The Last Voyage of the Demeter

[Velaryon]

Has anyone else seen this film yet?

I saw it with friends yesterday afternoon. It wasn't a perfect film, but I enjoyed it a lot. I really liked the idea of taking that small chunk of the Dracula story and fleshing it out into a full movie.

I do think Dracula's appearance was a bit too inhuman. I understand that they had an uphill battle to make Dracula truly terrifying again, but I have trouble reconciling what looks like a grown-up version of the Bat Boy that used to appear on tabloid covers with the charming Count who fooled Jonathan Harker for weeks and mesmerized Lucy Westenra and Mina Harker.

Strong performances all around from the actors, and they even managed to surprise me a couple times. I'm not really a horror buff, but this movie was a lot of fun.

[Metastachydium]

Well, as the resident Dracula snob 'round here, I don't really feel like bothering with this is really worth my time.
–The official synopsis on the film's official website describes the plot as the story of a ship carrying cargo from Carpathia to London. Stoker worked from books and through corresponding with folks the old-fashioned way and still got his facts right. Those that made this have access to freakin' Wikipedia all day, every day, and this is what they'll go with. Is being illiterate a requirement to work in the movie industry these days?!
–Dracula looks like the love child of an orc from the crappy Hobbit trilogy, Gollum and a likely flightless bat. (I'm not gonna spoiler this; the trailer's full of it.) I mean, it's not a guy in a red, metallic bunny suit or a big, hairy wolf ape like the one in that other movie, but still: why?
–It continues the tradition oh-so-dear to me of making a strictest-sense fanfic out of the story for reasons difficult for me to clearly discern. All I know about this one basically screams "it's mostly about our OCs".
I'd be happily disabused of any and all of these notions, of course (please do that, if you can), but I wouldn't say I have my hopes high.

[Kareeah_Indaga]

I do think Dracula's appearance was a bit too inhuman. I understand that they had an uphill battle to make Dracula truly terrifying again, but I have trouble reconciling what looks like a grown-up version of the Bat Boy that used to appear on tabloid covers with the charming Count who fooled Jonathan Harker for weeks and mesmerized Lucy Westenra and Mina Harker.

Saw this today, got to agree, also

I think they did themselves a disservice by showing the end at the beginning. Sure, anyone who read the book knows how it’s going to end, but it’s just that added bit of uncertainty removed for the people that didn’t.

John Major’s character lost a lot of doctor cred with me when he poked Anna with the transfusion needle and DID NOT DISINFECT FIRST. I don’t care what century the whole thing takes place in. BAD DOCTOR!

A couple parts felt more like a zombie movie than a vampire movie. It reminded me of I Am Legend.

I was also a little miffed that they went with the old ‘vampire bursts into flame in sunlight’ routine. Original Dracula did not do that people!

There were also a couple moments of fridge logic, for example:

Dracula’s box has all the catches and levers to open it on the outside. Why? He needs to be able to open it from the inside.
The adults are trying to save Toby(? The kid) when he’s locked in the room: there’s a BIG hole in the door and a few moments earlier much tension was made of the zombie vampire spawn trying to unlock the door via same. His father doesn’t even try the hole to get in. :smallannoyed:

Also, their plan to ‘ambush’ a critter who has successfully been stalking them and evading them over multiple nights was kind of…bad? ‘We’ll barricade the hold so he has to come up through…’ No, he already smashed through that thing earlier. You’re not going to keep him from coming out that way with a few nails. You’re also trying to shoot something very fast moving in the dark. And I think at one point Major’s character is running to rescue the captain who had already told them earlier he wanted to go down with the ship…?

And some of the CGI blood needed work. Vamp eyes didn’t really look realistic for me either.

In short, typical horror movie with Dracula trappings. Though I don’t usually watch horror movies but I went to see this one because I read Dracula, so I guess mission accomplished…?

Given that Johnathan Majors plays the protagonist, I’m kind of hoping if/when the HISHE video comes out it has a big fight between Dracula and Kang the Conqueror.

[Talakeal]

Haven't seen the movie itself, but I saw an add with the line "from the best selling novel" that made me roll my eyes hard.

[Eldan]

Very much on the fence. I don't like how they made Dracula look, but the trailer doesn't otherwise look horrible. If you want to expand the Dracula story, the story of the Demeter is not the worst idea. But then I read in this thread that Dracula bursts into flames, and that just tells me that they probably mostly went with lame vampire movie clichés instead of taking the actually interesting parts of the book.

[Sapphire Guard]

Where is this available to see? As concepts go, it could work pretty well, but I'm not sure I have faith that it will.

[The Glyphstone]

It sounds like you could make a very gripping, tense thriller/horror movie out of this. Have the crew and a motley assortment of suspicious passengers, including the aristocratic foreign count, disappearing one by one. Increasing paranoia and fear, with flickering glimpses of a monster stalking people in the dark. Less Bat Boy meets Gollum, more John Carpenter's The Thing on a boat.

This movie is not that movie.

[Peelee]

It sounds like you could make a very gripping, tense thriller/horror movie out of this. Have the crew and a motley assortment of suspicious passengers, including the aristocratic foreign count, disappearing one by one. Increasing paranoia and fear, with flickering glimpses of a monster stalking people in the dark. Less Bat Boy meets Gollum, more John Carpenter's The Thing on a boat.

This movie is not that movie.

I would be very interested in that movie.

[Kareeah_Indaga]

Very much on the fence. I don't like how they made Dracula look, but the trailer doesn't otherwise look horrible. If you want to expand the Dracula story, the story of the Demeter is not the worst idea. But then I read in this thread that Dracula bursts into flames, and that just tells me that they probably mostly went with lame vampire movie clichés instead of taking the actually interesting parts of the book.

I should clarify,

It’s the vampire spawn that burst into flames, Dracula himself survives the film.

But while I admit it’s been a while, I don’t remember that happening in the book either.


Where is this available to see?

I saw it at Cinemark.


It sounds like you could make a very gripping, tense thriller/horror movie out of this. Have the crew and a motley assortment of suspicious passengers, including the aristocratic foreign count, disappearing one by one. Increasing paranoia and fear, with flickering glimpses of a monster stalking people in the dark. Less Bat Boy meets Gollum, more John Carpenter's The Thing on a boat.

That would have been an awesome movie if that had been the movie they made!

[Eldan]

It sounds like you could make a very gripping, tense thriller/horror movie out of this. Have the crew and a motley assortment of suspicious passengers, including the aristocratic foreign count, disappearing one by one. Increasing paranoia and fear, with flickering glimpses of a monster stalking people in the dark. Less Bat Boy meets Gollum, more John Carpenter's The Thing on a boat.

This movie is not that movie.

Yeah, when I saw the name and the first few seconds of the trailer, that's the movie I was really hoping for. Something looked room mystery-ish, where a cast of characters are trying to find out who among them is the murderer. (And then the possible twist it's actually the coffin they are bringing to England, I don't actually remember if the book says the count ever came out of his coffin on the ship.)

[Wintermoot]

I enjoyed it.

It is Dracula as a monster movie though. So Dracula takes the role of the Thing or the Alien or the Predator or whatnot. Here, for these few weeks as he travels from his home to England, he is a blood-crazed, weakened, feral thing that scurries through the ship eating first rats and livestock then parceling his way through the crew in order to survive the long journey. He is used to more ample fare and you can see what the starvation changes him into. Though, cat-like, he still enjoys playing with his food.

I thought the cinematography was fantastic. The ship and the world look right and look fantastic. From the cart-train bringing the cargo to the ship, to the ship. My god, this ship looks amazing. I have been dreaming of someone set designing an 1800s ship this well for years. The cast was more than serviceable from the Onion knight's captain to the doctor. The lone woman cast member was nothing special as far as acting goes. They would get a lot of leeway from me for simply having a physical set and ship instead of terrible CGI like Death on the Nile had. I mean, i'm sure a lot of it IS CGI, but it looks real. It looks lived in. It looks haunting and mysterious and ancient and real.

The dracula creature was amazing as well. Yes, he's not the genteel count of the novel, but this is dracula suffering from starvation and weakened and thus more beastlike. an idea of what the monster behind the facade actually is. He masterfully shifts from a weak scuttling beast to an oversized vicious predator in seconds. Definitely feels inhuman and demonic.

When I saw the first preview for the movie, they were playing it more like some others were hoping for. Not revealing it was a dracula movie until third act. However, by the second preview, it was clear to me it was going to be a savage bat-monster version of the Thing. And that's what it was.

[Clertar]

It sounds like an entire movie devoted to being worse than what Morneau accomplished in a couple of minutes 100 years ago.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5IgS56arSo

[Kareeah_Indaga]

I thought the cinematography was fantastic. The ship and the world look right and look fantastic. From the cart-train bringing the cargo to the ship, to the ship. My god, this ship looks amazing. I have been dreaming of someone set designing an 1800s ship this well for years. The cast was more than serviceable from the Onion knight's captain to the doctor. The lone woman cast member was nothing special as far as acting goes. They would get a lot of leeway from me for simply having a physical set and ship instead of terrible CGI like Death on the Nile had. I mean, i'm sure a lot of it IS CGI, but it looks real. It looks lived in. It looks haunting and mysterious and ancient and real.


Can’t comment on Death on the Nile, but otherwise hard agree with all of this. I think it’s what made the instances of bad CGI stick out as much as they did. It’s like going through a game and having a big ‘FPO’ on a load screen - it doesn’t break anything, but it’s noticeable.

[Tyndmyr]

Well, as the resident Dracula snob 'round here, I don't really feel like bothering with this is really worth my time.

Agreed. I'll watch it if I'm really bored and in the mood for a movie, and nothing decent is out. Not bothering otherwise, and have at least two films unseen that are out with a higher priority right now.


–The official synopsis on the film's official website describes the plot as the story of a ship carrying cargo from Carpathia to London. Stoker worked from books and through corresponding with folks the old-fashioned way and still got his facts right. Those that made this have access to freakin' Wikipedia all day, every day, and this is what they'll go with. Is being illiterate a requirement to work in the movie industry these days?!

Seems like. It also seems, at least from the trailer, as if the entire voyage is out of sight of land, and landing early to escape is somehow not an option....even if we are generous, and assume they mean a port in the Balkans or somewhere rather than landlocked Carpathia proper, that means a journey largely through the Med, and then up the coast. There would be no particular reason to press towards London specifically. Just...go for the closest land and bail.

Seriously, look at a map and tell me how one gets from Romania or what not to London, without being near land.

[Peelee]

Seems like. It also seems, at least from the trailer, as if the entire voyage is out of sight of land, and landing early to escape is somehow not an option....even if we are generous, and assume they mean a port in the Balkans or somewhere rather than landlocked Carpathia proper, that means a journey largely through the Med, and then up the coast. There would be no particular reason to press towards London specifically. Just...go for the closest land and bail.

Seriously, look at a map and tell me how one gets from Romania or what not to London, without being near land.

If "near land" means "within sight of land", and assuming starting in coastal Romania (unsure of where "Carpathia" is), then they would be out of sight of land for most of the trip in the Black Sea, most of Sea of Marmara, some of the Aegean Sea, most of the Mediterranean Sea, the entirety of the Alboran Sea, the entirety of the Bay of Biscay, and the vast majority of the English Channel.

"Go for the closest land and bail" is something I can't speak to (though it sounds plenty reasonable), but an enormous chunk of the voyage would most likely be out of sight of land if they were going the most direct route instead of deliberately keeping towards the coast. Unsure of how 19th century sailing navigation worked, but it's not impossible for the ship to not be within sight of land for lengthy stretches (days to weeks) for the majority of the trip.

[Metastachydium]

I should clarify,

It’s the vampire spawn that burst into flames, Dracula himself survives the film.

But while I admit it’s been a while, I don’t remember that happening in the book either.

It absolutely never ever happens once in the novel. That's not a thing. (Geez, could somebody finally read the damn thing before making a movie out of it, I wonder?)


The dracula creature was amazing as well. Yes, he's not the genteel count of the novel, but this is dracula suffering from starvation and weakened and thus more beastlike. an idea of what the monster behind the facade actually is. He masterfully shifts from a weak scuttling beast to an oversized vicious predator in seconds. Definitely feels inhuman and demonic.

Hard disagree. For one thing, Stoker's Dracula managed to be just that throughout, while looking mostly human. More importantly, however, in the novel,

it is entirely clear that no, he's not doing that because he's starving. It is not even clear he actually eats those people and he demonstrates that he doesn't need to drink for the duration on the way back. En route to England, he does it for sport.



Seems like. It also seems, at least from the trailer, as if the entire voyage is out of sight of land, and landing early to escape is somehow not an option....

Reading the novel would have, once more, helped with that. Dracula is capable of manipulating the weather. He made fog and tweaked the winds. That's why the ship couldn't stop before he wanted it to stop. They could have just want with that, but then, I suppose they either didn't know or thought it ouldn't fit the theme of their Batgollum.


even if we are generous, and assume they mean a port in the Balkans or somewhere rather than landlocked Carpathia proper, that means a journey largely through the Med, and then up the coast. There would be no particular reason to press towards London specifically. Just...go for the closest land and bail.

Seriously, look at a map and tell me how one gets from Romania or what not to London, without being near land.

(Interesting fact: the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy (where Castle Dracula actually was, dear Hollywood&co.) wasn't at all landlocked. Dracula set off from a Black Sea port because crossing into Romania and floating down on the Siret was simply quicker and more convenient than a long road trip from the Danube (which he could have reached by way of westbound rivers) to the Adriatic, and Stoker ****ING KNEW THAT.)

[Sapphire Guard]

Oh, this is in theaters? I thought it was streaming.

Conceptually, this is a good idea, although it would be quite difficult to write well. You can't rely on twists, because the audience knows the story.

[Errorname]

So from what I've heard they didn't adapt the part where the captain ties himself to the wheel so that even dead he cannot abandon his post, which is one of the most evocative visuals described in the whole sequence?

[Wintermoot]

So from what I've heard they didn't adapt the part where the captain ties himself to the wheel so that even dead he cannot abandon his post, which is one of the most evocative visuals described in the whole sequence?

No, that was in there.



Reading the novel would have, once more, helped with that. Dracula is capable of manipulating the weather. He made fog and tweaked the winds. That's why the ship couldn't stop before he wanted it to stop. They could have just want with that, but then, I suppose they either didn't know or thought it ouldn't fit the theme of their Batgollum.


No, that was also in the movie. Several times.



(Geez, could somebody finally read the damn thing before making a movie out of it, I wonder?)


Kind of like how someone could watch a movie before incorrectly critiquing it?

[Metastachydium]

No, that was also in the movie. Several times.


Kind of like how someone could watch a movie before incorrectly critiquing it?

Well, like I said (and in my very first post in the thread, too),


I'd be happily disabused of any and all of these notions, of course (please do that, if you can)

, so thank you! You COULD! If you have anything to say about and against my other contentions, I'm all… Like, the receptors that pick up that kind of information in plants. (Do vampires not spontaneously combust? Is Dracula not starving or desperate? Is he not from some place called "Carpathia"? Etc.)

[Errorname]

No, that was in there.

Okay, that's good to hear.

It's a really cool section of the book and honestly I'm surprised this movie didn't get made a lot sooner.

[Peelee]

While im surprised this movie didn't get made a lot better. HEYO!

[Kareeah_Indaga]

All this talk is making me want to go re-read the book!



Seems like. It also seems, at least from the trailer, as if the entire voyage is out of sight of land, and landing early to escape is somehow not an option....

Weeell, in the movie:


Part of it is because the problems don’t start until they get out to the open ocean. At one point the surviving crew theorizes Dracula had been slipping off to the mainland to feed while they were in sight of it, and Anna the ‘stowaway’ chick tells them she was supposed to be a snack too.

Part is that the crew had been promised a hefty bonus for prompt delivery of Dracula’s crates to London, so early on when someone suggests stopping at a different port - IIRC at this point the doctor wanted to get off with Anna, all the livestock had been killed and one or two of the human crew were missing - they shot it down because they wouldn’t get paid.



No, that was in there.

Except it kind of wasn’t.


It’s inverted from the book. It’s true the movie Captain didn’t plan to leave the ship, but it was not so much out of duty and determination but out of despair because his young son had been killed by Dracula. In the movie he intended to sail the ship out to sea, to keep Dracula away from civilization. (Which is why it was weird that John Major’s character tried to ‘rescue’ him. :smallconfused:) That obviously never happens, it crashes onto the coast. He does get tied to the wheel, but he’s tied on backwards.



No, that was also in the movie. Several times.

Yes, it was very obvious CGI but it was in there.

[Tyndmyr]

If "near land" means "within sight of land", and assuming starting in coastal Romania (unsure of where "Carpathia" is), then they would be out of sight of land for most of the trip in the Black Sea, most of Sea of Marmara, some of the Aegean Sea, most of the Mediterranean Sea, the entirety of the Alboran Sea, the entirety of the Bay of Biscay, and the vast majority of the English Channel.

"Go for the closest land and bail" is something I can't speak to (though it sounds plenty reasonable), but an enormous chunk of the voyage would most likely be out of sight of land if they were going the most direct route instead of deliberately keeping towards the coast. Unsure of how 19th century sailing navigation worked, but it's not impossible for the ship to not be within sight of land for lengthy stretches (days to weeks) for the majority of the trip.

I have not watched the movie myself, but it appears that the vampire revealed section takes place over a lengthy period of time, at least a couple nights and a day, from the trailer. Dracula is what, 1890s? In this era, ships were crossing the Atlantic in under seven days. By comparison, a trip through the Med would always be within a modest sailing time of land.

The weather modification would indeed work, but if they are permitted to retain control of the ship, well, any bad enough problem can be handled by putting in to port. However, that makes it somewhat more of a magical opponent, and less pure monstrous, which...at least does not mesh well with the trailer's portrayal. Perhaps the fault lies only with the trailer, but if the trailer looks weak enough, I am not inclined to watch the film.

[Wintermoot]

The movie follows the timeline of the log included in the Dracula novel. So they launch from Varna, exactly like in the novel on the same day as they launch in the novel, and their journey follows the journey as outlined in the novel. Down through the Black Sea, west through the Aegean and Mediterranean, up past France and through the English channel.

They refer to the log during the trip, making sure that the crew disappears in the movie the same time they disappear in the novel. Honestly, they are very faithful to the log. The movie is simply trying to fill in the gaps, give the characters, character, and turning it into a movie instead of a few log entries.

The succeed in some areas, fail in others. For example, for me the biggest failure is when the doctor figures out where Dracula is nesting during the day, several days pass after that and they never do anything with it. Why not throw open the cargo doors, lift the boxes of earth out of the ship and throw them overboard during the day? Well because that would end the movie. Because they don't do that in the book. So then you shouldn't have the scene where the doctor figures it out, if you aren't going to use it.

So they tried to thread a line of giving the characters a sense of intelligence and capacity with the ultimate need to, you know, lose in the end. I think they succeeded more than they failed.

Ultimately, was in necessary to make a movie based on a few logs from the greater novel? No. But so what? It obviously has failed in the box office, so its just going to be a footnote in the long history of Dracula anyway.

[Peelee]

I have not watched the movie myself, but it appears that the vampire revealed section takes place over a lengthy period of time, at least a couple nights and a day, from the trailer. Dracula is what, 1890s? In this era, ships were crossing the Atlantic in under seven days. By comparison, a trip through the Med would always be within a modest sailing time of land.

First off, i googled before i wrote that and 19th century ships averaged about 5 knots, barring ships built for speed. Thr fastest ship in 1900 managed 22 knots. It is unlikely that Dracula chartered passage on one of the fastest ships available. It's been some time since i read the novel, but IIRC he was trying to remain relatively incognito until he got to London proper.

Now, all that notwithstanding, i never said they weren't a modest sailing time from land. I said they would be out of sight of land, since that was what you yourself wondered about and seemed to be your criteria for "not near land". For the record, my googling claimed that distance vision on open water in ideal conditions is about 10.5 miles, and i answered your question on how to make the trip being out of sight of land (at least 11 miles from the coast).

If you wanted "near land" to mean something else, you could have said so, especially since i deliberately left it open as to whether that was what you intended and that my post only addressed if that was what you meant by "near land".

[Metastachydium]

For example, for me the biggest failure is when the doctor figures out where Dracula is nesting during the day, several days pass after that and they never do anything with it. Why not throw open the cargo doors, lift the boxes of earth out of the ship and throw them overboard during the day? Well because that would end the movie. Because they don't do that in the book. So then you shouldn't have the scene where the doctor figures it out, if you aren't going to use it.

So they tried to thread a line of giving the characters a sense of intelligence and capacity with the ultimate need to, you know, lose in the end. I think they succeeded more than they failed.

Oh, joy. I hate to be right about stuff like this, but evidence is accruing at an alarming rate for the "only our OCs get to be competent, even if it doesn't make sense" fear I had. In the novel, the entire crew save for, I believe, the captain is from Eastern Europe. The first mate, for instance, is Romanian (something that the filmmakers didn't bother to remember or worse, judging by the name they gave him). The crew in the original is up to something but they dare not speak. The first mate is up to that, but he's not sure until the very end when he checks the boxes, having figured out that's the only place the "stowaway" can hide in, at which point he immediately realises who (or what), exactly, they are ferrying.
But then, the made-for-the-movie character from somewhere else can't get to be smarter than the locals. Good job "adapting" the novel, America.

[Wintermoot]

Oh, joy. I hate to be right about stuff like this, but evidence is accruing at an alarming rate for the "only our OCs get to be competent, even if it doesn't make sense" fear I had. In the novel, the entire crew save for, I believe, the captain is from Eastern Europe. The first mate, for instance, is Romanian (something that the filmmakers didn't bother to remember or worse, judging by the name they gave him). The crew in the original is up to something but they dare not speak. The first mate is up to that, but he's not sure until the very end when he checks the boxes, having figured out that's the only place the "stowaway" can hide in, at which point he immediately realises who (or what), exactly, they are ferrying.
But then, the made-for-the-movie character from somewhere else can't get to be smarter than the locals. Good job "adapting" the novel, America.

TBH, I don't find your criticism sensible. It certainly isn't fact-based. It seems like you are misreading my posts in order to fit your preconceived narratives. So I choose to no longer engage with you. Have a good day. I hope you find some movies to actually watch that you enjoy.

BTW, the director of the movie was Norwegian, not American. Just one more thing you have gotten wrong. And a very odd thing to call out in any rate.

[Tyndmyr]

I said they would be out of sight of land, since that was what you yourself wondered about and seemed to be your criteria for "not near land".

How on earth is that your focus?

The crux is not the seeing of land, but the possibility of escaping to land. The trailer apparently depicts this as not an option, and acts as if the trip takes place over open water, but the actual route does not match that. My complaint is clearly about the apparently disregard for the route itself and how it hinders the tension of their situation, not over specific sightings of land.

I only used the term "within sight of land" once, and that in the negative, as a sarcastic depiction of what the movie apparently was attempting to portray.

Nobody is attempting to argue that it is impossible that a ship would have sailed outside of sight of land...only that getting to land should be quite doable unless one has additional constraints, such as the weather manipulation brought up.

[Metastachydium]

TBH, I don't find your criticism sensible. It certainly isn't fact-based.

?
I thought you said the doctor guy figures out where Dracula is on the ship. In the novel, the first mate does, because he has a better idea than the captain what they are facing. If how I read that isn't fact-based, well, sorry for taking what you said for a fact.


It seems like you are misreading my posts in order to fit your preconceived narratives. So I choose to no longer engage with you. Have a good day. I hope you find some movies to actually watch that you enjoy.

I specifically asked to be corrected if I'm wrong on something, and when you did on the weather thing, I thanked you and encouraged you to keep doing so if I get something wrong. Everything I've seen here or elsewhere tells me that the three extra characters, especially the two who have nothing to do with any canon character got to walk away with a lot of narrative focus and weight, got to deliver lore and take the initiative in canon characters' stead and even got to outlive these canon characters, by, khm, a fair margin in one case. If you'd care to explain how or why this is the wrong impression, I'd be happy to read that. But "you wrong, **** you, I'm out" strikes me as an eminently less than useful approach


BTW, the director of the movie was Norwegian, not American. Just one more thing you have gotten wrong. And a very odd thing to call out in any rate.

The producers are Amrican. The studios are American. The writers are American. If you wish to argue that it's somehow a Norwegian film, be my guest. And I don't think there's anything odd about being displeased with how fast and loose American movies play with Eastern Europe and how they portray its people in general.

[Tyndmyr]

The producers are Amrican. The studios are American. The writers are American. If you wish to argue that it's somehow a Norwegian film, be my guest. And I don't think there's anything odd about being displeased with how fast and loose American movies play with Eastern Europe and how they portray its people in general.

That is kind of a Hollywood thing in general. Outside of the US/western Europe, there is less precision for locations and details the further one gets away from the areas that they know. A show or movie set in say, LA, would not simply say that it is in "California" generally, but would specify LA, and might even specify, say, the neighborhood of Compton.

On the far extreme, you have set pieces denoted as simply "Africa" for location.

People tend to write what they know, and that results in not only a US centric approach...but an approach that sets quite a lot in LA or NYC, and if it's in England, odds are real high it's going to be in London, or if in Japan, Tokyo. I agree that they ignore the distinctions of different portions of eastern Europe, but I don't think it's exclusive to that region of the world, it's just one example in a broad trend for writers.

I suspect it might be helpful to writers to travel a bit more, perhaps, and to get off the beaten track. At least, if the goal is to make something unique.

[Peelee]

How on earth is that your focus?
To reiterate:

since that was what you yourself wondered about and seemed to be your criteria for "not near land".
Bolding new:


Seems like. It also seems, at least from the trailer, as if the entire voyage is out of sight of land, and landing early to escape is somehow not an option....even if we are generous, and assume they mean a port in the Balkans or somewhere rather than landlocked Carpathia proper, that means a journey largely through the Med, and then up the coast. There would be no particular reason to press towards London specifically. Just...go for the closest land and bail.

Seriously, look at a map and tell me how one gets from Romania or what not to London, without being near land.

If "near land" means "within sight of land".....
That being the focus should not be surprising at this juncture. In fact, the bolded was a clear indication to correct me if it was not the case. Your own choice to not assert any correction until now is an odd thing for you to take issue with.

[Sapphire Guard]

Turns out, this isn't available here. I was wondering why I hadn't seen anything about it. Oh well.

[Tyndmyr]

That being the focus should not be surprising at this juncture. In fact, the bolded was a clear indication to correct me if it was not the case. Your own choice to not assert any correction until now is an odd thing for you to take issue with.

You're literally talking to yourself, but okay, have fun with that, I suppose.

[Peelee]

You're literally talking to yourself, but okay, have fun with that, I suppose.

Ivd been talking to you and you've been talking to me. I could not imagine how that could possibly be clearer, but i am apparently mistaken.

That said, if you bring up seeing land as being close, refuse to elaborate, wonder why your own relation is being taken, refuse to further define, and then choose to be disinterested in continuing, well, I guess we won't continue then.

[Metastachydium]

That is kind of a Hollywood thing in general. Outside of the US/western Europe, there is less precision for locations and details the further one gets away from the areas that they know. A show or movie set in say, LA, would not simply say that it is in "California" generally, but would specify LA, and might even specify, say, the neighborhood of Compton.

On the far extreme, you have set pieces denoted as simply "Africa" for location.

People tend to write what they know, and that results in not only a US centric approach...but an approach that sets quite a lot in LA or NYC, and if it's in England, odds are real high it's going to be in London, or if in Japan, Tokyo. I agree that they ignore the distinctions of different portions of eastern Europe, but I don't think it's exclusive to that region of the world, it's just one example in a broad trend for writers.

I suspect it might be helpful to writers to travel a bit more, perhaps, and to get off the beaten track. At least, if the goal is to make something unique.

I know the issue is not unique to the portrayal of Eastern Europe, but (and I'm saying this about Dracula adaptations in general, not this one in particular) when the source material got all of it mostly right by way of research, and the adaptations still end up going the "Vlad the Impaler, who ruled Transylvania from Bran Castle" route although getting things right through research got cheaper and easier since is very disheartening. As for the Demeter movie, I don't think you can blame me for seeing that the adaptation of something that's literally three pages long takes a character whose background is basically "is Romanian" gets a Czech-sounding name, and getting "East of Germany is a land of Slavic thugs that speak with a vaguely Russian accent" vibes.

[Tyndmyr]

Ivd been talking to you and you've been talking to me. I could not imagine how that could possibly be clearer, but i am apparently mistaken.

Naw, dude, you're literally quoting yourself and responding over and over to it.

I responded to a comment regarding the geographic implausibility of the advertising by discussing the apparent geographic implausibility of the situation and how it relates to the story. At least for the trailer, as I have not watched the film.

You've got this very weird tangent that seems to revolve around me having some obligation to understand what is going on in your head, and having some duty to correct you or care about your tangent. I do not. I don't even really understand why you're focused on this.

The premise of the movie is clearly portrayed as dependent on them being unable to escape their situation, but a casual viewing of the trailer does not illustrate why this should be so to anyone with a basic understanding of geography. Specific lines of sight are irrelevant to this. Anyone can talk about any tangent they like, of course, but if it's not relevant to the conversation, nobody else has any particular obligation to...do pretty much anything. Mostly just posting this in hopes of helping you understand, but I dunno where this conversation is going otherwise.


I know the issue is not unique to the portrayal of Eastern Europe, but (and I'm saying this about Dracula adaptations in general, not this one in particular) when the source material got all of it mostly right by way of research, and the adaptations still end up going the "Vlad the Impaler, who ruled Transylvania from Bran Castle" route although getting things right through research got cheaper and easier since is very disheartening. As for the Demeter movie, I don't think you can blame me for seeing that the adaptation of something that's literally three pages long takes a character whose background is basically "is Romanian" gets a Czech-sounding name, and getting "East of Germany is a land of Slavic thugs that speak with a vaguely Russian accent" vibes.

Oh, certainly. Respect for source material is...iffy at best in modern Hollywood, and if real world research is required, that goes double. Particularly with vampire movies for some reason. Dodgy vampire movies that lean heavily on tropes seem to be a common thing. Not familiar enough with the production to speculate as to why these particular errors cropped up with any real detail, so "the writers probably were unfamiliar with the area" seems most likely, but it is understandable that one would find it disappointing.

[Peelee]

and getting "East of Germany is a land of Slavic thugs that speak with a vaguely Russian accent" vibes.
Yeah. That's east of Austria. :smalltongue:

Naw, dude, you're literally quoting yourself and responding over and over to it.
I am quoting myself because you keep asking questions i had already answered, or making comments that i already addressed. Quoting myself to point this out was simply stylistic choice, mostly to further exemplify that such comments should not be surprising at this juncture.

This tactic clearly did not work.

[Metastachydium]

Yeah. That's east of Austria. :smalltongue:

How, I don't know yet; but I'll make you pay (and your little totally-Germany-by-another-name too).

[KorvinStarmast]

If "near land" means "within sight of land", and assuming starting in coastal Romania (unsure of where "Carpathia" is), then they would be out of sight of land for most of the trip in the Black Sea, most of Sea of Marmara, some of the Aegean Sea, most of the Mediterranean Sea, the entirety of the Alboran Sea, the entirety of the Bay of Biscay, and the vast majority of the English Channel. FWIW. Varna is in Bulgaria. Navy guy here. (Most of my at sea time was on powered vessels, but did spend a few days on sail boats that were out of the sight of land).

Being near land is a relative term.
Being within sight of land depends on how high up the mast you go and what the prevailing visibility is. :smallbiggrin:
Plenty of sailing ships plied the seas in the age of sail (19th century; even as the age of steam was beginning to emerge) while out of sight of land. The calculation of longitude had been sorted out in the 18th century by the clever invention of ships' chronometers.
(There's a nice, not-too-long book called Longitude (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longitude_(book)) that describes how that all went down).
Also, celestial navigation was helpful in some cases. (sextants, etc).

"Go for the closest land and bail" is something I can't speak to (though it sounds plenty reasonable), but an enormous chunk of the voyage would most likely be out of sight of land if they were going the most direct route instead of deliberately keeping towards the coast. A reason to not stay too close to the coast would include (1) in case the weather changes, don't want to run up on shoal waters" or (2) "avoid the coastal patrols of X navy/coast guard or (3) avoid pirates, etc. and of course (4) don't lengthen the voyage without good reason to.

But

If one gets into the situation where there is a fire on board the vessel (or in this case a deadly monster) or a deadly disease, heading to land might be a choice for a captain to make.
Depends.
But as noted, that rather kills off the story.

On the far extreme, you have set pieces denoted as simply "Africa" for location. You can wedge the US or Australia into the African continent three and a half times, and still have a bit left over. Africa is a very big place. :smallcool:

People tend to write what they know True.

How, I don't know yet; but I'll make you pay (and your little totally-Germany-by-another-name too). FWIW, as regards accents. The authors of Diablo 4 have placed their local culture somewhere in the mountains of faux Carpathia / Eastern Europe / Transylvania and added vaguely Eastern / Slavic accents to them all, except for the ones with Scottish/British Isles accents.

I want to see it. We saw a preview the last time I was at a theater.
Wife said: no. Not interested. So no movie date for me.
Have to wait for The Shift, which I think is a September or December release.

[Metastachydium]

FWIW. Varna is in Bulgaria.

Yup. The one Romanian port that features more or less prominently in the novel is Galați, a river port much further inland.


FWIW, as regards accents. The authors of Diablo 4 have placed their local culture somewhere in the mountains of faux Carpathia / Eastern Europe / Transylvania and added vaguely Eastern / Slavic accents to them all, except for the ones with Scottish/British Isles accents.

[SIGHS.] Case in point, yes.


I want to see it. We saw a preview the last time I was at a theater.
Wife said: no. Not interested. So no movie date for me.

Hope you'll get around to watch it, never the less!

[The Hellbug]

So, my story on this one: First thing I heard was the title, and at that point, I was quite excited. It's a good subject matter for a movie, but I was thinking something like a gothic mood piece, the kind of thing you think about putting in black and white to make it look bleak.

The trailer dissuaded me of that.

However, I've got friends who I go to the movies with, and we generally make time for horror films especially so I found myself in front of the big screen yesterday. And I'll say this: I liked it better than I thought I would. While the first words on screen had me groaning (it specifically mentions that it's an adaptation of the novel Dracula, which, it being Dracula and perhaps having seen any promotional material, the viewer almost certainly already knows, and if they don't, they'll get it when someone mentions 'Dracula' in the movie), it recovers from that slight bit of irritation well enough. With a couple exceptions that mostly wait for later in the movie, it looks quite good, the tension is solid, and the performances are what I'm looking for. It does try to build some pathos with some of the characters that will never really be satisfying, and this contributes to its 2 hour runtime in a poor way in my opinion, but, about 2/3 of the way through, I was thinking to myself 'I think everyone's been rather too hard on this movie, it's totally fine.' And then the third act begins. It's not good.

That thought I mentioned was exactly seconds before the child bursts into flames, a bit that looked bad and was rather tone-destroying. Then it decides it needs a big Hollywood showdown, heroes vs Dracula, to finish up the movie. And it just doesn't work for me. We know how this ends, even if we didn't know the Dracula story--we see the ship washed up on England's shore at the start of the movie. And more importantly the whole 'something about hope so we need to fight the monster' just doesn't feel like the right angle for this story. All this leads me to, admittedly, be pretty ungenerous towards the particulars of said showdown, some of which have already been mentioned. I will repeat, though, that the monster especially doesn't look great once he's flying about and center-stage.

Another thing that bears mentioning is that I suspect that the end may have been the victim of reshoots and rewrites. There's a scene where it's very foggy and the first mate falls from the rigging into the hold of the boat. When the camera next goes above-deck, there's lightning and it's pouring down rain. Furthermore, I wouldn't be surprised if the plan at the end looks less (well, somewhat less; the fact that they never even consider taking action during the daytime when the monster has never been active is very silly) terrible with a small change to the script. They had just opened the boxes and found the dirt so if the plan had been based on a character's supposition that he needs it, scuttling the boat within sight of shore is totally fine. Maybe there's a version where this was the case. Regardless, it's little bits of sloppiness like this that have me suspicious of significant reshoots.

All told, I didn't think it was too bad, but it does itself the disservice of having the bad mostly backloaded so it's what you're thinking about when you leave the theater.

[Dr.Samurai]

Just saw it last night.

It was serviceable, but I felt they had a good concept that could have been executed better.

Firstly, I think it took too long for the crew to "fight back" so to speak, or understand what is happening. Despite the fact that the woman regains consciousness and dumps a bunch of info on everyone, they don't think to check the other crates for days. I had trouble understanding how much time was passing, but it seemed to me that things moved way too slowly on that front. A ship full of men with a killer beast on board I think would devote more energy to figuring out what's going on. The First Mate bullying everyone to keep working as usual didn't strike me as enough motivation for the guys to ignore everyone dying around them.

Secondly, the characters unfortunately, were just not that interesting. There's no strong lead here to pull everyone in one direction, or cause a conflict. There almost was. The ship has men of superstition, men of faith, a man of science, a captain that just wants to get home and retire, and a First Mate that just inherited a ship. You can EASILY have a very paranoid claustrophobic Thing-like scenario here. I don't mean they have to remake a classic but with Dracula, but I feel they let that tension go very quickly and easily. No one attempted to throw the woman overboard, no one even whispered thoughts of a mutiny, nothing ever came of the desperate situation happening to a group of people that all believe very different things. (There even was the hint of a Danny Boyle-esque twist where it seemed the Captain would be the adversary during the day, having been told by Dracula that if prevents them from scuttling the ship and makes sure they reach London, Dracula would give him his grandson back. But no, a little speech has him recover his senses immediately and devote himself to the cause of destroying Dracula.)

On that note... I couldn't get behind Clemens' motivation to kill Dracula. It seemed unrelated and forced. "I need to understand the world, so I need to understand this creature, then I'm going to kill it". Um... okay. How about it's trying to kill you, so maybe if you kill it first you get to live? That seems pretty simple enough lol. Not sure why it had to be more than that, and it didn't make sense to me.

Some of the logic for sure didn't make sense, and some of the cuts didn't make sense. No storm one scene, cuts to different shot and suddenly there in a torrential downpour with crashing waves. Clemens makes a plan where the woman will be the bait, and the captain says he will stay with the ship and make sure it goes down. All agreed. When they actually have to execute the plan, Clemens is telling the woman she doesn't have to act as bait, and then runs below to rescue the captain. Huh? Clemens, did you forget the plan you came up with yourself?

I will disagree with others and say that I like the monster design for Dracula in this state. It looks perfectly fine to me, and when he's standing topdeck in the rain with his wings out grabbing Clemens by the throat, he looks pretty badass. I have two complaints; I think there should have been more time with crawling Dracula, that could have been pretty horrific having him crawl through the narrow and tight places of the ship, hunting people while he could barely move. Second complaint is the ending. Having Man-Bat-Wears-Top Hat Dracula just walking around the people of London was goofy (and luring Clemens so easily as Clemens is narrating that he's going to hunt Dracula was also goofy.)

All that said, the ship set was excellent. The premise is good. But the execution was okay. We were entertained, but sometimes that was laughter when it should have been horror (Toby bursting into flames, as an example).