It’s the buzzword of 2008, and if I’ve heard it once this summer from a director I’ve heard it 100 times: “I want to make my origin story/comic book movie/space adventure/gay cowboy love story more realistic. Think ‘The Dark Knight.’” All fine and good, but just how realistic is too realistic for a character like Dracula?
It’s a fine line for director Alex Proyas, who is currently prepping his next movie “Dracula: Year Zero,” a story that he told us “sort of the origin tale that mixes [the historical] Prince Vlad of Transylvania with sort of [fictionalized] Bram Stoker [take]" (also find out why Proyas will never direct a Silver Surfer movie here).
Draculas, and vampires in general, are known, of course, for some pretty unrealistic things: being able to transform into bats, for instance, or aversion to garlic, or a lack of a reflection in mirrors, or giant fangs.
“Oh, you’ve got to have teeth,” Proyas exclaimed. “I mean, the teeth are really important. I think Frank Langella in the ‘Dracula’ movie that was made in the 70s, I think he didn’t want to have teeth in the movie. But, no, I like the teeth. I want to see girls with a lot of teeth.”
Ok, so teeth are in. Garlic? “I think the garlic thing is kind of weird,” Proyas laughed.
And the transformation into a bat? Well...Proyas wouldn’t say. So what parts of mythology DO make it into his version? “Stakes and teeth,” the director smiled. “And we’re lots and lots of blood!”
It seems like we ask this every other week these days, with “Dark Knight” influenced films like “He-Man” and now “Superman” coming through the pipelines: But is a more realistic Dracula a BETTER Dracula? And who would you like to see star? Sound off on your thoughts below.