “homages” all the time.


#6

Haha QT is not doing a vampire movie guys. His focus will shift to the crime genre once more…a period piece noir…



trust me on this one.


#7

I know it’s not going to happen at all. But… I loooove Vampires! I don’t mean Twilight. I have seen every episode of Buffy, and Angel, and Trublood, plus every vampire movie besides the new Twilight. I’d be amped to see QT’s take on Dracula. I do fucking hate these rumors.


#8

[quote=“Sgt. Geoi Donowitz”]I know it’s not going to happen at all. But… I loooove Vampires! I don’t mean Twilight. I have seen every episode of Buffy, and Angel, and Trublood, plus every vampire movie besides the new Twilight. I’d be amped to see QT’s take on Dracula. I do fucking hate these rumors.[/quote]

Have you seen Blood For Dracula?


#9

Is that Italian? I may have seen it. I’ve seen about a hundred old vampire movies.


#10

[quote=“Sgt. Geoi Donowitz”]Is that Italian? I may have seen it. I’ve seen about a hundred old vampire movies.[/quote]


It's a Paul Morrissey film. You might know it as "Andy Warhol's Dracula" and stars Udo Kier.

#11

Would love to see QT do a vampire flick but really want him to go back to his roots and do a crime film like Reservoir Dogs.


#12

[quote=“G”][quote=“Ordell Rodriguez”][quote=“G”]Quentin needs to do something original for once. Oh Snap! No I didn’t! ;D[/quote]

Really, what does he have to say about vampires that he didn’t say in From Dusk Till Dawn already?



Interesting to think about but I’d kinda prefer something else. Period gangster, basterds sequel, Howard Hawks romcom, western for sure.[/quote]

I forgot all about From Dusk Till Dawn and I have it. ;D



I was getting at him doing “homages” all the time.[/quote]
you sure got him good


#13

I don’t think anyone could make Dracula “cool” again like Quentin could. Fuck! It’d be awesome. Again, I say, I HATE these rumors.


#14

Major Vampire fan here, Buffy, Angel, Anne Rice. Can’t STAND the Twillight shit out. Shadow of a Vampire was fucking amazing. OMFG, I loved that movie, Nosferatu, bangin’. Quentin doing Dracula, with a modern twist might be interesting. BUT! It’ll probably never happen.



I wanna see more of his original shit. No more homages to films gone by. More Res. Dogs and Pulp Fiction type movies. The stuff does the best. I’d even settle for a RomCom. He’d rock that.


#15


#16

I would like for him to adapt another novel. Jackie Brown is still his best by far.



It’s fun to see his genre homages because fans of those movies can have a fun time. But to take him serious as a director by doubters of QT, he needs to leave his own mark on film, not praise others that came before him in his films.



QT is more of the dude I would like to hang around with discussing movies all day. I don’t know if I would call for him to showcase originality as a director though. I am a fan of his, so I’m not hating on his films. I want him to succeed. That is why I think it is for the best he drop the homages and do his own thing. Pop culture references has been done before with Godard. He can keep that in his films, but the homages is what is killing his legacy as a true fimmaker in my opinion. I really hope that he shows us what he has someday.



Also, I know he hates “snobby” people, and I know it sometimes can be a good thing for him being a crossover of mainstream and “arthouse”, but I think that is also what is hurting. I believe he needs to choose a side, because mainstream complains about things in his films that they can’t understand and “arthouse” fans bash his films due to lack of originality and just sees him as a gimmick.



Someone like PTA crosses over greatly due to his “homages” isn’t what makes his films, you just see things in them that you can trace back and say he was inspired by so-and-so’s work. It helps that his films are all somewhat original. He isn’t forcing a G.W. Pabst down your throat with references, he could film a scene like a director, but he doesn’t spill out names just to rub in his education on film.


#17

[quote=“G”]I would like for him to adapt another novel. Jackie Brown is still his best by far.[/quote]

It’s his most mature movie, with well-rounded characters. Less superficial than Pulp and KB Vol.1. But I agree fully with Quentin when he said “But all that doesn’t make Jackie Brown a better movie, it just makes it a different movie”.

Style over substance can be a great thing for movies.

[quote=“G”]It’s fun to see his genre homages because fans of those movies can have a fun time. But to take him serious as a director by doubters of QT, he needs to leave his own mark on film, not praise others that came before him in his films.[/quote]

He is doing both these things. This whole being overconcerned with originality and innovation thing is bumming me a bit out.

[quote=“G”]Also, I know he hates “snobby” people, and I know it sometimes can be a good thing for him being a crossover of mainstream and “arthouse”, but I think that is also what is hurting. I believe he needs to choose a side, because mainstream complains about things in his films that they can’t understand and “arthouse” fans bash his films due to lack of originality and just sees him as a gimmick.



Someone like PTA crosses over greatly due to his “homages” isn’t what makes his films, you just see things in them that you can trace back and say he was inspired by so-and-so’s work. It helps that his films are all somewhat original. He isn’t forcing a G.W. Pabst down your throat with references, he could film a scene like a director, but he doesn’t spill out names just to rub in his education on film.[/quote]

I strongly disagree that he has to “choose a side”. It is one of the strong points of Tarantino that he lives neither in Hollywood Blockbuster world, nor in the Arthouse world. Most people still don’t get him: He is a total geek, and real geeks don’t care if a movie is mainstream of artsy, as long as it’s unique and awesome. People can’t understand that he loves, for example both romantic comedies and super-violent asian shit.



And he is not referencing just for the sake of a reference, it always makes sense in the movie, it’s not meant as ironic or a meta-approach either, he uses (for example) imagery from Lady Snowblood BECAUSE ITS AWESOME, not to say “look what obscure movies I know!”


#18

Right on, Kenneth! Quentin shouldn’t do this or that. He should do whatever he wants. It’s his work and his life. It seems a bit pretentious for someone to assume that they know what he should do on his own films. He’s an awesome ROCKSTAR of a filmmaker, and he’ll rock whatever he does. Just enjoy the fact that he’s still making movies and chill. His position in film history is permanently affixed up there with all the greats that have influenced film and society.


#19

CK, fan boyish aside, what mark is he leaving exactly that hasn’t been done before? I love QT, and if I didn’t I wouldn’t be here for years, but to jump outside the box of being a fan boy for a moment, what mark has he left so far? Bringing pop culture and violence to the 90’s? Done before. People still hold on to Pulp Fiction as his masterwork because of that, but it’s been done before.



Also I still believe his best days COULD be ahead of him. Not even most Tarantino fans would agree with me on that.



As a fan again, I don’t care if his stuff is mainstream or not. I was talking about his legacy from the doubters view. QT is going to have his cult following, like everyone else. But what makes him respectable to the average Joe is what I was getting at. No need to turn on me here you 2. :wink:


[quote=“Sgt. Geoi Donowitz”]His position in film history is permanently affixed up there with all the greats that have influenced film and society.[/quote]

That is also an opinion, like mine.


#20

He, like no other, popularized the celebration of B-movies, pop culture, violence, style, and genre movies. geeks became cool all of a sudden. Who else was there, besides the Internet, who did for film geeks what he did for us? There’s even a sitcom about geeks now. you see I use “us” because I see myself as a massive geek. I’m neither an Average Joe, nor a film snob.

And I am not overly concerned with how these two groups see him. His legacy, will hopefully be that of a man who did what I wrote in my first sentence in this post. QT should not change what he is doing one bit, just because most people, including of course Average Joes and critics, do not understand him, doubt him, or even hate him.



To tell you the truth I am astouned (and at the same time extremely happy) that there is a market for QT movie in todays world. Because mainstream Hollywood, aside from some excellent exceptions, sucks pretty hard atm, and the zeitgeist is pretty weak imo.



Again, there is this being overconcerned with “leaving his mark in film history”, the legacy, etc. etc. Movies should not be judged by how much influence they have/had. And this is why I don’t think Citizen Kane is the best movie ever, it’s NOT, and the AFI can suck it with their stupid lists.