Amph NBC's Dracula

All the Dracula tropes are there, though changed of course. And there are new twists on old story relationships. It has a great look and well acted enough that I'll give it a go. It's first episode was this past Friday, 10 pm.

 

Ah, this is what will finally turn it around for NBC, an original concept!

 

JRM is a great "period-piece" actor. I loved him in "The Tudors". This started a little slow though. I am looking forward to next week's episode.

 

It looks bland and generic and hopefully will hammer in the final nail of the vampire genre coffin.

 

I'd rather we have gotten a Castlevania live-action series, but that probably would've been something more for Syfy than a main network.

 

Vlad Dracula was better. I mean who cares about a guy that bites people. How about a guy that puts an entire army or village on stakes and impales them. Oh and he left a golden goblet by the road so that anyone could take drink of the local spring. No one I mean no one stole the cup or lest he be impaled.

 

What?

 

Looking at the casting, the costumes, and the production values, I can't help but wish that instead of a vampire show, this were a Count of Monte Cristo show instead.

 

That's the thing, I liked what I saw and I hope the aspect of this version of vampire Dracula stuff live sup to the rest of it. Still, I am not a love it or hate it type, if the show never got better than the opener I'd be pleased.

 

One day, perhaps, we'll get a proper adaptation. At this point, I'd happily accept even a moderately faithful modernization.

 

How would there be a Count of Monte Cristo "show?" It would have to be a miniseries. Besides which, I'm not sure the details of the original plot work all that great on film. Most of schemes revolved around an understanding of the incredibly labyrinthine pasts of all the major players, and that was much more easily read than visually represented. I'd rather not see such a classic sullied by expository data dump speeches or sexposition.

 

Same way there could be a Sleepy Hollow show, wocky. And look at that show, it's been quite good so far!

I actually think Monte Cristo could fill up at least a whole season of network television (assuming 22-24 episodes) with all its labyrinthine pasts, as you say, or maybe 2-3 seasons of a cable tv show. And if such an endeavor turned out a very bad product in the end, you could just, y'know, ignore it, so that way the precious classic that is the source material isn't "sullied."

edit: btw, Christian Bale was my mental image of Monte Cristo when I read the novel, but Rhys Myers, particularly the way his hair and facial hair is arranged, and his paleness, is still stunningly close to what I had imagined.

 

Lol. What.

You started out complaining about the lack of a faithful adaption of Dumas, and then pivot to a show where Irving's work is re-interpreted as an occult-mystery thriller with apocalyptic overtones and a dash of 18th century Alias plots? I mean, I think the show is fun to watch too, but its thousands of miles from where we began this discussion.

 

Pretty much my thoughts, I think this show has great potential and I hope it gets better in the next few episodes.

 

Who said I was complaining? I was musing, not complaining. I never said anything about a "faithful" adaptation, either. That's why I brought up Sleepy Hollow. If there was a faithful adaptation of Irving's short story, most people would not watch it or like it. I would, but then again, I'm not most people. However, the people behind the television show took the characters and the highly atmospheric setting, threw in other tropes, and made a new show out of it. They weren't "faithful," they were inventive, and I'm glad they were.

In Monte Cristo's case, I would be exceedingly happy with either a faithful adaptation for a whole season or two of television, or for something more inventive and designed for a longer run. Either is fine with me.

 

I understand that, back in the days of radio, that there was a series based on "The Count of Monte Cristo", where the Count avenges wrongs done to others. I don't recall much else about it; I'll have to check. As for adaptations, Hallmark Hall of Fame did a pretty good one years ago with Richard Chamberlain. It's gets re-run on the Showtime channels every now and then, and I believe it's out on DVD.

 

Hmm, I'll have to check that one out. I was pleased with the version by Jim Caviezel, which carried much of the spirit of the original novel. However, I think they were wise to modify the revenge plot somewhat to make it more easily comprehensible in the space of two hours.

 

review/summary

I think the general consensus seems to be, "Well, that was interesting. Now all it has to do is get awesome and thrill me."

I have never read The Count Of Monte Cristo. I have the intention but not anytime soon. I love the 2002 film and can watch it anytime. I know it is based upon a real life event of revenge, but the details of the real life event are not something I have ever found.

 

I though the Caviezel version sucked. The Donat version from the 30's was better, imo. And if you're going to read the book, go for the full version.

They should do a faithful adaptation of the Count of Monte Cristo. Only it should be set in the future and the Count should be a vampire, and the people he wants revenge on should be werewolves, zombies, and cyborgs, and the count should carry a minigun and have wolverine claws and his servant should be a giant silver robot with a lightsaber and all the roles should be played by Nicholas Cage.

I plan on watching Dracula.

 

This is a perfect example of why the new features of this board are stupid. Loyal Imperial made a post whose only point was to complain about the inaccuracies of previous adaptations. A post you "liked." You now say you are dismissive of the sentiment it expressed. So what was the point of "liking" it, then? If it was sarcasm, there was certainly no way to tell, nor have you yet made it clear why such sarcasm would be either deserved or funny. You yourself ruled out meaning it literally. What, then? Were you trying to disagree with what he said, but defend to the death his right to say it? What were you possibly trying to get at?

 

I love how whenever Dracula comes up someone has to mention Vlad as if every educated person on Earth isn't already well aware of the connection.

 

The best version of Dracula is still Coppola's version.

 

Can't tell if serious...

 

Well besides Keanu's bizarrely hilarious miscasting, it's a pretty fantastic movie.

 

Revenge is a perfectly fine adaptation of The Count of Monte Cristo, thankyouverymuch!

This Dracula thing though... doesn't look good to me. I'll give it another couple of weeks (or until when I get back from HK if I end up going this weekend), but I will say: I love this take on Renfield. Love it.