You might like it very much; at least, I'd recommend you give it a try. It's essentially alternate history to Stoker's Dracula, in which the main characters fail terribly in their efforts to destroy Dracula—specifically, they are unable to prevent him from turning Mina in Chapter 21—and he not only survives, but fathers the race of vampires in England that Van Helsing so feared. ". . . He is experimenting, and doing it well. And if it had not been that we have crossed his path he would be yet, he may be yet if we fail, the father or furtherer of a new order of beings, whose road must lead through Death, not Life." Of course, since it's alternate history to fiction, all sorts of other fictional characters are allowed to enter the picture; Dr. Jekyll gives expert testimony on the biology of vampires, Inspector Lestrade has turned in hopes of sharpening his policeman's senses, Lord Ruthven is Prime Minister. And historical ones, as well. The central mystery of the book revolves around the identity of this 1888's Jack the Ripper—a murderer of vampire prostitutes, whom the newspapers have nicknamed "Silver Knife." There are two sequels, The Bloody Red Baron (1995), set during World War I, and Judgment of Tears: Anno Dracula 1959 (1998), set exactly when the title says it is, and a handful of short stories farther along the timeline. I believe a fourth novel is in the works, but this may be only wishful thinking on my part.
Ah, I envy you being able to go to them that fresh.
I'd known about the movies before then; I'd just never seen them. Maybe a few bits and pieces on television or at friends' houses, but nothing that really made an impression. I did have a stuffed-animal Ewok as a small child, but damned if I knew what it was. I think I just accepted it as as species of slightly scary-looking teddy bear.
Alec Guinness and Peter Cushing in the first film, a movie the studio considered a big risk . . .
I love Alec Guinnesss.
(Okay, back to our regularly scheduled conversation . . .)
In the second movie, director Irvin Kershner made a conscious decision to make the Imperials predominantly British and the Rebels American.
I'd wondered if that was deliberate, or just a side effect of casting for people who looked the part. Is this is the case in the other two movies also?
You might enjoy this.
My life is imploding into fandom all of a sudden . . .
no subject
You might like it very much; at least, I'd recommend you give it a try. It's essentially alternate history to Stoker's Dracula, in which the main characters fail terribly in their efforts to destroy Dracula—specifically, they are unable to prevent him from turning Mina in Chapter 21—and he not only survives, but fathers the race of vampires in England that Van Helsing so feared. ". . . He is experimenting, and doing it well. And if it had not been that we have crossed his path he would be yet, he may be yet if we fail, the father or furtherer of a new order of beings, whose road must lead through Death, not Life." Of course, since it's alternate history to fiction, all sorts of other fictional characters are allowed to enter the picture; Dr. Jekyll gives expert testimony on the biology of vampires, Inspector Lestrade has turned in hopes of sharpening his policeman's senses, Lord Ruthven is Prime Minister. And historical ones, as well. The central mystery of the book revolves around the identity of this 1888's Jack the Ripper—a murderer of vampire prostitutes, whom the newspapers have nicknamed "Silver Knife." There are two sequels, The Bloody Red Baron (1995), set during World War I, and Judgment of Tears: Anno Dracula 1959 (1998), set exactly when the title says it is, and a handful of short stories farther along the timeline. I believe a fourth novel is in the works, but this may be only wishful thinking on my part.
Ah, I envy you being able to go to them that fresh.
I'd known about the movies before then; I'd just never seen them. Maybe a few bits and pieces on television or at friends' houses, but nothing that really made an impression. I did have a stuffed-animal Ewok as a small child, but damned if I knew what it was. I think I just accepted it as as species of slightly scary-looking teddy bear.
Alec Guinness and Peter Cushing in the first film, a movie the studio considered a big risk . . .
I love Alec Guinnesss.
(Okay, back to our regularly scheduled conversation . . .)
In the second movie, director Irvin Kershner made a conscious decision to make the Imperials predominantly British and the Rebels American.
I'd wondered if that was deliberate, or just a side effect of casting for people who looked the part. Is this is the case in the other two movies also?
You might enjoy this.
My life is imploding into fandom all of a sudden . . .