#dracula is an evil version of mina i said what i said

[the-crooked-library]

On Horror, Queerness, Mirrors, and Dracula

Your wish is my command (you may or may not regret this). 

Here’s the thing - I love horror, and I love patterns, and I think the best horror is always in some sense symmetrical.  It might not be obvious, but what’s the point of staring into an abyss if you can’t see your own face reflected back?  The symmetry itself comes in any number of different twists, whether it is familial, communal, erotic, or individual, and most of these apply to Bram Stoker’s Dracula. 

The centre of our novel rests on the Harkers.  So, starting with Jonathan - his experience in Transylvania is a twisted version of his life back home.  Dracula is reserved but eloquent, seemingly caring and occasionally affectionate, he reads train schedules and they spend hours upon hours in conversation; which is a dark mirror to Jonathan’s train schedule-loving, passionate but serious Mina.  It may even be said that the Count is re-enacting a caricature of traditional heteronormative domesticity - he maintains the household, waits on his guest himself, and blows him kisses from the stairs.  His possessiveness of Jonathan is the only way a vampire like Dracula is capable of understanding the bond Jonathan shares with Mina.  The Count states that he, too, feels love; but he is written by a closeted gay man in the late 19th century, so his imitation of married life is both a lie and a tragedy.  He is a shorthand for forbidden, wrong, and corrupting desires. 

At the same time, Mina herself also has a same-sex connection in the beginning of the story, and her relationship with Lucy mirrors the relationship between Jonathan and Dracula.  They cling to each other, in a sense; despite being excited about the prospect of their impending marriages, there is some trepidation associated with this new stage in life.  A common part of a dowry used to be a shroud, simply due to the frequency at which Victorian wives died in childbirth soon after the wedding; and even provided a survival, the transition to married life was still a loss of innocence.  As such, Lucy’s affection for Mina is the last expression of her girlhood, and she herself is the personification of Mina’s.  Lucy is, therefore, the direct antithesis of the Count; her death and subsequent rising change Mina the same way that Dracula does Jonathan, establishing a firm duality between the Harkers and their respective vampires. 

The other characters are reflections of each other, as well; the suitors defend while the brides terrify, Van Helsing wants to preserve life while Renfield wishes to consume it - and even further, the old Hungarian lady cares enough about  a stranger to give Jonathan a cross for protection, while Lucy’s own mother lets Dracula into the house herself, selfishly ignorant of her daughter’s needs and the doctor’s orders.  Another parallel is drawn again between Jonathan and Renfield, who represents directly what he could have been, had he not escaped from Dracula’s grasp; which makes Renfield’s vehement, last-ditch attempt to protect Mina perhaps all the more poignant.  In him, she sees the resilience of Jonathan’s humanity; while he gets to see exactly what she could become after her turning  - in Dracula himself.  These dualities are integral to the story’s thematic structure, and therefore inextricable from each character’s development. 

There is really too much to say about each individual dynamic to fit into one rant, but for the current purposes, I can forgo the details.  They all converge as it is on Jonathan and Mina, and thus, the central theme of this story is devotion.  If Jonathan had truly broken, like Renfield, Mina would have stayed by his side; and if she had fully turned, like Dracula, he would have adored whatever shred of her still remained.  In madness and in death, in happiness and sorrow, in sickness and in health - until the echoes start to sound like wedding vows. 

@stripedshirtgay​

@bluberimufim​

[see-arcane]

Well. I just read the Robert Eggers Nosferatu (2024) script in its nascent 2016 form. Quick and haunted thanks to @nosferattusx2 for making me aware of its existence. It’s here on the Internet Archive if you want to give it a look yourselves.

I don’t know if it’s legit, but it seems precariously close to the trailers. Even if it is the real thing, it’s also an eight-year-old rendition of the script, so there’s no guarantee of it being an exact mirror of what will hit theaters. That being said?

It’s. A lot.

SPOILERS BELOW

I won’t regurgitate the whole thing here, just the main bits that stood out to me for better or worse:

For a guy who says he's very against the sexy romantic vampire trope, Eggers makes sure to have everyone getting scared and horny over Orlok at every opportunity. I will give him grudging kudos for not confining this strictly to Ellen or otherwise Just the Ladies~. The thing opens on Knock stroking himself to the concept of the guy and Thomas gets his own erotic/assault-flavored attack from Orlok at the castle with future allusions framing it in a distinctly sexual framework. Ellen is set up as the ~darkly tempted Eve to Orlok’s Adam~ but it’s not aggressively mega-hetero about it. Progress?

Thomas arrives in Orlok territory and immediately gets swarmed and pickpocketed by smelly-masculine Romani people (referred to strictly by the g word through the script) bar the one pretty young teenage girl one who we later get to see riding naked on a horse because only naked virgin girls can lead the group to hidden vampires for their destruction. Yeah.

…

Bobby Egg, I can get behind the VVitch using seductive evil weirdness and I see why mermaids would swim around topless, but. What the fuck? And also follow-up what the fuckery to the whole portrayal of these guys, period? On that note.

Here we see the first example of Thomas being Assigned Twink at Comparison to All the Other Men. Eggers frames him as insecure beside the masculine Romani and has a future character refer to him as a ‘dandy’ (despite that being a term reserved for men who were well-off, not just effeminate/less than manfully manful). To Bobby Egg’s slight credit, Thomas is not portrayed negatively or milksop-shaped because of this; it’s just. Kind of there. All the time.

Count Orlok’s description isn’t bad. Very ominous, very classic gothic-supernatural. I do appreciate that he’s explicitly given more corpse-like attributes, making him seem like a mobile cadaver more than anything else. And Eggers does keep him creepy—no stealthy Count Fuckula spit-shining on him.

Shovel scene sort of happens as an original Dracula nod, but with no payoff. An attempt was made and thrown away.

Ellen. Oh, Ellen. Such a double-edged piece of work here. On the one hand, this version of the script implies that she isn’t doing the classic bastardized Mina thing of deciding her lame lameo human husband isn’t good enough for her and she needs herself a REAL MAN. There’s a lot of the original Thomas and Ellen’s genuine love and regard shown in the couple…

…up to a point. Eggers writes them a very very ugly and basically wholly OOC argument to do with Thomas claiming he wed her out of pity and saying she ought to have been sent to a madhouse when she was young, which itself was a follow-up to Ellen yelling that Orlok’s work is all his fault in a weirdly victim-blamey way and a scene that felt less like a badly done seduction and more like she was trying to actually assault him. They seemingly both reconcile after this, but like…what the entire hell?

Okay, to get this out of the way—I think Eggers is trying to lean hard into the ‘well in the actual time and place of the story things would be so grimdark and depressing, so it has to be nasty even between the loving main couple, and it adds to the horror-misery of it all, and it makes Ellen’s dark temptation~ more reasonable!’ thing. We can see a lot of that in how he sets Ellen up to have a history of dark thoughts, a lot of stigma surrounding her sanity/insanity, and there’s some very cruel medical ‘treatment’ she gets subjected to during her fits while waiting for Thomas and/or Orlok to arrive. Naturally those fits are all sexual/orgasmically twitchy because of course. Eggers is very much trying to set Ellen up as sympathetic in her situation and as a kind of next evolution to the Francisified Mina character who wants to fuck Dracula/Orlok/Death so so bad~

And then we get to the Van Helsing stand-in, Von Franz, and he is…oh man. 90% of his bits are fun. Interesting. The last 10% would make Abraham van Helsing in every iteration punch through the fourth wall and beat him to death with their library books. Surprise, Von Franz and Ellen both secretly colluded to set up the sunrise trap that will inevitably kill Ellen via Orlok feeding on her into the dawn. Von Franz purposefully leads the vampire hunter crew astray, including Thomas. When Thomas discovers this—from Knock who he mistakenly staked in Orlok’s place due to a mix-up with the coffin—Von Franz laughs as Thomas and Dr. Sievers the pseudo-Jack Seward make a run back to the house to try and save her.

The climax comes with Ellen and Orlok playing out the original Nosferatu ending. She dies happily cradling Orlok’s carcass. Thomas reaches her bedside and collapses in despair. The script closes on Von Franz showing up with a lilac bouquet and putting his hand on Thomas’ shoulder as he grieves, still unmoved from the bedside. Close on Ellen’s dead face ‘at peace.’

Somehow the scene doesn’t end with Thomas wringing Von Franz’ neck.   

There’s a lot more to read in there, obviously, but those were just all the big lumps sticking out of it to me.

I will grudgingly say it is not the absolute worst-case scenario I was afraid of. It’s not what I was hoping for—but that is keeping in line with Dracula and Nosferatu-adjacent media, per tradition. I do still want to see the film, I do want to like the finished product, even with the worrisome second trailer and sundry interviews throwing up red flags. Like The Last Voyage of the Demeter, it is at least an earnest attempt at taking this vein of classic gothic vampire horror seriously as a horror story.

But also.

I would really like directors to stop turning the Mina-Ellen figure into the vampire-pining gothic blowup doll for the latest ‘Bold and Subversive’ take #1654237 of GIRL AND THE DRACULA DO KISSY SEXY ROMANCE TIMES. An impossible dream, I guess.   

[vickyvicarious]

The Vamp Mina + her devoted thrall tags tho 👀

It's been a while, so the tags in question:

#honestly though? very lucky she never went full vampire#what with her emotional intelligence/ability to manipulate people#and strategic intelligence#and eagerness to learn and improve and try new things#and ride-or-die to end them all jonathan supporting her#she would have been way tougher to oppose than dracula if she were evil

I STAND BY THIS.

There are two moments in particular that made me think, "oof, Mina would be a true nightmare of a vampire to try and fight", and they are: (1) the way she turned the information Dracula revealed while taunting her against him, and (2) the way she got everyone to promise to kill her if she turned too much. My reasons why below -

Even when she is utterly terrified, restrained and forced into an extremely traumatic situation, her brain doesn't stop chugging away. Mina remembers the taunting words well enough and is able to consider them with a clear enough mind to pick apart the information contained within. Then she's able to turn it to her advantage, despite being compromised herself. She thinks through the implications and is creative in her solution. Translated to an evil vampire, I think she would very much be able to stay alert to any weakness expressed by her foes and exploit said weakness even in ways they don't expect. Similarly, when cornered she's able to adapt and make use of whatever resources are available to her.

Mina is very socially adept. The only person she failed to convince was Jonathan, and even then she tried to institute a workaround to still get her way. She also tailored her approach to her audience, both then and when comforting the suitor squad about Lucy. Now, our Mina never uses these social skills for evil (the opposite in fact), but if she were an evil vampire, I think she would absolutely be very good at doing so.

Dracula is a sadist. He enjoys terrifying people. He likes the slow torture, whether that comes in the form of Jonathan's emotional/psychological abuse, or the gradual/drastic feeding he employs on Lucy (itself a psychological torment for those trying to save her as well). He also gets fixated on his victims, though I think a large part of that is due to his pride and sense of entitlement. He hates the idea that anyone could get away with defying or denying him, and doesn't truly believe it's possible that he could ever be permanently defeated. This is in many ways key to his eventual defeat, as first refusing to give up on Lucy, then turning/taunting Mina rather than trying to simply kill his enemies, is what gave them the motivation and opportunity to kill him. Dracula always wants to be in a position of power, and despite his preparations in his castle, he never really tries very much to blend in with society or the people he considers beneath him.

Mina is eminently more practical. Even if you assume that vampires are all sadistic in some way, I think Mina's version would be different. Mina is good at befriending people, and isn't used to being in a position of power. Of course it's very possible that she would love the ability to just blatantly overpower anyone who tries to restrict/stop her and get drunk on doing just that, but I also think she could very well hunt in a much more subtle way. I could see her befriending her victims. In that case, the sadistic element would come from her being their support (a very Mina role) and knowing they are depending on her even as she is the very cause of their distress. Much closer to Carmilla than Dracula. And she might not even do that, she might be more like Clarimonde in that she seeks her own pleasure/enjoyment/sustenance and doesn't get obsessive about any particular victims (except one mortal man she's in love with).

I also think Mina would be better at the long game. Funny to say, given that Dracula is so old, but again his sense of entitlement and easily-bruised pride doesn't let him take it slow in any way other than trying to vamp Mina and then just wait for her to turn and kill them. Even Lucy's slow death was in large part due to preventative measures against him, and when he got the chance after being opposed he went straight for the big gulp that brought her near death. He could have backed off and kept an eye on her, returning only once she had been healthy long enough that everyone thought she'd fully recovered and were no longer on alert, for example. Mina can be very patient and I think would be more willing to exercise said patience if it seemed necessary. While she can take plenty of risks, she is generally more cautiously-minded and thinks of how to protect people in a way that would translate well to being paranoid about covering her weaknesses as a vampire.

And of course, Mina wouldn't be alone. I vary on just how much Jonathan would be willing to actively help her hunt people, at least initially. It would certainly be an easier sell to him if they were terrible people, or trying to attack Mina, and it could be a slippery slope from there. But certainly at the very least, he would take whatever steps he found necessary to keep her safe. "Thrall" tends to have associations of being mindless or just acting in complete servitude without any input of your own, but that wouldn't be the case here. Jonathan is practical too, logical, and has plenty ideas of his own to offer. He would be supporting Mina, protecting her, acting of his own accord to keep her safe in whatever ways she may have missed. That may mean feeding her from his own blood while she's initially less cognizant and still more instinct-driven (assuming all vampires are like that initially and it wasn't just a product of Lucy being turned in her sleep making her special in some way), it may mean killing people he believes will hunt her down, it may mean building a lot of safe places for her to rest. Maybe he keeps watch when she's asleep. Maybe he gets invitations for her. Maybe he bribes people to be silent about what they've seen. Whatever he does, it won't be limited to simply following orders. And as we saw, Mina and Jonathan bounce ideas off one another well and make excellent partners - this would make them a lot more dangerous too. Add in Mina's eagerness to learn and the fact that she may have a willing test subject, I think she'd pick up on vampire abilities fairly quickly. Basically... vampire!Mina has a lot going for her, danger-wise.

[fiotrethewey]

(tw: cancer, tw: death in story)

---

My obsession with Dracula began as a teenager. I can't tell you exactly why vampires started it off, but I was a teenager in 2003 (Yes, the girls from Turning Red were my brand of teeanger; a tomboy weeb, into Final Fantasy VII, Star Wars, Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter *hiss* and lots of other very popular things at the time.) I had seen Bram Stoker's Dracula which creeped me out because I had seen it too young, of which my dad was very fond so I knew the basics of the story (or so I thought at the time. How wrong I was.) In that time I read a series called the Saga of Darren Shan. To me this was my Buffy or Twilight, a story of found family, and vampiric world building that had nothing to do with Dracula at all, vampires being more super human than monster. I still have a soft spot for it now in my thirties.

I was about thirteen when I found myself at a family friend's house for a party, where I was greeted by an elderly couple dressed in all black. Fay was a woman in her sixties who had put shocking pink in her grey white hair and had the most vibrant smile. Her partner Keith was a man who dressed like an old school gothic mod version of Christopher Lee, and the voice was just as impressive. They saw me reading on my own on the sofa during this party and sat down either side of me. They asked me about my vampire book and then they asked me if I liked the theatre, and when I said I did they asked if I had ever seen Titus Andronicus on stage because that's the bloodiest play that Shakespeare had ever wrote.

We connected immediately. It was through these two that I fell in love with the book version of Dracula. Whilst my parents were lovely in their own way - these two were the first adults that not only respected my hobbies but indulged in them with me. I gave them copies of my Darren Shan Saga to read. They took me to the theatre and bought me an illustrated copy of Dracula. I devoured it.

Looking back, no adult in my life had ever been as kind or as impressionable upon me. They loved me, as though I was their own family member. They sparked my creativity and we discussed Dracula and Vampires a lot, though sadly, I only remember how it felt - instead of what was said. I think partly because it became too painful later on.

They died just as I started university, four years after we met. Faye died first, he died of a broken heart and no wish to fight because he missed her so much. Cancer took both of them. I was 18 and it was such a tremendous loss. I was even with him when Fay died, the most horrendous day in the world. I remember him weeping, not knowing how he would ever cope without her. After they were gone, I kept my copies of the book but I didn't really read Dracula after that for a long while. Dracula was associated with my old friends and it was still a painful memory. Flash forward to many years later. I meet a girl during COVID who I'm playing DND with, who'd become one of my closest friends. She tells me that she's really into Dracula. I don't even watch Horror films, but I so wanted to get to know this girl who I play DND with and so I let myself back into that world.

That girl was @georgiacooked and reader, I fell in love with her and we've now been dating for two years. Georgia brought me back to the world of Jonathan and Mina, of Lucy, Van Helsing and the Suitors. In turn, it gave me that spark of creativity I felt like I had lost.

Dracula has always been able to bring me to the people that have meant the most. A story about people coming together to vanquish a great evil. It's not perfect by any means, but the love it's brought me is eternal.

So that's my 'Why Dracula?'.

Here's a fun, open-ended question to ask during this Droughtula:

Why are you a fan of Dracula / Dracula Daily / Re: Dracula etc. ? Why continue to engage with this particular book now?

I fear I've burrowed so far down this rabbit hole that when non-fans ask me, "Why Dracula?" I don't know how to answer that question myself

[cakesandfail]

everything continues to be terrible so I’ve just... launched myself head first into thinking about Sybil and her idiot husband and their goth boyfriend okay bye

[xxgothchatonxx]

Can a vampire film be considered a good Dracula film even if on-the-surface (translation “i’m probably overthinking again”) it’s got nothing to do with Dracula? Fuck it, I’m going with it anyway - Fright Night (the 2011 remake)

(yes it is a remake - yes, I enjoy the original and completely understand why it’s a cult classic - I just prefer this version)

So, there’s no direct references to Dracula, Jerry isn’t revealed to be Dracula, but... yeah, this is a really good modern Dracula film, even though I’m 99% sure that was completely unintentional. 

Rightio basic setup - there’s this kid Charley who has a new neighbour Jerry, Charley’s best friend Ed is convinced Jerry is a vampire, Charley eventually works out Ed was telling the truth, so he teams up with a Vegas magician named Peter Vincent to stop Jerry from doing his evil vampire shit. 

So, I love this movie just as a standalone film. It’s got a nice blend of comedy and horror, the acting is really good, and the soundtrack is awesome. 

In terms of themes... holy shit, this was ahead of its time. Ok, let’s talk about the context. It was released in 2011, when Twilight, True Blood and especially The Vampire Diaries were at its peak popularity. The modern sexy bad-boy (so it’s more a TB/TVD similarity here) vampires who are suave, muscular, and real ladies’ men. Fright Night holds up a mirror to those vampires and goes “yeah... these guys are fucking creeps”. Jerry is 100% a metaphor for sex predators. It’s not exactly subtle about it, either. Which brings me back to Dracula. Ok, so Drac in the novel was the Evil Foreigner Who Has Come To Attack and Corrupt Our Innocent Women, right? Jerry is the smooth-talking, good-looking white guy who can get away with being a creep who makes women scream in agony because, well, he’s a smooth-talking, good-looking white guy. The scene with Amy in the club is pretty similar to when Drac is attacking Mina in her bedroom. But it adds an extra layer of horror when it’s perceived by others as “oh yeah, it looks like she’s enjoying it”. Not to mention that scene with Doris in his den, oh my god! So, in summary, Jerry was a pretty good subversion of the modern sexy bad-boy vampire by presenting him as the creep that he really was. 

Also I love Charley’s arc. He goes from being this douchebag who is trying way too hard to be Cool and realises “...ok being cool sucks, I need to pull my head in”. Even Peter Vincent learns a variation of this! He learns to stop being a dismissive cowardly asshat and becomes the badass he pretends to be on-stage. Do I wish the female characters got more development? Yep. But I can’t say they’re the worst-written, either. 

So, while like I said this isn’t technically a Dracula film, I reckon the setup and the themes are pretty relevant to that story. Honestly, I would love to see an actual modern Dracula film do something similar to this. Hell, replace Charley with Jonathan and Mina, and boom- there it is! ...again, I may just be overthinking things 😂

If you haven’t seen it already, I do recommend it just as a standalone vampire film. It’s fun to watch, and it’s got a good amount of scares, both what’s literally shown on the screen and with what’s implied. 

[maxwell-grant]

Having asked your thoughts on designing Frankenstein's daemon, might I now ask your thoughts on bringing Count Dracula from the written word into illustration? (I'm definitely in favour of the 'Hairy Old Mountain Man of Horror pretending he's people' look from the original novel; one of the small tests too many Draculas fail to pass is an absolutely tragic lack of the Evil Beard and/or Wicked Moustache explicitly described by Mr Stoker).

Unlike with Frankenstein, where I think the design needs to be painstakingly thought out in order to achieve the best balance of the creature's traits for horror and tragedy alike, I think with Dracula you can actually just take an approach of "whatever works". Because as I mentioned before, I think much of the appeal and longevity of Dracula is how the character's both a layered villain as well as a shapeshifting narrative force that can be tailored to whatever you want to do with. Granted, there are bad or dissappointing Dracula designs, of course there are, but in regards to the leeway you get for reinterpretation, you get a lot more of it with Dracula than with other literary icons.

Like with Frankenstein, I'm gonna bring up how I'd tackle a less grim, more comedy-centric Dracula first, one that's less a force of horror and more of a charismatic villain, and I think to that end I definitely agree that people are sleeping a lot on the hairy old man barely-passing-off-as-humanoid of the original story. Despite very much loving these performers, I'm actually not a fan of takes that mold Dracula too closely to people who've portrayed him, like Bela Lugosi and Christopher Lee, partially because I think it's a waste of an opportunity to create your own Dracula design. Since I can't draw (yet), I'll do what I usually do and make a board of images to try and convey some of my thoughts on one way I'd design Dracula.

(Pictured: Kiwi's design for Dracula, Hotel Transylvania concept art, Nandor, Castlevania Dracula, Charles Dance in Dracula Untold, Vladislav, a Transylvanian rug)

I used the images in my other Dracula post and I’ll post it here again because I absolutely adore @kiwibyrd's designs for Dracula and it's main heroes, in particular I love the way it strikes a good balance at making sure Dracula looks distinctly separate from the humans, but not too much that he couldn't conceivably operate in society as just a harmless old man. I also adore the mustache and bushy eyebrows and pointy ears and I think these three are wonderful features to keep on any Dracula design. I'm also very partial to the Hotel Transylvania concept art, even if it makes me incredibly depressed to look at all the great designs they had for Dracula that they threw in the trash because they somehow decided making him look like Adam Sandler was the idea to go with.

I deeply adore What We Do In The Shadows, both the movie and the show, and Jemaine Clement's Vladislav is one of my favorite (maybe even my actual favorite) on-screen Draculas. But I also enjoy Nandor just as much, and I think it's really great that as a character he's completely different from Vlad while also being ostensibly a take on Dracula, and in particular I bring up his Jersey look because "Dracula in common clothing" is a criminally underrated concept for a joke.

As a character, I'm very partial to comedy takes on Dracula that play him up as a decadent aristocratic supervillain, the kind that can get away with talking in third person. I also have this idea for a version of Dracula who dresses ostentatiously in finely-broidered Romanian or Transylvanian patterns, maybe even wearing a rug as a cape, claiming that he's carrying the legacy of his people on his back. And of course he's lying, he's not Vlad Tepes and he's not even Romanian, he is just a parasite pretending to have a history to be proud of, but good luck getting him to admit that. And finally, I'd like this version to be played by Charles Dance, and I consider it a tremendous crime against humanity that he has yet to play Dracula proper even despite being in a film with the character's name on the title.

So that's kinda how I would design a take on Dracula for something more comedic or more based around him as this guest character and personality on-set. Now, if we're talking a more serious version, I think the possibilities increase, and I won't be getting into all of them because I may prefer to keep them to myself, but I'll elaborate a few ideas.

For example, the edition of Dracula I personally own comes with these really scratchy, really creepy B&W illustrations related to the story, that I can't find scanned online so I'm uploading them here so you can look at. They don't necessarily depict the scenes but rather some of the story's moments, like Van Helsing staking Lucy, Renfield in a straightjacket, Dracula as a coachman, and they are more focused on conveying the horror of the concepts at play.

Dracula never looks the same way in any of the illustrations, in fact you kinda have to piece him out of them by trying to find teeth or capes or eyes or bat-features to see where he's hiding this time. In the first, it's the half-man half-bat, in the 2nd, he's the shrieking bat silhouette next to Renfield, and in the latter, he's the gaping jaws and eerily humanoid eyes in the wolf. The effect to me almost feels like if you were to look at a bunch of tv static and then see a humanoid shape form for a split second before everything went back to normal, something like you'd get from Slender Man or other modern creepypastas, and I’ve argued before that Dracula’s form of horror is a very modern one. 

In terms of illustrations of Dracula that keep up the original traits while still pulling off horror, I definitely have to hand it to the one at the left of the image above, drawn by regourso on Deviantart (account deleted at present). Going back to Castlevania’s many takes on Dracula, two in particular that stick out to me would be Castlevania: Judgment’s armored dress Dracula, who’s got this great twisted heart/rose motif going on in his outfit, and Dracula’s final form in SOTN where he just sits in his throne and his cape twists into all these monsters, particularly how it’s depicted by witnesstheabsurd’s depiction. 

I’m not particularly a fan of how Dracula’s “final form” in these games is usually just some big demon, and part of what I like about his final form in SOTN instead is that, while it’s not a particularly challenging final boss, I do find it interesting the idea of us never actually getting to see what Dracula’s true final form looks like, only an ever-shifting pitch-black torrent of teeth and claws and bloody veins pouring out because that’s ultimately what Dracula is and brings to the world.

On the flip-side of the rotten old monster, we have the charming seductor Dracula, and while I’m really not a fan of how various adaptations have convinced people that “the point” of Dracula is that he’s a seductive force and an allegory for Victorian xenophobia and I’m reeeally even less of a fan of adaptations that make Dracula some misunderstood tragic hero (and I think I’ve made rather violently clear my feelings on interpretations that play up a romance between him and Mina), that the seductive force part exists is impossible to deny, so conversely, while on one hand we can have Dracula as the gargantuan whirlwind of predatory violence, we can also go for Dracula as the tantalizing lover.

I’ve seen a lot of opinions proclaiming Frank Langella as the best Dracula because he was the best at actually being seductive while still playing Dracula, although I haven’t yet seen his performances. If I had to point at one picture I look at and do buy for a second the idea of Dracula as a romantic character, it would be that particular still of Raul Julia in the left of the above image. And it’s strange for me to think of Raul Julia as attractive because I mainly associate him with his brilliant comedy performance of M.Bison (I know it’s far from the highlight of his career but, look, I grew up with Street Fighter, I can’t help it) but those eyes are definitely looking pretty convincing to me, if nothing else. 

And I’ve included this still of Sebastian Stan in the right because, during a conversation between me, @krinsbez and @jcogginsa about who could be a good fit for Dracula, jcog suggested Sebastian Stan, partially because he’s Romanian, and I’ve learned recently that Stan was actually interested in playing the character in Blumhouse’s upcoming remake. And you’d think I’d hate this idea  considering how much I don’t care for tragic anti-hero Draculas, but who says that’s what he’d have to play? 

Do you have any idea how much actors, who are traditionally known for heroic or supporting roles, usually LOVE it when you give them a chance to cut loose as the main villain?

I’d want Sebastian Stan to put all of his charm, all of his talent, all of his good looks and etc, into playing the absolute most vicious, bloodthirsty and irredeemable Dracula put on screen. Someone who is exceedingly, eerily good at being a lovable protagonist, who’s all smiles and charming eyes and politeness mannerisms and maybe even a funny accent, and then it isn't as funny when he's flying through your window intent on kidnapping babies to feed to his brides, except he may take a moment or two to do so because he's feeling pretty hungry himself right now.

Now, admittedly this is kind of a lot to juggle in regards to a single character, which is why my answer for questions like these inevitably has to be “depends on what I’m going for”. That being said, if I was going to try and cast someone who I think could both look the part of Dracula, as well as respectively, play “cartoon aristocrat” Dracula, “mercurial embodiment of evil” Dracula, as well as realistically be an attractive, even seductive performer who can charm viewers even as the character descends into horrible villainy, and juggle these performances even?

I think I’d have to go with Mads Mikkelsen. Not specifically because of Hannibal (I actually haven’t watched it yet), although it’s definitely a factor, the thing that actually made me pick him specifically is, other than his looks, his voice, his reputation for playing sinister characters, the fact that he loves the role and wants to play it, or how many people are deeply in love with this man, or that people already joke that he looks like a vampire, was watching him in Another Round, and specifically that glorious final scene where he’s just dancing to his heart’s content and just, moving with such spring in his step and such joyful vitality even though he’s past his mid-fifties, and that was the moment where, in regards to how much you all love this man, I went

And now I am going to add “casting Mads Mikkelsen as a dancing Dracula” to The List of Reasons Why I Became a Filmmaker.

[phoenixyfriend]

Weird dream from last night that I realized did not contain nearly enough Proper Dracula to be tagged/considered Dracula daily but have at it.

The bullshit dream included:

Me being in Japan for Reasons; Thor and Jane showed up at some point, made out, and there was some kind of retroactive reveal that Jane becoming Thor meant she was now also Aldrif and so Jane/Thor was now incest, which the dream said was Accurate To Something Historical. (Note: Aldrif is a Marvel character. This plot point did not make sense.)

A Dracula situation that reimagined what should have been the novel's events in the post-WWI period of The Mummy (which we arrived to via Thor things, somehow)

but also specifically in a large mountain castle overlooking a pine tree valley… in Wyoming.

Mina and Jonathan were there, but also Dracula had a wife? Which I would assume came from Castlevania except for the fact that the dream was pretty clear on this woman being only vaguely aware of her husband's monstrosity and repeatedly trying to get people to leave for their own safety. Significantly more Stepford than Castlevania's Lisa Tepes.

There is a plot-relevant white fox running around the half-neglected gardens for some reason.

POV (unclear who is POV, presumably Mina) of cat and mouse with Dracula and his vaguely Castlevania-personality minions, including an evil elf lady (pale gray skin, white hair, black clothes and stained fingers) with a sword, a giant wolf man, and what might be a troll made of living stone.

Something? Happened? And everything shut down and entered a stasis for almost a hundred years.

POV woke up and found that the building had been abandoned for years and was recently purchased and converted into a beauty spa/getaway where people go for a week to Become The Best Version of Themselves

Highkey implications that all the food (mostly various puddings in tiny plastic 'tear-off-the-top' single-use containers) was drugged for brainwashing purposes (not in a cult way but in an Aliens Or Supernatural Bullshit way).

The Elric brothers showed up to investigate and everyone was politely ignoring the fact that one of them was a giant suit of armor even though it was a clear violation of the retreat's rules

POV is still trying to figure out what the fuck is going on. Tahani al Jamil is also there. She thinks the spa is Just Amazing. She is never seen again, because the plot moves on to other things.

Elric brothers bust the brainwashing situation. Unclear how. Castle is gutted and starts being converted into a museum.

Elrics are gone. POV character wanders about. Some of the statues look Familiar.

Statues are actually Dracula-and-minions in stasis. They are starting to wake up. One of them starts swinging. The others are now attacking. The entire castle is in full evac mode into the city that has sprung up in recent times.

On the way out, POV spots a toddler. Picks them up and gets them out of the way of Possible Trampling By Panicked Crowd. Toddler is FIGHTING and BITING.

Dracula shows up. Looms. Takes the toddler, who is apparently (either de-aged or retroactively?) the werewolf and now his adopted son.

Dracula and co fuck off without bothering anyone again because? Reasons.

Woke up

[venteamocha]

Hello! Sometimes I see you post stuff from IF blogs and I've recently started playing some IF games, which I've enjoyed so far. Do you have any IF stories you'd recommend in particular? I'm not attached to any particular genre and I don't need romance or a self-insert main character, (though I'm not opposed to either). Though, it's a definite plus if it's LGBTQ+ inclusive! I'm not really sure what the "cornerstones" are of IF so I'll take any and all recommendations haha

Oh god, I play so many IFs. So many. And it’s not even close to all of them, but I’m trying!!

Tbh IFs without romance seems to be very rare, I think because when I think IF I think Choice of Games, and those pretty much always have romance in them. At least, the most well known ones do. But a well done one without romance would be nice too!

Okay, this is a list of my favourites! They’re all LGBT+ inclusive, and most have gender selectable love interests, or at least ones that change gender depending on the gender and sexuality combination you pick. In no particular order, of course.  Behind a cut because I’m gonna give them each a mini review. Because I haven’t done that yet.

(There are so many.)

Mind Blind: I absolutely love our big brother Nick, I love how witty and sharp so much of the dialogue is, I love how the MC clearly has a rather large handicap, but is still such an important person to so many people and not looked down on in the slightest. And when they are, we all know it’s because that person is a jerk! They’re not defined by what they aren’t, but what they are, and that’s a great message.

Shepherds of Haven: Part of why I love this one so much is I just love fantasy settings and this one just pulls it off so well. The cast is full of amazing characters, and I gotta say I die inside pretty regularly for not being able to afford the patreon content, lol. The author puts so much amazing stuff on there, and gives us so much great content in the game and through answers on tumblr, and you can tell this whole thing is just the best thing ever to them, and that makes it the best ever for us readers too!

The Wayhaven Chronicles: I’d be shot if I didn’t mention this one, the series that literally killed dashingdon when the book 3 demo dropped!! Again, another author that cares a lot and does their best to do right by their fans. We’ve been given drip after drip of these amazing characters backstories, and I just cannot wait for more! It’s definitely very romance centered, but the overall plotlines are also very good, and I have to say that no matter who I romance, I just feel like the group as a whole is a family. And that’s wonderful.

Speaker: I really like the lore. I really like the lore. I can’t wait until we get more of the overall plotline. Mostly I want my Speaker to get in deep trouble so Seb, Li and Seer (best sister ever) go off and beat the shit out of whatever is causing it. This probably says something about me, but what can I say, I thrive on angst and inflicting near death injuries on my OCs. Sometimes I even kill them, although all of this is offtopic. Or is it? I guess we’ll find out, although I doubt we’ll actually be able to kill off Speaker. And yes, I am definitely playing the Seb & Li poly route. I love them both so much. 

Wilhelmina: I love vampires, ok? Ok? And this one is based off Dracula!! The OG!! And you can choose Drac’s gender!! Shit, sign me up forever!! Yeah, she might be literally killing my bff, torturing my fiancé and low key fucking with my mind, but vampires are hot!! Let me live! Or not. But yeah, this is a really well done retelling of the Dracula novel and I like how well it works as an IF. Did I mention I like vampires?? Especially when they get all monstery?? (This one has an MC with a set gender, as it’s based on an already existing literary figure. Mina can have a same sex relationship with dracula, if you make drac a female, or with Lucy, a female love interest.)

More Things in Heaven and Earth: Hi Nell!! First off, I gotta uncover a deep shame of mine. My family literally has a Shakespeare heirloom collection. As in, my greatgrandfather passed down through the family a collection of Shakespeare that was published in 1911. In ye olde englishe. I tried to read it when I was like 10 and was like what language is this?? What the fuck? What the fuck??? And ended up reading As You Like It, a bit of Romeo and Juliet, and a little of Hamlet. Didn’t touch the rest of it. I only got into the other stories through trashy ya reimaginings. That said, this retelling of Hamlet inspired me to go read the whole of the original and now I have a lot of fears for these characters that I’m so much more attached to, oh god I hope my Ophelia has a happy ending. I hope Hamlet himself has a happy ending. The dialogue is so well done, everyone is engaging, and yeah it made me finish an old af book when nothing else did. (This one also has an MC with a set gender, female, for the same reason. However, there are two gender variable love interests, so you can very much play a bi or gay Ophelia if you so choose.)

Guenevere: I love King Arthur. All the myths. I have so many books based on the King Arthur mythos, oh dear god. I love pretty much every version of it. All the movie and tv shows too! I just can’t get enough of those knights. I could go on for paragraphs about how courtly love worked and how all the different social castes were, but I’ll try not to. This series lets you customize Guen as a character to an amazing degree, considering that she’s also based on an actual literary figure like the other two I mentioned above. It really feels like she becomes your own character, and yet she still exists within this world very very well. I worry quite a bit that the author might have bit off more than they can chew with the current book they’re working on, what I’ve seen of it looks absolutely massive in scale. What is out so far is a wonderful read though, full of drama and laughter and lots of chances to make the story your own.

Bastard of Camelot: Yep! Another King Arthur series! Sue me! This one lets you set Mordred’s gender though, so it’s more inclusive in that way. It is very interesting to play as one of the “bad guys” of the King Arthur mythos. You can play them as straight up evil, as good, or you know, a bit of column a and a bit of column b. Or they can just be a rude little shit. It’s got dragons too! You get a dragon pet! Dragons are cool. It can be a bit tough to play sometimes, since a lot of people dislike Mordred quite a lot because of prejudices. Hopefully this will change a bit later in the series if you’ve been a fairly good person up to that point. Gotta say though, as a warning, that Mordred is a product of incest. It’s not glossed over, and it does cause a lot of problems for them in the story.

God of the Red Mountain: I just love that this inspired me to read more chinese mythology tbh. There is just so much here! And it’s just such a good read. I wish I was better at describing things. The MC being a spirit that you can define, the whole setting, most of the love interests also being spirits, the massive amount of history and culture and lore, how it all fits together. It is such a well done story. I really wish it got more attention than it does. I still miss Big Sister. I still can’t wait to find out more about the foxes, and how we can heal our MC.

The Nameless: Another one that lets you play as something otherworldly. I love the lore behind this one, and I love all of the cast I’ve met. I kind of like that our MC isn’t loved right off the bat, that we’ll have to win over all of our love interests and even the other npcs. I’m up for the challenge! Everything I’ve read on the tumblr for these characters just makes me love them all more tbh. I love how much they’ve written for all of them! Most of all though, I love Oisein. All the art of them is just *chef kiss* and their personality is magical.

A Mage Reborn: This is a really recent one but!! Wow, it’s really well done! That cliffhanger!! Oof!! Not many books literally start with killing your MC off! That takes guts! I told the author this already, but I love the way they formatted this, the way it starts with the end, so to speak, and then fills it all out. It just made everything feel so poignant, how MC is literally looking back at all these moments in time in the last minutes they have before they die. Shit. That’s powerful. And there’s gonna be more??? Can’t wait for that angst. Give me that drama. Of course I picked the one who had me killed, that’s just how I am!

These are all just the COG type games, there are a few twine games with graphics I’d throw on here, but the list is long enough as it is and they feel like they’re in a different category to me. Maybe it’s just me?

[see-arcane]

What you said about Jonathan wanting to do good is so true. Like, he reads the letter of recommendation about how nice and good at his work he is and beams up!

Sometimes it felt like ppl thought he was itching to hurt Arthur, Jack, Quincey, and Van Helsing, which was the last thing he wanted to do. He wants to be a good person and not hurt the friends who helped him and his. He KNOWS they're right morally. That's why he doesn't protest them vowing to kill Mina. But it doesn't matter that they're moral and noble, he will cut them down before they can fulfill the promise. And he DOESN'T want to do that.

He was very distinctively silent about his silence, which may be why people interpreted him as a cold-blooded backstabber. But he'd been very unhappily avoiding them for a reason (until Mina started to improve due to Dracula fleeing her mind) because he doesn't want to hurt anyone, especially friends.

That's the added tragedy of it if it had happened! If he had had no moral qualms about killing, there'd have been nothing tragic about his struggle. Because he wants to be good, he knows his friends are good, but he also knows he'll do evil for Mina.

It all feeds into Jonathan Harker as a person who, while striving always to Do Good, does not exist in a stark black-and-white version of morality like the rest of his friends do. He places everything in his world within a hierarchy. We see that with how he reacts in the castle and his miserable game of ‘Would You Rather?’

He would rather die than join the Brides. He would rather live than be meekly torn apart by the wolves, a lamb to slaughter. He would rather risk falling to his death and those same wolves while trying to return home to Mina, proving he did not go quietly at Dracula or the Brides’ whim. 

It’s a huge horrible spread of awful choices to make, but since there are no good options, he orders his actions and thoughts by which he deems least awful.

Which is exactly what we see in the predicament with Mina becoming a vampire, her martyr demands, and the Stalwart Classic Heroes swearing to give her what they all deem a merciful euthanasia should she turn. 

And then there’s Jonathan. Incapable of nodding along and agreeing with the Stalwart Good Course. Because it’s Mina. Mina exists at the height of importance in all things for him.

I bet it’s a shock in itself when he recognizes that--he really does value her existence, no matter what she is, above good and evil and God and Hell and the lives of innocents. The lives of his friends, who are already risking so much for their sake and the sake of all the strangers Dracula might yet prey on.

If only in his heart, Jonathan has to register himself as a villain in potentia. Would he die for these men? Die beside them? Yes, of course. 

But they still exist below Mina in importance. Everything does. 

These men are his friends. New, yes, but such a blessing in his lonely life; a small thing revolving around Mina, Lucy, Mr. Hawkins and casual acquaintances he charms but never grows close enough with to earn so much as a named mention in his journal. Seward, Holmwood, Morris and Van Helsing came into his life as his first real batch of friends, a premade camaraderie already set in place. He cares about them immediately and immensely. So much so that his will is made out to them should he and Mina die (or do more than die). 

Jonathan would never hurt them...unless he had no choice.

And the fact that that choice is there, lingering in the dark places of his mind where he cannot help putting together another hierarchy of unhappy ‘Would You Rathers?’, is what makes his constant grip on the kukri as tragic as it is foreboding.

[honourablejester]

So, from what I’ve read about the new Dracula so far, I’m probably not going to be watching it. Even if I trusted Moffat and Gatiss to start with, which I kinda never did, I’m just … not really in the mood for a sarcasm-filled gorefest? With body horror and skinning people and slaughtered nuns and so forth, quipping all the while. That’s … not what I want from Dracula.

What I would like from a hypothetical Dracula adaptation, what I love from the book, what you pretty much never get in adaptations, is the team. Our heroes banding together in the face of a great evil, and doing so quietly and earnestly and with a hundred little moments of gentility.

Moments like:

Mina and Lucy’s letters to each other, full of innocence and trust and loving descriptions of their dear ones and concern for each other’s troubles and happiness for each other’s joys

Mina rushing to Jonathan’s side when he’s found, and Sister Agatha trying to reassure her that whatever Jonathan’s suffered, it’s not because of what he’s done, and that as a prospective wife she has no reason to be afraid of him, and Mina being baffled that this was ever a concern

Dr Seward’s very strong pre-emptive defense/recommendation of Van Helsing to Arthur when he sends for him – he’s a weird old Dutch man with not the best social graces, and this is me saying that, but he’s my friend and he will do everything he can to help, so trust him as you trust me

Dr Seward in general being incredibly stiff and Victorian and uncomfortable with emotion and more than a little sexist but also trying his best to comfort Arthur, pulling down a blind on the carriage to hide Van Helsing’s ‘womanish hysterics’ so he won’t be judged for them, admitting to Mina that Lucy trusted her and so should he and he’s sorry for trying to keep things from her just because they’re horrifying and ‘not for a woman’

Jonathan being so ridiculously relieved by Van Helsing’s presence and questions because it means that his experiences with Dracula and his seeing a youthened version of the vampire in London are real and not just him being insane

Van Helsing immediately babbling to Jonathan about how amazing Mina is pretty much the second they’re introduced, and Jonathan standing there happily basking in someone else’s justified adoration for his wife

Van Helsing basically adopting Arthur as a son despite having to be the one to tell him that his dead wife has come back as a monster, and doing his best to comfort and strengthen Arthur through it

Mina comforting basically everyone as soon as she arrives after Lucy’s death, including letting Arthur basically break down on her chest (while Quincey ‘delicately’ leaves them to it so that Arthur won’t feel pressured to stay strong and manly in the presence of another man), asking him to be her brother for Lucy’s sake and let her support him like Lucy would have wanted, and then kissing Quincey as well because he’s trying so hard to support everyone else when he also lost a woman he loved and needs some comfort as well. At which point an extremely choked-up Quincey basically swears himself to her service before wandering off to pick a cried-out Arthur off the couch

Quincey living up to that oath in every possible way and being fully willing to give his life for her later

Jonathan being not all jealous or bothered by any of this, because clearly everyone should love Mina, that’s just them being sensible and sane when faced with everything about her

Arthur, Seward and Quincey being friends, the whole way through, despite loving the same woman, and trying to support each other after her loss, because, again, loving Lucy was just the sane response to knowing Lucy, and nothing to hold against a man

Everyone promptly rallying around Mina once they realise what’s happening to her (after a few false starts) and Arthur and Quincey being willing to drop everything to fund an expedition to save her, and everyone being willing to risk their lives on said expedition with barely a first let alone a second thought

Mina being concerned for Jonathan and Van Helsing more than herself when she’s becoming a vampire (despite it being arguably their fault)

Mina and Van Helsing facing the brides in the snow and Van Helsing being terrified and hopeful at every example of her continued human feeling and struggle against monstrousness

Van Helsing being horrified at having to kill the brides, not vindictive, and calling it ‘butchery’, and Mina being horrified for him that he had to do it

(I really love this section, because no one ever shows it, Mina and Van Helsing alone on this lonely, vicious journey, her pale and sick and gaunt, with the mark of a holy host seared into her forehead, but grimly determined and still showing pity and horror for Van Helsing and what he has to do)

Van Helsing feeling fear and hope when they’re heading for Dracula himself but also their friends

Mina’s absolute faith in Jonathan the entire time, even with Dracula in her head, almost able to where Jonathan is as well and sure that he will not fail her

Jonathan and Quincey fighting furiously together to reach and destroy Dracula, because it’s to save Mina, and so they will not fail, even if it costs them their lives

Quincey’s last moments

‘Seven years ago we all went through the flames; and the happiness of some of us since then is, we think, well worth the pain we endured. It is an added joy to Mina and to me that our boy’s birthday is the same day as that on which Quincey Morris died. His mother holds, I know, the secret belief that some of our brave friend’s spirit has passed into him. His bundle of names links all our little band of men together; but we call him Quincey.’

‘Van Helsing summed it all up as he said, with our boy on his knee:— “We want no proofs; we ask none to believe us! This boy will some day know what a brave and gallant woman his mother is. Already he knows her sweetness and loving care; later on he will understand how some men so loved her, that they did dare much for her sake.”’

… Few things ever gets the proper earnestness of the book, is my point. It’s not sarcastic at all. People really earnestly love and are gentle with and want to defend each other, even in the face of each other’s small peccadillos (or partial conversion into monsters). Mina, Jonathan, Arthur, Seward, Quincey, Van Helsing, Lucy. They all overtly love and protect each other, with no jealousy or hesitation. That’s what I would like from a Dracula adaptation. You can do what you want with the vampire himself, I kind of mostly don’t care about him, but the team. I want the team.

I think the thing that most people who do adaptations of Dracula don’t understand is that Dracula the book is not about Dracula the vampire at all. It’s about the band of brave, terrified, earnest, gentle people who band together to fight him.

The vampire himself, in short, is really not the point.

[serialreblogger]

Hey! I'm thinking of reading Dracula, and knowing that's your eternal hyperfixation, I wanted to ask your thoughts, if you had any comments, suggestions, ect.

HEY WHY DIDN’T I SEE THIS SOONER I’M SO SORRY FRIEND

okay okay okay okay (...several people are typing...) SO

the first thing you should be aware of when reading Dracula is that it’s quite Victorian, so you might find it easier, especially on a first read, to get an annotated version (the Norton Critical Edition version is quite good) that puts footnotes in to explain all the outdated references to like, London penny-meat merchants and stuff. I would say it’s significantly easier to read than Lord of the Rings, but because it was written 200 years ago the difference in language means it’s not a simple read. (However, if you have absolutely any attraction to the Gothic aesthetic, Dracula is so very much worth the brainpower to slog through the rougher sentences. Like. “...the courtyard of a vast ruined castle, from whose tall black windows came no ray of light, and whose broken battlements showed a jagged line against the moonlit sky.” The whole book is like that. A bit stilted to contemporary readers, but also breathtakingly spot-on in its Spooky Factor.)

the second thing you should be aware of is that Dracula is extremely gay, but in a Tormented Victorian Closeted way. There’s a part where Jonathan climbs out a window that just. It’s uh. The descriptions are very,, metaphorical-sounding. Again, the whole book is like that, and sometimes it’s very fun and sometimes (lookin at Lucy’s whole thing) it’s significantly more unsettling if you pay attention to the weirdly sexy descriptions of how the protagonists interact with the vampires, but I think that’s part of what I find so fascinating about Dracula--it’s unsettling and strange and the pieces don’t fit together clearly, and I still don’t know quite what to make of it, but all the same the feeling of what Stoker’s saying comes through quite clearly. There’s a reason why so many Dracula adaptations have this narrative of a protagonist falling in forbidden love with the tormented Vampyre, yknow? There’s something so unmistakeably sympathetic about the character of Dracula, even when the narrative of the story goes out of its way to establish that he has no redeeming qualities or even proper personhood, that he’s just a monster. Because there’s something about the story (even without getting into the whole “Mina and Jon murked their boss” thing) that makes a reader wonder if that’s really the whole truth. If there isn’t something tragic about Dracula. If there isn’t something in him, if not of goodness, then at least of sorrow, instead of only fear.

Anyway I digress but I think we all knew that was gonna happen; point is: Jonathan and Dracula definitely had sex, Mina and Lucy were definitely in love, Seward’s got something weird goin on with the old professor (and also he’s just very weird, full stop. sir. sir please stop experimenting on your asylum inmates. sir i know this is victorian england but please Do Not), and Quincey, well, Quincey is an American cowboy with a bowie knife, and I think that’s all we really need to know.

ok and! the third thing you should be aware of is The Racism. Imperialist Britain, yo. Bram Stoker was Irish so like, it isn’t half as bad as some other authors of his time period (Rudyard Kipling anyone), but the racism is real and I don’t wanna gloss over that. The g**sy slur is used with abandon for a huge assortment of people groups, there’s a tacit as well as overt acceptance of the idea that West is superior to East, and because the educational system where I grew up is a joke and I can only learn things if I accidentally fall down the wikipedia hole of researching the insect genus hemiptera, i genuinely still don’t know how accurate the extensive history of Romania recounted in the first third of the book actually is. Oh also casual and blatant anti-blackness is verbalized by a character at least once. I’m pretty sure the racism has a metaphorical place in the framework of Dracula’s storytelling, but I couldn’t tell you what it is because I am not going to bother putting myself in the mindset of a racist white Victorian man. This is the mindset I am trying to unlearn. So: read with caution, critical thinking, and the double knowledge that even as the narrators are meant to be unreliable, so too is the author himself.

Finally, regarding interpretation: so personally I’m running with the opinion that Dracula is, at least partly, a metaphor for Stoker’s own queerness and internal conflict re: being queer, being closeted, and watching the torture his friend Wilde went through when the wealthy father of Wilde’s lover set out to ruin his life for daring to love his son. Whether this is true or not (I think it’s true, but hey, that’s analysis, baby), you can’t understand Dracula without knowing the social context for it (as with all literature--the author isn’t dead, not if you want to know what they were saying), and the social context for it is:

- Stoker was friends with Wilde, growing only closer after Wilde was outed

- Wilde was outed, as I said, because the father of his lover was wealthy and powerful and full of the most virulent kind of hatred. This is especially interesting because of how many rich, powerful parents just straight up die in Dracula and leave the main characters with no legal issues and a ridiculous amount of money, which is the diametrical opposite of what happened to Wilde

- Stoker idolized his mentor Henry Irving. Irving was a paradigm of unconventional relationships and self-built family, in a world where divorcees and children born out of wedlock were things to be whispered about in scandalized tones, not people to love and embrace. Irving was also famous for thriving off of manipulating those close to him and pitting friends against each other. Given the painstakingly vivid description Stoker provides for his titular vampire and how closely it matches Irving’s own appearance and demeanor, Irving was widely understood even at the time of writing to be the chief inspiration for the character of Dracula

- the book is dedicated to Stoker’s close friend, Hall Caine, a fellow writer whose stories centered around love triangles and accumulation of sins which threaten to ruin everything, only to be redeemed by the simple act of human goodness

- Stoker was Irish, but not Catholic (he was a Protestant of the Church of Ireland, a division of the Anglican Church). This may come as a surprise when you read the book and see All The Catholicism, Just Everywhere. Religion is actually a key theme in Dracula--most of the main characters start out your typical Good Victorian Anglican Skeptics, and need to learn through a trial-by-fire to trust in the rituals and relics of the Catholic Church to save them from Dracula’s evilness. Which is interesting. Because not only do these characters start off as dismissive towards these “superstitions” (in the same way they dismiss the “superstitions” of the peasant class on the outskirts of Dracula’s domain), but the narrative telling us “these superstitions are actually true!” cannot be trusted, when you know the author’s own beliefs.

(Bram Stoker is not saying what his characters are saying. This is the first and most important rule to remember, if you want to figure out Dracula.)

- The second-most famous character in the novel, after Dracula himself, is Van Helsing, whose first name is Abraham. Note that “Bram” is a declension of Abraham. What does this mean? I legitimately have no idea. But it’d be a weird coincidence, right? Like what even is the thought process there? “Oh, yeah, what should I name this character that comes in, makes overtly homoerotic statements willy nilly, and encourages everyone to throw rationality out the window and stake some vampires using the Eucharist? hmmmm how about ‘Me’”

ok wait FINAL final note: you legitimately do not have to care about any of this. I love Dracula because it has gay vibes and I love trying to figure it out, like an archaeologist sifting through sentence structure to find fragments that match the patterns I already know from historical research; but that’s not why you should love Dracula. The book itself is just straight up fun to read. Like I said, Stoker absolutely nails the exact vibe of spookiness that I love, the eerieness and elegance and vague but vivid fear of a full moon crossed by clouds at midnight. The characters are intriguing, especially Quincey gosh I love Quincey Morris but they’re very,, sweet? if i can say that about people i, personally, suspect of murder? They come together and protect each other against the terrible threat that is Dracula, and you don’t get that half as often as I’d like in horror media. I don’t even know if Dracula could qualify as “horror” proper, because it’s not about the squeamish creeping discomfort that “horror” is meant to evoke, it’s not the appeal of staring at a train wreck--it’s not horrifying. It’s eerie. It’s Gothic. It has spires and vampires and found family and cowboys, and to be honest, I don’t know what could be better than that.

[dinoandrade]

“DRACULA”: BOOK vs. MOVIES

Part 2: The Other Characters

Welcome to part two of my five part essay comparing Bram Stoker’s novel “Dracula” to those film versions most commonly referred to as those “faithful to the novel.” To understand why I wrote this please check out yesterday’s part one.

BUT FIRST...

This essay is NOT spoiler free. And whether you love or hate any of the films being compared here is beside the point and a subject best left to posts dedicated to film critique. This essay is SOLELY about which films are the most faithful to the novel... period.

As a reminder: those versions most touted as “faithful” that I compared are:

“Nosferatu: a Symphony of Horror” (1922) aka “Max Schreck Version”.

“Count Dracula” (1970) aka “Christopher Lee Version”.

“Bram Stoker’s Dracula” (1973) retitled “Dan Curtis’ Dracula” aka “Jack Palance Version”.

“Count Dracula” (1977) aka “Louis Jordan version.”

“Bram Stoker’s Dracula” (1992) aka “Coppola version”.

And now...

PART TWO: THE OTHER CHARACTERS

JOHNATHAN HARKER

Johnathan is a young, naive English solicitor who, only having just passed his exams, travels to Castle Dracula in Transylvania in order to complete the sale of an English estate to the Count. No sooner is the deal signed that Harker becomes a prisoner and goes through Hell at the hands of Dracula and his three undead brides. All before an equally hellish escape and near loss of his mind leaving him psychologically and physically damaged. This drives him to become one of Van Helsing’s vampire hunters where he eventually helps incapacitate Dracula in the final battle by cutting the Count’s throat.

The Max Schreck, Louis Jordan and Christopher Lee versions all come pretty damn close in terms of matching the exact story beats of the novel but then all three falter after Harker’s escape. In both the Schreck and Lee versions Johnathan’s actions do not follow the book. While in the Jordan version they technically do follow the book but Johnathan seems to recover fully with no lingering physical or PTSD effects.

So, say what you will about the hinky British accent of Keanu Reeves in the Coppola version but the psychological scarring after the ordeal with hair turning grey as in the novel and the manic drive to kill Dracula, all leading to the throat slashing in the final struggle with the Vampire, all seals it for me as the most faithfully done.

Winner: Coppola version

MINA MURRAY/HARKER

Fiancé to Johnathan Harker, “Madam Mina” begins the story as a genteel and naive creature. Mina first suffers greatly over the death of her best friend Lucy (whom she loved dearly) at the hands (or fangs as it were) of Dracula and then over the sight of her mentally and physically traumatized fiancé Johnathan whom she then marries.

To her horror Mina realizes that Dracula is slowly making her one of his vampire brides, especially when he forces her to drink his blood in what Professor Van Helsing calls a “baptism of blood”. It is then that a hardening Mina forms a plan to use a growing telepathic link with the Vampire against him. Her plot involves partnering with Van Helsing and the use of hypnosis to track Dracula as well as lure and destroy him and his brides with Mina bravely offering herself as bait - but she almost loses her humanity and soul in the process.

By stories end, Mina has undergone the greatest of changes, from genteel and naive to cunning (with flashes of the demonic) and so resolute that while in a state somewhere between the living and the undead, Mina even wields a revolver in the final battle against Dracula’s minions and fights with no fear.

While both the Christopher Lee and Louis Jordan versions do give their Minas some backbone, they fall way short of the novel. And I MUST give a serious honorable mention to the stout-hearted Kate Nelligan in the Frank Langella version.

But, in the end it is Winona Ryder in the Coppola version that goes the extra step of showing Mina’s transition from small and timid to cunning and resolute, as well as flashes of her becoming possessed by a demonic evil that eats away at her soul.

Though due to the film’s Dracula/Mina love story most of Mina’s actions in the final battle run contrary to the novel (such as picking up a rifle not to battle Dracula but to defend him), yet her actions during the climax are bold, strong, fearless and driven by inhuman supernatural power as befitting the novel. Coppola even gives his Mina the will to eventually drive a blade through Dracula’s heart and then lop off his head to give him eternal peace. I can’t imagine any other cinematic version of Stoker’s heroine performing such actions except maybe Kate Nelligan’s.

I have always felt that the most tragic and repeated disservice to Bram Stoker’s novel have been all the cliched portrayals of Mina. In the novel it is she and Van Helsing who orchestrate the final battle with Mina actually fighting while the elder Van Helsing is only a spectator. And yet, almost every cinematic telling of Dracula changes the story into a singular battle of wits between Dracula and Van Helsing with the Professor almost always being the one to deliver the final death blow. Meanwhile brave Mina has been reduced to nothing but a “Damsel in distress”.

This is NOT what Stoker intended. For in the novel it is Mina’s fortitude in the face of horror that is at the very heart of the original story. So much so, that Stoker even ends his novel with these words from Van Helsing said to Mina’s future child:

“... this boy will someday know what a brave and gallant woman his mother is. Already he knows her sweetness and loving care. Later on he will understand how some men so loved her that they did dare much for her sake.”

Winner: Coppola version

PROFESSOR ABRAHAM VAN HELSING

A Dutch Professor who has studied the occult. He comes to England at the behest of his former student Dr. Seward when Mina’s best friend Lucy has become stricken with a mysterious illness of the blood. Realizing that they are facing a vampire, Van Helsing puts plans into motion to destroy Dracula and his brides - plans that turn all the younger heroes of the story into a band of vampire hunters. Soon Van Helsing becomes so moved by the growing bravery and fortitude of Madam Mina that he pledges his life to save her from becoming the demon that she is slowly turning into. In the end Van Hellsing himself kills the brides but it is traumatizing and he can only bare witness to the final battle with Dracula.

The Professor in the novel runs back and forth between scholarly, resolute and fatherly to overly-dramatic, eccentric and possessed of a passion for occult studies that boarders on mania. In short, Van Helsing is a bit of a loon. Unfortunately, like Mina almost all filmed versions only portray half of the character Stoker created, typically choosing to completely ignore the Professor’s manic, eccentric side.

There have been many fine portrayals of Van Helsing. Both Herbert Lom and Nigel Davenport in the Christopher Lee and Jack Palance versions respectively are wonderful, but Frank Finlay in the Louis Jordan version refreshingly is the first Van Helsing to truly display some of the oddball eccentricities, but he doesn’t go nearly far enough into that side of the Professor.

However, Anthony Hopkins in the Coppola version not only fully embraces the passion-filled, eccentric side of Stoker’s character (and goes a bit beyond it actually) but his actions in the film’s final act are also the most novel accurate.

The vast majority of screen versions of “Dracula” end with the cliche of Van Helsing killing the Count, even though in the novel Van Helsing was mentally spent after killing the brides and was only a witness in the finale. Coppola’s version is the only one that fully depicts the mental toll on Van Helsing from killing Dracula’s brides and his minimal participation in the final battle.

Winner: Coppola version.

COMING TOMORROW...

PART THREE: THE REST OF THE CHARACTERS

[dorkshadows]

BBC Dracula (2020)

I finished BBC’s Dracula LOL. Decided to take my own advice and judge it for myself. So I guess this is my informal “review” of it, spoilers and all. Apparently it’s only 3 episodes, which was... not a good choice given the way it went. But anyway, I went in expecting it to be objectively bad because the trailers were not good and nobody was hyped for it. But I rarely like things the internet is actually hyped for, so ofc I had to give it a chance ;)

Disclaimer: All my personal opinions. Also, the truth is I have never actually finished (or enjoyed) a Moffat show so everything I know about his and Gatiss’ writing comes from tumblr posts I’ve seen in passing (some praise, some complaints, mostly complaints)

Overall, I found BBC Dracula entertaining and it was a lot better than I expected. So things I liked and didn’t like below the cut.

Things I enjoyed:

-Dracula himself was actually kinda hilarious. Did I think the character’s design was attractive? NO. But he was funny to me; there are characters who are so over-the-top bad TM that they become so problematic they circle right back to being non-problematic and he fits into this category. What a hammy villain. Honestly enjoyed his personality and “I’m so evil whatever hahaha” attitude, but I think the creators thought the character was more physically appealing than he appeared.

-Agatha Van Helsing!!! Both of her! My favorite character! You can never go wrong with fem!Van Helsing and even this series couldn’t ruin that. She was so cool. 

-My dad’s galaxy brained review: “This feels less like Stoker’s novel and more like a Gu Long book.”

-For 0.3 seconds, Harker and Mina were Edgar and Shelly Parker and I was weak for them. 

-My standards for Dracula romances are very low, so I was already on my knees thanking the moon and stars when nothing happened between him and Mina. No attraction, no reincarnation, no forced romance! 

-The main “ship” of the show was Dracula and Van Helsing, and like, they actually had good chemistry. They had a pseudo early!Barnabas/Julia vibe minus the romance. Drac was into Agatha because she’s smart, strong, and cultured. Maybe I’m giving this show too much credit, but I actually do think it deserves a kudos for basing Dracula’s attraction to Agatha entirely on her personality. I was down for it, like not in an OTP way nor do I think a ship like this could work without one of them becoming better or more evil, but I was down for it. 

Stuff I’m on the fence about:

-Harker’s casting choice. He just didn’t feel like Jonathan to me. I mean, his acting was good- he just didn’t look the part. But on the other hand, I’m glad he was... not typical fangirl fodder because I’m not strong enough to handle the idea of there being a 500k word b/dsm a/b/o of this version’s Dracula/Harker on AO3 and there being whole essays about how toxic this ship is. Just the idea of any of this happening is too objectively unsexy to me

-I liked the twist at the end of ep 2 lmao. Because I was like “what??” and wanted to see how the hell they’d carry on. The Harker Foundation gave me major Hellsing vibes and for a second, I thought that was they way this show was gonna go lol

-Zoey being able to access her ancestor’s ghost/getting possessed by Agatha by drinking Dracula’s blood. I mean, OK, but it all seemed very convenient and awkward (and a flimsy excuse to do the reincarnation thing without actually doing reincarnation). On the fence bc I love Agatha and IDGAF if she possess her descendant

-Van Helsing’s always one step ahead of Dracula, but it never humbles him for long. Nothing gets to him for more than 5 minutes and 99% of things keep going his way. I mean, it’s fun to watch a villain enjoy being a villain- no tragic backstory or anything, just villainy for the sake of it- but 3 eps down, it’s hard not to call Drac a “mary sue”

Things I did not enjoy:

This screenrant review sums it up better than I ever could: 

https://screenrant.com/dracula-2020-bbc-netflix-bad-disappointing/

-Quincey was not Quincey at all. Arthur was cut (or was he the gay best friend? Hard for me to tell. The treatment of non-straightness in general was #lmao on this show). Lucy’s arc could have been good if it was done less shallowly, but the above review rightfully calls it out. She was being punished for her “vanity.” And I didn’t buy her “in love with death” thing at all- the whole time, it felt like she was being fake-deep and Dracula was dumb enough to take her seriously.

-Mina had it the worst though- reduced brain cells, reduced importance, just reduced in general.

Other thoughts I can’t quite categorize:

The ending was less poetic and more confusing because so little time had passed. I said I was down for Dracula/Agatha but not like this lol. This ending felt like it should have happened after like, 10 episodes of character development with at least 2 instances of villain/hero team-ups. So now he doesn’t fear death because she told him he actually fears death? He’s willing to die with/for her because... ??

It’s a very interesting idea that he can’t feed from Zoey/Agatha because of her cancer. He literally holds no power over her and he can’t save or damn her no matter what he does (unless his blood can cure cancer and I was half expecting that to happen because he’s a mary sue). The only thing he can do is kill himself by drinking her blood so they can die together. It all sounds very poetic and star-crossed rival-lovers-ish on paper, but it was so ??? to watch.

Dracula and Van Helsing had 3-4 memorable encounters, but no real bonding moments (as enemies or otherwise). I could see why Dracula was so weak for Agatha- they succeeded in that. But there’s nothing to support the feeling as mutual. Sure, she thought he was interesting because he was a sentient vampire. But as a person? Nothing happened to justify their “together in death” thing as this great consummation of a relationship. Also, she died as Zoey but he was into Agatha and um... ok.

Also, Dracula’s plan for world domination was forgotten really quickly and had nothing to do with the plot in the end. BBC Dracula honestly would have benefited by becoming a Hellsing ripoff where Zoey Van Helsing keeps the count captive and uses him to solve supernatural shenanigans. At least there would have been a coherent plot and something to justify their attachment to each other.

Final verdict: It had a strong start and could have been a 7/10, but the writers betrayed themselves and now I give it a 4.5/10. The half point is an award because I laughed many times. 

[forthegothicheroine]

Dear Chocolatier

I signed up way late for this challenge, but fortunately people had already nominated plenty of good stuff!  These fics (or artworks) are meant to be short and low pressure, so don’t stress to much about any prompts or ideas in this letter.  Fic or art would be equally good for any of them.

The Erl-King - Angela Carter

The Erl-King/Narrator

I love Angela Carter, and this is such a creepy story!  I’d adore something creepy here, sexy or not, between the heroine and her lover/captor.  You can work in a little of the classic poem here if you want, with her having been carried off on a horse in the first place, or keep it relatively consensual but deeply toxic.  So show me something where he has power over her, or where she changes the dynamic and destroys him.  I’ll be happy with either.

Little Red Riding Hood

Big Bad Wolf/Little Red Riding Hood

Huntsman or Woodcutter/Little Red Riding Hood

Sooo...yeah.  This one is dark.  Can we go with a werewolf instead of a full-on animal for this one, especially if it gets sexy?  And with an 18 or older Red?  I love villain/heroine ships, and this one is almost archetypal, what with its cat-and-mouse game, captivity potential, and even versions where she outsmarts and defeats him.  Don’t get sexy if you don’t want to- I’ll take romantic tension just as well as sexual tension.

If all that squicks you out, luckily I like rescue ships almost as much as I like evil ships!  The Huntsman/Woodcutter/Whatever has the potential to have a pre-established relationship with Red (it might give some much-needed foreshadowing to the climax), or they could fall in love when he saves her.  You could also combine these ships and give us a twisted Red/Wolf/Rescuer dynamic...

Dracula- Bram Stoker

Jonathan Harker/Mina Harker

Mina Harker & John Seward

Jonathan and Mina, Jonathan and Mina.  These poor, sweet children.  I’d be happy to see something sweet with them after the end of the novel, but I’d also take something a little darker here one or both of them became a vampire.  Jonathan was the only one ho wouldn’t promise to kill Mina if she became undead, after all...Or show me their courtship and how they fell in love!

Lucy said that John Seward would be the perfect man for Mina if she didn’t already have Jonathan, so if you write about the friendship between these characters, show me why!  Show me them nerding out together and appreciating academic subjects, or recovering after the adventures of the book.  I also wouldn’t be averse to a little UST or an unrequited crush on John’s part (everybody loves Mina!)

Addams Family (TV 1964)

Gomez Addams/Morticia Addams

Gomez Addams & Wednesday Addams

Gomez and Morticia are couple goals in every iteration, and that includes the tv show.  I’ll take a date, a slice of life, a kinky bit of bedroom play, or really anything.  I love how these two are are the perfect balance of sexy and goofy, and I’d also be happy to see them in an alternate universe- medieval?  Fantasy?  From another culture?

Wednesday is another character who’s great in all her iterations, but I adore how cute she is in the tv show.  I think there’s something sweet about this cheery little goth girl who just wants to be friends with everyone but at the same time will not hesitate to punch you out if you’re a jerk.  I’d love to see hat kind of lessons and influence she takes from her father, an equally sweet (and almost as dangerous!) influence in her life.

Fallen London

Player/Your Choice of Character (Female Player/Master Jewel Thief or Revolutionary Firebrand)

I couldn’t choose between these two guys, so my character basically ended up living with both of them.  So I’ll take a story about either!  My particular PC was a kindhearted bohemian revolutionary gothic author, but you don’t have to replicate that if you have your own preferred take on the PC.  Fallen London is just so much fun with so many opportunities for stories- fluff about cuddling with pets!  Post apocalyptic escapades during the Liberation of the Night!  Spying!  Scandalous stage shows!  Basically any genre you want!

Long Live the Queen

Elodie/Kevan

This is a hard ship to achieve in-game- you basically have to do that arduous forest quest- but it’s one of the only romances that actually moved me.  Kevan and Elodie have both been through their own separate hells, one of family trauma and one of constantly dodging death, and I feel like they’d be good for supporting each other.  So I could take a sweet epilogue, or a missing episode during the events of the game where they exchange flirty banter.  Or if you want to work in the duel challenge, how about enemies-to-lovers?

[thenightling]

Gothic Horror pet peeve

I am tired of people insisting that if you are okay with romantic versions of Dracula that we forfeit the right to complain about simple minded and zeitgeist influenced Frankenstein Monsters.  This has happened to me one time too many as a horror fan.

Let me explain the difference.

The Romantic Dracula is still (despite it being relatively common since the 70s) not the norm.   There were plenty of Universal Monster movies, Hammer films, and low budget schlock where Dracula is an evil SOB with no redeeming qualities.  I can name several.  Horror of Dracula, Dracula: Prince of Darkness, Dracula has risen from the Graven, Taste the Blood of Dracula, Scars of Dracula, Satanic Rites of Dracula, The Seven Golden Vampires, Monster Squad...  Sure, they don’t follow the novel very well but Dracula is well established and known as an evil SOB.   Currently there are as many Dracula adaptations as there are Sherlock Holmes adaptations.  These characters have had more films than any other pubic domain literary characters.   So there is plenty of room for pure evil (Christopher Lee) or sympathetic yet predatory (Frank Langella), or even out right cuddly (Hotel Transylvania).

Honestly, I’m more annoyed about the lack of films where he can walk by day.  Those are hard to come by.   

 Now for the Frankenstein Monster.   How many films do you think are out there were The Creature does NOT have a flat or bald head, does not have neck bolts / electrodes,  DOES have long black hair and yellow eyes and is well spoken and articulate with a love of reading?  I can name maybe three and one is from a TV show.   The Hallmark mini-series of Frankenstein, Terror of Frankenstein, and Penny Dreadful.

There are dozens of Dracula films where he is evil so comparing being okay with sympathetic Dracula to being tired of the Hollywood Trope Frankenstein Monster is very imbalanced.   

Yesterday some idiot on Facebook took offense when I said I don’t like the Victor Frankenstein movie because the director said the novel was as “dull as dish water.” He went on a tangent claiming Francis Ford Coppola clearly hates Dracula.   No, he loves Dracula.  He just also loves Gothic Romance and is very obviously a fan of The Dracula Tape by Fred Saberhagen (Retelling of Dracula from Dracula’s point of view).  Yes, it’s true Mina’s relationship with Dracula in the novel isn’t romantic, or a seduction.   It’s, in fact, a rape metaphor.  But that’s not what it is here and I can accept that because there are plenty of versions where Dracula is still an unsympathetic asshole.   Bram Stoker’s Dracula doesn’t justify rape because very simply the rape metaphor doesn’t exist in this film.

  So yeah, this is my pet peeve. When idiots come along and say that if I’m okay with Romantic Dracula that means I don’t actually like Dracula and if I’m okay with Romantic Dracula I should be okay with simple minded Frankenstein Monster.

Films where Dracula is still evil and not in-love:

Note: I am not counting the 1931 Dracula because there are people who find him mildly sympathetic.   Horror of Dracula Dracula: Prince of Darkness Dracula has risen from the Grave Taste the Blood of Dracula  Scars of Dracula Satanic Rites of Dracula The Seven Golden Vampires Monster Squad  Son of Dracula  House of Frankenstein  House of Dracula  Abbott and Costello meet Frankenstein  Dracula: The Dark prince (2013) Dracula’s Guest  Bonnie and Clyde vs. Dracula  Billy the Kid vs. Dracula  Blackula Blade Trinity  Monster Force (TV show) Count Dracula (1970) Count Dracula (1977) 

And several more than that.  

_____________ 

Films where the Frankenstein Monster is actually intelligent and not based on movie tropes: Terror of Frankenstein  Frankenstein (mini-series from 2004 starring Luke Goss) Frankenstein (2004 Mini-series loosely based on Dean Koontz books) Penny Dreadful  Van Helsing (sort of...) I, Frankenstein  Dark Shadows _____________________________

Films that actually remember Dracula could walk around by day in the original novel and is just weaker by day: Bram Stoker’s Dracula (1992) Dracula starring Mark Warren (2006) Hellsing / Hellsing OVA (Anime)  So yeah, scolding me for wanting an intelligent Frankenstein Monster and being angry because of my not caring if there are a few romantic Dracula stories floating around...  Not the best comparison. You got plenty of pure evil Dracula films. So what if there are a few romantic ones?    With Frankenstein I can count literary accurate versions of his appearance and / or personality on one hand and a few of those are very loose!