[sum1]

Whereas I turned my nose up at the White Wolf game.

[Cryostar]

Really? What didn't you like about it?

[sum1]

I don't remember very well. This was back in the earlier to mid 90s. I turned my nose up at a lot of games back then. Not that I regret it. Most RPGs are crap. I particularly dislike the skill-based style of a lot of RPGs. They even turned D&D into that.

Christopher Lee's Dracula performances were weak. Aristocratic, poised, somewhat menacing, yes, but totally lacking in human depth. You can't really relate to his Dracula, because there's not much there to relate to. And of course, Count Dooku was a wanker. Donald Sutherland would have been much better as Saruman.

[Cryostar]

See, i can't see that, though. I think it's the fact that Lee has removed some of that humanity in his performance, it makes the characters he plays all the more evil and misguided

[sum1]

It's not just humanity that's been removed from the performances. It's personality and depth. The performances are two-dimensional stuff.

His Dracula performance in Count Dracula (Jesus Franco, 1970) is significantly better than his Hammer Horror ones, but it still lacks depth. It manages to be quite effective, particularly in his use of his voice, but it only goes so far. It has personality to a greater extent than the Hammer ones, but not to a full extent. He's better at spooky weird than at acting people, it seems. And yes, Dracula is a person and should be acted as one. Two-dimensional performances will not do.

Other actors, such as Bela Lugosi, Frank Langella, Louis Jourdan, Gary Oldman and Gerard Butler, have given their Draculas more depth and real personality. They're far more interesting to watch. Oldman may be the best Dracula. Certainly Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992, should be called Francis Ford Coppola's Dracula) is the best Dracula film.

Of course, some of those other Dracula performances have their own problems. Langella's performance fails to totally convince you that he's a vampire. Langella actually prevented the character from being shown with fangs. Big mistake. A little bit of fang might have gone a long ways towards reminding you that this was a supernatural creature, something which was needed with that performance and film. The romanticizing of Dracula preying on Lucy was revolting in that film. Lugosi was acting at a very early stage in the development of film. Film acting was more primitive then and this marks his performance, despite the significant amount of personality he gives the role. And Gerard Butler, while doing an impressive performance, was acting in a crap film.

Jourdan, Butler and Oldman give the best Dracula performances I've seen. The worst might be Rudolf Martin's performance in Buffy, annoying in the extreme.

As for Saruman, he's supposed to have humanity. He's not just some spooky bad guy (which is what Lee played him as). He's this charming guy who used to be the wisest of the good wizards, trusted by all. He should be relatable. And if you think Sutherland can't do it, see him in the remake of Salem's Lot. He was the one interesting thing there and he was great and very Sarumany.

As for Lee, I'll give one him one thing, he does do his performances with conviction. That's probably their greatest strength.

[Cryostar]

See....i always thought that Saruman's issue was his lack of humanity to balance out his power as a wizard. By losing that, he went mad.

[The Survivor]

Hey I am new this thread but I see few familar faces.

I've got a big fascination with vampires, My favorites from tv are Bill Compton, Lorena & Eric (True Blood) Angelus,Spike, Darla (Buffy/Angel) Julian & Lilly (Kindred) Louis de Pointe du Lac (Interview With The Vampire).

I actually made a video today been working on since the new season of True Blood began:

YouTube - The Vampire Montage

Nice to meet everyone

Jimmy

[sum1]

Originally Posted by Cryostar (View Post) See....i always thought that Saruman's issue was his lack of humanity to balance out his power as a wizard. By losing that, he went mad.

Sounds like you need to read the books again.

And out of that whole big long post, all you could find to reply about was Saruman's humanity?

Originally Posted by The Survivor (View Post) Hey I am new this thread but I see few familar faces. I've got a big fascination with vampires, My favorites from tv are Bill Compton, Lorena & Eric (True Blood) Angelus,Spike, Darla (Buffy/Angel) Julian & Lilly (Kindred) Louis de Pointe du Lac (Interview With The Vampire). I actually made a video today been working on since the new season of True Blood began: YouTube - The Vampire Montage Nice to meet everyone Jimmy

Spike was great and Bill is a good character. Julian was also a good character. I could do without Darla and I hated that they resurrected her. Eric is well done but overly full of himself, a trait that reminds me of Angel. Angel is at his best when he has no soul, but that didn't work out too well in Angel season 4. Louis was certainly the most tolerable character in the Interview With the Vampire film, but I find the film sorely overrated. Brad Pitt hated making the film. It was depressing acting that stuff and he didn't get along with Tom Cruise. I find Cruise's Lestat performance incredibly annoying. Stuart Townsend made a much better character out of Lestat and Queen of the Damned is a superior film to Interview, though it too suffers from being based on the scribblings of Anne Rice.

[sum1]

Conversation transferred from Middle Earth thread:

Originally Posted by sum1 The funny thing about Keanu Reeves is he's actually one of the best Jonathan Harkers (Bram Stoker's Dracula, 1992). This is because the part is usually acted dreadfully. We have David Manners in the 1931 film, absolutely pathetic performance, Fred Williams in Count Dracula (1970), totally two-dimensional performance, Bruno Ganz in Nosferatu the Vampyre (1979), useless performance almost totally without emotion, and Rafe Spall in the 2006 British tv adaption, zero character in his performance. So Keanu actually comes out looking good by comparison.

Originally Posted by cryostar I though the character was meant to be dry and two dimensional, thus strengthening the appeal to dracula.

Originally Posted by sum1 That's making excuses for bad performances. No character should acted without personality. A weak performance as Harker does not strengthen the appeal of Dracula. It weakens the appeal of the whole film.

Originally Posted by summ1 More Harkers: The guy in Dan Curtis's Dracula (1973). Kind of nondescript. Kind of old to be Harker. The guy in Nosferatu (1922, not actually called Harker (because of copyright issues) -the actor was a German commie who went to Russia and denounced people to the authorities, people who ended up getting executed or dying in the gulag. His acting in Nosferatu wasn't much use. Then there's Bosco Hogan, Irish actor, who played Harker in the 1977 BBC tv adaption, one of the best Harkers. Not a brilliant performance by any means, but quite functional. The adaption is one of the best Dracula films. The guy who acted Harker in the 1958 Hammer film Horror of Dracula was quite tolerable.

[The Survivor]

Originally Posted by sum1 (View Post) Sounds like you need to read the books again. And out of that whole big long post, all you could find to reply about was Saruman's humanity? Spike was great and Bill is a good character. Julian was also a good character. I could do without Darla and I hated that they resurrected her. Eric is well done but overly full of himself, a trait that reminds me of Angel. Angel is at his best when he has no soul, but that didn't work out too well in Angel season 4. Louis was certainly the most tolerable character in the Interview With the Vampire film, but I find the film sorely overrated. Brad Pitt hated making the film. It was depressing acting that stuff and he didn't get along with Tom Cruise. I find Cruise's Lestat performance incredibly annoying. Stuart Townsend made a much better character out of Lestat and Queen of the Damned is a superior film to Interview, though it too suffers from being based on the scribblings of Anne Rice.

I agree with you about preferring Angelus over Angel. He kicked some ass in Season 2 in those handful episodes as Angelus. As for Lestat I can't agree with you about Stuart being better then Tom. Nor can I say Queen Of Damned was superior to Interview. Thought Queen of the Damned was a big let down.

[dukesmom]

Saw a movie called Vampire Diary the other day. It was about a woman making a documentary about the vampire culture and meeting a real vampire. It certainly was not perfect but better than many I have seen.

*******

Just saw this when I was looking for SciFi/Fantasy news:
"Twilight"s Robert Pattinson related to Dracula - Yahoo! News

[sum1]

Originally Posted by The Survivor (View Post) I agree with you about preferring Angelus over Angel. He kicked some ass in Season 2 in those handful episodes as Angelus. As for Lestat I can't agree with you about Stuart being better then Tom. Nor can I say Queen Of Damned was superior to Interview. Thought Queen of the Damned was a big let down.

Townsend was miles better than Cruise. Cruise did just annoying clumsy hamming, whereas Townsend did a convincing and interesting performance as something not human and abnormal. Townsend's performance totally owns Cruise's and makes the film. Interview was a painfully overdone load of pretension, while QOTD was an effective character portrayal and vampire romance. Some prefer Interview and Cruise for supposedly being truer to Anne Rice's work, but I consider Rice's work to be dire and I'm only concerned with what works onscreen.

[Cryostar]

maybe

[sum1]

Maybe what?

[Cryostar]

I was answering your question.