BBC Dracula

PC_Dave

Snap said:

I've just started ep 3.
It's been too jokey and camp. could have been a lot darker if they had ditched the crap jokes and made Dracula less like Kenneth Williams.

First half hour of the last episode is like Dr Who - ie probably really crap.

Sister Agatha - straight out of a carry on film. 

Don't hold back though - tell us what you really think.

darthed1981

Philly_Q said:

pmbomb said:

Also lots of mentions of Lucy being special, was it resolved?

I think it was just that she was, supposedly, completely unafraid of dying.  But as it turned out she couldn't cope with losing her looks.  It was all blown up as a big deal but didn't amount to much, I thought she was a very tiresome character.

They were setting it up as a mockery of all the Twihards going around wishing they could become vampires and stay young and beautiful forever...

...except who guarantees that you stay young and beautiful...

Snap

Jetsam1 said:

Oh, I was going to watch this. Once again folied by expectations of it being utterly rubbish by reading about something.

I will say that I would be less than enthused about yet another identikit period drama with nothing interesting going on. That has been done for Dracula and so what would be the point?

It's not an identikit period drama in fairness. The first two episodes are OK. What spoils it for me is this insistence on watering down the terror/suspense with crap one liners and quips. Doesn't work. Also, the whole thing is camp, in a bad way. It's almost like Carry on Screaming. Then it veers into Dr Who territory in the last episode. Just a bit frustrating as it's a great story, trashed by berk writers.


Just not convinced by a Dracula who you think is only a line away from saying, "ooh Matron, you are awful..."

Shite.

darthed1981

Snap said:

What spoils it for me is this insistence on watering down the terror/suspense with crap one liners and quips.

That's the "post Buffy" world of horror writing.  To be fair, the opposite is "Hereditary", which is an acquired taste (though many consider it a masterpiece), which is relentlessly bleak and dark.

Also "I may be undead, but I'm not unreasonable" is a really good quip.

Philly_Q

darthed1981 said:

Also "I may be undead, but I'm not unreasonable" is a really good quip.

It's a great line, delivered brilliantly.  I laughed every single time I saw that trailer.

I didn't really mind the jokey/campy tone, except when Mark Gatiss himself appeared in the third episode and gave it the full League of Gentlemen with no seriousness at all. 

I was more bothered that it simply drifted too far from the original story and each episode felt like a stand-alone effort rather than part of a whole (I noticed there were three different directors).  First episode was fantastic, second was very good (and an interesting expansion on an undeveloped part of the book).  But the third part just made it all feel a bit flat.

Snap

Just finished it.

Skipped through a lot of the third episode, it was about 30 minutes too long. The ending was OK, a bit different, didn't expect it, so not all bad I suppose.

Overall though it was what I expected it to be when I saw who'd written it. Some of it was total crap, like the way he escaped his cage. Wet.

Dracula is a dark tale, shame this version wasn't dark enough.

Snap

darthed1981 said:

Snap said:

What spoils it for me is this insistence on watering down the terror/suspense with crap one liners and quips.

That's the "post Buffy" world of horror writing.  To be fair, the opposite is "Hereditary", which is an acquired taste (though many consider it a masterpiece), which is relentlessly bleak and dark.

Also "I may be undead, but I'm not unreasonable" is a really good quip.

That's a prime example of it being like a poor Carry On film. Why try to be funny? Ruins it IMO, and the use of humour was clumsily done, throughout the whole thing. The "jokes" jarred with the rest of it, don't think it worked. You need some real skill to blend horror and comedy and this failed by a long shot for me.

axisus

I might give it a look. I need to get my teeth into something new ...

darthed1981

Snap said:

That's a prime example of it being like a poor Carry On film. Why try to be funny? Ruins it IMO,

...as I said, post-Buffy horror writing.

The opposite is now gaining traction, very, very dark and humourless horror.  Films like "The Babadook" and "Hereditary" are just bleak.  So if you want it, it's catered for by some superbly made horror films.

Philly_Q

Comedy has always been an element of the horror genre, all the way back to The Bride of Frankenstein.  I don't think there are very many great comedy horror films, but there aren't all that many great serious horror films either.

Anyway, the great thing about horror as a genre is that it's nearly always watchable, good, bad or indifferent.  There aren't many which are totally boring.

Wazmeister

Tough crowd.

Really enjoyed it, and actually thought it was too short.

Snap

darthed1981 said:

Snap said:

That's a prime example of it being like a poor Carry On film. Why try to be funny? Ruins it IMO,

...as I said, post-Buffy horror writing.

The opposite is now gaining traction, very, very dark and humourless horror.  Films like "The Babadook" and "Hereditary" are just bleak.  So if you want it, it's catered for by some superbly made horror films.

Yeah.
I don't think you have to have such a polar option, it's just that I don't see the need to attempt to put humour through everything. Especially when the humour is so crap. If you look at the Marvel films - there you have a good example of how action and humour can work. The problem with Dracula was that the humour was poor, and the way it was written in was weak and lacking in flow. I don't think it really worked.
Why not make a scary film scary? The scene in the convent, ep1, where he's menacing all the nuns: why break up the tension with piss poor jokes? Rubbish. Just let it run through, full of horror and tension. IMO it was a combination that didn't work, not for me at least.

And whilst I'm moaning on, so many points where you had to suspend disbelief. Like when they found his flat so easily in ep 3. Yeah right, easy as that eh?

PC_Dave

Snap said:

And whilst I'm moaning on, so many points where you had to suspend disbelief. Like when they found his flat so easily in ep 3. Yeah right, easy as that eh?

And the bit where it turns out he's a shape shifting Vampire that can take on the accents and languages of the victims whose blood he drinks? Such a weak plot.

Snap

PC_Dave said:

Snap said:

And whilst I'm moaning on, so many points where you had to suspend disbelief. Like when they found his flat so easily in ep 3. Yeah right, easy as that eh?

And the bit where it turns out he's a shape shifting Vampire that can take on the accents and languages of the victims whose blood he drinks? Such a weak plot.

ha, well yes...there is that......
thanks for that kick in the ass reality check, but you know what I'm getting at

Wazmeister

Snap said:

Snap said:

And whilst I'm moaning on, so many points where you had to suspend disbelief. 

It's a programme about.... Dracula !

You have to suspend disbelief to even watch it

darthed1981

Snap said:

darthed1981 said:

Snap said:

That's a prime example of it being like a poor Carry On film. Why try to be funny? Ruins it IMO,

...as I said, post-Buffy horror writing.

The opposite is now gaining traction, very, very dark and humourless horror.  Films like "The Babadook" and "Hereditary" are just bleak.  So if you want it, it's catered for by some superbly made horror films.

Yeah.
I don't think you have to have such a polar option...

Have you tried the old BBC Dracula?  Very straight and very "70s BBC" telling of the story, but one of my favourite adaptations, as a fan of the book.

PC_Dave

Snap said:

PC_Dave said:

Snap said:

And whilst I'm moaning on, so many points where you had to suspend disbelief. Like when they found his flat so easily in ep 3. Yeah right, easy as that eh?

And the bit where it turns out he's a shape shifting Vampire that can take on the accents and languages of the victims whose blood he drinks? Such a weak plot.

ha, well yes...there is that......
thanks for that kick in the ass reality check, but you know what I'm getting at

Haha, yeah, just couldn't resist that one...

Philly_Q

Snap said:
Why not make a scary film scary? The scene in the convent, ep1, where he's menacing all the nuns: why break up the tension with piss poor jokes? Rubbish. Just let it run through, full of horror and tension. IMO it was a combination that didn't work, not for me at least.

I thought that scene was extremely tense.  And in a way the humour seemed to add to the horror, knowing they were all doomed to die just moments later...

darthed1981 said:

Have you tried the old BBC Dracula?  Very straight and very "70s BBC" telling of the story, but one of my favourite adaptations, as a fan of the book.

I watched that at the time and thought it was amazing (although I can still remember, or imagine, the "shot on videotape" look of the indoor scenes).  I've never dared to watch it again, in case it disappoints.

WiresDreamDisasters

If it couldn't have been in The Books Of Blood then it's not horror.