#this is from someone who did dracula and adaptations of dracula for part of their degree and had to contend with some terribly written ones

[witchofthemidlands]

it's past 3am idc anymore. he was hinted but not officially named & had less than 10 minutes of screen time but in my opinion matthew goode is the best modern version of dracula i have seen in YEARS.

[thenightling]

Pet peeve about the Internet *Pretending* to have read Frankenstein

I am so tired of everyone and their dog on the Internet saying "Actually the monster was The Doctor." or "Frankenstein was the Doctor. Not The Creature." And no one notices what's wrong with this. First, Victor Frankenstein (in the novel) was no doctor. He was a student of metaphysics. He never graduates. He's not a medical doctor at all. He found the secret of life while reading the works of Agrippa and Paracelsus. A self-proclaimed sorcerer and alchemist. Now what makes Victor a Monster? He had f--king postpartum depression. No. Seriously. THAT is what makes everyone call him a monster. The term Postpartum didn't exist yet but that's what is described. He's excited about creating life. He even chose various parts for their beauty. The Creature has luxurious black hair, and perfect teeth (a detail left out of most film adaptations). But the eyes are yellow and watery. There's an effect that we'd today call Uncanny Valley. Victor does not find him hideous until he comes to life. Then Victor flees. It takes him months to recover from his "Brain fever." He has a sort of nervous break down. When he finally comes home it's to discover his youngest brother has been killed and The Creature has framed an innocent maid for the murder (and is hanged for it). YES, The Creature is sympathetic. Abandoned by Victor and rejected by the world but both make horrible mistakes. Victor is no innocent but he isn't Satan either. Someone on Tumblr even blocked me for trying to point out that Mary Shelley wanted us to sympathize with BOTH Victor and his Creature. It's not black and white. The person claimed I clearly never read the book and then blocked me after saying "Another person who didn't read the book trying to school me." Not only did I read the book but Frankenstein is in my top four favorite novels. To me, seeing the Internet constantly parrot the "The Doctor was the monster" is like seeing the rather sexist "Beauty and the Beast is Stockholm Syndrome" (which actually means "I don't trust Belle and will ignore her agency as a character.") Or the not-so-subtle transphobia attached to the Hot take of "Disney's The Little Mermaid gave up who she was for a man." which requires ignoring that Ariel wanted to be human before she ever saw Eric. I even got into an argument with someone about that once who insisted that she only sang "Part of your world" after she saw Eric. No. That was the reprise. The first time she sang it was before she ever saw Eric. Also I'm sick of people "correcting" those that call The Creature Frankenstein. The Creature views Victor as his father. Usually a son takes his father's surname. On a lighter note we have the people who PRETEND to have read Dracula, sharing the old man image of him with the handlebar mustache as being "This is what Dracula actually looked like in the book." I often point out to them that he de-ages in the novel and is later described with dark hair with grey in it. And a pointed beard. One person, who didn't want to admit they were wrong, tried to claim he was disguising himself so no one would reocognize him. That the beard was false and the hair was a wig. Umm... Why? The only person who knew what he looked like was Jonathan Harker. And at the time Dracula thought Harker was still in his castle. I know this is a long post but to sum it up... Please, stop repeating memes about classic stories as if they are fact and try reading them for yourself. It may not quite be what you've been lead to believe.

[bookwyrminspiration]

hey Dira I’m reading dracula and all the protagonists are acting like they’re madly in love with each other. it’s great. world’s most gothic polycule.

You would fit in perfectly with everyone who participated in Dracula Daily last year, just so you know. I think every 5th post I saw was about their polycule (an exaggeration but it was an incredibly prolific concept)

I once saw someone say something about how they hadn't realized before, but so much of Dracula (the novel) is about the humanity we see in everyone. How in all the places we visit, all the fleeting characters passing by, they are filled with this active care for the world around them. They worry for a lost dog, they share stories and advice to the younger generation, they fret over the health of someone close to them, they give everything they have in the hope that things will be better for someone else someday.

And I think that's captured in the main character's interactions as well. The kind of outward, eager active attempts to connect with and understand and care for each other in whatever capacity they can is so different from what so many of us have experienced. Because they are all madly in love with each other because they're all madly in love with being alive and seeing people thrive and prosper and be happy. And they all care about each other. And all the background characters care about each other because they all care about the world and want it to be good.

I'm getting away from myself, but the ever present hope and happiness and attempts at connection in this world are, to me, a very crucial part of the novel and something that can get lost in adaptations. I hope you enjoy your experience with the novel, as I certainly did :)

[buffy-targaryen]

My issue with Willows arc in season 6 being framed as her use of magic was an addiction and not a quest for power all along is that it fundamentally ignores what made Willow start to actively use magic in the first place, and that was her feeling helpless.

It’s shown throughout s1 and s2 that Willow is incredibly smart, she’s shown as being relied on, trusted, and respected by the smart and accomplished adults surrounding her; Giles, Jenny and Angel which clearly means a lot to her and feeds the growing ego she undoubtedly has. Feeling smart and respected helps build up Willow's confidence in season two, you can see it in the way she can now not only hold a conversation with someone like Cordelia, but can also speak firmly to her like a teacher (The Dark Age).

Up until Becoming Part 1, we only ever see Willow use knowledge to help her friends, she learns quickly and finds it very easy to adapt what she knows the best way to help save the day, but it's not until Willow and Buffy find the floppy disk that Willow reveals she has been actively learning about magic, and she believes she has the ability to use it. This is not easy magic, in fact it has been lost for generations, and Willow clearly feels a lot of pride in her ability to do a spell that would help her best friend, and impress Giles who she looks up to.

Except it all goes wrong. Willow learning all that magic, having all those brains don't really mean anything when Drusilla and her henchmen attack. Having a Slayer and a Watcher there didn't mean anything. Willow didn't get to use her spell, and almost died because she became cornered and couldn't fight the vampire off on her own. Now I believe that at the point when Willow wakes up and is determined to complete the spell (in spite of Buffy telling her not to worry about it, but that's another topic for another day), she genuinely wants to help, but I agree with Giles as well. Completing that spell, especially after being so incredibly helpless against a vampire, opened a door that Willow couldn't close. Power was the only way to avoid feeling that helpless again.

You see this further develop in season 3. Willow is now able to actively help on patrol with Buffy and Faith (The Zeppo), she no longer needs to feel helpless against a vampire, which gives her the confidence to both read and steal (parts of) The Books of Ascension and tells Faith what she really thinks of her (Choices). When Willow begins to feel helpless in Graduation Day Part 1, she immediately decides to find a spell to stop The Mayor. At this point Willow is relying on Magic in a way that entirely feels like a perfect mix of wanting to help, and needing the ability to feel more powerful than the bad guys.

In season 4 Willow again turns to magic again and again when she feels helpless (Fear, Itself. Wild at Heart, Something Blue, Hush) with nearly all examples going wrong in some way, which in turn seem to make her even more determined to master magic and bring it under her control, no matter what anyone who cares about her says (Oz, Buffy, Giles).

In season 5 we immediately see an example of Willow using magic in a way that she doesn't need to - when she creates a fire for Xander on the beach in Buffy vs Dracula, but for the most part in this season (apart from Triangle), Willow has a much calmer use of magic, and I do think that this is because of Tara's influence. Tara grounds her, and helps her learn a lot more slowly, gives her abilities time to breathe and grow.

But then Tara gets hurt by Glory, and Willow immediatly turns to magic to hurt Glory back, and Willow actually succeeds for a time. Glory overpowers her, and Buffy has to save her, and Tara is still gone. Willow is helpless again. It's not until everyone starts falling apart around her, especially Buffy, that Willow finds her control and uses her magic flawlessly to both bring Buffy out of her catatonic state, and bring Tara back from what Glory did to her... but Buffy still dies.

Willow is helpless again. Willow turns to magic again.

I personally grew up with an addict, so I can see in season 6 where they were going with the storyline, but from the moment Willow decided that she would do the spell that would bring Buffy back from the dead it was clear it was all about her being able to complete a spell that no one else could do, and yes, no longer feeling helpless. Willow was now the defacto leader - as voted for by her friends, and for all her power, Willow couldn't take that responsibility. She wanted to be powerful enough to bring her friend back, but not take the responsibilty that came with it, and turning all that development into an addiction fell incredibly flat, especially with how they treated the ‘addiction’ in season seven.

After all Willow’s trauma and development, a shy and downtrodden brainiac with an unrequited crush, turned all powerful witch who can successfully support The Slayer and lead her group of Scoobies and you’re going to take all that power from her and make her an addict with no self control? Who was consciously and unconsciously making decisions to meddle with powers she knew were incredibly dangerous since season two?? Come on.

[beevean]

Multiple questions for you.

What were your thoughts on the Netflix castlevania show when you first discovered it?

How did you feel about the show when watching through each episode?

When did you realize the show was hopeless and would have zero redeeming qualities?

What are your overall thoughts on Netflix castlevania now?

1) I actually heard about it as it was airing - I vaguely remember posts related to Dracula and Lisa, or gifsets of the "I'm killing my boy" scene before I started playing the games. Needless to say, I heard nothing but good things, posts about how it was a great adaptation. I tried watching the first episode before getting into the games, but I got only confused and bored because of the CHURCH BAD scenes that had little to do with the plot lol. When I asked @spinningbuster98 (the friend who urged me to play the games) if it was worth watching it, his response was more or less "ehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh", before sharing part of his grievances. At the time, I only vaguely understood the issues. After playing SoTN, CV3 and CoD, let's just say that everything became crystal clear.

The actual show turned out to be a much more unpleasant experience than simply "they fucked up the lore and the characters" could have prepared me for.

2) I actually have chronicled my first experience here :) as you can tell, while my criticism was not as well worded as I would phrase it today, it's proof that I only had a tolerable time in S1, and then things progressively got worse. Here's my second rewatch, if you're curious.

3) No doubt, S3 was my breaking point. S1 was mediocre but tolerable, S2 was boring and sluggish, but S3 was just a mean-spirited waste of time with a terrible, immature message and needlessly sadistic torture porn this side of an edgy fanfic. By the end I was so sick to my stomach, I really didn't want to watch S4, and to this day there are some episodes (mostly the ones focused on the Trepha plot) that I simply skipped because I just want it to be done.

4) That it's bad :P it's a bad adaptation, because it was obviously written by someone who only read the wiki and supervised by fans blinded by their own ego, people who didn't get the spirit of the original series and wrote a shallow Berserk ripoff with only the vague aesthetic of Castlevania: just the writing of the characters is appalling in how everyone was reversed for no reason, almost on purpose. And it's a bad story in itself, because it's rife with shocking writing mistakes, such as an over reliance on telling, glacial pacing, condescending hand holding to push you to think in a certain direction, long pretentious speeches to simulate depth, ridiculous amount of swearing (and even bland swearing) that doesn't fit the characters, dropped plot points, rushed plot lines, immense favoritism towards certain characters combined with the humiliation of others, a lack of focus in the last two seasons, and a general... mean mentality, that I can only describe as a combination of snobbish intellectualism, British imperialism, and victim blaming.

Aside from the cool fight scenes and the old-time fans who are so starved for CV content they'd eat dirt, I genuinely will never understand what people like about this show.

[aimzicr]

Okay I saw Last Voyage of the Demeter! I have thoughts. As someone who spent three years essaying about Dracula, as a fan and student of literature-to-film adaptations/transformations, and just as a reader and listener of Daily Dracula and Re: Dracula, I have thoughts. Mild spoilers below the cut, but nothing that would ruin the experience completely if you haven't seen/can't see it.

But please be aware: Dracula DOES go about in his Lizard Fashion™.

I wasn't expecting a one-to-one transformation of the Demeter's Log to make it on screen. After all, the story of men being silently hunted until all are dead makes for a great dread-inducing setpiece for Stoker's novel, but not so much for a standalone film. I did enjoy seeing how the story took the 'based on' as far as they could before they started stretching it.

I did have a quiet laugh as the first title-card almost seemed to suggest this was REAL and TRUE EVENTS for a second. Way to get me engaged and reference the epistolary nature of the original novel.

But yes, the story does get turned into a bit of a Last Girl Horror Movie, because they see and know there's something wrong and they're actively fighting against it, even as they get picked off one by one. An interesting take, a pretty damn good method of turning a bleak setpiece into a proper standalone story.

Dot points to follow, before I forget:

The opening with the wagons moving through the countryside was breathtakingly beautiful

(I couldn't help but think 'oh they're wearing the same hats my good friend Jonathan Harker wrote about')

The captain's log being read aloud, word for word, in quieter moments was very very good. (And, of course, by this point I know it word-for-word, so picking up on the small tweaks was quite a delight).

I enjoyed hearing the familiar names as we're introduced to the crew.

The captain's decision to retire and pass the ship on does make me reconsider the mate's stoic nature in the story as a man dedicated to his duty, rather than just an antisocial asshole. Always nice to consider things from a new angle.

Chekov's Black Dog (kind of a missed opportunity to not show Dracula using a mockery of Huck to escape, but this wasn't a one-to-one transformation of texts as I said; also no reference to a black dog being an omen of death? Missed opportunity.)

Dracula being the only one on the ship being allowed to eat meat, just a glimpse of his hypocrisy and tyranny

(Though I'm not a huge fan of modern vampires being depicted as messy eaters, Netflix's Castlevania etc: just DRINK THE BLOOD stop biting people and letting them BLEED EVERYWHERE, did your mother not teach you dining etiquette???)

"Can this disease be passed to people?" "No. Not without a bite" very cute.

The initial reveal of the face in the spyglass FUCK that was terrifying.

Considering inwardly 'why he look like that? We know he was an aristocrat when he left his castle -- wait, hang on, is this what happens when vampires get seasick? When they cross running water? They stop wearing clothes and go feral?' before I turned off my brain and stopped thinking about Seasick Naked Count Dracula

They really did need to add this new character, because the audience and the crew both needed the context and information. Otherwise, how could the crew fight back? RIP to canon, I guess, (but look at it this way: once Mina starts putting all the letters together, she gives Hellsing and the others the necessary information to kill Dracula, so... not too much of a reach?)

But Dracula, sir, bringing along a snack for the road and it ISN'T our friend Jonathan Harker?

The subtle reveal-and-conceal in the early parts of the voyage of Dracula's face and form was well done and genuinely terrifying. Just the parts where you look away for just a second and he's gone? Fuck.

"No, please! D:" "No, please~ :3"

HE'S GOING ABOUT IN HIS LIZARD FASHION AGAIN. THAT BOY AIN'T RIGHT.

Knock Knock. Who's there? Not your friend, that's for sure. (Dracula stealing this is Fucked Up, in the best way. He takes EVERYTHING from you! :) )

Vampirism as possession is an excellent way to recontextualise its parasitic history/links

Where's that tumblr post about how you can tell what a good horror film is? 'This movie's great, a kid DIES in it!'

Seeing the cloth move a second before the captain says 'I saw him move' but doubting myself. I didn't see that, right? It was just the wind. Right?

Oh. It wasn't the wind.

Men of Strength overpowered, Men of Faith made to doubt, Men of Reason rattled by answers that make no sense, and the Innocent hunted down. Dracula as a force of Pure Terror that tests one's character (and then eats, because he's a boyar and he dines on the cattle of his choosing)

Did he just slam this guy down so hard his BRAIN popped out of his skull, holy shit

'In my country, there's no-one else for him to feed on' what, do people go stale after a few bites? Dracula's a picky eater?

'He's rationing' puts the journey into even greater context. A chilling sentence in the film and in the broader understanding of the Demeter's place in the novel.

a Cool Plan to Survive The Monster is very action-movie, but I knew it wouldn't work (sorry, sometimes the spoilers/pre-knowledge ruin things)

'This is my home.' Augh. 'I'll do it.' AUGH.

The slow creeping fog rising up (like hands? like an embrace?) in the final hours was CHEF'S KISS. Beautiful effect

(Also loved the effect of the wind from His Wings displacing the fog, too. Even if you don't see him, you can see where he's been)

"What's going on?" "He knows." Oh. Well. Fuck.

The Last Voyage of the Demeter isn't told from the Captain's perspective, so much of the man's nobility and sacrifice in the name of duty is lost (even to the point that his iconic death pose is capital-m Mocked by The Dracula (almost like the old BAsTard was like 'I know you've read Stoker's book but I'm here to fuck with you, dear audience'). The Captain isn't the Final Girl in this horror movie, but they do give him a proper end as far as the film goes, even if he does get a lot more rattled and shaken than his log might suggest

There's also a sense of blurred intertextuality in vampire lore here, because they drew heavily on the Hammer Films/Buffy The Vampire Slayer context of 'vampires burning in sunlight'. Not truly Stoker's Dracula...

... then again, Dracula has a very particular Design, and is credited in the crawl as 'Dracula/Nosferatu'. He was for sure Count Orlock, rather than Dracula.

Knock Knock. I'm here watching you :3

That brief touch from Dracula as he leaves the bar was - fuck, it was a split second to make a poor man flinch, but in that brief touch was the playful terror of a tyrant: I own you, I don't fear you, you can't stop me, I control you. Nothing you said to me on the Demeter had any effect on me and you are just meat. Ta ta, darling~

The movie ending with a new survivor, the potential for a new vampire hunter, was very good. Instead of the Log of the Demeter ending in bleak despair and all hands lost, instead we have a man galvanised and ready to fight against evil, even if he has to do it alone.

Music kicked ass. Very raw, very primal, very Gothic Victoriana

Lots of fun! It felt a little like they were setting up for an Extended Dracula Universe (I hope I'm misinterpreting) but I did like how Getting To Live after a traumatic experience leads to 'Fuck this guy, he's not getting away with this in the future'. Like I said before, we wanted the monster back so we could kill it, so I appreciate that's the vibe they went with for LVotD. A little bleak? Sure. But the fact that people are willing to keep fighting, even in the direst circumstances with the odds against them? That's what we need. That's what it's all about.

[wingedknightrose]

if I were to do an adaptation of Dracula, I think I would add a scene within the next couple of days here, and that scene is: the cast hold a memorial for Renfield.

it starts with Mina. Mina, who's had a couple of days to process the initial horror of what's happened to her, only to for a realization to finally sink in - Renfield tried to protect her. he died trying to keep Dracula away from her, even though they'd barely known each other, even though they'd spoken only twice. Mina's natural empathy and her own troubling lack of self-worth wouldn't help this situation, and she'd end up...distressed, if not having another breakdown.

Mina is distraught, the others might initially chalk it up to the whole impending vampirism until she actually explains, that's she's upset because a man died for her, a veritable stranger, and she can't even go to his funeral because they've got to hunt Dracula and people would ask questions and- and- she just wishes she could do him that little bit of honor, give him that smallest regard, because he died for her.

and then Arthur speaks up, and suggests they hold a private memorial. Arthur also strikes me as terribly empathetic, he's known plenty of suffering of late, he wants to help. and, well, Renfield did give everything to try and help. just as Arthur respects Van Helsing for giving so much to help Lucy, so to will he offer the same to Renfield.

Jonathan is immediately on board. not just for Mina's sake - though make no mistake, he is in part looking for something, anything, to help Mina find comfort - but because Jonathan, more than any of them, realizes just what standing up to Dracula would have taken. he knows how strong, how powerful, how utterly cruel Dracula is in the most personal way. he knows the amount of courage it would take to stand up to that. and for him to have done that not even for himself, but for another? for Mina? yes, he believes Renfield deserves the same amount of respect and mourning that any of the others would, should they fall while undertaking this task.

Quincey won't argue. Jack and Van Helsing...I feel like they'd go along with it, if only for Mina's sake, even if they haven't been treating Renfield with any of the common courtesy he was due as another human being. heck, you could have one of them make an off-hand comment about how it's so sweet of Mina to mourn the poor lunatic, only for someone else to curtly inform them that mad or not, Renfield was still a man, and had they all treated him more like one perhaps this never would have happened

but even if you don't put the callout in there, I still think it'd be a scene worth adding. to acknowledge that Renfield had been as much part of the fight against Dracula as any of the rest of them, and that he had given everything to see it through

[geostelar5]

A Tribute to the Belmonts

So I am a decently big fan of Castlevania, but I have never really been into the Netflix Series past the first Season, I didnt like the second enough and I wanted to see something adapting the game's story and enhancing it. I've seen the critism that the early games bearly had a story and I say Nay Nay! They had Simple Stories, not BAD stories, they had effective stories, ones that could have easily been expanded upon and made ever better. So I wanted to put together a little post as a Tribute to the clan that Hunts the Night! Specifically highlighting my favorites from the earlier games that I feel is a shame they didn't get much attention. Leon Belmont:Not the most powerful but man is he one of the BEST Belmonts for starting the whole Storyline. Imagine that you were off on a holy mission, the only thing keeping you going is the idea of returning home to your loving Fiance Sara only to find shes been kidnapped by Vampire in the night and your only hope of saving her is to delve through HELL, you have nothing that can properly fight off the monsters but someone gives you a Whip, one enchanted to fight monsters. The only reason why its allowed to exist is because the arrogance of Walter, the man who abducted your true love. Then, after venturing through the depths of hell and evil you come in and find that your Sara has already been infected by the devil that kidnapped her, she is turning into a monster and can not stop it. All is lost, but instead of dispair Sara gives you hope, gives you a purpose. She sacrifices herself to empower your whip, and to make it able to slay any Evil being. Even the mighty vampire lord Walter. Filled with a new purpose, you storm the castle once more. Destroying everything in your way! Then, once Walter has been defeated your best friends appears and reveals that he has orchestrated this whole ordeal in order to spite god for taking his own wife. Mathias, your best friend decided it was appropriate to sacrifice your love, and offers you a chance to join him..But that would be a Betrayal of Sara's memory. Holding her dying wish to your chest you exclaim NO MORE! NO ONE WILL SUFFER LIKE I DID! I MAY NOT BE ABLE TO KILL YOU NOW BUT MY DESCENDANTS SHALL HUNT THE NIGHT!! Uuugh so good, I love it I love it! Trevor Belmont:The only belmont actually explored by the Netflix Series and uuugh really dislike the angle that they went with him to make the Church the evil beings that they are. I am fine with him being an outcast at first, thats part of his story after all but...I dont like him as a sarcastic dick because thats not who Trevor is. I dont like that he only really helps when he absolutely has to, and that it seems lke he doesnt are about anything because to me... I always felt like Trevor was someone who couldn't help but assist others.

The Common Man rejected him and his family years ago, afraid of their power, afraid of who they were. Trevor couldn't stop himself but help defend them when Dracula's Crusade attacked Wallachia, he was there. Waiting for the permission to help, as soon as he was called upon there was no hesitation. Desptie the fact that he was outcast, despite the abuse he suffered, the Noble Trevor decided to fight on to defend the innocent people. To make sure that Dracula's Crusade didn't last more than a Single Night! It is this determinaion, this natural want to help others, to be good that influences those around him. Through this he frees those around him from the Various Prisons and Curses that Dracula placed on them and gathers allies, a mystical sorcerer, a petty thief and Dracula's own Son Rebelling against his father. It is through these peopel thata he finds family, he finds acceptance, it is through his allies that he finds people that he truely loves and finds more willing to fight for, it reinforces his noble heart and crusade and it is thanks to those allies that he is able to overcome the Army of Dracula's undead minons and monsters walking through Castlevania and destroying the man yourself with Sara's Whip, the Vampire Killer has truely earned its name now! You have managed to fuffil your family's purpose you have slain Dracula...Now you need to defend the world from his remaining minions.

Simon:The Absolute Chad who Netflix skipped over because they were afraid of his power. Thats the ONLY reason why I think they didn't adapt him. The MAHN! Who stormed Dracula's Castle On his own the NIGHT that he emerged determined to not let anyone die. The one who single handedly charged his way through the castle, who slayed everything in his path. Who killed Dracula all on his own and during the battle had a curse placed on him, one that he endured for 7 Years and was nearly dead before he had to venture around Wallachia this time and gather the parts of Dracula...Only to have to kill that bitch again and tell the man he wasn't wanted.

This is the man who is an aboslute Paragon of the Clan, the one who would help literally everyone and anyone with any task they needed. He is the one who managed to get the common man to trust in the Belmont Clan again, he is the one who interacted with everyone. The one who made it so that everyone could put their faith in the Vampire Slayers. He is the one who endured the most hardship on his own and did it silently, he is the one who turned his family's reputation around to the legends they are today. When you think Belmont, you think Simon. Which could have been expanded upon SO MUCH. WE know enough about Simon, the man who grew up hearing legends of Trevor, of Leon, of heroes and decided to be one himself. A guy who really knew what it meant to HUNT THE NIGHT and he was skipped!

I feel like Netflix Squandered a lot of the really cool aspects of Castlevania that I liked to do its own thing and while thats cool...I just wish we could see the Video Games come to life in a new way, see expanded intepritations of these characters instead of New Ones using their name.

[see-arcane]

I might have pitied this deformed woman

With all due respect ACD why is everyone calling someone with a limp deformed... Also to be honest I would have felt more horror from the story if Gilroy found her attractive and/or charming and enjoyed her company and work relationship but also did not love her for whatever (non-physical) reason, because then there could have been a potential inner conflict and guilt, instead of ''this is out of my hands she is icky-looking and a crone (Gilroy you are 35) so I have no self-doubts about being in love involved on top of it all yay''. Having him vehemently dislike her all the time minus during hypnosis removes those layers.

It isn't 'everyone' in the story who calls her deformed, though. It's just Gilroy. No one else is mentioned deriding her for her disability or her looks or anything else beyond Penelosa's talent.

Considering ACD's comparatively progressive track record with the Sherlock Holmes stories--a series notable for how often it takes the side of oppressed parties, including abused or preyed-upon women--I can't see Gilroy's ageist and ableist views as anything but an intentional setup for the narrative payoff of his disgust as well as his anger and fear.

The story does feel slightly karmic at the start and, to give ACD the benefit of the doubt, I agree with you that having Penelosa not be an attractive hypno-dominatrix likely played a part in Gilroy's initial revulsion at her controlling him into playing paramour. I think this was intentional for the character's buildup, but also for the audience's. Even in the present day, there's no ignoring that there are demographics out there who are Highly Interested in the erotic implications of hypnosis. BDSM for the brain, puppet master kinks, et cetera.

If Miss Penelosa had been hot, or even just pretty, I wouldn't have been surprised if the horror story ACD was trying to put together would lose much of its punch in his era's audience. Sure, it's still icky that Gilroy's a man being Controlled By a Woman (!!!), but having her be attractive would 'soften' it for them. Still, all this is only in play if ACD was really truly adamant about selling the horror of 'A Stranger Now Owns My Free Will and Is Planning to Violate My Life in Intimate Ways.'

It could also have just been intended as an eerie scientific*** what-if adventure applied to a then-popular (and wildly overestimated) practice of the time. Or maybe he meant it as a straight-up supernatural escapade in the vein of vampiric mesmerism from a psychic monster. I don't know, I can't ask him.

All of that said, the horror is soured a bit by Gilroy being a haughty skeptic snob who had some comeuppance heading his way in the first place. Similar setups are common in horror flicks today, where we get to cheer at least once in a movie when the Big Villain takes down a more commonplace bad guy. There's no scare there, just vindication.

And me being me, that's not enough. Because I am all about two things.

One, adding more horror to everything, always, forever.

Two, making life harder for Jonathan Harker.

Jonathan 'Holiest Love means I Will Walk Backwards into Hell to Protect/Stay with My Wife Whether She's Mortal or a Literal Monster' Harker is not about to shit on anyone for a bad leg or some crow's feet.

More importantly, we've already seen his reaction to sexy sexy undead ladies trying to hypnotize him into compliance so they can take certain bloody/eternally conscripting liberties with him.

To judge by the 1000+ Dracula adaptations that show the directors' fetishes in full view, Jonathan being preyed on by the hot vampire Brides is seen by many people as...you know. Hot. Enough to rewrite and bastardize his character every time to make him seem like he was genuinely tempted by them.

But He Was Not.

He was being hypnotized into artificial attraction and paralysis so the ladies could take their turns with him without his fighting back or trying to run. Which he does later! More than once! Every time this voluptuous trio tries to hypnotize or corner him again, Jonathan catches on and sprints in the other direction. He is not into that shit no matter how pretty you are, ladies.

Specifically because, as I and Bramothy Stoker cannot stress enough, Jonathan Harker is strictly Minasexual. All Mina all the time. 24/7 Mina lockdown 365 days of the year. Mina, Mina, Mina. Mina? Mina. (I personally headcanon him as demisexual with shades of biromanticism and ace, but that's beside the point.)

The point is, even if Penelosa was a knockout, Jonathan wouldn't notice. He wouldn't care. Just as his love would not have been stopped by Mina turning into an actual monster; he would rather be damned and in love than slay her and be holy. You can bet your ass if Mina suddenly had a handicap he'd still be enraptured with her to the point of blasphemy. You know he's going to still be heart-eyed as they grow older. Jonathan Harker is made of unconditional and extremely focused love. It is all-encompassing and yet it belongs to a single person. It's the kind of love we all wish we had for ourselves.

It's the kind of love that someone like Penelosa--who latched onto a random handsome prick of a professor after she had known him LESS THAN AN HOUR and started plotting to groom him into her personal Ken doll--would do anything to have for herself; Jonathan Harker, the true Prince Charming, the gallant beloved, the guileless charmer who holds the One He Loves above himself, above God and Devil and the world itself...being wasted on some pretty young thing who hardly needs such a treasure.

It isn't fair. Mrs. Harker will never appreciate dear Jonathan like other, more deserving women would. Not like her. She would show him. Help him through the motions until he learned better; learned to love in the right direction.

Her direction.

Only if given the opportunity, of course.

(👁)

In short, yeah, Gilroy was not the best option for a sympathetic horror story protagonist who we could feel real fear and empathy for. We only really get a glimpse of that toward the end, when Penelosa escalates enough to start injuring innocents and tries to make Gilroy throw acid in his fiancée's face. A big scary leap, but also too late in the game for a proper punch. Especially with the abrupt copout of the ending. Bleh.

I think we can do better than that. Say, with a protagonist who can balance on the pro-and-con line of keeping the supernatural puppet master of their life happy enough to not act rashly, who knows the value of dancing on eggshells in a tight spot, who could tug the heartstrings of villain and audience just enough to let fuller and far more frightening machinations come to light as time goes by.

Especially with certain other powers lurking in the shadows, which might make a trifle like death a far less permanent end to their ~romance~ than it ought to be.

Don't you agree, Mr. Harker? ❤

P.S. Gilroy's still absolutely getting his ass handed to him in this take, don't you worry. He's been demoted from crush to chew toy to minion. RIP sir, but you're not off the hook just because Jonathan's distracting her with his dreaminess. Get to work.

[ketchup-monthly]

Lanternfam’s favorite vampire media

with the help by @space-specs

Hal- Monster High (the justice league hates when they do mental links via J’onn because he constantly has the first opening stuck in his head and doesn’t even realize hes humming it until someone says something and even then it doesn’t really go away until he has something else stuck in his head. he has also on multiple occasions cross-dresses as one of the female characters to match with Helen, who would dress as one of the guy characters. Hal kills it every single time. he looks so good its not even funny.)(the main two that Hal does are Rochelle Goyle and Operetta. Helen’s are Deuce Gorgon and Holt Hyde)(if anyone wants to draw Hal in either of those outfits please hit me up it would be so good and i would be forever grateful and maybe even owe you a kiss on the forehead for your troubles)

Guy- Twilight (he likes the side characters and wishes that SMeyer hadn’t fucked them all up like she did. he likes the baseball scene in the first movie bc it slaps, and Emmett and Leah are his favorite characters. Emmett is a lot like him and Leah was written so badly. They both deserved so much better.)(he totally doesn’t write twilight fix its on the internet but if you know the right places to go, there may be a fix it fic written by one EmeraldWarrior.)(the fics fix a lot of things about the series and are actually pretty good and god i wish they were real -ketchup)(jo doesn’t read his fics, but she has mutuals who are into Twilight and have read them, so she has heard about the fics in detail from them. she doesn’t put two and two together until she meets Guy and immediately is like “hey wait” and the secret is out but still between the two of them -specs)

John- The Argeneau Series (its vampires but they made it scientific and actually gave answers for why vampires do and require certain things instead of just leaving it down to “idk man. magic or something.” its also not too well known or talked about, so no one has had a chance to ruin it yet. just like how john likes it.)

Kyle- The Lost Boys (comics nerds have to fight vampires and look into comic books to find the answers. home alone with vampire fighting mechanics. need i say more?)(ketchup has never seen this before ever)

Jess- The Mortal Instruments/Shadowhunters (the series focuses more on the angelic and demonic than the vampires themselves, but they still play a large role in it. She believes Raphael deserved better and thinks its funny that the main vampire character is named Simon.)(the movie does not exist.)

Simon- Buffy the Vampire Slayer (fuck Joss Whedon but Buffy. he liked some parts of the show and hated others but thought it was a very interesting interpretations of an American high school.)

Jo- Castlevania (it is not anime but it is the closest western media will get to that. western animation can do things good too! -specs)(as soon as specs mentioned this, i went oooooooooooh *eyes emoji* bc i love the first two seasons sooo much -ketchup)(also yayyyyy video game series!!)

Keli- Dracula das Musical (she accidentally found it through the Korean version of Zu Ende with the redheaded Dracula on youtube and then watched a subtitled recording of it and fell in love. She likes all the versions of it that are not in English, but the German one is her favorite)(this is ketchups favorite musical)

Alan- Nosferatu (1922) (it is the vampire movie of all time and even though its corny as all get out, he likes the simplicity of it as well as the staying power it had through the depression and the world war. its also just a really hilariously stupid adaptation of Dracula.)

Carol- Vampire Academy (she can and will go on hours long rants about various things in the series. Hal has never read the books, but he did watch the movie on his own time so he could better understand her rants but that just made Carol more angry. the movie does not exist. Hal can still have a conversation with even the most dedicated of readers about the series based on what he has absorbed through osmosis from Carol.)(in this scenario specs is Hal and me and our roommate are both Carol. as this was typed, specs and i had a conversation about the plot in vampire academy lol -ketchup)

Kilowog- Hotel Transylvania (Keli showed it to him while deviously grinning in the corner, a grinch smile on her face bc she was determined to get the big tough alien into the most memeable animated vampire media ever. ‘wog doesn’t get it and ends up dealing psychic damage to the rest fo the earth lanterns when he says its his favorite of the Terran media they show him)

Razer- Blade (he likes knives so he likes the name. also. Blade is a vampire who fights other vampires and Razer is a red lantern who fights other red lanterns. it fits.)

Thaal- Bram Stoker’s Dracula (1992) (theres a weird monsterfucking scene that kept ketchup from watching it the first time they tried. Thaal would get a kick out of it because hes a kinky motherfucker, as well as the stupid butt wig. seriously wtf is up with the butt wig. its so stupid)

B’dg- Count Chocula cereal boxes (his preferred form of media is staring at cardboard boxes. he finds them very entertaining.)

Helen- Cirque du Freak (specifically the manga adaptation)(she 100% convinced Hal to dress up as Larten Crepsley so she could dress up as Darren for Halloween one year, and this series singlehandedly got her over her fear of spiders)(if you haven’t read the graphic novels they’re so good i promise -ketchup)

[spider-xan]

Also someone, who is not part of DD fandom, recently did a great breakdown of how often Mina and Dracula are mutually into each other romantically in films and TV, it turned out there were only 3 (!!!) times when Mina was romantically into Dracula and he was romantically into her – 1979 and 1992 films, 2013 TV series. Out of gazillions of screen adaptations! Yet those parts of DD fandom act like it’s always the case with every single adaptation ever and try to act like victims! Idk why they lie

Yeah, like, I don't like the Mina/Dracula romance that gets added to adaptations either, and I understand the frustration with how it has taken over pop culture to the point where people who have not read the novel, which is most people, think it's a core part of the story, if not the entire story, but you're right that it's not as prevalent as the fandom makes it out to be - and tbh I like what one person said about how at this point, Dracula is its own cinematic phenomenon separate from the novel and has its own tropes and traditions where adaptations are in conversation with each other, in which case, I think it's less frustrating to embrace that idea instead of acting like these adaptations are persecuting the book fandom lol - which isn't to say you can't dislike or criticize them, but I think it's good to have some emotional distance and not take things personally, as well as being able to analyze and critique things in a greater historical and cultural context.

Also, I have noticed that it's not uncommon among Victorian lit fandoms to not actually watch or even at least research adaptations before criticizing them, but to go off second hand accounts that are often not correct and then it turns into everyone in the fandom mindlessly parroting each other - like, this happened with the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen comics where there is indeed much to criticize and I have done so many times myself, but most of the Dracula fandom just repeats the same complaints that are largely not true or barely an issue compared to the actual problems (not sorry, but Muslim Arab men being portrayed as violent rapists terrorizing white women is a much bigger problem than the comic saying a mean thing about a white boy who doesn't even appear in the comic), just bc some popular fans who didn't even do basic research said so; and then you have the Jekyll and Hyde fandom complaining that every film adaptation ever has Hyde as the Hulk when it's a grand total of two silly camp crossover movies in the early 2000s that no one takes seriously and are on the obscure side; I think a lot of book readers just have a weird persecution complex at this point tbh lol

[gellavonhamster]

monthly media recap: january 2023

(taking a page from @robertcapajpg‘s book)

read:

Ruby Slippers, Golden Tears (ed. Ellen Datlow & Terri Windling) - a 1996 anthology of short stories based on fairy tales. Many works seemed to me lacking something (and many I didn't like at all), but there were also several stories I really enjoyed, especially towards the end. Favourites include: The Fox Wife by Ellen Steiber, The Traveler and the Tale by Jane Yolen, The Printer's Daughter by Delia Sherman, The Emperor Who Had Never Seen a Dragon by John Brunner, Roach in Loafers by Roberta Lannes (yep, the last one is Puss-in-Boots but with a cockroach, and in modern-day New York)

Issues 4-6 of the Hellebore zine - I am honestly planning to order and read all currently existing issues over the course of this year, because the articles are really interesting - folk horror, archaeology, history, literature, and the intersection of all of these - and the art is beautiful. Also, I didn’t even pay for the first issue in the end, because I ordered it in October and by the very late December I was sure it got lost in the post, so I wrote to the store for a refund, and then the package came after all, I wrote to the store again asking how to return the money back to them, and they said that since the delivery took so long, I could keep it... if it was a clever plan to acquire another regular reader, then it totally worked, haha

The Stolen Heir by Holly Black - good! As always, love how Black paints the faerie world in all its whimsy and violence. I posted some of my thoughts on this book here.

Hell Bent by Leigh Bardugo - I liked Ninth House, but I kinda forgot it existed and also forgot approximately 2/3 of the plot, so I certainly didn't expect to enjoy the sequel as much as I did! It's been a while since I stayed up late reading like that. I am once again pretty indifferent towards the main pairing, but friendships and teamwork and characters seeing and accepting each other's vulnerabilities and past sins really moved me. Also, loved the helpful ghosts and unexpected [other mythical creatures, spoiler]

+ I am also still making my way through Lancelot-Grail/the Vulgate Cycle; in January I read Part II and III of Lancelot, as well as The History of the Holy Grail (this one I mostly just skimmed through, quite frankly, sometimes skipping a page or two where someone’s just, like, praying or preaching for a very long time. I am probably not very smart and definitely not religious enough for this)

watched:

The Musketeers (s1-3, 2014–2016) - well, you know, what with me obnoxiously reblogging gifs of it, lol. First things first, this is not an accurate adaptation of Dumas's novel, it's a very ahistorical procedural/western combo set in the 17th century France, and it fucking rules. I mean, swashbuckling adventures, the Power of Friendship™, women in stays and corsets, men in those puffy pirate shirts sluttily undone. Catering to my tastes personally. Season 3 was not as good as the first two, but what you're gonna do

Glass Onion (2022) - I think I enjoyed Knives Out more, but this one also was a lot of fun! Guessed some plot twists, but some were a total surprise to me. Love how the pandemic was integrated into the plot and characterization (e.g., a mesh mask says it all)

El vampiro (1957) - a Mexican horror film about a family targeted by a vampire that covets their estate. Very obviously influenced by the 1931 Dracula and weirdly cute in the way old horror often is (must be the toy bats on strings, though here could also be the romance).

The Field Guide to Evil (2018) - a horror anthology based on myth and folklore from around the world. The first two stories set a strong beginning, but then most of them (except the second-to-last, though the last one also is worth mentioning for being perfectly stylized after the classic silent films alone) fail to do something truly interesting with what they’re based on, in my opinion.

[shytulipghost]

Hello, this is the follow-up to the Dracula Analog Horror vs ARG poll. I promised that I would explain the possible pros and cons of both formats, so here we go:

NOTE: I won't explicitly give any spoilers, but proceed with caution just in case.

PART 1: A Dracula-inspired ARG

PROS:

It would have a similar structure to the book: So we know the book compiles journal entries, audio recordings and letters, right? Well, in this modern adaptation, the characters could have YouTube, Twitter, Tumblr accounts or whatever fits best with their personalities. For reference, Marble Hornets uploaded their content in three different accounts: their main YouTube channel, the totheark channel and their Twitter page. Besides videos, there could also be photos and chat messages. Jonathan could record the first entries on his phone, for instance.

It would be similar to Dracula Daily: the cast would post the content on the exact dates, so there would be suspense when viewers don't get any new entries.

It would be more immersive: the cast would be like "This is totally happening in real time, guys".

CONS

People who dislike unreality for mental health reasons may find this format problematic: I think this would be more of a problem if A) the viewer knew nothing about the novel and watched the series completely blind, B) the creator changed all the characters' names, or C) the special effects were convincing. If anyone struggles with this, feel free to give your thoughts on the matter.

How would Jonathan upload the first entries on YouTube?: Since Dracula doesn't want Jonathan to have contact with the outside world, it wouldn't make sense for him to have WiFi in his castle. Would he even know what the Internet is? Speaking of the Internet, I think Dracula should have zero knowledge about it or else there would be more plotholes, especially in the final chapters.

Why would Seward upload things showing tragic moments?: I can't go into detail because of spoilers, but it would be disrespectful to the person involved if he did that (If I were in that situation, I would be angry if someone started recording me as I'm suffering). One could argue that, instead of uploading a video, he could tweet something like: "Unfortunately, this happened today". But then, how does the creator show the weird thing that happens prior to that tragic scene? Remember that showing is better than telling, especially in horror.

On a technical aspect, it would be a mess: While some people might enjoy the challenge of finding the entries themselves, how is the audience supposed to know when the ARG starts? The point of an ARG is to convince people that it's real, so the creator can't say on their page: "Hey guys, the ARG starts next week. Content warning: blah, blah, blah...". Also, what if the audience never finds one of the character's entries.

PART 2: A Dracula-inspired Analog Horror series

PROS:

It would make sense for Seward's entries: it would be unprofessional for him to start a podcast to talk badly about one of his patients. So a better idea would be to show his entries as footage from a security camera in Renfield's room. The video description would be something like: "This is leaked footage from the psychiatric hospital".

It would make sense for the entries related to Lucy: Maybe I or someone else can develop this point further on September/October.

All the character entries can be found in one Youtube channel: Instead of going to several social media pages or websites to find all the entries, the viewer could simply go to one site to follow the whole story. The entries could be uploaded in the same order as the book.

It would solve the plothole mentioned in the previous section: Without going into spoilers, the epistolary format of the novel becomes more relevant in the plot. An in-universe explanation for the existence of the channel would be that [MAIN CHARACTER] created the account to show the videos Jonathan recorded during his trip and also share what happened to the rest of the cast. In other words, the series would technically start in media res.

CONS:

The creator would have to come up with new powers for Dracula (this applies to the ARG version as well): If the creator just gives Dracula the powers he has in the book, the audience would go "Oh, it's just a normal vampire. It's not that scary". I think the creator could look up vampire myths/folklore and focus on the powers that pop culture doesn't mention. That would add more mystery and creepiness.

The first entries would not be uploaded on the exact dates: the footage can say 03/05/202X (I'm not American, so it's day/month/year) in the corner of the screen, but it's not the same.

Well, those are all the points I could think of. Feel free to reblog if you want to add another point in favour or against ARG/analog horror.

[beevean]

I see where you're coming from regarding Richter's arc needing to be changed due to Dracula no longer being a part of it, but I feel like that doesn't give the writers any excuse to do something completely unrecognizable. Yes, Dracula can't be the presence he was in Richter's life, but you can still adjust and tweak Richter's character so that instead of wondering what he'll do after Dracula is defeated, his mindset is instead applied to just vampires and monsters in general.

Have Richter believe that the only thing he's good for is being the hero who slays monsters, and being scared about what will happen if he doesn't have that anymore; Have monsters dwindle in numbers because of Richter's efforts. You've watched Steven Universe, so you're probably familiar with a protagonist with a similar struggle, someone who needs to be needed. Make Richter someone who came back from the war and is expected to just settle down with a regular life, and forget everything that happened.

My point being; Netflixvania's writers could've still adapted most of Richter's arc and character, or just the main points of it. Netflix Richter could've still resembled his game counterpart somewhat. But they just totally erased all of that hotshot confidence that made the juxtaposition of his insecurity so much more compelling. I've heard the Deats brothers have claimed to play the games and loved them, but they sure have a funny way of showing that love. They feel like fans of Castlevania in a very shallow sense; In the way some fans only engage with the basic surface of the series, and fail to understand what made it so compelling when they write their own bad fanfic. There's not even a fucking wyvern.

Oh I'm not excusing them one bit, far from me :) I just explained the likely thought process that has lead the new writer to come up with something that has nothing to do with the games :)

(although I don't think he has watched the old show in detail to respect what it had established. am I right, crosses that suddenly burn vampires?)

Now, to be more fair than I really should be, when that infamous image of Annette calling Richter "fucking useless" started to circulate, Sam Deats expressed his disappointment. And I still find they way he did it distasteful, and he didn't address the core problem that the fandom was calling out. But he did mention that he plans to give Richter an arc about being burdened by his legacy.

The problem is that I still have no idea how this arc will be integrated because the Belmonts have no legacy in the show. Trevor didn't kill Dracula! Juste apparently didn't do jack shit and let himself go after Lydie and Maxim's deaths! Simon is still MIA (and good for him)! And from what I've seen nothing so far has hinted at Richter feeling anything towards his heritage as a whole - since you mentioned SU, the conflict of Steven feeling like he can't measure up to his amazing mom was introduced in S1, because Steven's ever-developing feelings about Rose and what she said about him were one of the cardinal themes of the show. What, is Richter's "I'm the last Belmont, I'm a vampire hunter, I kill vampires" supposed to convey his unhealthy attachment to his family creed?

but uh, the intention seems to be there? so i guess we'll have to see.

That being said, your idea is sound. I can picture Richter travelling around Europe killing demons, feeling an ever increasing sense of dread when he finally cleanses an area... as if he doesn't really want to let go... :)

[sleepymarmot]

Bram Stoker’s Dracula (1992)

[Rewatched on May 21st]

Bram Stoker’s Dracula is one of the films that I watched perhaps a bit too young, and my teenage self was quite impressed by it. The vague but fond memories lingered until last year, when I participated in Dracula Daily and realized what this adaptation had done to the characters and storylines from the book. At first I wanted to rewatch it, but I didn’t want to spoil the novel for myself with whatever this adaptation did get right; then, the deeper into summer and autumn, the more I was repulsed by what I remembered of its portrayals of Lucy and Mina. Now enough time has passed that the impressions of my first reading feel distant enough for me to stomach whatever crimes this adaptation has committed, and the new round of Dracula Daily has reminded me of my plans to rewatch this through a new lens.

[Warning: spoilers for the movie and the book]

Well… my impressions are about the same as I expected. The only thing that surprised me was that I underestimated the level of character assassination involved. Lucy and Mina got the worst of it, but pretty much everyone’s personality and motivations are sanded down to the most superficial characteristics and dragged through dirt. Jonathan and Mina(!) don’t have any personality left whatsoever. The less said of poor Lucy, the better. The way this 1992 film is by far more misogynistic than the 1897 novel is absolutely astonishing. The film’s internal system of values is completely incoherent (as opposed to the novel, where it was very clear even if obviously dated). The story keeps switching back and forth between “edgy smutfic that has little to no basis in the novel” and “abridged adaptation that proudly insists on bringing up minor characters and events for a minute or two” which leads to the extreme inconsistency of the narrative and especially Mina’s character. All of the tense and suspenseful parts of the novel are galloped through at a breakneck pace that drains them of all emotion.

I guess I did watch it at the right age after all; as a teenager randomly catching this on TV I was susceptible to all the dramatic romance and sucking blood from the chest and whatnot, but as an adult who has read the novel this is unwatchable. Even worse is seeing people call this a faithful adaptation. If you think the novel is too bland and want to do your own thing that’s fine, but why drag Bramothy’s name and characters into it then?! This could have been either a decent gothic romance or a passable Dracula adaptation, and by trying to do both (and also due to their staggering misogyny and love for victim-blaming) the director and the writer achieved neither.

An extremely frustrating thing is that “loving someone who became a vampire, and being willing to follow them into undeath” is compelling, and it didn’t come out of nowhere! Mina’s compassion for Dracula and identification with his plight, and Jonathan’s devotion to Mina even at the cost of their souls is a potent but underdeveloped part of the novel that I would love to see elaborated on in an adaptation! In the film Jonathan is even allowed to keep two whole lines that gesture at these conflicts! But instead of simply turning this aspect of the Mina/Jonathan relationship up to eleven, the screenwriter cuts and pastes it into the Mina/Dracula relationship without adjusting the rest of the story accordingly. There’s also something that is present in the novel and removed from the movie even though it would have helped make Mina/Dracula more believable. In the novel, vampiric transformation completely changes one’s personality. This serves as a major source of horror and raises questions like: can the vampire version of your loved one be considered the same person? would you kill their vampire self to release the real one? shouldn’t any vampire, no matter how vile, deserve compassion on behalf of their original self? Under this interpretation, it would have made sense for Dracula’s wife who only knew him pre-vampirism to continue loving him even as a vampire. But in the movie, vampirism only makes people more sexual and aggressive, and otherwise there is little change: Lucy is shallow and vulgar even before being turned; Mina loves Dracula and wants to be with him even before being turned; as for Dracula himself, the narration describes his atrocities but doesn’t specify whether he committed him as a human or a vampire. This is a huge disservice to all characters involved, and to the entire story.

Congratulations to the costume designer and the cinematographer for being the only people to do a decent job in this bloody circus. Gary Oldman and Keanu Reeves look nice but that doesn’t help much when the script messes up their characters so badly.

Current rating: 6/10 for the visuals and the parts of the story I actually like. Might lower it later.

---

Liveblog / notes about specific scenes

As much as I hate to see Dracula/“Mina”, good for him for turning against the church that declared his beloved damned. Giving him Jonathan’s traits right within the first five minutes, huh. The bleeding cross is pretty silly, though.

Hilarious to see the title “Bram Stoker’s Dracula” after this intro that completely goes against the letter and spirit of the book.

Huh, Renfield is serving him already?.. LMAO they merged Renfield with Jonathan’s employer! That explains it. A pretty fun choice, actually.

I don’t think I’ve mentioned this, but I’ve always continued to picture Jonathan like Keanu Reeves in this movie, throughout the whole book. No good acting or chemistry found in the first scene with Jonathan and Mina, unfortunately.

The typewriter! She types so slowly though lmao.

Woow the carriage scene completely misses the point of the original. Why is the driver not trying to save Jonathan? What does “For the dead travel fast” even mean when you don’t have Dracula arriving earlier than the humans hoped?

Not a fan of Dracula brandishing a sword at Jonathan straight away.

Love the giant London map. And Dracula’s misplaced shadow, lol.

“They say you are a man of good… taste.”

Um, they pulled this diary entry about Jonathan not wanting Mina to be spoiled out of their asses, right??

Why does Mina have a random book with smutty images on her desk and also act scandalized about it aloud when she’s alone?

How old are Mina and Lucy supposed to be? They act like they’re fourteen or something… They’re of marriageable age, surely they know what it entails!

I didn’t know how good I had it during the Dracula-Jonathan section. It’s truly painful to watch the character assassination of everyone involved.

Wow, Lucy says her dumb innuendo (an invention of the script, obviously), then Quincey immediately calls her “little girl” (as in the novel) not even half a second later. That was certainly a choice.

Jack comically tripping and falling is the only good thing about this scene.

I’m sorry why does Renfield’s asylum look like THAT?!

“A foul bauble of man’s vanity!” He said the thing!

Just as I was about to type “Where’s the Lizard Fashion?”, here it was.

Is it supposed to look hilarious when one of the three weed smoking girlfriends rises from between Jonathan’s legs? Because it was hilarious.

Oh good point actually; did Jonathan in the novel leave the crucifix at his bed instead of wearing it?

The staging of the three vampires’ scene and a hard cut to Jonathan calling himself “faithful” in the letter… The film positively hates him.

On the other hand, the film not only adds sex to Dracula feeding on Lucy, but very pointedly specifies that it was not consensual. What was the intention here? “Punish” her for being “promiscuous” in the interactions with the three suitors?

What in the award season red carpet is this dress

Mina as a title-seeker who is jealous of Lucy and her fiancé and immediately becomes interested in Dracula when he says he’s a prince — pray tell, which part of the novel is this supposedly based on? That’s right, you pulled this disgusting slander right out of your ass.

Of course the suitors talk about Lucy in a rude way and dismiss her illness. And Arthur has a pervy smile on his face as he watches the sick Lucy. This film is determined on character assassination for absolutely everyone involved.

I admit, I still think “I have crossed oceans of time to find you” is a good line.

Cute fluffy doggy :3

Cute fluffy bat :3

Van Helsing saying “My god, she’s only a child” as the camera severely oversexualizes Lucy is also a choice, see above.

“Don’t worry about spoiled little Lucy” — this is the first in-character thing that Lucy has said. 1 hour 12 minutes into the movie.

“Perhaps, though I try to be good, I am bad.” Great dialogue writing here. /s

“A bitch of the devil, a whore of darkness” I hate this movie as much as this movie hates women.

“She is a willing recruit, a breathless follower, a wanton follower.” Wait, no, it would be impossible to match this script’s misogyny, actually.

Absolutely reprehensible how this movie has the female victim herself specify that what happened to her was against her will, then has a male character waltz in and state that she “asked for it” anyway, and the narrative seems to side with him. Rape culture on steroids.

They just completely skipped past the entire “Mina learns what happened to Jonathan and types up the first half of the novel”… Why did they even show the typewriter then?

Men will read a scene in which a woman is semi-metaphorically raped and think “yes I will turn this into a romantic scene in which the woman confesses her undying love and declares her intent to be together forever”

God, I remember how betrayed I felt last autumn when I reached October 3rd in the novel and realized that the scene I found romantic and sensual as a teenager was based on that… And on rewatch, even without taking the novel into consideration, the film’s version doesn’t make internal sense. When Mina started weakly punching Dracula it looked so unserious that at first I thought she was playfighting, not reacting to the revelation that her lover had raped and murdered her best friend and imprisoned her husband.

It’s also notable that the film adds several rape scenes that weren’t in the book, but throws out the rape scene that was in the book. I interpret this as the creators confessing that they don’t seriously care about turning the “vampirism = sexual violence” subtext into text, and everything the movie did to Lucy exists because they thought it was hot and wanted the viewers to find it hot too. Absolutely vile.

Why does Mina cry “Unclean! Unclean!” in this version if it was her idea… Or was that supposed to be mind control as well, even though Dracula was arguing with her?

(Unexpected addition to my yonic wound list though)

Spent all this time thinking that at least van Helsing remained in character (except for the misogyny), and now he’s making out with Mina.

The final scene in the chapel was surprisingly good, all things considered. “Mina” tenderly kissing the bloodied lips on Dracula’s monstrous face still works for me. And she looks her best with her hair down.

So what is supposed to happen after this? In this version, Jonathan is mediocre, and Mina doesn’t love him as much as she loved Dracula — does she just go back to him for a loveless marriage?

[picklepie888]

My Personal Ranking of Every Dracula Adaptation I've Watched/Listened To Since Dracula Daily

(Warning: spoilers under the cut)

So since I've started reading Dracula for the first time via Dracula Daily, I have over the past few months watched three movies and two podcast/audio plays of Dracula. The three films I've watched are the 1931 film starring Bela Logosi, the 1958 film starring Christopher Lee, and the 1979 film. The audio versions were the Mercury Theatre radio play starring Orson Welles, and the podcast Murray Mysteries by Knöve's Storytelling. These five Dracula adaptations had varying degrees of quality, and now having completely finished reading the original story I can now make a definite ranking of them based on book accuracy. Without further ado, let's sink our teeth into the content.

5. Dracula (1979)

Differences from the book

Jonathan's saga at Drac's castle is completely skipped over and the film begins with the Demeter crashing

Lucy and Mina's names are swapped in this film. So the girl who Dracula drains to death is named Mina and Lucy is Jonathan's fiancee. I looked it up later and apparently the director just thought that 'Lucy' was a better name for a leading lady. Really stupid reason if you ask me, but whatever.

This is a very heavy Dracmina adaptation (or Draclucy in this case? IDK the girl he falls for is definetly meant to be Mina but with Lucy's name)

Both Quincey and Arthur are absent in this version

Renfield is sane at the beginning of the film and is shown interacting with the other characters before he descends into madness and ends up at Seward's asylum later

Dracula is a prominent character throughout and the characters interact with him regularly. Obviously Lucy (actually Mina) interacts with him the most (ugh)

Van Helsing and Seward are Mina and Lucy's fathers. And Seward is about the same age as Van Helsing, which I've noticed is pretty common in these adaptations

We never actually see Transylvania in this film

Lucy (Mina) becomes a full vampire at the film's climax

Van Helsing dies in the final confrontation, and Jonathan kills Drac via exposure to sunlight.

What I Liked

Starting with the things I liked about this movie, because there's not many. I like that Van Helsing and Jack Seward are friends in this version. The other two films I've seen didn't have the bond between these two characters which was a core part of the original story. I liked that they shared a good portion of their scenes together and they do act like two men who have known each other for a long time. I'll give this movie credit for getting this one thing right.

The cinematography is exquisite. The muted colors, the way the inside of Dracula's residence at Carfax is framed on camera, the eerie gothic aesthetic throughout the film is masterfully done. But pretty visuals don't make up for poor characterization.

Mr. Swales is in this version. He's only in two scenes, but I was still pleasently surprised to see him in an adaptation.

They did the Lizard Fashion™ scene.

What I Disliked

They absolutely massacred Mina's character. She was so unbearably hateable throughout the film. The narrative made it clear that she didn't give a crap about Jonathan, and she practically threw herself on Dracula the minute she saw him. There was also the scene where she tells all the men (yes including Jonathan) that she hated them for coming between her and Dracula. Can you imagine book!Mina ever saying such a thing to her beloved husband who was willing to damn himself for her?!?! And DO NOT get me started on the Baptism of Blood scene! The part of the story that's supposed to be a horrifying metaphor for rape is instead played out as an act of passion between two lovers. There's also no ambiguity here, Dracula and Mina just straight up have sex. And Mina loved every minute of it. Imagine someone made a film about a rape victim and framed their traumatic experience as a passionate love scene! I almost went into a fit of rage at this scene, it disgusted me to my core!

Jonathan is really bland in this film. The writers clearly decided to set his characterization aside so they could focus more on the spooky vampire vibes and the affair his fiancee has with the vampire. They didn't make him a bad guy, but I didn't feel anything but pity for him in this film. The only scene where he shows any other emotion aside from 'concerned husband' was when he got understandably jealous when Mina was flirting with Dracula and he called her out on it. Other than that, he doesn't show anywhere near as much passion for Mina as he does in the book.

There's a scene where Drac lizard crawls into Lucy's window, and when she sees him, she smiles and shows her neck to him. I didn't like this, because it implied she was giving consent for him to drink her, which again frames the victim on having some blame on what happens to her.

Dracula still brutally kills Renfield like in the book, but I didn't really understand why? I might of missed something when watching, but Renfield doesn't do anything to try to protect Mina in this version. Drac just teleports into the asylum, snaps Renfield like a twig, refused to eleborate, then kidnaps Mina.

Did not like this movie. Terrible adaptation and so many characters, especially the women, got screwed over in favor of framing a stupid 'forbidden love' narrative.

Rating: 0/5

4. Dracula (1931)

Differences from the book

Still no Arthur or Quincey

Lucy is in the film, but she only has maybe two minutes of screen time, and her arc never got a conclusion, she just stays a vampire forever I guess. They could've left her out of the film completely and it wouldn't change anything.

Seward is yet again an old man in this film, and he's Mina's father. He also doesn't have much of a relationship with Van Helsing, they act more like business partners than friends.

Renfield takes Jonathan's place in the beginning of the film as the solicitor who goes to Dracula's castle. The narrative frames his encounter as the reason he went insane.

Mina has nothing to do in this movie but be a passive damsel in distress. About 70% of her dialogue is her screaming her husband's name.

Jonathan is simply called 'John' in this version. Seward is never adressed by his first name, so there's no confusion.

Like in the 1979 movie, the characters regularly interact with Dracula throughout the film, and frame Van Helsing as the one guy who knows he's a vampire and has to prove it to everyone else.

Renfield also has way more scenes in this film than he did in the book.

The final confrontation takes place at Carfax, Drac kidnaps Mina, and he's killed by Van Helsing and Jonathan.

This version is more based off the play from the 20's rather than the actual novel. And you can kinda tell by the way the story is paced, and how the characters come into the sets.

What I Liked

Bela Logosi as Dracula and Dwight Frye as Renfield are both by far the most entertaining aspects of this film. Even though I think they both got more screen time than they should, I have to say they both pulled off their characters spectacularly. Especually Frye as Renfield; the way he was able to portray a mild-mannered solicitor and then a madman is incredible.

There's no musical score through out the film, which really adds to the creepy atmosphere. Especially for the scenes at the begining at Dracula's castle where there isn't much dialogue.

The sets are really cool! Dracula's castle in Transylvania looks enormous and all kinds of creepy, just as it was described in the novel.

There's no Dracmina in this version, and Jonathan and Mina actually care about each other!

What I Disliked

The pacing was really wonky. As I mentioned before, Lucy's whole story arc was just glossed over, she was dead almost as soon as she was introduced. And then they brought up that a woman that looks like her is going around kidnapping children, and then that issue's just...never brought up again for the rest of the film. So is she still a vampire? Did she die after Drac was killed? And her death had very little impact on the main characters, even Mina who is supposed to be her friend. The whole ordeal with Renfield at the castle and the Demeter was also over with within the first five minutes of the movie. I get that they could only fit so much of the story in an hour and a half film, but come on!

All of Mina's intelligence and agency she had in the novel is completely thrown out the window, and she's replaced by a sexist archetype that was shown in every horror movie in the thirties. She spends the majority of the movie screaming and crying and being under Drac's control. This version of Mina is still better than the 1979 on though. At least this one loves Jonathan.

Jonathan is still pretty bland. His whole personality is just 'concerned husband', and that's about the extent of it. We don't get to see his arc from a gentle Englishman to vengeful gremlin on the name of his wife like the og story. All of his feminine aspects is taken away too, and he basically just acts like the generic male hero with no moments of self doubt. I do appreciate that they kept the dedication to his wife though.

Van Helsing and Seward don't act like friends. In fact most of their interactions involve Van Helsing proposing an idea that vampires could exist and then Seward tells him he's full of crap. This goes back and forth until Mina starts to turn.

Several of the plot points happen offscreen and then is brought up later through dialogue by the characters. Namely Dracula's assualt on Mina.

Renfield died like a bitch in this version. He was crying and begging Dracula to spare his life, unlike in the novel, when he grabbed Dracula in his mist form and wrecked him in order to protect Mina. He still helps the heroes in this version, but it doesn't feel as genuine when he chickens out the minute Dracula threatens him.

Overall, not a great adaptation, but a decent movie on its own. It would have worked better if it had been a series of films, so that way they could have all the story arcs with more proper pacing. They still did Lucy and Mina dirty, and there's no justice for Arthur and Quincey.

Rating: 2/5

3. Dracula (AKA Horror of Dracula) (1958)

Differences from the book

Still no Quincey! Seriously, what does Hollywood have against the cowboy?? No Renfield either.

Jonathan dies at the beginning at Dracula's castle.

There's only one vampire bride, and Jonathan kills her at the start.

Arthur and Lucy are siblings in this version.

Mina and Lucy have also swapped fiancee's, but unlike in the 1979 version, they still have the same roles they had in the book. So Mina is married to Arthur, but Lucy still gets drained/turned into a vampire.

Both Jonathan and Seward are minor characters in this movie. Jonathan dies at the castle at the beginning, and Seward only appears in the scenes where Lucy is ill. For the most part, Arthur fills in the roles of all four men who aren't Van Helsing. So if you thought Arthur didn't have enough to do in the og story, he does literally everything in this version. Except one thing, which I'll get to in a moment.

Two new characters were made for this movie. Arthur and Mina's maid, who basically takes the role of Mrs. Westenra from the book, and the maid's daughter who becomes a victim of vampire Lucy.

Van Helsing is the one to kill vampire Lucy rather than Arthur.

Arthur kills Dracula in a physical showdown.

What I Liked

This was the first movie adaptation I saw with Arthur in it, and I liked that he has more of a role here, even more so than he had in the book. I just wish we didn't have to sacrifice the other male characters sans Van Helsing for it.

The scene where Bloofer Lady Lucy lures the maid's daughter away to the graveyard was legitametly disturbing. The way she talked to the girl reminded me of how adult predators tend to talk to children to get them to follow them. Really scary stuff.

Dracula himself shows up sparingly in this movie! Finally a film adaptation that understood that a part of the horror of Dracula is that he only shows himself when he wants to.

The Baptism of Blood scene is actually portrayed as a traumatic moment for Mina. She's terrified and clearly doesn't want what the Count does to her.

Christopher Lee made a pretty awesome Dracula, with the few scenes he's in. He nailed the mystery and creep vibes the Count had in the og story.

What I Disliked

This movie had Van Helsing stake vampire!Lucy while Arthur stood there and covered his eyes. I didn't like the direction they took with this scene, because Arthur killing Lucy was a pivotal part of his character arc in the book. At the very least, movie!Arthur makes up for it a bit when he kills Dracula in the ending.

I think making Arthur and Lucy siblings was a weird choice. Especially since they kept the scene from the book where vampire!Lucy tries to seduce Arthur with a kiss before Van Helsing stops them!! So there's some icky incenst undertones there because of that. I really don't get why so many Dracula films insist on making the characters related when none of them were in the book.

The main cast felt pretty empty without Jonathan, Jack, and Quincey. Again, since Arthur fills up all the other men's roles it felt like the cast was lacking, with the focus mostly being on just the two men (Art and Van Helsing).

Mina didn't have much to do in this film, although I did appreciate her devotion to both Arthur and Lucy. It was clear that she cares about them both. And there's no Dracmina thank God! Aside from that, she just kinda played the role of 'emotional support.'

There's a scene where after Van Helsing places the garlic flowers all over Lucy's room, she throws a fit and smashes one of the vases. She then has Arthur's maid get rid of all the flowers and open her windows, the very things Van Helsing instructed not to do. I get that this was probably because Drac hypnotized her, but again the narrative is kinda blaming Lucy for what happens to her. Plus the maid was kinda an idiot to listen to her and not the doctor who instructed her to keep the flowers there.

They made the final confrontation with Drac a big showdown, unlike how it was in the book. On the one hand, its much more dramatic, but Arthur was the only one who was really involved, as in the book where all the main characters had to defeat the Count via teamwork.

This was one of the better Dracula films I've seen so far. This one was more focused on the human characters (even though they got rid of half the cast), and they allowed Drac to be a mysterious monster rather than a typical villain. Again, I really liked Christopher Lee's take on the Count. I just wish they had at least kept Jonathan for the rest of the film.

Rating: 3/5

2. Mercury Theatre's Dracula (1938)

Differences from the book

No Quincey (again!)

Arthur and Jack are combined into one character (literally named Arthur Seward).

It's implied that Seward is the one who put all the journal entries together rather than Mina.

Mina and Lucy don't interact in this version, and Mina isn't introduced until after Lucy's death.

No Renfield or vampire brides.

There is minimal Dracmina, but it's all on Drac's side, and Mina doesn't reciprocate at all (thank God!)

Mina kills Dracula in the end!

What I Liked

Orson Welles might just be my favorite Dracula so far! He has such an incredible voice that is both mesmerizing and spinechilling. His take on Dracula will keep you awake for several nights.

Despite being the shortest adaptation I've seen so far (it's under an hour long), they somehow managed to get all the important plot points of the story, and it doesn't feel rushed or poorly paced.

The main focus is on the human characters, and the found family aspects from the original story are still there! Seward is still hopelessly devoted to his old professor, and Jonathan and Mina are in love and bound to each other.

There was no victim blaming for the female characters!

Mina got to kill the Count! After all these terrible film versions where she's been reduced to a screaming damsel or a promiscuous bitch, Mina finally got the justice she deserves!! I'm so glad Welles and his team understood that Mina's role in defeating the Count was just as important as the men's! I just wish later adaptations knew this!

What I Disliked

Mina and Lucy's friendship was left out of the narrative. I know this was probably to cut time to fit the hour-long timeslot, but their friendship was so important to the story.

It felt too short?! Again, I know they only had an hour to broadcast the story, but I felt like it could've gone on another thirty minutes at least. It was really good though, so that hour went by too fast for me.

As good as this version was, it still really could've used some vampire-hunting cowboy action.

This radio play came out in 1938, and somehow it understood the female characters better than most modern Dracula adaptations. The voice acting is great, the sound design is great, and Orson Welles nailed it as Dracula!

Rating: 4/5

1. Knöve's Storytelling's Murray Mysteries (2021)

Differences from the book

The characters have canon queer identities.

Jonathan is ace.

Mina is bi.

Lucy is pan.

Seward is a lesbian.

Art is nonbinary.

Van Helsing is implied to be aroace.

Seward and Van Helsing have both been genderswapped, and their first names have been changed to Jane and Abigail respectfully.

Arthur strictly goes by 'Art' and uses they/them pronouns.

Renfield is only refered by the initial 'R.'

The story takes place in the modern day, and the characters use modern technology and slang. Most of the characters use audio recordings rather than written diary entries.

Drac vapes and owns a cat.

The story starts with Mina and Lucy at Whitby, and we the audience don't get to know about Jonathan's encounter in Transylvania until Mina does, when she listens to Jonathan's audio diary.

Holmward becomes canon by the end.

Jonathan and Mina's roles are swapped in the final act, so Jonathan is the one Drac violates and is slowly turning into a vampire, and Mina is the one who goes feral for her hubby.

Jonathan and Mina have a dog in the epilogue rather than a son.

Quincey gets to live!!!

What I Liked

This is the most faithful adaptation I've seen by far! All the important story beats are there, as are the character dynamics! This is the first adaptation I've seen that has all the main cast, and they work wonderfully together!

This one has Quincey!!! And he has the best lines in the whole show! Seriously, they took his himboness from the book and dialed it up to 11! It's magnificent! And they included the iconic bat shooting scene!

The idea to have Dracula as a podcast spread out through multiple episodes was a brilliant idea! They were able to pace the story the way it should, we get to spend time with every character and really get to know each of them, and the whole 'found footage' aspect this podcast has was a stroke of genius!

All the voice actors have amazing chemistry together. If you watch any of the BTS videos, you'll see that almost all of them are friends IRL, which adds to their performance here. I especially love Mina and Lucy's interactions, they really do feel like they've been best friends forever.

The team makes the decision to leave Jonathan out of the vampire hunt due to his trauma, unlike the og story where they left out Mina because she was a woman. This makes more sense considering the changed time period, and it's less misogyny BS we have to deal with. It also gave us unhinged vengeful Mina, which I greatly appreciate.

The scene where Jonathan tries to get Mina to promise she'll kill him if he turns is so heartwrenching! I swear, the VAs got me screaming crying and throwing up at how regretful, angry, desperate, and terrified they both sounded at the same time! God all the emotions were on point!

Dracula himself only appears for about three episodes in this series, which was all we really needed of him. Almost all the focus was on the human characters, which was as it should be.

What I Disliked

Dracula and Van Helsing don't have accents. I know this is supposed to be a more serious adaptation, and the VAs attempting to do accents that aren't natural to them may come off as unintentionally goofy, but still it didn't feel quite as authentic to the characters. Van Helsing was already pretty goofy enough as a character, it wouldn't have felt out of place if they had kept her Dutchness. Dracula also sounds like Just Some Guy, which is actually kinda hilarious after all these adaptations that try so hard to be over the top villains with foreign accents.

There are some areas in the story where I thought they were a little *too* faithful to the book. Namely the relationship between Seward and Renfield. Granted, it's not quite as bad as it was in the book, but it's still not great either.

This was definetly the best Dracula adaptation, and I don't know how anything else could top it! Maybe if we get a fully fledged TV series some day that's faithful to the book, but for now this podcast is just the best! Great writing! Great voice acting! The whole series is on YouTube, please go listen to it!

Rating: 5/5