MovieChat Forums > Nosferatu (2024) Discussion > Why not a legacy sequel?

Why not a legacy sequel?

posted 2 months ago by DevonteHuntley (228)
25 replies | jump to latest

I'd respect this movie more if it was that rather than another remake. We've already had one in 1979 and a semi-meta one in 2000 (Shadow of the Vampire) which ironically starred William DeFoe who has a role here in this movie.

I don't get why Robert Eggers felt the need to redo this story YET again like what can he do different that wasn't already done before especially for a period piece that was never equipped with a modern time environment to begin with? The other versions and this one is set in the 19th century, so very little change in scenery as far as time frame goes so we're basically getting the same type of style here.

I had an idea many many years ago of them doing a legacy sequel to the 1922 classic and they could have made it work. Sure, that movie is very old and silent but who cares? That movie is the ultimate horror classic and stands the test of time. That's why a remake wasn't really made like that apart from the 1979 one (which took me YEARS to finally see and accept). To do this one is very upsetting to me.

reply

[–] millsey72 (10243) 16 days ago

This time they can add CGI effects that were not possible in 1922. Plus I'm sure we will get a more racial diverse cast as well

reply

[–] DevonteHuntley (228) 16 days ago

And again, we have the 1979 version as far as "modernizing" goes. What more do they HAVE to showcase more-so than that for a time frame set in the 19th century? I would prefer if they did a sequel, maybe one set in 1922 as a reference to the original's release. So dumb people want to remake movies that stand the test of time and are just FAMOUS. Remake movies that actually need it because it was either bad or not given a chance its original state.

reply

[–] millsey72 (10243) 16 days ago

How can they make a sequel when the vampire dies at the end

reply

[–] DevonteHuntley (228) 15 days ago

And? How many times has vampires died and been brought back? They could figure out something or have there be a descendant. Dracula (1931) did this with two sequels with both a daughter and then a son: Dracula's Daughter (1936) and Son of Dracula (1943), though the son is questionable since despite the movie's title, it acts like he IS Dracula but there's ways to continue the "Nosferatu" story that didn't have to resort to another remake.

reply

[–] millsey72 (10243) 15 days ago

Its just easier to do a remake. Otherwise you need to write a new story and it may not be as interesting as the original

reply

[–] DevonteHuntley (228) 15 days ago

And these are professional filmmakers here. I'm sure they can craft something or not or don't want to, then don't bother doing anything even a remake. I couldn't care less if there's a sequel or not. I'm just saying, if you're trying to make bank off this brand, I rather a sequel then a remake that's just the typical easy/lazy way to go about things. Honor the original by not remaking it, especially if it's a famous classic and most people are familiar with it. This movie feels like a desperate attempt to out-do something that's already set its mark, set, and go.

reply

[–] millsey72 (10243) 15 days ago

The scene where the rats are all over the town but can done now much better than the original and also the 79 remake. Plus we can see the original story with a more diverse racial cast. These things don't interest you?

reply

[–] capuchin (3182) 15 days ago

This story has been told many more times in cinema than just in the two versions of Nosferatu and Shadow of the Vampire. After all, the story is Dracula.

FW Murnau just didn't secure the rights to adapt the novel, so changed all the names and hoped he'd get away with it. He didn't. As it happened, Bram Stoker's estate sued and every copy of the film was ordered to be destroyed for copyright violation.

Dracula may have a claim on being the most adapted novel in all of cinema history. Do we need another version of Dracula? No, probably not. But it might be interesting to see what Eggers will do with it.

As for why he's decided to do Nosferatu rather than Dracula, I'd imagine there are two reasons: 1) the title signals to cinephiles that it's at the 'artsier' end of the Dracula adaptations spectrum -- he's putting himself in the company of Murnau and Herzog rather than Universal Pictures and Hammer. And, 2) normies might say 'Dracula? Again?', but probably aren't aware of Nosferatu beyond perhaps having seen a few images of Max Schreck, and if they are aware of the film they may not be aware that it's an adaptation of Dracula.

reply

[–] DevonteHuntley (228) 15 days ago

That's no excuse. I'm sure lots of people particularly those this movie will be aiming to should know Nosferatu which is basically my generation and higher. Many in my generation surely know it through watching Spongebob where they did a nice little homage in an episode. All it takes is a bit of research and boom, you know just about everything. But even if they don't know it's an adaption of Dracula, would that even matter given this is not really adapting the actual Dracula story, but the version tweaked from it using elements of THAT story and THOSE character names?

But there was no need to REMAKE. We have one remake and a semi-one in 2000, so what more can you do? A sequel is the best route because that at least is continuing the story in a new way and not trying to replace it. Eggers just thinks he can out-do Murnau and I will forever hate him for that and hope this movie and everyone apart of it dies horrible deaths.

reply

[–] capuchin (3182) 15 days ago

I will forever hate him for that and hope this movie and everyone apart of it dies horrible deaths.

Might be a slight overreaction.

reply

[–] DevonteHuntley (228) 15 days ago

I don't care. It needs to be the case and that will teach people from doing and part-taking in unwarranted remakes.

reply

[–] millsey72 (10243) 15 days ago

Perhaps after this movie, a sequel will be made. Maybe something like Nosferatu V Dracula

reply

[–] DevonteHuntley (228) 15 days ago

I DON'T WANT A SEQUEL TO THIS!!! OH HELL NO!!! This movie doesn't deserve the time of day let alone a continuation that the 1922 version could have gotten.

reply

[–] millsey72 (10243) 15 days ago

I feel its important for classic movies to be remade but with a more racial diverse cast this time around

reply

[–] DevonteHuntley (228) 15 days ago

Screw that. Leave the classics alone and screw you for thinking it's okay to replace them.

reply

[–] millsey72 (10243) 15 days ago

Your white supremacy is shining very bright right now

reply

[–] DevonteHuntley (228) 15 days ago

I'm black. Clearly you're not familiar with the name "Devonte". Your desperation for diversity is no excuse for there to be a remake for it to happen. The original didn't have it, so what. No one was thinking about diversity then. All they wanted to do was make a movie with whatever actors were qualified enough and they happen to be the same color. Deal with it. Was the novel Dracula even diverse with its characters? I don't think so it makes all the more sense the movie would be the same way.

reply

[–] millsey72 (10243) 14 days ago

I would like to apologize for my white privilege.

reply

[–] DevonteHuntley (228) 14 days ago

Oh, so you're white now? How sad. You should apologize more for wasting my time during this entire discussion over this racial diversity nonsense as if it's needed and justifiable to remake this movie. If race is your argument for it happening, then you are lost in what it means to even remake. No movie should ever be made for the sole purpose of "racial diversity" or else the movie now becomes silly woke nonsense now.

reply

[–] millsey72 (10243) 14 days ago

Please be careful if you see this in a theater. Covid is still lurking and unfortunately due to systemic racism in this country, the black communities have been affected the most. Be well

reply

[–] DevonteHuntley (228) 14 days ago

I don't see any movie in the theaters these days, so I don't care. I also clearly hate this is even being made so why would I want to waste my money on it?

reply

[–] PSville (636) 4 days ago

Perhaps there will be a sequel to the first Nosferatu, depending on the criticism and box office results.

reply

[–] DevonteHuntley (228) 4 days ago

I don't think there's purpose for that anymore once this movie comes out. Then come to find out there was ANOTHER Nosferatu remake that came out last month starring Doug Jones. -_-

reply

[–] MartyDeniro (4171) 15 days ago

Eggers is obsessed with the 1922 film (no surprise), rather than the Dracula franchise. And despite Nosferatu being Dracula under another name, as a film, it's miles away from the others. I don't know if I'd describe as 'artsier', but it's different -- and Herzog's attempt to capture that difference didn't work. We'll see if Eggers can get there.

reply

[–] capuchin (3182) 15 days ago

Yes. It's still the best version of the story on screen. Turns out authentic German expressionism -- which you just can't recapture -- was the perfect style to draw out the tale's creepiness and melodrama. Of course, some of it is also in Count Orlok's design. Most Dracula adaptations have gone more towards the more human and then even the somewhat sexy vampire. That's not creepy.

I quite like Herzog's version, but -- not unlike Ford Coppola's film -- it's a bit of a cinephile / fan flick, and a reuse of old tricks. That's fine. But there's no substitute for the real thing.

reply