Okay I remember people saying I was making assumptions by talking about a second series, when yes, both main characters die at the end of it which would in theory rule it out (despite the fact, um, y'know...its Dracula) Dear said people: I will just leave this article here: www.digitalspy.com/tv/a34489559/dracula-season-2-update-claes-bang/
I will just forever be pissed that I body doubled for Lucy's monster scenes in the last episode and didn't even get a bloody credit. Full body prosthetics are HOT
I do like Claes Bang's version of Dracula. He can switch between elegant gentleman, sadistic killer, and horrifying monster in a split second, and it always feels like the same character.
I do think the show is at its best in the first two episodes, where it is very much a Hammer style horror film, it's campy, scary and just pure fun. Bringing it to the present and introducing all these new ideas really, REALLY, hurts the show and as you said, makes it feel like its a completely different show. There really wasn't any real need to bring it to modern day, you could have ended the second episode with Dracula rising out of the water onto Britain and continuing on down, and then showing Van Helsing following suit, who has returned as a member of the undead, but is on a mission to make sure Dracula dies. Hell you could follow a similar plotline as the third episode does, except it's the 19th century, and Dracula is doing all of this because he really likes to do it. He doesn't even need a motivation, he's fucking Dracula! Overall it is a fun show, especially the second episode on the boat, but man was there so much missed opportunity.
Its a telling sign of modern Dracula's struggling relevance when the most notable recent media with him I can recall getting any actual attention is the Castlevania animated series. And its saying something when it takes the adaptation of a video game series to get audiences to care about you.
They hit the nail on the head here Dracula is scary sex man of the old days. These days we have nothing to fear because the only off putting thing about Dracula now is the vampire side, and truth be told the vampire is also suffering from this issue in the first place so no wonder its difficult to get Dracula right when hes the poster boy for old fears.
Not to sound like the absolute contrarian in this comment section but the more I rewatch that series the more I dread for season 4. I realised the writers want to rip off game of thrones than actually adapt the castlevania games.
@@LordVader1094 I realised that when I read an interview where the writers said they excluded grant and other characters because "there are already too many characters we have to cut some." When they have been inserting a shit ton of original characters when the characters from the games or other lore could serve the same purpose. Instead of the vampire Olrox who despite his minor appearances has remained a fan favorite we get fucking Godbrand a stereotypical viking "who likes boats". I also question the descision to introduce lesbian vampires in season 3 and make Carmilla the OG lesbian vampire straight. Also Lisa Tepes being in fucking hell makes zero sense and hints that Dracula does not wish to return to have his vengeance which is the whole plot of the entire series.
I think there is room in the modern age for a notable Dracula adaptation, what about a modern adaptation where he is a seedy businessman who's castle is a weird office block in some corner of the states rather than Romania, but the rest of the plot is kept including him coming over to London.
That's make a lot of sense since the original Dracula was an allegory for the aristocratic rich "draining" the poor. A business man is basically the modern day equivalent.
I feel like it could work if you do two key things, which is not tell anyone that it's specifically a vampire movie and also not tell anyone that it's Dracula. You can't tell the story of Dracula and expect it to have the same effect as a regular horror film because it's one of those stories where everyone knows the twist already + a century of pop culture on top of that. To a degree, you can't make Dracula in a world that already has Dracula.
FRIEND: They made a ‘Dracula’ film in 1979. ME: Oh. FRIEND: It stars Frank Langella as Dracula. ME: OK. FRIEND: With Laurence Olivier as Van Helsing. ME: I see. FRIEND: Oh, and Sylvester McCoy has a minor role. ME: *We’re watching this film right now*
Tbh I found the film to be lackluster to what it was hyped up to be. It's a decent adaptation but it still veers far too much from the book to my liking.
Enrique Dueñas completely agree, loved the first episode thought the second was perfectly ok, and almost turned the third off but hoped it’d get better
Surprisingly the most successful Dracula related media after the Gary Oldman Dracula film were the Hellsing anime, where Dracula is a protagonist and Castlevania where he doesn't appear much because he's the final antagonist.
I would argue that Seras is the protagonist. She is literally the first character we see in the manga. She goes through adversity and growth while Alucard steals the spotlight and remains pretty static throughout the series.
@@EmilyDickmesome tbh I hate the abridged fans more than anything. Can't talk about the series without some dumbshit bringing it up or qouting it. Half of them haven't even seen the actual series.
The actor for the nun Van Helsing was awesome. For *once* I'm not cringing at the Moffat quips! She sells it, just like Capaldi! Maybe it's the lack of RP...
I liked it, yes even episode 3. I loved the detail about the blood giving Dracula memories and knowledge, that was a very neat take on the vampire mythos. Though I wasn't a fan of the "surprise" at the end, it felt cheap and completely nullified a key charictaristic of every vampire.
Personally, I think the biggest flaw of ‘Dark Compass’ is that it has a severe identity crisis. Does the time jump radically alter the story, or does it just make it a modern-style retelling? Is it supposed to conclude Dracula’s story, or is it the beginning of a new series? Frankly, it doesn’t seem like Moffat or Gatiss knew either.
My main contention with episode 3 is not how they time-jumped 100-and-odd years, but how they substituted Agatha - a character we had come to love over the previous episodes and who shared an intriguing relationship with Dracula built up over 2 hours of television - with Zoe, who has none of the same personal connection with the Count and therefore creates a vacuum of actual conflict in the final chapter. Yes, it's still Dolly Wells, but it's not Agatha. It's her descendent. The established foil to Dracula is removed entirely and abruptly for no reason, and that just killed the series for me. There is no reason Agatha could not have lived through to the 21st century. She was practically undead at the end of episode 2 and knowing she had deep knowledge of vampirism surely could've conceived herself a way of achieving Dracula's immortality. But no. Instead here's another character instead to push the reset button on the series' central bloody conflict.
@@menkomonty and you know that because of that one "why Sherlock was bad" video. That's the only reason people know about it. (that video was pretty bad)
@@hummens44 The story was dumb as hell but the jekyll actor was pretty entertaining to watch, for a few episodes until the plot derailed the character to have him fight some paramilitary group over some love interest.
Got really sick of ‘sympathetic’ Draculas. Castlevania has nothing to do with Dracula outside of names anyway although some of the games are pretty damn good.
The 2006 Dracula's a weird one - all the press releases say BBC, and I remember watching it on BBC4 I think, but the DVD was handled by ITV for some reason. It says on the wikipedia it was made by Granada studios, which is ITV, so I'm guessing it got sold to the BBC for some reason
@@FluffyBunniesOnFire It's okay to experiment... as long as at least one adaptation remains faithful. In fact, making a faithful adaptation of Dracula would be the most unique and fresh thing you could do with the IP right now, ironically.
I liked it. I think we just have to accept the fact that as brilliant as moffat and gatiss are, they leave this sort of trail behind with their writing where you can tell it's them and their knowledge of their own cleverness can overwhelm us.
People always shit on the Van Helsing movie with Hugh Jackman from the early 2000's but at least I can actually remember it. The only other vampire related media I can recall from the past two decades is Twilight and Supernatural.
The second episode was my favorite, and I personally loved the twist ending. Too bad they didn’t really stick the landing with how it played out in episode three. Personally, I see they point he’s making here, but I found Lucy’s character to be absolutely insufferable.
I feel like it’s weird to not mention the Netflix Original series Castlevania in the rundown of recent Dracula media at the start, which is unlike anything Moffat and Gatiss have ever done in that it’s actually a good series. Yeah
I'm surprised you didn't mention the ending with Helsing's final psychological analysis that Dracula's fear of sunlight is just a traumatic reaction to something in his past memory. Dracula's decision to commit suicide.
I hate that there's some good in here. That's how the story is supposed to go isn't it? Moffat realises that he's not good at writing in someone else's shoes, (I.e. writing for a property he didn't create) and decides to create something original, I mean even if he borrowed ideas from his old work it would still be an improvement, as you said he reused that idea about the dead feeling pain through cremation and that's a really twisted idea that works well here. But now that this does have its great elements, what next? He gonna become the next Star Trek show runner? Is he going to revive his Coupled series? How about a modern take of Romeo and Juliet? I feel that one would be great for Moffat because it's a modern day adaption of a classic and because it's actually not an original concept in itself
A generous review and an enjoyable video, as always. Maybe I'm just getting more intolerant as I get older but I found it a struggle to get through the first two (mostly boring) episodes, which seemed to me crafted top to bottom in the deeply unfunny Moffat-Gatiss 'look-at-us-aren't-we-clever?' house style, and I bailed as soon as I saw the twist at the end of episode 2. Nothing I've heard about episode 3, including this review, encourages me to give it a poke. It's funny how once, a long time ago, the names Steven Moffat and Mark Gatiss would have stirred my enthusiasm for an upcoming show. Now, they induce anything on the spectrum from weariness through apathy to outright loathing, the latter especially when Gatiss's name appears in the writing credits. Whoever keeps commissioning him to pen ghost/horror-related fare must either be related or currently starring in incriminating photographs somewhere. PS Enjoying your current very productive run.
I have to admit I adored this series, I think Claes Bang played the part perfectly, Agatha Van Helsing was the most compelled I've been by the character since Peter Cushing, and considering I normally hate Dracula being done in the modern day, I quite liked the way this Dracula used blood to teach himself how the world and technology had evolved, etc...
@@madselmvig1457 How about how it was a story about a group of close friends overcoming an insurmountable evil through technology, faith and sacrifice. They cut out the faith bit all together, made it about modern social comments. They combined the characters arthur holmwood and Quincey morris and had that character be an footnote asshole character despite being major players in the plot. Don't get me started how the brits always cut out the American hero who sacrificed himself to kill Dracula. They yet again bastardised Abraham Van Helsing. I'm never going to get to see the kind-hearted and sensible old man who punches wolves in the face. It's filled with Moffat smug classic "clever characters" who go on about how clever eachother are for noticing some very obvious things like "huh if I'm in transylvania why am I getting this message in english?" "Oh you noticed that you are clever" . It was cute when he was writing a kids show meant for kids not here. In the book the character used their wits and while they did often compliment eachother it was for deeds that warranted it. Like when Mina compiled all the notes and relevant newspaper articles into a manuscript even typing up Sewards audio recordings. Van Helsing praised her to no end because it made their job so much easier. Is that elaborated enough for you because I can go on about adding in the modern day plotline, or how Moffatt and Gaitiss are smugly patting themselves on the back for making a vampire story involving homosexuality and women when they could have just saved themselves a lot of trouble and adapted the grandmother of vampire stories Carmilla which isn't in the public eye enough and has more room to be expanded upon. However in the interest of fairness I will say the effects and acting were superb. They did well with what they were given it's just a shame what they were given shits on the book it claims to adapt.
@@Usernamesdontmatter1 That was a lot of anger you had there. Glad you got that out, however I think you misunderstood the book, if you think that it is about a close group of friends. Quincy, Seward and Holmwood are rivals not close friends and Van Helsing only comes on behest of Seward (since Lucy is bitten) so he is no friend either, sure they become friends in the end but it is their trials that make them that. It is about faith and sacrifice, however that to some extend first and second episode is also. It is not until the last episode it goes a bit bonkers it is also in that episode I see you have the most gripe (Holmwood, Quincey and Mina), considering how many times american tv has removed non us characters from their shows, it hardly matters, since it has no impact on the ending anyway. Van Helsing was a bit of a surprise for me, I really liked van Helsing in the first two episodes, since it fit nicely into the story and gave Dracula a competent adversary, before getting to London, however I would have liked to see old van Helsing in London, if they had stayed in the old timeline. Didn't like the great grand daughter aspect, however liked the cancer twist. Since you are watching a tv show and not reading a book, you cannot present the thought pattern of a character, you have to have them express it somehow, in Sherlock they did a clever thing in episode one (with his thoughts popping up on screen, sadly they never really continued that, not that it would have worked in Dracula though). They took the book, and followed it, expanded on things that are not explained in the book (the monastery and the ship) and sadly went a bit Torchwood on episode 3. If you deside to go with the "attractive vampire" myth and you want your male vampire to bite men, then it will enter Homosexuality. The handsome vampire praying on men and women originate from Freudian id and Victorian sexual fears. Actually the homosexual aspect in this version is far closer to the original "version" of the Freudian vampire from the late 1900's than any other version.
When the modern-day reveal happened I could just imagine Moffat and Gatiss writing that and laughing at how clever they are. The third episode was jarring but I agree there were some really good scenes in there.
Did we really need another Dracula adaptation, not really, was it a travesty no, it was alright, it was entertaining, except the end but we didn’t really need it
Great review. On the whole I enjoyed this series for what it was. As a fan of the Hammer Dracula films, I appreciated the many references and callbacks. I audibly groaned when Dracula said 'anywhere you go, always take the weather with you' in episode 2 though. It was also pretty cringe-worthy watching Dracula ask for a wi-fi password in the third episode. There were quite a few 'head in hands' moments for me in third episode, and I really wish it hadn't made the time jump to the present. I enjoyed it for the most part though, and it was a nice thing to sit and watch as a family around the New Year
I just wanted epic vampire fights between Count Dracula and newly turned Sister Agatha whose on a mission to destroy him while also battling with the fact she’s also a vampire. Also Mina Harker should have actually been in it properly like she is in the book instead of th wasteful, throwaway character they turned her into.
I think rather than seeing this as an adaptation of the book its more a homage and adaptation to how Dracula has been done in cinema and tv over the years. There was even going to be a 70's set bit as homage to the 70's Dracula films. There are several visual homages to cinema Dracula through the ages throughout it, and the shift to modern day is also explained best within this context. I too found that shift it jarring on first view, as like you I was simply enjoying the gothic atmosphere, but on a second watch and on reflection and viewed as a homage to Dracula portrayals down the years it makes perfect sense and is fitting with what they seemed to be trying to achieve in that regard.
Mathieu Leader Yeah I guess, but it wouldn't make sense with the "rules" of the book-universe. He has to feed and with the sucking of others' vitality he logically becomes more "vital" and youthful himself. 🤷🏻♀️
I thought it wasn't great...it was clear that the last third of Episode 1 was just Moffat making it up as he went. Dracula's entire motivation is trying to get Jonathan as his wife, but he apparently stops caring because of a single conversation with the Dutch girl (who is a terrible actress btw, distractingly bad) and just murders Jonathan so he can get the Dutch girl.
Moffat is not the type of writer who makes stuff up as he goes. At least not in one season. Between seasons, he usually carries over one or two major plot points and makes the rest up when that season is actually getting produced, but within a single season he basically plans out everything. Otherwise his "look at how big brain I am" moments wouldn't be possible.
@@sinom In his one off stuff, he does it all the time. Check out Stu's review of Doctor Who's "Santa Claus" Christmas special, it's a good example of him just writing it as he goes.
Seems we pretty much agree, especially on stuff like making the castle episode one and the nunnery episode two, and the modern day stuff should have been a second series.
Great video! I'll definitely check Dracula out sometime soon then. Also check out the Hong Kong anthology series the Republic, basically the Chinese Black Mirror. Absolutely brilliant stuff!
Hey man - I don’t know if you’ll this but I’m really interested in how one would download Netflix films / TV shows to use in videos like you have with Dracula. I want to make my own review of the show and of others, but can’t find a good or free way of doing it. I would really appreciate the help.
I had to watch it, because I had to support my fellow Dane Claus Bang. He rocked. I’m proud! The last episode was like a really weird Sherlock fan fiction... Is it just me, or do Moffat and Gatiss just,,, suck (pun),,, at writing their last episodes?
So what's happened to the galaxy of Stephen Moffat's brain? Surely it has grown beyond the mere confines of a puny galaxy and has become it's own universe - NO - it's own dimension
Speaking of gore...have you seen Penny Dreadful yet? If not, it really is a must see! Amazing writing, incredible actors and intoxicating cinematography, with some stunning gore.
@@iain9757 Yeah, I'm aware. But there are plenty of us that are perfectly happy with S3. My only thing is I wish we could have gotten a 13 ep final season. It was a bit rushed in the end. I'm fine with how it all wrapped up though.
@@iain9757 I watched the first ep of City of Angels, and I'm definitely intrigued. The trailers left me unenthusiastic but I really enjoyed ep1. We'll see where it all goes.
Pity the writers didn't go a different direction. I loved the sarcasm and wit Dracula embodied. I feel the show tried too hard to copy and parallel the original novel. Unlike some people I thought the ending was beautiful, but think they should have waited a season or 5 to kill him, and he should have run into the reincarnation of his wife first. I LOVE that Dracula Untold did that, as Tepes' wife did throw herself from a tower IRL and fictional Dracula does believe in reincarnation. Sister Agatha could have eventually got through to him but only with the help of his wife, who convinces him they should face death together. Now that would have felt less cheap, ya know? And saying he's too much of a coward to die? WTF is that cheeseball Hallmark channel crap? How about everyone wants to live forever, but not like this? His wife's reincarnation says that to him while crying and that's what changes his mind. At the end of MY show, Dracula and his wife would barricade themselves in their house and set it on fire, and lay down on the floor together to wait for the flames, then at the last minute he gets her out of there and says he must do this alone.
When I was a teenager, in Canada, I saw the 1977 BBC adaptation of "Dracula" with Louis Jordan. I still have a soft spot for that version. It's not perfect (it's more like a theatre production in its production values and not all of the acting is great - Quincy) but I like the style.
The difference between episodes 1+2 and episode 3 is that I feel like I would find myself rewatching episode 1 and 2 on some rainy night with nothing better to do, but with episode 3 it was something I enjoyed while it lasted but would never watch it again
I just re-watched episode three, the one I had a problem with the first time around, and, seen in isolation, I found it much more palatable. There wasn't the disorienting shift into the modern world, with which Dracula seemed to cope far better than I did, the first time I watched it.
I had a blast watching Dracula. I wasnt quite as upset at the time jump, in fact, I loved seeing Dracula's reaction to the future. And I loved how it ended.
Putting this out there before I watch the vid. I HATED THE MODERN TWIST. I COULD HAVE LIVED WITH THE FACT THAT SOME WAS SET IN THE PRESENT, BUT THE FACT THAT THEY MARKETED IT AS THIS AWESOME GOTHIC AESTHETIC DRENCHED SERIES AND THREW THAT ALL AWAY FOR THE SAKE OF A *GOTCHA* MOMENT SUUUUUCKS. I WAS SO PISSED! seriously, if they really couldn't have done without the modern aspects they could have established them throughout all the episodes and used the cool gothic bits as extended flashbacks. But no, they just wanted to get us with the twist and that made the last episode feel so disjointed and pointless. I don't much like the idea of modern day Dracula (the dude's not nearly as threatening amongst a more advanced society) but I could have lived with it if they'd been honest about what we'd be getting BEFORE I git so invested in the Victorian setting and imagery. We didn't even get anything in Victorian England and it pisses me off that they thought this would be a good tactic. If they were pushing the series towards those who'd actually enjoy the modern twist, then they should've feckin marketed it as such. Instead they managed to rope a bunch of classic Dracula fans only to completely betray their investment for the sake of a moment of shock, quickly replaced by utter disappointment. I was literally on the floor, staring at a wall for like an hour. Anyway rant over. Thank you for listening to my TED Talk
What really killed my enjoyment was Zoe pointing out why Dracula can't die. ...Because he's afraid to die. Like...what?? How the hell does that work?! And then they spend eternity fucking inside the sun??
They did everything great, that show. Except those last 2 episodes which threw me for a bit and the sudden conclusion. I watched it not knowing season 3 was going to be final.
I actually liked Rhys Meyer starring Dracula. Dracula trying to be a big influence in the world by pioneering AC and sustainable energy fighting against an up and coming oil lobby, while also trying to deal with his obvious crush on his employee Harker's fiancée while also trying to escape the interest of the London charter of vampire hunters. It had potential.
Why does the outro music remind me of project twilight?
4 года назад
I was cool with it. But then they had to show me helicopters xD I don't know. Episode 3 ruined it for me ^^' It are small things like having a cool explaination, why Dracula fears the cross just to throw it out for some "more clever" explaination. At one point I thought: Oh okay... we time skipped because Moffard wanted to show his updated text message effect with emojis!
I agree that the writing style resembles 'Sherlock', but they copied ideas left and right too. The victims rotting away in boxes but never dying is definitely taken from 'The Hunger'. And when it turned out that the cross and the sun scared him just because he believed the peasants' legends, I swear I had distant echoes of Pratchett's 'Carpe Jugulum'. The acting was brilliant, though, and the effects and cinematography quite good. I must say I've only recently come across it, but I'm glad I did.
Whatever personal misgivings one may have for modern day settings notwithstanding, I kind of feel the show’s ending might have gone down better with a fourth episode. So have episode three with Dracula getting captured and doing his Hannibal Lecter shtick in the Harker Institute, ending with Renfield appearing to release him, and then dedicate episode four entirely to the Lucy storyline. At least that way we’d have more time to acclimatise to the new setting, and they’d have more space to establish and build up the new Van Helsing and Lucy’s non-boyfriend (I think his name was Jack, wasn’t it?), and all the big concepts they were just cramming in there would have had more time to breathe.
Iain 97 it was kind of explained by the fact that he’s been around for so long so is timeless in a sense. No it doesn’t make much sense but that didn’t really bother me as he’s meant to be otherworldly anyway.
Dolly Wells, and most of the cast for that matter, have some *amazing* chops to them, and I just loved what they were trying to do with the dynamic between "Helsing" and Dracula this go round, but my *god* there was so much cringe with the modern writing at times. John Heffernan is just killing it and at every turn the tone is thrashed with Agatha's eyeroll-inducing attempts at modern humor.
