Netflix Dracula VS. Novel (differences) & "Blood Downloading" Explained.
Vložit
- čas přidán 10. 09. 2024
- No adaptation of Bram Stoker's novel Dracula has followed it exactly yet, and the new Netflix Dracula series is even further from it than most. In this video, I will breakdown the basics of how the series deviates from the novel and explain the most interesting aspect of the series to me, the "Blood Downloading" which does relate to the novel in an odd way.
Let me know your thoughts on the series in the comments below.
Please support StoryDive by donating to the channel Patreon: www.patreon.co...
or visit the channel on Facebook: / storydivetv
Instrumental by Wojciech Kilar,
Beat Prod. by Shxcobb / channel
#DraculaNetflix #bbcdracula #dracula #vampire #mythologymonday
A few similarities with the Dracula novel I forgot to mention in episode 3: In modern England there is a character named Lucy, who like the book has several suitors, including a Texan named Quincey and Jack, a young doctor. Like the book Dracula eventually turns Lucy into a vampire but aside from from their names and a few details, there are pretty much no other similarities.
I think if Mark Gatiss is worked on it, he’s possibly seen the comic you describe, but those elements are present in something he’s far more likely to have taken bits from- the Hammer Horror Dracula series - (he wrote and presented a documentary on Hammer Horror), but particularly AD 1972 which is a holiday late-night TV classic and Gatiss once referenced as his favourite movie. It has the silliness of Alucard, grandchildren of Van Helsing, and the modern setting (though obvs a 70s “modern”).
Great video though! My hopes aren’t high for it but 3 hours of Dracula is always my jam
Whilst comparing it to the novel is an interesting topic, I fear it misses the point. Its not so much an adaptation as it is a homage to all the different representaions of Dracula over the decades in cinema, from using the same castle exterior as in Nosferatu to the hammer House of Horror Christopher Lee makeup in ep1and is why the final part moves to modern times, in reflection of all the modern settings Dracula has been put into (originally there was going to be a scene set in the 1970's to reflect that eras penchant for 'modern' at the time Dracula films). Each of the three episodes reflects differen takes on Dracula - ep 1 is traditional gothic horror, episode 2 Dracula is more the charming seducter he later became in cinema and episode three is all the modern retellings where he is transposed in time. Mark Gatiss, one of the writers, is particualry steeped in horror film lore and has written books and made documetaries on the subject and the series, for analysis is best viewed through that lens. A more interesting, and in some senses fairer video to make would be to connect all the dots between previous retellings and this one. I also doubt they combined Agatha and Van Helsing for time reasons given each episode is feature length time is hardly an issue.
@@pettytyrant2720 brilliant
Why should the production have to reproduce the novel? This was a brilliant production, intelligent, great visually, definitely dracula. If people want the original they can read the book.
Tbh the best part of this series for me was the Actor that played Dracula. He does such a great job playing a more charismatic Dracula, as well as having his own evil persona behind that. You can really tell that his design is more based off of the Christopher Lee Dracula and the Bela Lugosi Dracula.
I can't stand it. He's way too chatty for a Christopher Lee. Personally, I didn't see evil. Just disassociated.
@@fidelguerra2164 Yeah totally. He seemed like a fucking clown to me then a Vampire.
I found him funny how he goes from a foreign old guy to be a young charismatic guy going around calling Johnathan Harker Johnny
I though he did a good job. We kinda find out at the end that he isn’t evil really at least not pure evil ya know. A lot of his actions and beliefs are born out of fear. Mostly fear of death. Not just magically transmitted from the devil or whatever.
Claes Bang is a marvel. If you don't mind more serious, "grown up" movies, I HIGHLY recommend The Burnt Orange Heresy, it's amazing. I really wish he had broken into the American acting scene much earlier in his career.
"Bram Stoker's Dracula" still the best adaptation. Keeping the balance of movie originality & faithfulness to the books, basically a cinematic masterpiece.
That's because Francis Ford Coppla is a master of his art.
yeah but then again Christopher Lee and Bela Lugosi
The Dracula 1977 version) of the BBC is the best. And without a love between Mina and Dracula.
The film romanticized an abusive relationship.
This film (1992 version) seems to be aimed at teenage audiences and teenage-minded women who fantasize and romanticize in abusive relationships but are not romantic at all. They are manipulative men and naive women who believe they are intelligent but not manipulable.
FFC’s Dracula is a horrible movie that was trying to be visual art, and completely lost the story in its convoluted over the top production. There are so many problems with it from scene to scene, it is actually disorienting and boring as a result. This series is a million times better than that old piece of shit that has nothing to say and only offers cheap lighting effects and ridiculous costumes.
Yes but Keanu was a bad bad choice
I really didn’t like how they used the Mina character, in the book she was the only competent person in the group with her writing down every they did and strategizing the attack of Dracula’s lairs.
And it was the other’s lack of understanding her importance that nearly destroyed the group when Dracul went after her
Mina never gets a fair deal in the movies. In the novel, she's Dracula's most dangerous opponent. In the movies, she's in love with him! (lol).
Rocío Miranda and here was for 10 minutes and just screaming.
@@rociomiranda5684 Oh god I know... I really don't like the Coppola version, it's downright insulting to poor Mina.
The first episode was a masterpiece, the second was very good, and the third one was meh. Didn't hate what they where going for in the third, but perhaps they should have gone deeper with it and split the third into to 2 episodes instead of one.
(as in 2 episodes in the past, 2 in the present)
I think the third episode was ripped off from lucifer.I immediately lost all my interest
I AM HERE I was really afraid this would be just like Lucifer. But I got sucked in from the first two episodes than when that helicopter came out I was pissed that it was modern day.
thanks for say that it reminded you of hellsing I thought so too. so happy someone else saw that
Agree, main problem was the third relied to heavily on foreshortened drama rather than the more extendable intellectual and action based storytelling in the first two.
I enjoyed this one up to the 21st century nonsense. The Lucy character was really awful.
i was looking forward to it at the end of episode 2, but it definitely didnt hold up the candle to the first two episodes.
Yes I liked the variation of the original. If they had stayed to the same time line it would have been great.
I didn't hate the third ep but it definitely jumped the shark hard
Seriously, Lucy wasn't even that attractive.
I think the third episode can be fun to watch if you just don’t take it too seriously, but the again I go into vampire shows/movies with very low expectations, so 🤷🏼♀️. I agree with you about Lucy.
The comparison to hellsing ultimate was spot on. They should've just either gone that route or kept it to being a period piece. That plot whiplash was amazing. My head is still spinning from it.
I’m supposed to believe that it took Dracula 500 years to realize that the sun doesn’t harm him?
All he had to do was stick a pinky out
Marcus Zyker LMFAOOOOO 😂😂
thaaaaaaaaannnkkk yoooouuuuuuuuu!!!!!!!
actually im pretty sure due to feeding on peasants for most of his life he gained there superstitions. and over centuries it made him believe it was his weakness and thus never tried to look at the sun again
@@lostonegrey1555 So, when he was actually exposed to the sun (like he was in the scene with Jonathan Harker.....) he had no realization that he wasn't actually burning? It was merely his phobia that made him believe that he felt the intense heat, pain and was disintegrating?
I didn't mind the big shift to the modern day, what I minded was how rushed the final half hour was--they set the show up as if it was going really start to explore a whole new world, like we were being set up a season 2 and 3--after all they took 4 pages from the book and made the entire Demeter episode out of it. So Agatha raises Dracula's Big Internal Issue in one sentence, then his Big Internal Issue is resolved a few seconds later, rather than a couple of seasons later, as it should have been. Ah well...
During that last scene at his house, I totally thought they were going to do a cliff hanger for season 2. I thought there'd be no way to get a satisfying ending with that amount of time left. Alas
A modern vampire show that I thoroughly enjoyed with its mix of myths & sciences would be "The Strain"
That shit was bomb
I was sad when The Strain ended. It was too good.
Yeah... Although can we all agree the new Max actor was a little shit... ha.
@@jordyr2262 He was meant to be a character you couldn't stand, the kid did great.
@@Darkpara1 He was good in being hated agreed. But I hated that they changed the actor, and sometimes the new actor overacted the facial expressions. However if he had been the actor from the beginning though, maybe I wouldn't have thought that.
I actually did a facepalm when he arrives to the modern time, it's like seeing Queen of the Damned again. Not that I mind that kind of time skip, but modern time means people know how to deal with vampires more and Dracula gets less active because he gets "food" easier. Unless an organization recruits him and he starts shooting other vampires, Dracula becomes less interesting.
Whether the whole "sun-not-burn" makes sense or not, that ending is rather silly than symbolic or meaningful. I'd love to see them try to feed him garlic and see if it's that touching when he realizes he's not allergic to it.
I don't know if I agree with that sentiment... knowing how to deal with something and panicking by encountering something up to that point you absolutely KNEW did not exist in reality are problematic for the human brain... the brain basically turns off by going into a panic mode & flight/fight response takes over. Encountering a REAL Vampire IRL would not only wig most people out, but that primitive part of our brains that would take over would get us killed... not to mention, Vampires are known to be able to hypnotize people, so forget running... you encounter a creature like that IRL, you are pretty much fucked. That is the reality of being us (human).
i disagree that modern people know better to deal with vampires than people from the past who viewed them as a real treat and activly worked on counter measures
Him climbing out of the wolf and having a snarky attitude and cracking jokes about killing the nuns gave me heavy Hellsing vibes.
Helsing Ultimate is 100% the best anime
Keanu Reeve make the movie please play the part lol
Adrian Brody looks like Alucard the closest.
"I'm a fuck-mothering vampire!"- Alucard
But the first one had a better OST😂
Sooo Hellsing Ultimate still seems to have a better payoff for its themes. Good to know
Well, did like the first episodes, then it just got confusing, still an interesting take
I first discovered "Dracula", as in everything that this name encompass, when I read Hellsing, the manga. The monstruous Alucard really charmed me to a point where I just bought Stoker's novel and read it almost in one go. From that moment on, the "sexy vampire" that modern versions of the myth have tried to sell to the world DIED. I can't look call a sexy charming blood sucking dude a vampire. Vampires are monsters and Dracula is worse because he isnt a brainless beast, he is a calculating human being with supernatural powers.
Personally, this take on dracula was my second favourite after hellsing. Now don't get me wrong it was far from perfect and I do think that the last movie was a lot weaker, mainly because of lucy's storyline. I get why she existed and where they were going but the fact that she really wasnt a lovable character at all didnt help her case I think. The ending was decent though shocking in this context because that was the kind of psychological endings an anime or manga would have, NOT a western show. I like it when showrunners try to hybrid western and japanese storytelling but let's face it most people lack the codes to understand it and sometimes, like this time, so do the showrunners. But its okay they still get a point for trying. Now you asked if we've watched other adaptations and yes I have watched quite a few, including coppola's. I didn't like it. Dracula isnt a lover, he's a man that eats babies under the full moon, he's a desperate lost soul, NOT some poor guy that has lost the love of his life. Now it was a good movie obv but when it comes to personal taste, it wasnt tasty enough for me. Overall I think that Hellsing was way better than this BBC Dracula. Crazier plot for sure but when you look at characters for example you realise just how much better they are in hellsing except for dracula who's radically different naturally. Agertha is the copy pasted version of Integra, that hit me from the very beginning. And lots and lots of little details like Dracula's victims living on inside him, the changing into wolves, the gore, the lack of sexuality in dracula (he has no sex drive, the only thing that gets close to that is his addiction to blood), his respect for his strong female nemesis and opponents in general (if they put up a fight), all of that makes me say that this dracula is the baby of Coppola's adaptation and Hellsing's and i have to say, it was ballsy. Some parts worked wonderfully, some others didnt, and some other parts were actually refreshing and new. All in all I loved this take on Dracula but I am still waiting for an adaptation to blow my mind the way hellsing did.
I love your comment. I always wish for someone to talk like that in these "explain" videos. To analyze it like sister Agatha did. And not to give me a Wiki of what I just saw. So thx.
Wow that's a complex review there mate, much appreciated!
There is no baby Camille. ;)
@@DawnChatman what do you mean?
@@camilledabert Remember that scene in E1 when Harker realizes there's a baby in the bag and Dracula keeps telling him "There is no baby". I was just playing on that since you mentioned the baby eating bit. =P
The first two episodes were pretty good. I did not care for the third episode at all.
Ha! I just realized Alucard is Dracula spelled backwards
I'm so happy you talk about Hellsing. It's one of my favorite animes and manga.
The Third Episode was where i thought i had clicked on a different show...
Steven Moffat's "I only read the Spark Notes."
I mean you could argue he did the same shit with Doctor Who. Russell T Davies clearly based a lot of his writing off of Classic Who with his own added twists, but Moffat basically ruined Doctor Who, at least in my opinion. How much of that was him and how much of that was the BBC pressuring him, who knows.
I think Claes Bang is the best actor to ever play Dracula, I thought he was awesome, Lee.
I dunno, Gary Oldman was extremely awesome too tho.
Didn’t like that this Dracula was basically psychoanalysed to death
I thought that part was kinda funny actually. The creature that literally feeds off and survives on minds could ultimately only be killed mentally.
I agree! To think that a creature of many years wouldn't have the intellect and experience to overthrow such psychoanalysis. To add, he was a very bright prince before he became Dracula.
I liked the way they handled the nihilist girl in the 3rd episode, she was pretty on the outside and ugly on the inside, people liked her for her appearance and Dracula liked her because she was a bad person, when she was cremated her appearance matched her personality so Dracula didn't mind but the guy who crushed on her saw her for what she always was.
When she finally saw herself for what she was she realized she had to change, she became beautiful to the doctor guy again but ugly to Dracula.
This transformation foreshadowed Draculas transformation, she discovered who she was and allowed herself to die. Dracula discovered who he was and allowed himself to die as well.
I liked the reference to one of the Hammer Horror Dracula's where Van Helsing runs along the table and jumps up to the curtain to rip open the drapes. I think it was titled Dracula or Taste the blood of Drac. ( not sure) with Chris. Lee and Peter Cushing. I don't know if a lot of people will see the similarities.
Brian G There were a lot of little tributes to Hammer’s series of Dracula Films. The scene where she runs along the table to pull the curtains to reveal the sunlight is from the ending of “Dracula” aka in the US as, “Horror of Dracula”. Another little tidbit is the way Mark Gatiss (who wrote, produced and plays Frank, Dracula’s lawyer) is dressed toward the end of the 3rd episode. He eats flies and wears his shirt sleeves like Ludwig, (Thorley Walters) a monk at the monastery in, “Dracula, Prince Of Darkness”. I can go on and on cause there’s a lot more. As a Hammer fan I can tell that Mark Gatiss is too.
Going with the absorbing memories/souls/essence lore that was set up, it would have made more sense for Dracula's fear of sunlight, the cross, etc to have come from his feeding off superstitious peasants & absorbing *their* beliefs/fears over the centuries than any actual fear or belief about those things he inherently had himself.
My favorite laughable moment was when LW realized what she looked like and Dracula says, WITH A STRAIGHT FACE "It's not that bad..."
Mine was when he was in the cell with Zoe and his lawyer just walked right on in and Zoe said “who gave him the WiFi password?!” And Dracula said “it was my name”
No one can faithfully adapt the novel to a movie or even any series.
Not fully faithfully especially considering the novel a collection of letters but I think a long series could come closer than anyone has if they really wanted to.
@@StoryDive - why would they want to when the book exists?
I've seen the Bram Stokers Dracula and although I know it's not exactly the best lol adaptation, I did still like it. I've seen it more than twice and get enough enjoyment out of it that I'll probably watch it again.
However I liked this show too. Especially the first two episodes, they really were awesome. I just wish we could have seen Dracula climbing down the castle... such an iconic scene, such a shame it was left out. I've got to agree though when you said the third episode fell short. It really did.
I liked the characters, I liked the adaptation, I liked the look of the characters (no butts on their head lol) I do wish it followed the story a little more but beggars can't be cboosers.
Overall it was enjoyable and I will forever love sister Van Helsing and her glorious bluntness.
Best character on the show by FAR.
Move over Dracula because sister Van Helsing needs her own tv show!
We've only seen the first episode so far, and completely agree with you on Sister Agatha Van Helsing getting her own stories - or at least becoming an accepted character in the pantheon amongst Dracula fans.
The typical "Sherlock" tone is putting me off this adaptation a little - Dracula becomes pseudo "gay moriarty"/Irene Adler by the time he's finished with J Harker... Would have preferred him to stay more "of his time" in the 19thC scenes (and that's not code for being straight or not camp - Lord knows, we've existed since time immemorial - but his mannerisms, his way of speaking is so modern it felt jarring to me - like he's the audience insert in a parody of the Stoker story).
I still find the original black-and-white Nosferatu to be the closest adaptation of the Dracula story.
Definitely has the spirit of the Hellsing anime series. Overall, I loved it
the vampires from the Anne Rice book also did this "Blood downloading"
I honestly enjoyed it I don’t know what I expected but surprised me. My favourite will always be bram stokers Dracula even though I know it isn’t a true adaptation either. I think they did what they do well take a classic and put a modern twist on it. I loved van helsing she was witty and clever and it was a whole new take on it. I mean bram stokers Dracula did the more traditional feel and I’m not sure doing another version like that would have been worth while. I love helsing it’s amazing such a good show. I get why this might have disappointed people but I enjoyed it.
I loved it and thought the ending was brilliant. The fear of death is a very real thing for all human beings, and we have very much used religion to curb that fear. For Dracula to experience this humanizes Dracula and makes him relatable in a totally new way. There is a lot of subtlety to everything done in this series that connects within the world, and also are a commentary on our actual world. It not about how close it is to some old book, or wether or not you like something about it or not. It is much more about the commentary on what it means to be human and overcome fear, and possibly even experience love.
The downloading of memory’s by drinking blood in dracula reminds me of how the underworld vampires are able to see the memories of people after they drink the blood of people
I have only watched episode 1, and I love it so far. I don't particularly care how close it is to the original novels, but it's a worthwhile analysis. I'll try to remember to come back and watch this video later after I've finished the series.
Lmao I'm happy that I'm not the only one who felt like this Dracula reminded me of alucard
Agatha like Integra
I got more of a brunette Lestat.
Just finished watching the first episode with my dad, blew me away loved the actor playing Dracula 🧛♂️.
I really enjoyed the first 2 episodes... then episode 3 came around and I just appreciated it for what it's worth.
castlevania did a great job of dracula and his story
Loved this show, a fresh take on Dracula. Loved how it ended as well.
OSP's Red did a summary of the novel and included her thoughts on why a "true" and "accurate" adaptation of the book hasn't been made yet - basically because the horror of Dracula is a gradual slow-burn and in the ambiance, not the plot or Count himself.
To save time suuuuure. That's why they did it.
I was trying to project a bit of sarcasm on that line, but as usual it didn't read.
Lmao
I was honestly impressed by it. Yes, it was a departure from the source material, but that is what enhanced the experience for me. I enjoyed the dynamic between Agatha, Dracula, and Zoe. The sort of reincarnation for Agatha within Zoe was interesting also. Along with drinking his blood and not turning. I thought it was rather refreshing to see their quasi-romance unfold. It was a great game of cat and mouse. Considering the mess that we typically get from remakes these days. This 3-part series, I actually really enjoyed even though a lot of other people seem to dislike it.
I’ve read the novel, I’ve seen many movies...but this serie has impressed. Me, positively. I liked it very much because it was close to the novel but with an unexpected twist. Even if I knew the story it has been able to keep me in suspense al the time. And I liked the kind of romantic ending of the story. And first of all I appreciated the casting, especially Agatha Van Helsing, a character very well played and prominent in the narration, more than in the books
I enjoyed it, but agree that the rather abrupt shift to modern times in episode 3 was a bit much. I really didn't believe Dracula would sacrifice himself in that way in the end. (How do we really know the blood of a cancer victim would kill him?)
From what i gather. They mixed old versions into the new. I enjoyed it. 😊✌
One aspect of Renfield's character that the dramatisations often, if not always, miss is his age. Seward introduces him as "Renfield: Aetat 59" He's fifty-nine years old, at a time when the average Englishman did not live long past sixty. Renfield's allotted span is rapidly running out, giving his desire to consume living things, in an attempt to add their lifespans to his own, a desperate urgency.
The first two episoees were quite good. I didn't mind that they were quite different than the novel. The third episode got saved by the parts focusing on Lucy, those parts were well written and acted. But as a whole, it was in need of a better ending. And the first van Helsing was a much more interesting character than the relative living in our time. In a way it would've been more fitting if they made her a vicar.
I found it interesting on how they dealt with the mythology and you are right about the ending I was like really.
I noticed it was very similar to Hellsing as well. I'm glad someone else did too. 🤙🏻🖤
Like with Sherlock, they aren't (as I understand from what they've said, and actor commentaries as well) really trying to represent the novels so much as use our modern form of oral tradition (TV & movies) to tell an intellectual version of the story as a whole. As with oral storytelling both key and random points will remain, the story will remain, but the emphases and details will vary by storyteller time and audience.
Extra point: Cinema has numerous Van Helsing family line references. Mind or soul in the blood is used in a number of fantasy and sci-fi formats. Not saying they weren't inspired by the anime, just that it could have been an easy amalgamation for anyone into urban fantasy.
The ending is the one that I enjoy the most.....
I simply loved the serie. I think it was brave of the writers to take up Dracula in modern England. Claes Bang was epic as Dracula.
I like from the first episode the visual similitudes to Bela Lugosi
I love Francis Ford Coppola's Dracula. I enjoyed this version, but I also felt a bit let down by the ending.
One word, CHRISTOPHER LEE,
That's two 😃
Loved the first 2 eps, the 3rd was a buzz kill. Its actually interesting how you connected hellsing ultimate to the last ep. nice work!
I don't like what whey changed from the source material, and especially what they did in episode three. But at least it's a new, fresh take on Dracula. It's not the same old story that we've seen adapted to the big screen so many times. It kept things interesting.
I just don’t get why a studio doesn’t just follow the book, it’s an amazing story and at its core it’s about the main characters friendship and there quest and struggle to destroy evil. Good books and films are about interesting characters and there hardships they overcome. Gore and horror in small does is fine but sadly there’s this sense from film makers they have to eliminate drama and amp up the schlock to make money.
Claes Bang does an unbelievably great job at making this Dracula unique and making, in my opinion, this Dracula true to, uh, well, Dracula. He was charming, dispicable, elegant, nefarious, etc... many conflicting things. However, it seems to begin it's deviance from the novel not too far in to the show and with time the deviance becomes more extreme. By the third episode. it's hard to still be comparing this Dracula to any other before it, much less the novel. I suppose that is fine if you're writing your own vampire story, but this is a story about Dracula and it doesn't do it well, especially if you're a purist. It has some unique and commendable elements that are very well done but it also takes some easy and cheap ways of explaining or circumventing explanations of how the story got to where it is. If you're not going to stay true to the original than I wouldn't feel that you need to parallel it either. Taken by itself as a work of fiction then, this story is good and very good up until the 3rd episode. the 3rd episode seems to be so far off the original that it can be hard to swallow. All the characters are well done in my opinion and well defined. The ending was well done, a different twist. It very much has taken in to account our modern times. If you're still comparing it to the original Dracula, well, you can't. The ending for this Dracula is a good one but only in so far as this Dracula is concerned.
I like Louis in interview, and the Dracula 2000 idea of Judas being first vampyre
I'd love to see HBO or Netflix do a miniseries that follows the novel properly.
I really loved Dracula!! 1st and 2nd ...but the 3rd one was ...well it left me with “he drank her bood knowing that he’d die” WHAT??? I’m hoping he’s alive and keeps going...I’m lost ..
I felt a vibe like Jojo's Bizarre Adventure, when Dracula is in the ship, and he survives in the coffin.
Thank you for the video! I read the book recently and had a lot of cringes watching the first episode. Now I atleast know it is nog worth watching further in hopes of improvement in following the book.
I am currently reading the book and know a little of the differences between the adaptations, and loved Christopher Lee's and Gary Oldman's portrayal. However, I did like the three episodes, though the third felt a little rushed. The modern take was interesting and would of liked a few more episodes of Dracula learning or "downloading" from others about living in the modern era instead of having time jumps.
Have read the book. Loved it. Have watched the series. I loved it as well!
First episode was amazing. Then after that it's a downward freefall to the hard concrete below.
Any of the shows faults (which there was no shortage of) were pretty much totally made up for by Dolly Wells' and Claes Bang's performances, just outstanding.
Meh. I don't mind bringing Dracula to the 21st century, but they screwed up a great opportunity to do more with it than him suddenly deciding to kill himself out of shame. The very idea of Dracula being a demigod in today's world is interesting, especially if he can absorb knowledge. It's fun to imagine him as the head of a trillion dollar Silicon Valley corporation, or absolute ruler of a powerful government. Anne Rice's vampires were very much trapped in the age they were created in, unable to easily adapt. This new BBC/Netflix series was a wasted opportunity.
I love every modification of Dracula. Symbiotic parasites are always interesting. People would do well to learn about them.
I haven't seen the series yet, but thanks to your video I know now that the series isn't worth my time. I absolutely LOVE the novel, but I hate it when they put stories into the modern age, that always gets me bored very quickly.
Glad I wasn't the only one who noticed the Hellsing parallels
I think it was a great oportunity lost to make the most faithfull adapration because it was three episode minisseries with 90 mins per episode. When I started to hear that BBC was producing a new Dracula minisseries, I found myself having so many expectations. Why producing a minisseries not be a close adaptation? I dont understand.
Entertaining but a let down at the end.
Thank you for your article! Loved it. I did love the ending, I thought it was very appropriate and kinda romantic!
Not sure why the Hellsing analogy in the video's image. I mean, even Hellsing was more faithful to the novel than this...thing. Hellsing kept the novel's events more or less the same and only retconed Dracula's death (because he is Alucard, obviously) but this show. Just. Changed. Everything.
Just want to make one tiny correction here. Zoe Van Helsing is Agatha's great great grand niece, since Agatha was a nun and never had children. But yeah, that's pretty damn close to the manga.
I have yet to finish the novel, one thing I bet is in none of the adaptations is the ridiculous amount of times paprika is mentioned in the very beginning of the novel.
I LOVED this iteration. Read the novel, but am not butt hurt about Moffat's and Gatiss' diversions. The actor who plays Jonathan gives a far superior performance in this one than Keanu Reeves. Also BBC1's Sherlock steered very closely to some of the original stories. E.g. "A Study in Scarlet" was tackled quite masterfully in the adaptation, with a strain of authenticity running through it, and cleverly added dialogue for its modern retelling, to boot.
Count Dracula bbc 1977 is the closest to the book despite a few minor changes It iis my favourite version
I don't disagree on the differences between the normal book by Bram Stoker and the new series.
But I heard that this series was heavily influenced by the book version from Iceland. It's supposed to be quite similar. Might be interesting to look up. 😉
How does Moffat keep getting stuff like this. First Jekyll and Hyde then Sherlock and now Dracula. Add Doctor who and he’s basically been retelling some of Britain’s most famous works of science fiction
I loved everything about this show
This series was utter trash. I'm all for artistic license and fresh, novel reimagining of classic works. But, this was just plain stupid. Van Helsing is a nun? Seriously? Jonathan Harker is reduced to a rotting ghoul? Mina is dismissed in the first episode never to return? Drac spends 120 in his coffin on the sea floor and emerges from the ocean like a diva ready for Marti Gras? This series had about as much in common with Bram Stoker's book as "Hotel Transylvania." At least the humor in Hotel Transylvania was on purpose. When Dracula walked onto the beach and the helicopter spotlight lit him up, I literally burst out laughing and then I watched something else. And Netflix wonders why their subscriber base is dwindling.
This Dracula's ability reminds me from anime style called genjutsu that make the victim had a sweet or nightmare, and the ending it just like Itachi kill Izumi. I think Moffat is a weeb🗿😂
Absolutely love the first two episodes - last episode I'm unfortunately mixed on
Best vampire stuff ive sens Interview with a vampire.
They did explain in the series that the sunlight and crosses 'fear' came from drinking the blood of superstitious peasants for years. They believed it, so Vlad believed it.
Overall I really enjoyed the series. The word play between Dracula and Van Helsing was great. I could listen to those two argue for several more hours. I found the third episode much less enjoyable than the first two mostly because I was missing the ... romanticism? of the period piece it started out as and they ended up trying to take away the supernatural aspects of Dracula in a way that just didn't make sense to me. In one shot we have the horrible burned Lucy being turned to an ash cloud (magic!) and the next Dracula's on the floor with VH telling him the sun can't hurt him. He was a wolf, can control bats, control minds, move super fast, holds the knowledge of everyone he's consumed, but he's just a man after all. Did the writers blink and just forget all the supernatural stuff? I don't know, but I did find some enjoyment in that last episode, the comedy of Dracula working out on a bike, swiping for dinner, etc. What I'm hoping is that this show could be an entry to a larger series, where the Harker organization hunts down other supernatural frights from our past. If it is, I hope they do them more justice than they did Dracula's supernatural abilities. 2/3 stars for me, I would re-watch it. (Vampire Fav's: Bram Stoker's Dracula & Interview with a Vampire.)
I like it even the concepts and twists of the 3rd episode. My problem with it is the subplots and structure of the 3rd episode wasnt interesting enough(the shallow black chick). They set up dracula living in modern day which cool like in Hellsing ultimate and side plots with the black chick so it does feel cheap when to abruptly end everything in that episode. I like the twist about him feeling shame because of his fear of death(its original atleast to me) but they should have done more with him(and the hellsing decendant and co.) before ending it.
The first half is freaking great. Anything after the time jump i couldn’t get into it.
BBCs 1977 is still the best one. This last one from BBC and Netflix is my second choice. It would have been my first choice wouldn’t been for the third episode. That 3rd episode killed it. Why, oh why?
OHHHH MY GOD !!! UKW!!! ITS FATE THAT MADE ME STUMBLE UPON THIS VIDEO BECAUSE SHIT U NOT WHEN I WATCHED THIS SHOW (ESPECIALLY WHEN IT GETS TO EPISODE 3) I SAID I THINK THEY TOOK A LOOK AT HELSING ANIME!!! AGATHAS NEICE REMINDED ME OF INTÉGRA AND THAT LAB REMINDED ME OF THEIR HEADQUARTERS WHERE THEY KEPT ALUCARD, EVEN DRACULAS INTERACTIONS WITH OTHER CHARACTERS IN THE SHOW HE HAD A “HUMANELY” FUNNY CHARACTERISTIC SIDE TO HIM SORT OF LIKE HOW ALUCARD HAS WITH SERAS . ALSO THE PPL WHO DID SHERLOCK DID THIS. ONE OF THE WELL KNOWN SHERLOCK STORIES IS THE BASKERVILLE HOUND. ALUCARD HAD THE BASKERVILLE WITHIN HIM 💡I BELIEVE THEY DABBLED IN BOTH THE BOOK AND THE ANIME (I READ THE ACTUAL DRACULA BOOK) SO I ACTUALLY ALREADY KNOW WHAT DID AND NOT NOT HAPPEN OR DID HAPPEN BUT NOT EXACTLY LIKE THAT OR IN THAT TIME FRAME... BUT OH WELL LOVED THEIR CREATIVE TAKE ON IT LOL I LOVED THAT NUN AGATHA VAN HELLSING THE MOST 😂😂😂😂 MY SPIRIT ANIMAL
I enjoyed it enough after thinking about what happened. It did occur to me when *spoiler* Dracula is in the cell and the lawyer demands he be freed, what court would rule he is not dangerous if everyone fed on becomes dangerous undead and by the general rulings applied too Typhiod Mary: personal rights to freedom are ignored when they carry a deadly contagion.
I'm no lawyer but the legal system favours the public instead off the individual even if they must be locked away to stop a potential pandemic.
Underworld did the blood memories as well.
While the overall series itself felt pretty "meh" to me, and downright heretical in other areas (I.e, bastardizing the original story of Bram Stoker's "Dracula"), I would have been completely down with the idea of converting/transforming this show into Hellsing: The Live Action Version - especially in the latter half. Would have been an interesting twist, at the very least.
I had big expectations. As you, when I heard BBC was going to do a new Dracula adaptation and it was a three episode miniseries of 90 mins per episode, I thought it was going to be the greatest and most faithfull adaptation ever. In the end I felt so disappointed and frustrated. Whats the point in producing a Dracula adaptation with that amount of time without being faithfull?
I liked it. I didn’t feel as let down as season 8 of thrones.
I think if they'd kept the same sort of loose following of the novel until the 'destruction' of Dracula and then made the jump into the 21st Century for his revenge/redemption, the series would have been so much better. Wasted opportunity, but I still enjoyed it.