The Ultimate Vampire Resource and Directory

Who here thinks the way Judas became Dracula is more believible then Stokers version or even histories account?Give your theory or your belief in this.

LOL......

As much as I liked the plot twist in the movie.....

The evidence of Vlad Dracul being born, raised, and "death" are too well known.

But Juda's punishment for the betrayal (in the movie) is well thought out.

yeah...with all the little things running through the movie...makes you think

I just think the plot twist was there to explain why a cross scares Vampires.....

Especially Drac's children.....

Since it is laughable that a symbol can hurt any Vampire.


:)

Well, a cross is a holy symbol of God. That's why they're afraid it.

But what about if the Vampire was Jewish, Buddist, or even an Athiest????

Me thinks the church was neck deep in the bullshit.

yes...but in movies and books mainly...most vampires are atheits

Back to the movie guys.....

I liked how the original novel was acknoweledged....

The pilot of the plane was bound to the wheel by wires just like the Demeter's Capt was tire the ships wheel.....

Carfax Abbey was turned into the holding place for Drac's remains.....

And, of course, Mary's friend, Lucy Westenra, was the same name and fate as the Original Lucy Westenra from the story.

:)

yes...I own the movie and have watched it a ton of times

This ones way up there with the birds lol

is that a good thing?

:/

Vlad the impailer was a real person historically...Judas was not Dracula....

okay i am curious
vlad the impailer was the first vampire
a punishment from God and the church for his crimes against the church and humanity which explains crosses, holy water and sacred ground
but in the movie judas was the first which would not explain any of the religious myths

Dracula 2000..... have it, love it! It has some intresting parts in it that makes you wonder, but nothing that I bleave to be true.....

thats for all your insight so far...it is good to hear others thoughts on the story and plot of this movie

well, judas was a suicide so that theory flies on one level-Dracul felt betrayed by God after fighting wars for Him, so that one flies-I suppose given enough of a fact, and enough embroidery around it you can make a case for almost any legend being based in fact

good movie but not bleaveable sorry

great movie and i do like all the little plot twists that they put into.

Actually, I find the explanation given in White Wolf's Vampire the Masquerade to be the best origin of vampires.

Caine, who was the first to spill the blood of his fellow man, became the first vampire. If you think about it, the punishment fits the crime for Caine more than it does for Judas.

Caine stole God's domain(death), and therefore had death denied him. The fruits that he once grew would no longer sustain him, only blood, such as that he spilled from his brother, would feed his hunger.

Overall, I find the poetic justice of this scenario to be the best of any vampric mythology that I have read.

It seems God likes to punish people with immortallity......

Cain became the first Vamp.....

Longinus, The Centurion who killed Christ on the cross, was punished with being forced to exist until Judgement Day......

Even Dracula, according to Francais Ford Coppela, was condemned to Vampirism, for Blasfemy......

Hmmmmm...... and they say God is merciful.....

Cain was banished to Africa after killing Abel ..nowhere have I read that he was turned into a Vampire since GOD banished him...there is no mention of vampires in the bible ( I was raised in a Baptist home)

but there wouldn't be now would there.. it is thought that the mark God put on him to protect from those who might kill him was turning him into a vampire

I thought that was one of the best aspects of the movie, but I’m not too sure if it’s more believable.

interesting thread... well the out look on Judas makes sense after all... he did follow Jesus and the guilt just ate at his heart.... he was already spiritually dead before he committed suicide.... but then the fact that Vlad fought the holy wars only to lose his wife... also makes sense... why didn't god save her? For that point on it was vengence and trying to bring her back!

damn good movie. i loved the spin on judas being the first vampire, but it just didnt fit in with folklore...blahblahblah....its still a damn good movie though, and I can kinda see some kind of "damnation" happening to judas...according to most xtians, judas got off light for betraying jesus. i just dont see it going in that direction :)

I dont think it was very believable in the true dracula sense, i just think it was a twist on the whole vampire plot.. i mean, with so many vampire movies.. you kinda need to change things up a bit every now and then, but totally unbelieveable.

The end of Dracula 2000 came quite as a surprise. The idea behind it was nice, but the realisation was bad. Bram Stokers Dracula pushed the tragic end further to its limits by building an intriguing love story around it. Thus more emotion, and for me: better end.

The movie had a good plot to it.

both stories are rather good in the fact that it makes you think which more is more possible...but as for my opinion...im not too well schooled on religion to give a proper opinion.

not a worry...you can give your opinion on the movie itself

well.. i liked the film i didnt realise it would end that way..lol and oh my god gerard buttler is sooooooo damned hot in the film!!!
*drools*

well then in that case, the movie plot itself was rather good, i like how they gave a new rendition to the old vampyre story..but the movie in general could have been better

Both of the theroiese make a lot sence, but to ask which one is believe, you have me stuckon that one!

well regardless of what people think the facts are this: Dracula was a warlord known as Vlad Tepes or vlad the impaler during the fourteenth centuries. i don't think he is judas iscariot even though the theory is quiet possible.

I have seen both movies and have found them both to be interesting but I really do not know the truth of the original "Dracula's " being and really I do not wish to know it... I am content where I am at in my existance and would just like it to be left as is.

I found the whole thing to christian! After all Vampires were existing long before Jesus and Juda's time!
From Dracula 2000 I love the soundtrack!!!

i did like the movie and as far as judas becoming dracula i find that to be complete hogwash...

well..i thought it was a bit absurd...that dracula..was judas..but..well it`s just a film.. did anyone see the sequels of dracula 200? there is dracula3 and dracula 2001.. i think..

LOL darkwolf

i think referencing to anyone movie of vampire is not a good thing

vampirism exist i m sure about this think
but tell vampire exist when you see on the movie i really really not sure ;)

I loved Dracula 2000!! But, do I think it believeable? umm no! lol. It's just a movie

http://www.donlinke.com/drakula/vlad.htm

if u'd like2know the truth just read that.and btw,Dracula has nothing2do with judas,they lived in totaly different times,as Dracula-Vlad Tepes(check out romanian history ;) )-lived in the 15th century.
the movie was nice,but real facts are totaly another story.

hmm interesting site :)

interesting

Sonik my friend...I was asking for everyones opinion of the movie...and the concept of Judas becoming Dracula...the cross...the sun...silver...etc .in Dracula 2000 were interesting ideas

I thought the movie was interesting...and why couldnt it be so? there are so many myths and legends surrounding the origins of Dracula...so who knows....

i have no opion on that or care vampireism is reall an di dont care about what the historians say

I love the idea of judas becoming dracula but think it is just an idea. Fun to play with though.

yes darkwolfman, i m totally agree with you.

i agree with the concept of dracula 2000 it s a very interresting thing ......

but excuz my honesty i think lot of people here see vampire like they see in movie

for me dracula is a myth it s possible vlad tepes the impaler suck blood ( more vampirism than real vampire ) of his victim i don't tell the inverse but i think the rest is more superstition

i think real vampirism exist and i have do some research with proof for explain it
on other thread

but vampire with fang who immortal with dark power and other stuff i m not really sure ......

i do research on vampire and vampirism since a long time now i have some proof " the vampirism appear long time behind JC but i never find a real proof about real vampire

i have heard a lot of myth and other stuff

one who make me smile some head bones who have find in the catacomb of paris with fang at finally we never see it lot of urban legend ......

but the dracula 2000 theory is very interrresting but some other text proof the inverse .....
nice thread

i like one day a real vampire proof me the inverse :)

I did think that Judas ultimately ending up as Dracula was a great twist in a story that has been done so many times that it needed a boost. The only problem is that the movie stated that Dracula was "patient zero"--the first vampire. But vampire myths have been around since before Judas and so historically it doesn't work. But still a great twist nonetheless.

I think its an amazing film and that Judas was a total hottie. I however do not believe he was the original vampyr as theres too many accounts pre-dating Judas and Christ. So good movie but its crap. I also like the second movie to Dracula 2000 but the guy in the second wasnt as hot as the guy in the first.

the second and thrid movies had nothing to do with Dracula 2000...just straight to dvd movies

yup. they sucked very much bad...LOL

All these posts reminds me a forum that I accidentally bump on while making a search in the web! It was a forum about Highlander the series and there were a lot of people try to give reasonable explanations in various incidents of the series!
Hello!!!!! Dracula 2000 is a movie! A totally ficticious work of somebody that collected pieces and bits from myths (some of bigger and some of lesser importance) put them together and create Dracula 2000. Trying to give a reasonable explanation to this movie is futile!
If you want to search for real information about the origin of the vampires don't consider movies as a source! They will disorientate you mostly than help you!

i see the second movie
she s not very good hope the three will better ( is not come out inf rance for the moment )

and dark worlf have right there no relation between dracula 2000 and the number 2 and three who are just come out in dvd ( commercial interrest héhéhé )

it s the same with vampire from john carpenter and the number two ( with bon jovi ) and the number 3 ( chiness vampire )
just for run the bizzness ;)

I would have to somewhat disagree with you, Nightrider, for critiquing a movie is very much like critiquing a book. Movies, like books, will give you wrong information, but it is always a good thing to look at them in terms of what they are trying to do. For me, this movie was trying to put a new spin on the whole Dracula myth--which is a myth in and of itself. So we have the movie which is trying out something new that many of us have never or would never think of before. Up until this point, the only thing that comes to mind when they heard the term "Dracula" was the Wallachian prince Vlad Dracula--or the Tepes as he's sometimes indicated. Culture and myths always change from each telling, and, even today, or myths that we thought we "knew" are being retold in different ways to better entertain a populace who has seen or heard of the Dracula story to the point where it no longer of interest. I'm not saying that the movie reinvigorated it, but it surely gave us something new to think about. After all, Bram Stoker's Dracula wasn't entirely based upon the historical figure of Dracula. He took some dramatic licenses just like other myths do throughout history.

I love both Stoker's and Dracula 2000's say that vampires began. But Dracula 2000 is more believerable. Don't why.

It's not believeable at all.....

It's an interesting theory, but I never mentions, any other culture's Vampires.

Even in the Blade movies, other Vampire cultural origins were talked about......

I always see Vlad as more of a sadist than a vampire.

ALso, I think the idea of Judas and Lillith are interesting ones, but I still don't think that the idea of vampire would fit with todays ideas, especially wen being linked with media.

As for Bram Stoker, its fiction, and thats all it is to me.

Bram stokers roules...

I dont know who Judas is anyway.

Judas was the 13th deciple(sp)

he betrayed Jesus to the Romans for afew pieces of Silver

The movies idea of Judas being Dracula was interesting, but nothing more than a movie writers idea for a basis of a movie. Vlad Tepes on the other hand has numerous facts, myths and stories around him. He has proven to be a real person, proof of Judas existance is nothing more than words in a book of poison.

i wanna see it so bad!!

I thought the movie did have an interesting plot twist, something new to the vampire genre. It's on my dvd list.

Sidebar; Judas was the 13th disciple and the only one that asked to be, the other 12 Jesus picked. And he didn't get the silver 'to' turn him in but, 'for' turning him in. Both important if you wish to study that sort of stuff.

Dracula 2000 was interesting though.

I liked Dracula 2000. I found the Judas route to more interesting then Bram Stoker (and I like Bram Stoker). I liked how Dracula was Judas and that's why he didn't like the Christian symbols.

i was really disappointed in this movie and i also came in the middle so maybe i missed a good part