This is the place where you can personalize your profile!
By moving, adding and personalizing widgets.
You can drag and drop to rearrange.
You can edit widgets to customize them.
The bottom has widgets you can add!
Some widgets you can only access when you get Core Membership.
Some widgets have options that are only available when you get Core Membership.
We've split the page into zones!
Certain widgets can only be added to certain zones.
"Why," you ask? Because we want profile pages to have freedom of customization, but also to have some consistency. This way, when anyone visits a deviant, they know they can always find the art in the top left, and personal info in the top right.
Don't forget, restraints can bring out the creativity in you!
Now go forth and astound us all with your devious profiles!
Hello and welcome back to the fourth installment of Filler Ween, where movies go after they die.
In the midst of Stephen Sommers’ third Mummy film began wrapping up and Benicio de Toro’s Wolf Man was still in it’s infancy, 2007 saw Universal deciding to go ahead with a film entitled Dracula: Year Zero, a different take on the character created by Bram Stoker in 1897 and became popular when Universal adapted the story in 1931 with actor Bela Lugosi. The studio hired on director Alex Proyas and was planning on starring Sam Worthington in the title role. However, after ending the deal with Proyas, the studio stuck with Worthington due to his schedule allowing him to commit to the film. Worthington was announced as the lead in 2010, and a planned release for 2011. However, Universal closed its deal with Worthington and the film was in a short standstill.
Irish director Gary Shore entered the director’s chair in 2012, which became his first theatrical film outside of two short films, and with a new script written by Matt Sazama and Burk Sharpless, the following year also saw the announcement of Luke Evans as the new main lead, and a release date for 2014. As filming had wrapped up in 2013, June of 2014 saw reshoots for the film, which were revealed in July to be the setup for a Universal Monster shared universe franchise.
So how did this new retelling of Dracula go?
Overview: Sometime before the Renaissance, the Turkish, or Ottoman Empire, rules over the nation of Transylvania. Prince Vlad Tepes III is abducted as a young child and raised by their Sultan as an elite Janissaries soldier, which he uses to become a fear warrior referred to as Vlad the Impaler (Luke Evans), due to him impaling his enemies on spears.
Time passes and Vlad rules his domain in peace, alongside his wife Mirena (Sarah Gadon) and their son Îngeras (Art Parkinson). However, the Turks demand for Vlad to give up 1,000 boys as both tribute but to also be trained as new Janissaries soldiers for Sultan Mehmed II (Dominic Cooper), who trained with Vlad. Despite Vlad’s pleads for the Sultan to take him instead, the Sultan denies his request, though demands his son to be given over as well. Without an army to defeat the Turkish forces, Vlad turns to an unlikely aid to protect his people: The Master Vampire (Charles Dance), who Vlad accidentally stumbles upon. The Vampire, despite his warnings, allows Vlad to harness the powers of a vampire temporarily by offers him some of his blood. If Vlad can resist the urge to drink human blood for three days, he will turn back to a regular human. If not, he’ll remain a vampire forever. As Vlad tries to fight against his vampiric urges, his human nature begins to fade more and more, setting him on the path to becoming Dracula…
I’ll just start out with this: I hate the whole Vlad the Impaler is Count Dracula concept. For those who don’t know, historical figures have debated where Bram Stoker’s influences came from when he was writing his novel prior to its publication in 1897. It is noted that during the winter of 1890, Stoker came across a book entitled An Account of the Principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia by William Wilkinson, due to Stoker copying down sections of the book in his notes. The sections Stoker copied contained numerous references to war leaders who had the title Dracula, one of which was said to cross the Danube river to attack Turkish troops.
Prior to this, Stoker had originally written the story to be set in either Austria or Styria, and Dracula being called Count Wampyr (Stoker’s notes had the name crossed out and replaced with Dracula), though no mention of Vlad Tepes has ever come up. The connection began around 1958 when Basil Kirtley suggested this concept, and while it was used here and there in certain novels afterwards, became heavily cemented when 1992’s Francis Ford Coppola’s adaptation was made.
So why do I hate that idea? I hate it more on the lines people have kept incorporating it with Dracula as oppose to it just being a funny ‘what-if’ scenario. Everyone nowadays seems to just accept that Vlad the Impaler became Dracula, which he didn’t. It was more on the lines of someone reading the book, saw a Vlad the Impaler painting, pondered for a moment, and then he gasped in excitement for coming up with something off the top of his head.
It’s like when Frank Miller reinvented Batman in The Dark Knight Returns, yet people didn’t get that Batman acts in a more extreme manor due to his age, and instead incorporated it to a younger version of Bruce Wayne that loses the essence of that version working.
Yet, I’m fine with the filmmakers doing this in this film. That’s mostly due to its not in any way based on the Bram Stoker novel. It’s a fictional take on Vlad the Impaler and how he becomes a guy named Dracula, as oppose to the story of Count Dracula with a shoved in sequence where he’s this other guy.
Sadly, the filmmakers just didn’t do much with this new idea.
The aspect of Vlad being as evil as he’s historically documented is toned down (more on that later), but the filmmakers mostly make him out to being a nice guy who doesn’t like to commit harm except to his enemies. That’s fine, but the movie never really makes you buy that. The script never hints at him having a dark nature except in the opening prologue, and even when he does impale people like he did before there isn’t a change. There’s one where he yells at his people, but that comes off more due to him fighting his vampire urges.
There’s a moment when Vlad learns about the Master Vampire from a priest, who’s got a bunch of scrolls and information on him. Yeah, this random priest has a bunch of information about this vampire. I’m sorry, but you knew about this? Why didn’t you tell Vlad about the bloodsucking creature of the night in the cave that’s close buy? You know, so we can AVOID going near there?
Though that’s nothing compared to later in the movie where Vlad is attacked by his people. After defeating the first army of Turks, Vlad takes his people to a monastery to be safe. The priest discovers Vlad has vampire abilities and proceeds to expose himself to everyone out in the open. Their response? BURN HIS ASS. Morons, he saved you from the forces that want you all dead. Do you really want to mess with this guy who took on all those soldiers in ONE NIGHT? You people were willing to accept he slaughtered an army of thousands BY HIMSELF, what changed in between that time?
About that, Vlad’s abilities are only to last for 3 days if he’s able to resist drinking human blood. Why didn’t Vlad just whoop the Turkish armies over the course of those three nights? He takes them out on the first, fights a small faction on the second, but on the third he waits until dawn is approaching. In fact, he says that exact line before the fight. WHAT WERE YOU THINKING? This could be over in a jiffy had you not wasted HOURS on them approaching, which BTW he also has super speed.
You know what I find bizarre? They made a movie about how Vlad the Impaler, one of the most blood thirstiest figures in history, who turns into Dracula, one of history’s most iconic vampire figures…and is made into a PG-13 movie. Now to the film’s credit, there is blood…WHEN PEOPLE HAVE SMALL CUTS. C’mon, man! This should be a frigging bloodbath of a movie. And not because of the Dracula and Vlad aspects, but because Vlad has numerous fights with the Turkish army, and he whales on them. They get stabbed with swords through the foot, chest, and THE NECK. Hell, they are shown at the end of a battle being IMPALED: not one drop of blood.
I wasn’t fond of the ending. Vlad, now adopting the title of Dracula, recruit’s survivors left by the Turks and turns them into vampires, who help Dracula defeat the remaining army and rescue his son. Then FOR NO REASON, they claim that humanity is their enemy and that they want to take over the world. Oh, for the love of- AGAIN?! Why do these monsters now have to crave world domination? Is it in the studios’ contract? It would have been better had Dracula’s followers realize they were losing their humanity and beg to be killed rather than live with this curse. Dracula, showing consideration, allows this and has their souls set free. It would have kept Vlad’s side for caring for his people intact.
But wait! It isn’t over yet. At the end of the movie, we transition to the modern day where Dracula meets Mina, which the movie hints at being Mirena reincarnated. The movie ends with the Master Vampire watching secretly in the back, and saying “Let the games begin”.
Prior to Vlad becoming a complete vampire, the Master Vampire was stuck in his cave due to a curse. Since Vlad became Dracula, it lifted the curse and the Master Vampire is now free. Prior to his release, he spoke of getting his revenge on the world. Yet the ending hints he sat around and is FINALLY going to get his revenge…in the 21st Century. Um, lazy much?
Cast: Luke Evans as Vlad "the Impaler" Țepeș III / Dracula- I really like Luke Evans here. His take on Vlad is very different, mostly due to the filmmakers wanting this version to come off more tragic than the iconic Prince of Darkness. And Evans works fine with what he’s being asked to work with, though I wish it was slightly stronger material.
Dominic Cooper as Sultan Mehmed II- Dominic Cooper is a fine villain, he plays a leader of an unbeatable army that wants to conquer more lands. I didn’t buy his relationship with Vlad. The movie implies the two were close as children, but you never buy that. The movie could have done a Prince of Egypt story where the brothers have a tragic story and become enemies, but I doubt that could have been crammed in the 90-minute runtime with the vampire story.
Sarah Gadon as Mirena- Sarah Gadon plays Mirena okay. Gadon does a decent job adding emotional depth when she and Evans are on screen together, and you do buy her loyalty to her husband. I felt she wasn’t in enough of the movie, like maybe they could have had a sequence where she and Evans show Vlad’s dark nature and she was one of the reasons he became the way he is now, something to show more of their history together.
Art Parkinson as Îngeras- Art Parkinson plays Vlad’s son, and he for the most part does a good job at that. The issue I mostly got was him and Evans’ lines were mostly telling how much they love each other, and that was usually it. Outside of that he and Evans did have good acting together, I did buy that they were related.
Charles Dance as Master Vampire- I haven’t watched Game of Thrones, but after seeing him make a cameo in Victor Frankenstein, Charles Dance is good at playing intimidating villains. I wish we got to see more of him in the film seeing how he’s only in four scenes.
Paul Kaye as Brother Lucian- Paul Kaye was fine as the priest, however there wasn’t a lot of screen time to get to understand his character. All I got was he’s a priest, and that’s about it. I guess seeing how he’s in a couple of scenes the writer’s felt he wasn’t really important…even though he saves Vlad’s son at the end.
Production: I really like the look of the film. The cinematography on the landscapes has a great scope to it, with this wide landscape surrounding our characters. One sequence I did like was Vlad climbing on a ledge to get to a cave where the Master Vampire is at. It’s a very gorgeous shot.
I like how they do the vampire abilities here. They have sequences where Vlad will turn into multiple bats and is able to see through skin to see blood veins that are impressive. The movie did carry over the vampire vision from Van Helsing, though I like how the movie did their own take on the idea.
The set designs are nice. I specifically like the cave and Vlad’s castle, those two clearly had a lot of money thrown at them and it paid off. They’re rich in detail and atmosphere.
I enjoyed the makeup that Charles Dance was given. It looks great, giving the impression this is a creature that should be dead. I’m betting it was a nod to Count Orlok’s design from Nosferatu, or even Bengt Ekerot’s Death from The Seventh Seal.
Final Conclusion: I won’t lie, problems aside I do like the movie. It’s a fun, in a lot of ways ridiculous, action movie with a vampire that has some cool abilities. There were a lot of effect sequences I dug the hell out of. The movie looks great, with cinematography and the overall production being top notch. Luke Evans is fine as Vlad, and the cast is solid. However, the film’s biggest issues fall on the script, which have sequences and issues that leave you scratching your head. The movie could have been elevated up in different hands, but as it is, an over the top action movie, it succeeds at that. But don’t expect anything but that.
Final Rating: 3/5
While I was doing research for this review, I came across an article called Dracula Gets a Makeover for the ISIS age in Dracula Untold. io9.gizmodo.com/dracula-gets-a… Written by author and journalist Annalee Newitz, she argues that for this different take on Dracula, the filmmakers brought back the racist version Stoker wrote in 1897.
“Probably the most intriguing part of this reboot, for fans of the original novel and all its myriad remakes throughout the past century, is the way this film turns its evil, fanged impostor into a hero. Not to put too fine a point on it, the answer is a racism update. Bram Stoker's original Victorian novel was a swashbuckling anti-immigrant tale. It was explicitly about how those creepy Eastern Europeans were buying up British real estate and turning all the nice Western women into blood whores.”
“But the hatred of Eastern European immigrants became less relevant as time wore on. Eventually, as actors like young Frank Langella and Gary Oldman inhabited the role, the monster was rehabilitated as a handsome stranger whose foreign origins added to his gothic appeal. Still, if you're going to reinvent the monster as a full-blown hero, star of what the studio is claiming will be a new Universal monster franchise, he can't just be a sexy outsider with a charmingly dilapidated castle. We need to bring back the original racist frisson of Stoker's novel. That's why Vlad Tepes in Dracula Untold has to be fighting Muslims. Because of course.”
“And thus begins the fun of the film, which is ultimately all about how a nice Christian prince turns himself into a demon to destroy a Muslim army.”
I spoke with on the subject, and he did have this to say:
“…the Ottoman Empire, while certainly originating from the region of modern day Turkey, there was an overwhelming control of the Islam faith under the Sunni denomination (you know how Christianity has different denomination of their faith (Catholics and protestants), same with Islam. The biggest is Sunni, others are Shia and Kharijites.
Now, interestingly, by the later 15th century, the Ottoman Empire began to switch to a more Christian control as Muslim control dropped as the nation of Turkey became secular to other religions and other forms of government until it's fall in 1924.
Vlad's backstory in the movie is exaggerated and untrue, but then again, the whole movie is about him becoming a vampire so really, nothing about the way he is portrayed is accurate or faithful to the source material of the actual man or the actual book.
So, in conclusion, there is a good point and certainly worth debate whether this is a film about a white man killing Muslims, but take note that the Ottoman Empire did MANY atrocities over their period. Just google the Armenian genocide if you want but one example of the things they did to try and keep control over their empire.”
I get what Annalee Newitz is saying in her journal, that it’s ironic how an American studio took an original story where Romanian immigrants were labelled as monsters, only to become the hero since political outlooks over Muslims have changed in the past, but I with Volts where I feel the filmmakers were just telling a really lose story on Vlad and only referencing a character from Stoker’s book. Yes, the book might be considered racist nowadays, but I’m pretty sure Universal wasn’t incorporating current political views when they were making the movie. That might have happened by accident, though I doubt it was done on purpose. Let me remind you this film was at one point was called Dracula: Year Zero.
--- For next time, we come to the end of Universal’s modern horror monster remakes. We’ve gone through the Stephen Sommers Mummy series, his jab at Van Helsing, Joe Johnston’s gothic take on the Wolf Man, and their interesting take on Count Dracula, and it’s all been leading up to their first official installment in their shared monster film series. Join me, as we look at their first installment in their Dark Universe: an action-packed movie with Tom Cruise. Wait…
Hello and welcome back to the fourth installment of Filler Ween, where movies go after they die.
After the release of the first two Mummy films and Van Helsing, Universal took another jab at recreating one of their horror icons. It announced in 2006 that a remake of the 1941 movie The Wolf Man, which starred Lon Chaney Jr., would star Benicio del Toro, a fan and collector of the Wolf Man movie. Mark Romanek, whose work has mostly been involved in music videos and three feature films, was hired to helm the movie and wanted his take on the classic movie to be that of “a balance of cinema in a popcorn movie scenario.” All while this was going on, Benicio, who was also the film’s producer, not only looked towards the original movie, but 1935’s Werewolf of London and Curse of the Werewolf from 1961. The filmmakers even hired makeup artist Rick Baker, who worked on the werewolf makeup and effects in An American Werewolf in London, to update the original Jack Pierce design.
However, 2008 saw Romanek leave the project following creative differences with the studio. Of the directors offered to take over, the one who landed the job was Joe Johnston. Johnston’s previous work consisted of Honey, I Shrunk the Kids, The Rocketeer, Jumanji, and Jurassic Park III, also brought along with him David Self to rewrite the script. If you aren’t familiar with David Self, he did the 1999 version of The Haunting (though it was rewritten to death by Michael Tolkin), Thirteen Days, and The Bourne Identity.
Johnston was hired on three weeks before shooting began, which resulted in Baker’s makeup only being done for the end of the transformation, while CGI would be done to show Lawrence’s change into the Wolf Man. The movie was shot mostly in 2008, though reshoots occurred in 2009. It didn’t help the movie’s release was changed multiple times, from its original November 12, 2008 release to February 12, 2009, the pushed to April 2008, only then shoved to November 6, until it was finally released on February 12, 2010.
The Wolf Man’s release happened alongside the Gary Marshall romantic comedy Valentine’s Day, and despite opening in second place, ended up being a box office bomb. The nail in the coffin came when Universal head Ron Meyer spoke of the film a year later, and referred to it as ‘One of the worst movies we ever made’.
So, how bad is the 2010 remake of The Wolf Man?
Overview: In 1891, Shakespearian stage actor Lawrence Talbot (Benicio del Toro) is contacted by his brother’s fiancé Gwen Conliffe (Emily Blunt) that his brother has vanished from their home in Blackmoor. Resisting at first, Lawrence returns home to Talbot Hall, homed to his estranged father, Sir John (Anthony Hopkins), whom the two have had a rocky relationship. Shortly afterwards, Larry’s brothers body is found, which the villagers blame on a nearby caravan of gypsies. As Lawrence investigates, he is attacked and bitten by an unknown creature. As his wound slowly heals, Inspector Francis Aberline (Hog Weaving) arrives to consider the series of attacks. However, it’s not long before Lawrence learns the truth: he was bitten by a werewolf, and as long as the full moon appears every month, Lawrence is cured to forever turn into a killing machine: The Wolf Man…
Why, what’s this? A horror movie that (gasp) is an actual frigging horror movie? With blood, murder, and a man killing numerous people as oppose to not killing at all? And it’s…GOOD?! Oh, dear heavily God, run to the hills!
Yes, I know there’s probably people sick of me angry about the past Universal remakes going completely out its way to no longer be horror movies and instead go into a ‘fun family adventure’ movie series. Would you tolerate this if they did that with Jason Voorhees, Freddy Krueger, Michael Myers, or any of the slasher icons of the 1970s and 80s? Made them PG-13 movies where they’re trying to take over the world and doing constantly bad kid friendly jokes? No, people would be furious because there are people who respect and want to see those monsters being monsters! These are the golden age horror movie icons, they should have more respect instead of “Hey, why not make a Mummy out of nowhere and completely crap all over another culture because we can!”. And guess what, this movie treated The Wolf Man with frigging respect.
Sorry, wanted that off my chest. All honestly, whether you like this movie or not, there’s not avoiding what this movie is: a horror movie. A hard R rated horror movie that kept the original ideals of the character intact. And thank GOD someone got that right for one of these films.
The Wolf Man is played completely straight. He isn’t toned down, he’s nearly the same as he was in the original film, outside of a few changes and the addition of color and blood.
And guess what the movie achieved in doing that a lot of other movies have struggled at: being a good remake. The film keeps the elements from the original film, but also changes up some elements and deviates so it isn’t the exact same movie. It does the standard of what remakes should do: respect the original, but do something different so it isn’t an exact copy.
In fact, the movie makes nods to the original film numerous times without it being blatant. The iconic wolf cane, the town, the telescope, the antique shop, the chair that straps people down, there’s so many of them in here it’s amazing how much they referenced the original film. Heck, they even referenced the deleted bear scene, that’s impressive. And on top of that, the movie throws in some nods to other Universal films: the house burning down at the end, the angry mobs, the insane asylum, the shock therapy reminiscent of the electrical equipment in the Frankenstein movies. They did a callback to the American Werewolf in London car crash sequence, it’s great.
Outside of the original film, the filmmakers made nods to Werewolf of London from 1935, the first Universal werewolf movie. In fact, the use of that film’s ending works here really well.
Hell, the director’s cut on the DVD remade the 1941 Universal logo. I’m sorry, but that’s the kind of shit I geek the hell out over. The fact they took the time to recreate that shows how much these guys love those old monster movies and wanted it to feel like those types of Universal films.
So far this is a pretty solid monster flick, right? Well, it does have some issues. The Wolf Man himself isn’t on screen for long periods of time, which I know annoyed some people. I’m fine with that, they didn’t have him on screen so much it got repetitive.
I did however notice it was never clear what circumstances Talbot must change by. The movie will show the moon being out for what seems like a couple of hours, then Lawrence changes. It’s kind of contradicting how the old films just made him immediately change as soon as he saw the moon, but it’s not too distracting here.
The movie slows down at certain spots for some bizarre time-lapse sequences. I get that Johnston wanted to show the progression of time, but it’s more distracting and feels out of place to the rest of the movie. Speaking of passage of time, it was kind of confusing at certain points when a month clearly has passed, yet it feels like a week flew by.
There are numerous dream sequences where each one consists of double jump scares: a jump scare followed immediately after a jump scare. That might be because that happened in An American Werewolf in London, but that film only had that happen once. This film did that about four times, and it went from okay to slightly annoying.
I felt the romance angle wasn’t that well executed. I could see it working, however despite the actors trying their best, it didn’t sell the idea that these two were slowly falling in love.
The climax, I can see people being angry that it’s two grown men in makeup duking it out, but that always will amuse me. Two grown men throwing each other around like it's a bizarre wrestling match? I'll pay to watch that any day.
Cast: Benicio del Toro as Lawrence Talbot/The Wolfman- Benicio here is…good. I kind of had a hard time buying Talbot’s tragedy when I never saw him happy. del Toro sells it when he’s sad, but that’s all he does in the movie. Lon Chaney Jr. made us really buy the tragedy he had going on, and sadly I didn’t get here. However, it is cool to know he was such a huge Wolf Man fan and had fun playing the main role.
Anthony Hopkins as Sir John Talbot- Anthony Hopkins delivers a good performance, however is clearly doing whatever the hell he wants and the camera is just rolling to get enough footage. There’s this odd sequence where he’s supposed to be talking to Gwen, but he’s just staring at her and eating an apple. The hell? Fortunately, the take on Sir John here is a nice different take from the Claude Rains version.
Emily Blunt as Gwen Conliffe- Emily Blunt was enjoyable here. I bought the tragedy she was dealing with, from the death of her husband to trying to help Lawrence. Sure, it doesn’t help del Toro and her don’t have that connection to make their relationship seem real, but she’s giving it her all.
Hugo Weaving as Inspector Francis Aberline- I really liked Hugo Weaving’s performance as Inspector Aberline. He really does come off as a guy who knows how to handle serious situations, and the way he accepts there’s a werewolf on the loose is very convincing. He’s kind of like a nod to Inspector Krogh from Son of Frankenstein, only with awesome muttonchops.
Geraldine Chaplin as Maleva- While Geraldine Chaplin gives a good performance as Maleva, I feel her character was the one who suffered the most in the remake. Maleva’s almost unnecessary with the new film’s script, which is a shame seeing how the character was a huge part of the 1941 film.
Antony Sher as Dr. Hoenneger- Antony Sher is fine, however he plays Dr. Hoenneger for laughs, which is a bit out of place. Everyone else are playing their roles straight, and here’s Sher playing with a funny accent and it’s jarring. Though it did crack me up how he kind of looks like John Landis.
Max von Sydow and Rick Maker make small cameos, and both appearances are good.
Production: This movie is gorgeous. It has great production design and is just dripping in atmosphere. The look of Talbot Hall, the town, the woods, London, it’s fantastic. It’s a great update from the look of the Universal films, all while capturing the same feeling the original films had.
The crowning achievement of the movie is Rick Baker’s makeup. The Wolf Man looks fantastic here, and every scene he’s on screen is something to marvel at. While the CGI doesn’t mesh well with the makeup at some spots, other times it looks really good. Though I would have preferred Rick Baker being able to use practical effects and go to town on the transformations.
Final Conclusion: The Wolf Man, while having some flaws, is a solid reimagining of a horror icon. This is what I’ve wanted the studio to do with their old properties, having them reintroduced to newer audiences while keeping enough of the original material for older fans. I wish this got a better reception and resulted in more movies done in this style, but sadly that’s not what Universal wanted. Suffice it to say, at least we got one good Halloween monster flick.
Final Rating: 3.5/5 --- Next time, Universal takes another jab at beginning its own Monster Universe, with reinventing the Prince of Darkness and providing a different origin story to the famous count…
Not one who's crazy for these tag things, but this one sounded interesting.
Rules 1. Name 10 of your favorite characters from 10 different fandoms. 2. Tag 10 people.
(This isn't done in order like 10 least favorite to 1 the best. I like all these characters as who they are by themselves) 1.Bilbo Baggins (The Hobbit) 2.Marty McFly (Back to the Future 1-3) 3.The Doctor (Doctor Who: 1963-1989; 1996; 2005-Present) 4.Rey (Star Wars Episode 7: The Force Awakens) 5.Arthur Dent (Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy) 6.Hester Shaw & Tom Natsworthy (The Hungry City Chronicles; Mortal Engines, Predator's Gold, Infernal Devices, A Darkling Plain) 7.Milo Thatch (Atlantis: The Lost Empire) 8.Ralph (Saving Mr. Banks) 9.Lee Archer (The Wake) 10.Gary King (The World's End)
So as the rule goes, 10 people are supposed to be tagged. However, it is optional whether you wanna do this or not: