Vampire movies are almost as bad as Zombie movies. Don’t get me wrong… I love a good vampire or zombie movie… it’s just that there are so damn many of them now. Seems like we get 2-3 of them (or a LOT more if you consider indies) and NONE of them have an original thought (the last original feeling Zombie movie I saw was Shaun of the Dead).
But like I said, Vampire movies are as bad as Zombie films in that regard… and the idea for this new set of films sounds interesting. The good folks at M&C give us this about a new Vampire trilogy:
Fox 2000 and Scott Free have bought up film rights to a trilogy of vampire books by Jordan Ainsley. The trilogy is said to be an post apocalyptic tale, set in 2016, that starts with cancer patients bitten by bats in South America suddenly recovering. This leads to the government performing secret test on inmates and other test subject in the hope finding a cure. Instead they create a horde of hungry and infectious vampires that threaten to overrun society. Meanwhile an orphan called Amy discovers that she has special powers related to the disaster.
The set up sounds really interesting to me. But can you really stretch a vampire movie like this one into a true trilogy on screen? It’s hard to intelligently answer that question since I clearly haven’t read the books (cause they’re not even out yet), but the scenario has me curious. My only other question is: “Is it possible to do movies like this WITHOUT basing it on evil government experiments”? That’s a hook that gets way too over used too.
