An interesting 'remix' of Dracula, which was definitely enjoyable. I'll admit, I think Jekyll is basically perfect and was rather hoping to feel similarly about Dracula. But no: it's all more complicated. That said, I've never actually read Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, so maybe I'd not think so well of that if I had.
Like you, I'm still waiting for a faithful adaptation (apparently the BBC 1970s series was very faithful according to Gatiss's documentary on Dracula adaptations?). Indeed. The pocasts I linked elisi to above (which are fabulous if you enjoy listening to Moff and Gatiss blather) he mentions it as well. I guess I'll have to seek it out sometime.
As I haven't watched Hannibal, I missed all the references, haha. I'm not entirely certain if they're strong enough that I can say definitively that they are references, but the overlap is mighty strong. The credits, though, those are just shameless: https://youtu.be/FVbWCv49_Xo
I think the second episode was probably the strongest? I tend to agree. Just as a piece of television I think it's the most solidly watchable. But on rewatch I find that episodes one and three both have a lot more going on underneath and two is mostly entertainment.
The third was definitely a mess (really seems like there should have been four episodes, not three). That's an interesting suggestion I've not seen anybody else make. Everybody just tends to write the whole thing off after the second episode. I mostly just wonder how Moff and Gatiss didn't realize that asking an audience to invest in a whole new set of characters in the last third was a bad idea, so maybe giving the modern crew an equal amount of screen time to the Victorian one would fix that? That said, I have to wonder if Jack and Lucy really have enough going for them as characters to support any more story about them. Zoe, though, definitely could have benefitted from getting the time to be fleshed out as her own person, because I don't think she's uninteresting, but why replace a sparkier version of a character with a more insipid one who's only going to lose by comparison and, indeed, basically gets erased by the story itself? I'd totally watch an episode that focused on Dracula being held by the Harker foundation and having lots of sparky clashes of wits with Zoe, though (speaking of Hannibal-esque touches . . . )
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 17 Jan 2020 12:48 pm (UTC)I'll admit, I think Jekyll is basically perfect and was rather hoping to feel similarly about Dracula. But no: it's all more complicated. That said, I've never actually read Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, so maybe I'd not think so well of that if I had.
Like you, I'm still waiting for a faithful adaptation (apparently the BBC 1970s series was very faithful according to Gatiss's documentary on Dracula adaptations?).
Indeed. The pocasts I linked elisi to above (which are fabulous if you enjoy listening to Moff and Gatiss blather) he mentions it as well. I guess I'll have to seek it out sometime.
As I haven't watched Hannibal, I missed all the references, haha.
I'm not entirely certain if they're strong enough that I can say definitively that they are references, but the overlap is mighty strong. The credits, though, those are just shameless: https://youtu.be/FVbWCv49_Xo
I think the second episode was probably the strongest?
I tend to agree. Just as a piece of television I think it's the most solidly watchable. But on rewatch I find that episodes one and three both have a lot more going on underneath and two is mostly entertainment.
The third was definitely a mess (really seems like there should have been four episodes, not three).
That's an interesting suggestion I've not seen anybody else make. Everybody just tends to write the whole thing off after the second episode. I mostly just wonder how Moff and Gatiss didn't realize that asking an audience to invest in a whole new set of characters in the last third was a bad idea, so maybe giving the modern crew an equal amount of screen time to the Victorian one would fix that? That said, I have to wonder if Jack and Lucy really have enough going for them as characters to support any more story about them. Zoe, though, definitely could have benefitted from getting the time to be fleshed out as her own person, because I don't think she's uninteresting, but why replace a sparkier version of a character with a more insipid one who's only going to lose by comparison and, indeed, basically gets erased by the story itself? I'd totally watch an episode that focused on Dracula being held by the Harker foundation and having lots of sparky clashes of wits with Zoe, though (speaking of Hannibal-esque touches . . . )