#bbc dracula spoilers //

[astrangergivingthestrangewelcome]

Spoilers for BBC Dracula but... my biggest complaint about how Mofftiss adapts Jonathan is really his ending. Those two can never stick a landing with me. Jonathan Harker does die which isn't the problem exactly.

After torturing him for the two months, Dracula tells Jonathan he will spare him if he promises to do nothing as Dracula kills who he likes in England. Jonathan, who is utterly wasted away and dying makes this big painstaking effort to crawl up Dracula so he can look him in the eye to tell him that if he spares him he will do everything possible to stop him, and Dracula chuckles and snaps his neck for Jonathan to rise again as a undead vampire-y kinda Revenant thing who then hurls himself off the castle walls. I thought it was a pretty good scene I was very proud of my boy and thought it was very in character.

BUT THEN cut to later, Dracula is at the nunnery. Undead Revenant Jonathan is all tortured and traumatized and wants to die so Dracula offers to kill him again in exchange for being invited in, and they do that. Mofftiss did what they always fucking do which is take one step into a good decision and a hard left into terrible choices. Like. You had everything set up for Revenant Jonathan, alive from sheer force of spite, out to kill Dracula (which I am so incredibly into by the way) and instead you kill him off and you make his last act on the show condemning a whole nunnery to the same gruesome death he was forced to endure. Like what happened to "I'll do everything in my power to stop you?" I hate it here why do they trick me into thinking they understand the characters they write about

[serial-serializednovelreader]

I think that adaptations who leave Quincey out or make him a horrible person (see 2020 Dracula) miss the point. He's not just a comic relief. he's the oathmaker. He swears to Lucy when she rejects him he'll always be her friend, and he follows through. He swears to Mina he'll not rest until SHE rests, and he follows through. He swears he will kill Dracula to Jonathan, and they shake hands, and he follows through. He gives Dracula one of the two fatal bows, and bleeds and dies, like he swore he would, for those he loves.

Wow, Anon. That was beautiful. You came to my inbox, absolutely destroyed me, and I'm thanking you for it. /pos

You're so right, though. He is the oathmaker, he follows through on his promises no matter what. Also, the Oathmaker is such a cool title is that a thing I missed?? Can that be what we call him forever now if we don't already??

But here I am, doing the exact same thing as the producers/directors, writing him off as comic relief (I did a little more than that, but still)!! I am truly sorry to Quincey, he is not just that and he never was. So thank you, Anon, for reminding me again why I love him so much. Perhaps one day, there will be an adaptation where he's actually appreciated.

As a side note, they made him a horrible person in 2020 Dracula?! Ugh, I started watching it and could not get through it after they killed Jonathan off -- I didn't care if they resurrected him or what, I was done. I just couldn't keep watching Now I don't want to do it even more if they ruined Quincey too!!!! BBC stop trying to be edgy with classic literature challenge (impossible). What are they going to do next? Make a Jane Eyre series where Jane's the wife in the attic the whole time? I shouldn't even write that cause they'll probably think "wow, that's a great idea!" :/

[butternuggets-blog]

My take on modernising Dracula:

Jonathan arrives in Transylvania knowing the language as well as any other tourist, but when everyone starts trying to tell him that Dracula's a monster he thinks they have a problem with him because he's a capitalist.

The voyage on the Demeter takes place on a cargo ship instead of a sailing ship. The crew wise up towards the end that they have a vampire in their midst and actually try to fight back, but are unsuccessful.

Lucy is a charity worker and child psychologist who is in a deeply committed polyamorous relationship with Quincey Morris, Dr John Seward, and Arthur Holmwood. Since she's only allowed to marry one of her boyfriends, she decides to go with Arthur, since the wealth he will inherit from his father will allow them all to live comfortably together.

Professor Van Helsing is a semi-retired expert in rare diseases, both physical and psychological, who has moved from a medical position to an academic teaching role. He was one of Steward's mentors while he was completing his degree, and the two became quite close. He discovered that vampires exist after witnessing the results of an attack and a turning, and left the medical profession for the academic field shortly after because it gave him the freedom to move around and hunt vampires.

Jonathan and Mina get married in the hospital in Budapest where he is recuperating after his escape from Dracula.

The final confrontation with Dracula goes down exactly like it does in the book, except the villagers help mount an attack against the brides in the castle with Van Helsing, allowing Mina to stay with the others. Quincey still gets shot, but John stays with him and manages to patch up the wound enough that when Van Helsing arrives he can stabilise the wound with surgery.

Jonathan slashes Dracula's throat and Mina stabs him through the heart.

Additional:

- The castle and village are isolated from the modern world by nature and also by a lack of wifi. There's no phone signals up here either. It's a deliberate attempt by Dracula to keep the common local knowledge that he's a vampire local knowledge. If the villagers can easily get outside help, his ass is grass.

- Lucy uses her knowledge of the welfare system in London to target vulnerable children who are being neglected by the system and won't be missed by their carers.

[imlisteningg]

spoilers for ep16 of Taz vs Dracula

i am so deep in bbc merlin that hearing motherfucking king arthur at the end actually transcended me to another plane of existence

I LOVE when fandoms align like this it's like they made it just for me < 3 thank u mcelroys

[poet-to-none]

Dracula and Jonathan (2020 BBC/Netflix

Series)

A collection of each and every image of Dracula and Jonathan gazing together like this. All I could possibly find. Because their terrifying, awe-inspiring relationship, from the moment they begin small talk to Dracula's proposal to Jonny have a kink grip on me. See the collection below the keep reading line, BECAUSE SPOILERS.

And Jonathan stayed and became his finest bride. The End. Happy honeymoon to them, happily hereafter to us the monster fuckers, and happy halloween, day fifteen.

[misty-slays-blog]

So as promised, here's the translation of the interview Morfydd did with Knack in August. I am by no means a translator but I did my best. It's not too long. Some rather interesting bits about how she views Galadriel (also the author of the interview gets Haladriel lol). If you want to read the entire interview in Dutch, it's here (I archived it since you need an account to read it on the Knack site, this way you can read it in its entirety): https://archive.ph/HekvQ

Morfydd Clark keeps getting calls for freaky roles (like for a Galadriel who flirts with Sauron)

During the second season of Rings of Power, the young elf Galadriel will be haunted by the ghosts of her past. Much to the delight of Morfydd Clark, who previously made name for herself as a possessed nurse in Saint Maud. “I love looking for those extreme roles.”

“I would have to board a plane to go home and I can't do that, I thought.”

When Morfydd Clark arrived in New-Zealand five years ago, she had no idea what awaited her. The production for The Rings of Power was notoriously secretive. She knew she'd auditioned for a prequel to The Lord of the Rings. But that she would be playing Galadriel, was new information. Clark had been introduced to the franchise as a child, during a family outing to The Hobbit: A Musical in London. Throughout the following years, she collected illustration books about The Shire and the Peter Jackson movies in her bedroom in Wales. “Unknowingly, I've been preparing for a role in the Lord of the Rings universe for fifteen years”, she tells us through Zoom.

But no book could have prepared Clark for the massive scale on which The Rings of Power operates. It isn't the kind of production with casual fans who are willing to swallow everything. And on top of that: the production value was through the roof. Costing a total of 465 million dollars, the series is the most expensive one ever made. One didn't have to look hard to see where this impressive budget went. From the underground dwarven kingdom Khazad-dûm to the eye-catching splendor of Númenor: even those finding the prequel rather lacking – the series has some flaws – has to admit that the cinematography is breathtakingly spectacular, paling other fantasy franchises in the process.

On top of that, there was the fact that Cate Blanchett's adaptation of Galadriel in the original trilogy has turned into movie heritage. “It helped that I play Galadriel during an entirely different moment of her life, long before she became the Lady of Lothlórien. I delved into the history of the elves, who were pretty wild actually. Did you know that they used to throw each other off of buildings all the time? I wanted my version of Galadriel to be strikingly different from the Galadriel she would eventually become.”

Clark's version of Galadriel is a young, brave warrior who indeed barely resembles Blanchett's ethereal elf. The consequences of a rather unfortunate romantic experience might change that (spoiler: the hunk Galadriel flirted with the entire first season? He happened to be Sauron. Even elves can miss red flags). “She realizes now that she, too, might have darkness within her. Her sense of self is in shambles. We all experience this feeling sometimes, but not everyone revives the evilest being in all of Middle-Earth in the process.” The second season is all about the consequences of this error of judgment. “Sauron haunts her the entire time. She finds herself stuck in her own horror movie.”

Clark describes this new and spooky chapter of her life as 'coming home.' Before her career took her to Middle-Earth, she was well on her way to becoming a Welsh Mia Goth. She played in BBC adaptations of Dracula and His Dark Materials, and in 2019 she was promoted to indie darling thanks to Saint Maud, a psychological horror movie made by Rose Glass (who continued her streak with Love Lies Bleeding) in which she played the titular character. “My parents keep asking me why I am always cast in those terrifying roles. But I think it's wonderful. I love looking for those extreme roles. Although, it is kind of strange to always receive calls for freaky parts. Is that the kind of vibes I have?”

Her freaky vibes are definitely lucrative. Among future roles are a Hamlet adaptation and a slasher, earlier this year she acted alongside Matt Smith in Starve Acre, a British indie horror movie. “That was a lucky coincidence. Matt Smith just finished his takes for House of the Dragon, he has given me so much good advice”, Clark says. It was the first time being back to a small set “where the entire crew fits into one room.” “I don't think the sets for Rings of Power will ever feel like the norm.” Because while every series goes for as much CGI as possible these days, with Rings of Power, the crew aims to build as many of the sets as possible. “Wandering around in such a magical world still feels like winning the lottery each day.”

Despite her success, Clark's acting career started quite accidental. When she was diagnosed with ADHD at the age of seven, a directionless school career followed. She quit when she was sixteen. According to British GQ, her teachers called her 'hollol di gwilydd', meaning 'completely shameless'. It wasn't until she began acting, that she found some sense of peace. And when playing in paranormal and magical fiction, she discovered a world in which she can be herself. “Fantasy like Lord of the Rings reverses the status quo of how we think the world should be. I wanted Galadriel to be free of the things that were imposed on me when I was younger. She isn't apologetic. She never doubts whether or not she said the right thing. And that might be the best part about playing her: Galadriel is shameless.”

[see-arcane]

This isn't a Hollywood adaptation, but Steven Moffat wrote a miniseries for the BBC in 2007 called Jekyll. It's kind of a precursor to Sherlock, in that it's a (bad) modernized adaptation of classic literature, but in Jekyll's case, it's also sort of a sequel to the original novel? The novel exists in the series, but the protagonist finds out that it's not actually a work of fiction and that he's a descendant of Dr. Jekyll, which means the government wants to capture him for . . . reasons . . .

I will admit that there are a couple things I like about the series (which are major spoilers, so I won't state them here), but it's so painfully Moffat-y that I can't bring myself to ever re-watch it.

Moffat's curses upon Jekyll and Hyde and Dracula are all tallied. A pox upon them. My condolences for your suffering.

[didireadthisright]

A random rant about Dracula

Disclaimer: some BBC Dracula spoilers

~◇~

Right, so after a good year, I've decided to rewatch the 2020 bbc Dracula show because it's still on Netflix, and I had a really good time watching it the first time.

Can we all agree that this show would have 100% gotten a season renewal if the third episode just never happened and shows like BIG MOUTH didn't hog the spotlight? Like Claes Bang as Dracula was such a fantastic casting choice. I adored Agatha Van Helsing (I just love a faithless nun trope). The costume and setting design are just so detailed. I would have loved to see how Dracula would have prowled around 18th century England!

Don't get me wrong, there were some good bits in the third episode. How Drac navigates the modern world has its humorous moments, and Zoe was nearly as much of a joy to watch as Agatha. But overall, I feel like the direction taken was poorly executed. It almost felt like a bit of an afterthought compared to the first two episodes with the amount of plot holes it had (granted, the first two episodes had the original book to use as a reference, whereas the third was complete fan fiction at this point). I feel like the murder mystery portion of the second episode should have become more prominent in the show because it's just so fun and so frustrating watching the villian get away (insert the NBC Hannibal show).

Overall, I really enjoyed this series, I wish the fandom was a bit more alive, but I also understand why it is quite well... dead. There's a lot to love and a lot that is pretty meh due to awkward writing. I think if the show settled with ONE timeline throughout the series and then bounced around for flashbacks, that would have been a lot better.

~◇~

That's my rant. Thanks for reading if you got this far. Your sacrifice of time and braincells is very much appreciated. Who knows, maybe if I'm motivated enough, I might attempt to write my own fic to finally give my mind some sense of closure when it comes to this show.

BYE

[the-doctor-3000]

Do you take requests? Are there any rules?

Hello! Yes, I do take requests.

Rules:

I'll write;

Genres - Fluff, Angst, Crossover, Time Travel AU, Songfic, Isekai, Hurt/comfort, Character x Reader, HCs, One-shots, maybe a Mini Series, possibly Character x Oc, Character x Reader x Character, Love Triangles, Slow Burn

Fandoms I currently write for -

The Legend of Vox Machina

Once Upon A Time

The Witcher (game, series & books)

Avatar: The Last Airbender

Steven Universe

Star Vs. The Forces of Evil

Shadowhunters (series, movie & books - I just finished the 2nd book so please no spoilers)

Black Butler (manga)

My Hero Academia

Spy × Family

Jujutsu Kaisen

Folk of the air

Pirates of the Caribbean

Thundercats (2011 bcs I haven't seen the 80s version yet)

Moriarty The Patriot

Gargoyles

Bungou Stray Dogs

Ninjago

LMK

Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992)

Sherlock BBC

Doctor Who

X-Men

Demon Slayer

TMNT (2003 and 2012 versions)

Gravity Falls

Castlevania

Stranger Things

Jurassic Park

Independence Day

Tim Burton movies

The Arcana

Inside Job

Blood of Zeus

Mia & Me

Maya and the Three

Beauty and the Beast

Transformers (Bay)

Spider-Man: Into The Spider-Verse + Across the Spider-Verse

Avengers

Good Omens

Howl's Moving Castle

Van Helsing 2004

Tales of Arcadia

I won't write; NSFW/Lemon/Smut (It'll only be implied), Incest, Character x Character, Pedophilia

[astrangergivingthestrangewelcome]

"Harker is so useless after the castle, now here's what a GOOD writer would do instead! [kills him off in drawn out torture porn]"

Tbh I would be fine with the drawn out torture porn if it was a story about how he copes with that and lives. I actually really quite enjoyed Undead Revenant Jonathan, and that scene with him and Dracula on the roof? Let me tell you I am so incredibly biased against mofftiss and I really never want to like anything they create but that scene was incredible from start to finish holyyy shittttt. It's the ending that really, really ruins it for me. Jonathan does not need to be a hero 24/7 but he would never Do That to all those people he would never condemn a whole nunnery to death and they just did it after that whole 1000/10 scene where he goes "I will do everything in my power to stop you like!! seething, raging throwing up. They do these things that make me think maybe they understand characters and then they just ruin them big ick ick ick.

While I'm here. I also am so disappointed in the way they sideline Mina too. It's Big Typical Mofftiss. Like as a concept I'm not bothered by Agatha Van Helsing, and I'm also not bothered by a bit of a Van Helsing Dracula romance like sure whatever go for it. I have no problem with turning the low-key patriarchal (I do give book Van Helsing the credit of saying he has an open mind and he does listen Mina like he's not a big bad patriarch he's just... kinda sexist) Van Helsing into a feminist lady. Murray Mysteries did it very well. I just think it's telling that they create a Strong Independent Back Talking Woman from Van Helsing whilst completely sidelining and ignoring MIna Murray completely. Like of course they would.

Also Lucy in this. Again this is not like. a moral failure on their part and if I watched BBC Dracula first before reading the book i probably wouldn't have hated their Lucy. Part of the reasons adaptations exist is to do new takes on characters so they're entitled to their vain attention seeking empty bored Lucy but by God I just think they're so fucking wrong. Like I do not understand the minds that look at book Lucy and are like "ok but what if we made her without character and what if we took away her joy at life." Like respectfully what is wrong with you.

I hate that enough of BBC Dracula is good and interesting that I care enough about it to get mad at things like this.

[ranthebow]

Thoughts about BBC Dracula

So, I ended up watching the entirety of BBC Dracula yesterday and I have thoughts. Don’t know how many will make it here and how coherent they will be, but I’ve just been thinking about it all day and I’d like to just write them down. Warning, spoilers ahead.

On one hand, I think I quite enjoyed watching it. There is clever dialogue, fun sexual tension with the women clearly being the top (Sister Agatha’s verbal whipping of Dracula in the first episode is such a delight). They also took the story of Dracula and tried to do something new with it, taking characters and situations we know and turning them into something new and surprising, just enough to keep me, an avid Dracula fan, on my toes.

However!

So, so many things were just...bad, at the same time. The clever dialogue sometimes turned into cringey, modern one-liners, because that’s just what shows do these days. Character’s actions didn’t make sense based on what we knew motivated them, usually within the second or third act of their own character arcs. Queerness was kind of thrown into the mix, in a really random way, just to say it was there? Like, yes, Dracula has a lot of queer energy, especially his interactions with Jonathan, even in the book, but considering how they handled that as the episodes went on (starting with a very dramatic “Did you have sexual intercourse with Count Dracula?” at the beginning of episode 1, just for the shock), it really felt awkwardly placed in there. The first episode was so queer coded. There was so much potential!! And then Jonathan dies, and all that potential is thrown out the window. It was strange. And then, the worst of it all...the very last episode. 

Episode 1 was focused on Jonathan Harker’s experience and escape from Count Dracula, as well as introducing Agatha Van Helsing and having her interact with Dracula in a very confident, sexually charged way, with her tentatively winning. That is, of course, until the end of the episode, where Dracula gains the upper hand and does something with her (we don’t know what yet). Then, episode 2, Dracula has the upper hand in another sexually charged battle of wits with Agatha. Only for...Agatha to die and episode 3 (the final episode) to be set 100 years later? With an Agatha look-a-like? This comes back to the idea that things were set up, had so much potential, and they went for the easy shock, rather than a satisfying conclusion. Like, yes, I was very shocked when Dracula walked out onto the beach and was immediately surrounded by helicopters and cars, indicating that he was no longer in the time we had just seen him in. But then it quickly became clear that was all they had planned to do with it. All the character interactions we had come to love and expect, just gone.  Everything we know to be true about the world, gone. It’s new and alien, even for the viewer. So much of episode 3 was just spent on setting up new characters. And for what? That’s not what I had hoped to see at that point. Agatha had won, than Dracula had won, making them equal for one last showdown in what could have been a very interesting episode 3. But that’s not what happened! It made me want to not care for the new characters, almost out of spite of how different the show suddenly felt. And the writers tried to rectify this problem (clearly showing they knew it was going to be a problem) by...essentially making Zoe be possessed by Agatha? Like, why though?? Zoe clearly was a different person and didn’t have the same chemistry, or history, that Agatha did with Dracula. And the writers knew that was the main hook of the first two episodes, the interactions between Dracula and Agatha. So to tie it all together, they had to bring Agatha back somehow? When they killed her in the first place, just for the shock of it? And then!! Even more annoying...they had set up this big thing, from episode one, that there was a singular reason that ties all of Dracula’s lore together, from his fear of the cross to his inability to stand the sun, all things that only he experienced, no other vampire. And it was just because he had convinced himself to be afraid? That’s what made him different from other vampires? That he was a coward? Then how did he stay sane for hundreds of years when, apparently, no other vampire can? Everything was made to seem so clever, only for everything that happened at the end, that ties it all together, to be so silly. That entire final scene in Dracula’s apartment is so unsatisfying, until the very end, when he is killing her (and killing himself in the process). That scene was lovely and an actually great ending. But it was clearly Agatha at that point again, so what was the point of making it modern in the first place?

Okay, I have so many more thoughts haha, from how BBC Dracula missed the point of Dracula (which I still want to see, even when adaptations do cool, new stuff with the story) to more things that I actually liked about it, because there is a lot more than I mentioned (like Lucy. I really liked Lucy...until they messed up her motivation just as she died too), but I feel like I wrote a lot so that might come later. Hey, if nothing else, this is a piece of media that made me think! I had fun with it, for sure. The more I like something, the more likely I am to critique it, especially when my like of it feels like such a guilty pleasure considering all these things I clearly didn’t like about it lol. I’ll always be a sucker for Dracula content, it’s true

[phynoma]

This is so real though

Since I've been listening to re: dracula I got interested in watching various adaptations

Spoiler: there is not a SINGLE good one that is true to the book. I haven't watched the BBC miniseries from the 70s, which is apparently the closest, but man. People really missed what the book was about, didn't they?

Scary Halloween activity idea:

Watch as many Dracula adaptations as you can in one night, the true horror is how badly the women are adapted.

[hawkaye]

Claes Bang as Count Dracula - 1.02 BLOOD VESSEL

[vizual-demon]

Dracula | 1x01 | The Rules Of The Beast

[sister-edgelord]

Thanks, I love it.

Pic taken from the BBC One Twitter account

[xerohourcheese]

Also, wait, hang on,

SPOILER ALERT

Serious, Extra Big, SPOILER ALERT

Still here, well, you've been warned.

The actor, Brandon Scott Jones, who played (dead obviously) Gossip columnist/blogger John Wheaton in The Good Place, and Captain Isaac Higgintoot in the US remake of BBC's Ghosts plays someone called Mark who is (last SPOILER ALERT) killed by Dracula, and then resurrected by Dracula's Blood (not a euphemism) and says he has 'seen things he cannot unsee, and knows things he cannot unknow'

This is annoying in that after playing two 'dead' characters he plays someone is brought back to life with such a brilliantly Meta line, in a film ruined by excessive gore.

Renfield

Rating: ❤️❤️❤️❤❤