Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 29, 2024 9:18:42 GMT
Gatiss himself is generally quite reasonable as a writer, so I feel like Moffat brings out that side of him. I think that on his own, he would've just made a straight-up Victorian adaptation. He is decent enough, but always the weakest link in any given writing team. That includes the Gentlemen, which was mainly down to the comedy genius of Dyson, Pemberton and Shearsmith, with Gatiss as a hanger-on. |
|
|
|
Post by Ludders II on Apr 29, 2024 9:21:49 GMT
I've seen three of those - 1931, 1958, 1970. I really want to see the old Nosferatu, and Coppola's version. Of the three I've seen, Jesus Franco's is probably the best. It's not a good film by any means (in fact it's quite crap), but it gave Dracula some great character and dialogue. Dracula is an immensely proud man with a great warrior heritage. He should be presented as an erudite, coldly calculating villain in the style of Tywin Lannister. The 1931 version with Lugosi nails his more exotic qualities and eerie presence, but otherwise falls short. The Hammer version is only entertainment and doesn't delve into the character at all, which ironically was the main reason Christopher Lee agreed to do the Jesus Franco film at all. The '79 Nosferatu is a trip and probably my favourite Excellent choice. It would probably be my second favourite after the Hammer version. It may not objectively be the best one, but it's a lifelong favourite for me. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 29, 2024 9:23:47 GMT
The '79 Nosferatu is a trip and probably my favourite Excellent choice. It would probably be my second favourite after the Hammer version. It may not be the objectively be the best one, but it's a lifelong favourite for me. I just love how typically it plays out in Herzog's almost documentary-style approach at capturing crazy people doing crazy things, but with Dracula. |
|
|
|
Post by burrunjor on Apr 29, 2024 10:15:17 GMT
Me.  (Well almost every on screen version of Stoker's novel, bar a couple of non-English versions) Nosferatu. 1922. (F.W. Murnau/Max Schreck) Dracula. 1931. (Universal/Bela Lugosi) Dracula. 1958. (Hammer/Christopher Lee) Jess Franco's: Count Dracula. 1970. (Christopher Lee) Dan Curtis': Dracula. 1973. (Jack Palance) Count Dracula. 1977. (BBCTV/Louis Jourdan) Nosferatu the Vampyre. 1979. (Werner Herzog/Klaus Kinski) Dracula. 1979. (Universal/Frank Langella) Bram Stoker's Dracula. 1992. (Fracis Ford Coppola/Gary Oldman) Dracula. 2006. (BBC/Marc Warren) Dracula. 2020. (Gattis/Moffat)  (No prizes for guessing which is the worst one)  Well obviously you get people who are such fans of the concept that they will want to hunt down as many versions as possible and that is fine. To be honest I think the character I'm like that for is probably Batman. I seem to have the biggest knowledge of Batman of anyone here and can appreciate most versions of the Caped Crusader, like the Nolan movies and the Burton ones and Adam West, and most of the cartoons and the comics themselves. That said I found Robert Pattison's The Batman awful, but not because I think it brought shame to Batman or anything. I just found it boring. Ironically I don't think many of us are like that for DW. We all for the most part just seem to like classic who, with only a passing interest in new who and the Cushing movies and Big Finish at best. Again that would be fine for us to have that and my friend Anne to have New Who as her version, it's just this insistence on dragging it all together into one continuity by the makers of the revival that is poison to the show. Classic who, new who, the books, the audios, the comics etc NONE of these are compatible with each other. Leaving aside the continuity, in terms of the audiences they are going for, tone, and even just in terms of being the same production they are all completely different. However DW as a concept and character is in a uniquely awful position, where it is this turgid, jumbled mess of different adaptations people insist must be the one thing, which has led to different generations of fans fighting each other to try and make their version the dominant one. Look at the Master? If they are different canons, fine. I don't give a shit about Missy, she can be like the sappy romantic Dracula's who aren't like the original, but again it's this she has to BE Roger Delgado that leads to her fans going back and rewriting his story, and his fans like me getting seriously pissed at her character for doing that. If New Who had been a remake or even just a loose sequel, with the knowledge there can be others we wouldn't be in this mess, which is why that is the only way forward and anyone who still insists on it always being the one thing is I'm sorry just being stupid about it. (Granted New Who accelerated this problem by being so unfaithful, but it would have happened anyway. Like I said is DW going to be on in 2525 and still have the same canon? It could be? Here we are talking about versions of Dracula that were made 100s of years later why not DW? That's where the it's one thing people annoy me and it seems like they are being religious fanatics, as when you bring up that logical rebuttal their response is, well just ignore the continuity, but in that case why do you care about it all being one thing if the continuity is unimportant! Again though like I said before the worst offenders for pushing this shit are ironically classic era fanboys.) Meanwhile as for Dracula's I haven't seen anywhere near as many as you, though I have seen all the Hammer films and I am a huge fanboy of them and their version of the Count who is the most terrifying and evil version, and completely reshaped vampires to be that in popular culture. The Moffat version I'm going to surprise you all here, I didn't think was that bad. I actually liked the first part. Dracula doesn't shag Harker in it contrary to popular belief. I actually loved its version of Dracula. You see a problem I've had with the Count is that most modern versions portray him as a love struck, sensitive character with no grand plan other than to get off with Mina. This version thankfully stripped that away and made him a sadistic, scheming, blood thirsty monster with huge ambition and the actor they got to play him was menacing and charismatic. The opening episode was great, whilst the second on board the ship was excellent. It's one of the scariest parts of Dracula's story from the book, of being alone on a ship with a monster that can pick you off one at a time, that is sadly often overlooked by most versions if not adapted out completely. Making it the centre of this episode and a really tight, claustrophobic horror was an inspired choice and again helped to make the Count feel more powerful up close. Sadly in the third part it all went to absolute f*cking shit. Really it was typical Moffat bollocks in every way. It tried to deconstruct the story and come up with a clever new reason for why the character exists, that actually makes 0 sense "the Doctor was running from a prophecy," "Hyde is changed by love", "Dracula is just afraid of death". It also has to wallow in tedious soap opera shit, and throw in something needlessly horrible for the sake of it like the woman being cremated alive. I remember Claudia Boleyn's brother even rightfully said that scene wasn't good horror, it was just revolting. Finally it has to reimagine the villain/hero relationship as being sexual, with the last shot being Dracula and Van Helsing in bed with each other. Really terrible end to the miniseries. Again though that's typical of Moffat. Doctor Who/Sherlock/Dracula all start out well, with some cool new reinventions, inspired casting from Karen Gillan, to Matt Smith, to Claes Bang to Cumberbatch, and then descend into his usual deconstructive, edgy, soap opera, oversexed bullshit. He needs a script editor pronto. |
|
|
|
Post by burrunjor on Apr 29, 2024 10:17:25 GMT
Gatiss himself is generally quite reasonable as a writer, so I feel like Moffat out that side of him. I think that on his own, he would've just made a straight-up Victorian adaptation. Yes, his trio of horror documentaries was really good, and he purports to be a huge fan. I expected better from him. The Big Finish trilogy of Dracula stories, where Gatiss plays him is fantastic. One of the best updates I've seen of the character to date. If you have some spare cash I'd strongly recommend. |
|
|
|
Post by Ludders II on Apr 29, 2024 10:18:47 GMT
Excellent choice. It would probably be my second favourite after the Hammer version. It may not be the objectively be the best one, but it's a lifelong favourite for me. I just love how typically it plays out in Herzog's almost documentary-style approach at capturing crazy people doing crazy things, but with Dracula. It's beautifully shot, and the pace might be considered a bit slow by some, but it allows the film to breathe, and it breathes atmosphere and a superb artistic quality. The music is well chosen, from the folky drones to the use of Wagner's Das Reingold prelude, which itself is a highly embellished drone, staying as it does on the Eb, and gradually building to weaving arpeggios. And against the this backdrop is a truly masterful performance by Klaus Kinski, who creates a very eerie, and yet quietly disgusting, and rather pathetic, but animalistic creature, that is the antithesis of the tragic romantic figure that cumulated in the other version of Dracula that was also, ironically, released the same year. |
|
|
|
Post by burrunjor on Apr 29, 2024 10:19:36 GMT
Gatiss himself is generally quite reasonable as a writer, so I feel like Moffat brings out that side of him. I think that on his own, he would've just made a straight-up Victorian adaptation. He is decent enough, but always the weakest link in any given writing team. That includes the Gentlemen, which was mainly down to the comedy genius of Dyson, Pemberton and Shearsmith, with Gatiss as a hanger-on. I wouldn't say he was a hanger on. In terms of performances he had some of the most memorable characters like the tragic Les McQueen. I can't hear the words creme bule without thinking "it's a shit business" LOL. Also a lot of the stories definitely come from him and his love of the genre. I mean they were all horror fans to be fair, but he definitely did his part and to be honest I don't think anything Shearsmith and Pemberton have done since has been quite as good. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 29, 2024 10:28:24 GMT
Not as good no but Inside No. 9 is a very honest and earnest attempt at rebranding their style to be a bit more mature and "prestige", shall we say.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 29, 2024 10:29:44 GMT
I just love how typically it plays out in Herzog's almost documentary-style approach at capturing crazy people doing crazy things, but with Dracula. It's beautifully shot, and the pace might be considered a bit slow by some, but it allows the film to breathe, and it breathes atmosphere and a superb artistic quality. The music is well chosen, from the folky drones to the use of Wagner's Das Reingold prelude, which itself is a highly embellished drone, staying as it does on the Eb, and gradually building to weaving arpeggios. And against the this backdrop is a truly masterful performance by Klaus Kinski, who creates a very eerie, and yet quietly disgusting, and rather pathetic, but animalistic creature, that is the antithesis of the tragic romantic figure that cumulated in the other version of Dracula that was also, ironically, released the same year. Wagner really is the greatest isn't he. E-flat is my favourite key signature incidentally. I just love how Kinski's performances always feel like expressions of his tortuous relationship with the director, coming out through a different slant of light for every film. |
|
|
|
Post by Ludders II on Apr 29, 2024 10:29:45 GMT
Me. (Well almost every on screen version of Stoker's novel, bar a couple of non-English versions) Nosferatu. 1922. (F.W. Murnau/Max Schreck) Dracula. 1931. (Universal/Bela Lugosi) Dracula. 1958. (Hammer/Christopher Lee) Jess Franco's: Count Dracula. 1970. (Christopher Lee) Dan Curtis': Dracula. 1973. (Jack Palance) Count Dracula. 1977. (BBCTV/Louis Jourdan) Nosferatu the Vampyre. 1979. (Werner Herzog/Klaus Kinski) Dracula. 1979. (Universal/Frank Langella) Bram Stoker's Dracula. 1992. (Fracis Ford Coppola/Gary Oldman) Dracula. 2006. (BBC/Marc Warren) Dracula. 2020. (Gattis/Moffat) (No prizes for guessing which is the worst one) Meanwhile as for Dracula's I haven't seen anywhere near as many as you, though I have seen all the Hammer films and I am a huge fanboy of them and their version of the Count who is the most terrifying and evil version, and completely reshaped vampires to be that in popular culture. I can share any versions you (or anyone else) is interested in seeing. It's a lot of fun to compare all the different versions. Also, I missed out the Thames TV version that was part of 1968's: Mystery and Imagination series, starring Denholm Elliot as Dracula, and no less than Bernard Archard as Van Helsing, which is actually pretty good.  |
|
|
|
Post by Ludders II on Apr 29, 2024 10:34:37 GMT
He is decent enough, but always the weakest link in any given writing team. That includes the Gentlemen, which was mainly down to the comedy genius of Dyson, Pemberton and Shearsmith, with Gatiss as a hanger-on. I wouldn't say he was a hanger on. In terms of performances he had some of the most memorable characters like the tragic Les McQueen. I can't hear the words creme bule without thinking "it's a shit business" LOL. Also a lot of the stories definitely come from him and his love of the genre. I mean they were all horror fans to be fair, but he definitely did his part and to be honest I don't think anything Shearsmith and Pemberton have done since has been quite as good. The Creme Brulee sketches were hilarious. Pleading with people to take one of his demo tapes which he had by the drawful.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 29, 2024 10:37:16 GMT
I wouldn't say he was a hanger on. In terms of performances he had some of the most memorable characters like the tragic Les McQueen. I can't hear the words creme bule without thinking "it's a shit business" LOL. Also a lot of the stories definitely come from him and his love of the genre. I mean they were all horror fans to be fair, but he definitely did his part and to be honest I don't think anything Shearsmith and Pemberton have done since has been quite as good. The Creme Brulee sketches were hilarious. Pleading with people to take one of his demo tapes which he had by the drawful. And also very close-hitting as someone whose family are all musicians and is constantly around bands and gigs and rehearsals and whatnot. I think these sketches succeed at being very funny because they are also very sad. |
|
|
|
Post by Ludders II on Apr 29, 2024 10:45:10 GMT
The Creme Brulee sketches were hilarious. Pleading with people to take one of his demo tapes which he had by the drawful. And also very close-hitting as someone whose family are all musicians and is constantly around bands and gigs and rehearsals and whatnot. I think these sketches succeed at being very funny because they are also very sad. I was in rock bands for 10 or 11 years before I got turned on to jazz, so I can relate to this and things like Bad News, and Spinal Tap. |
|
|
|
Post by burrunjor on Apr 29, 2024 12:13:03 GMT
I wouldn't say he was a hanger on. In terms of performances he had some of the most memorable characters like the tragic Les McQueen. I can't hear the words creme bule without thinking "it's a shit business" LOL. Also a lot of the stories definitely come from him and his love of the genre. I mean they were all horror fans to be fair, but he definitely did his part and to be honest I don't think anything Shearsmith and Pemberton have done since has been quite as good. The Creme Brulee sketches were hilarious. Pleading with people to take one of his demo tapes which he had by the drawful. "Heeeeeyyyyyyyy this are fate this are, I play rhythm guitar, you can't do sympathy for the devil without a rhythm guitar. Come here. I'll teach you voodoo lady. We were on before Kate Bush so we were. Then punk rock came along and that were the end of us. Punk rock eh, what were that all about? A lot of noise if you ask me. It's a shit business though. I'm glad I'm out of it." In all seriousness I hear that Creme Brule are making a comeback. It's supposed to be a slow reggae number called Jamaican gingy cake. I hope it does well. It pisses me off that stupid millennials don't appreciate real artists like The Rutles, Bad News, Creme Brule, Axel Bundy and his back up bombshell and troll, and Kirk Van Houten whose touching ballad can I borrow a feeling really defined the latter half of the 80s. Maxil's such a poseur claiming to be an 80s fanboy and not knowing who Kirk is, I mean what is the 80s without Kirk ffs? I so wish I had been around then, though granted I couldn't have coped with hearing the news about Kirk's death when his race car crashed after he was so out of it he thought it was his bed. Even though I wasn't alive then I still mourn his passing every day. Truly the end of the golden age. |
|
|
|
Post by Ludders II on Apr 29, 2024 12:20:31 GMT
I missed out the Thames TV version that was part of 1968's: Mystery and Imagination series, starring Denholm Elliot as Dracula, and no less than Bernard Archard as Van Helsing, which is actually pretty good. I just happen to have this one on my hard drive, so I've uploaded it for anyone who fancies giving it a go. we.tl/t-gnQMQDntNJ |
|
