|
Post by eloojak on Sept 23, 2010 15:53:29 GMT -5
Van Helsing was a huge let down,with the budget they had and the CGI available at the time,there is no reason at all why the effects should have looked so obviously and shamefully effects,when you look at advent children which they made the decision to look more cartoon like,it still surpasses and it had a smaller budget,and while i loathe the Underworld movies,the effects were better,so much more could have been done and some casting could have been better,the best thing,Robby Coltrane as Hyde,lets hope I ,Frankenstien will be better .
|
|
|
Post by Moonreaper on Sept 25, 2010 13:56:40 GMT -5
This movie is a prime example of how money doesn't make movies. You can through all the money you want at a movie but in the end it comes down to the passion that makes a film come out great. This movie was made simply to collect a paycheck.
|
|
|
Post by hawkeyepierce on Sept 26, 2010 8:12:49 GMT -5
...and failed miserably. When it first came out some of my (then)classmates thought it was stupid that the filmmakers stole the 3 brides idea from "the Witched of Eastwick"...D'oh! Those kind of comments make my head hurt
|
|
|
Post by Moonreaper on Sept 26, 2010 11:24:16 GMT -5
I forgot about Witches of Eastwick thats true,damn now I hate that movie even more.
|
|
|
Post by Marcus on Sept 26, 2010 13:58:53 GMT -5
Not sure, but don't the three brides appear in the Dracula Novel?
I keep trying to read the book, but I dislike how it's written in journals.
|
|
|
Post by eloojak on Sept 27, 2010 8:10:02 GMT -5
yes they do feature in the book as they feed on jonathan harker,my one question about it is this,how come he never changed?
|
|
|
Post by hawkeyepierce on Sept 30, 2010 9:48:43 GMT -5
Not sure, but don't the three brides appear in the Dracula Novel?. Yup, they do...that's why I was so fudging offended when people come up to me and say 'yeah Van Helsing, great tribute to Witches of E' God how I hate "Van Helsing"...Grrr!
|
|
|
Post by Moonreaper on Sept 30, 2010 17:35:33 GMT -5
O wow I would be pissed if someone told something like that.
|
|
|
Post by Marcus on Oct 1, 2010 3:39:19 GMT -5
Johnathan didn't turn with those three vmpettes because in that mythos it takes more than being fed on to change into a vamp. You need to drink their blood too, at least that's what I understand of how it works in Dracula.
You could fashion some kind of club made up of various versions of the dracula book, then beat people over the head that make such silly comparisons, shouting loudly "Biron Biron Biron". They probably won't understand but it may make you feel better.
|
|
|
Post by eloojak on Oct 1, 2010 17:57:11 GMT -5
lol,but he should still have become a thrall according to the myths vampyres suck,unfortunate pun but fitting .
|
|
|
Post by necrodemon on Oct 3, 2010 15:47:02 GMT -5
Remember that Dr. Van Helsing asks Harker if he ever tasted of their blood. And he replied no.
Therefore no change.
|
|
|
Post by Marcus on Oct 4, 2010 3:44:58 GMT -5
He may have been enthralled, but his time in the convent, or the distance from the three sisters, may have broken the thrall effect.
|
|
|
Post by necrodemon on Oct 4, 2010 18:10:06 GMT -5
I was going to put that in this as weel. He had plenty of time to heal and what not. He also wrote his woman a letter.
|
|
|
Post by hawkeyepierce on Oct 6, 2010 9:22:27 GMT -5
"Tim Burton's Van Helsing"...coming to a what-if thread near you! Summer 2011
|
|
|
Post by necrodemon on Oct 6, 2010 19:29:28 GMT -5
Woah
|
|