Tonight: Doctor Who or Dracula - which will be the shittiest?

If you can bring yourselves to watch Chibnall's Spyfall, then, later on, Gatiss and Moffatt's Dracula...which do you think will be the shittiest?

Chibnall.

Fuck Moffat, but Chibnall will always be worse.

Kaijuko wrote:If you can bring yourselves to watch Chibnall's Spyfall, then, later on, Gatiss and Moffatt's Dracula...which do you think will be the shittiest?

Did you draw that? That's really good.

I should imagine Dr Who will be far worse for me. I care about Dr Who more and it frustrates the hell out of me what's been done with it since  2005, and more especially, 2018. However bad Dracula is I don't think it will bother me that much.

TBH, I hope Moffat's Dracula smashes Spyfall in the New Years Day ratings if only to humiliate Chinbut.

Zarius wrote:

Kaijuko wrote:If you can bring yourselves to watch Chibnall's Spyfall, then, later on, Gatiss and Moffatt's Dracula...which do you think will be the shittiest?

Did you draw that? That's really good.

Thank you, thank you!  You are far too kind!  Cheers! (just something I knocked out quickly this morning, although, tbh, I feel kind of dirty drawing that woman, and not in a good way..).

I watched Dracula.








Prince of Darkness from 1966!

Kaijuko wrote:

Zarius wrote:

Kaijuko wrote:If you can bring yourselves to watch Chibnall's Spyfall, then, later on, Gatiss and Moffatt's Dracula...which do you think will be the shittiest?

Did you draw that? That's really good.

Thank you, thank you!  You are far too kind!  Cheers! (just something I knocked out quickly this morning, although, tbh, I feel kind of dirty drawing that woman, and not in a good way..).

Draw a picture of Nicholle Tom and send it to the Prufrock Coffee Cafe in Holborn. You'll find the full address online. Don't sign the picture itself otherwise I can't lie and say I drew it the next time I meet her at a convention. I want her to love me.

Agreed. An excellent drawing, Kaijuko.

Saw Episode 1 of Dracula last night. The first 30-40 minutes or so were actually bearable enough (if littered with tonal inconsistencies and the occasional piece of obvious Moffat humour that instantly signalled were things would shortly go), but it falls flat on its arse during the second half, where the Dracula character is depicted as downright farcical, camp and parodic in the least inspired way, and the episode resorts to tedious bathos every 3 minutes or so to the point of piss-taking. Hardly surprising, mind, but I wonder if it’ll get even worse from here...

And it got five stars from the Guardian. Meanwhile, they also gave Chibnall’s rubbish four stars. Still, 3.6 million views is rather telling...

Bernard Marx wrote:Saw Episode 1 of Dracula last night. The first 30-40 minutes or so were actually bearable enough (if littered with tonal inconsistencies and the occasional piece of obvious Moffat humour that instantly signalled were things would shortly go), but it falls flat on its arse during the second half, where the Dracula character is depicted as downright farcical, camp and parodic in the least inspired way, and the episode resorts to tedious bathos every 3 minutes or so to the point of piss-taking. Hardly surprising, mind, but I wonder if it’ll get even worse from here...

And it got five stars from the Guardian. Meanwhile, they also gave Chibnall’s rubbish four stars.

I haven't watched it, but in a way it's almost tragic what's happened to Moffat's reputation as a writer. He used to honestly be one of those writers where you got excited for what story or idea they were going to come up with next. Same way you'd anticipate the next work of a novelist who'd hit it out the park with their debut.

Back when he was given Sherlock, I think there was a real sense of anticipation and that this was going to be must-see television. For the idea and the fact that Moffat had inspired the confidence that he could pull it off.

And then somehow, clusterfuck after clusterfuck has just jaded us to expect the worst from him instead. That there's no point in him doing anything with a good idea because he's going to waste and crash it to the ground and he's clearly burnt through any good ideas he might've had once. It just comes to a point where you just don't trust him with any franchise or idea again anymore.

And it is kind of sad because, well, promise shouldn't be wasted like that.

Bernard Marx wrote:Agreed. An excellent drawing, Kaijuko.

Saw Episode 1 of Dracula last night. The first 30-40 minutes or so were actually bearable enough (if littered with tonal inconsistencies and the occasional piece of obvious Moffat humour that instantly signalled were things would shortly go), but it falls flat on its arse during the second half, where the Dracula character is depicted as downright farcical, camp and parodic in the least inspired way, and the episode resorts to tedious bathos every 3 minutes or so to the point of piss-taking. Hardly surprising, mind, but I wonder if it’ll get even worse from here...

And it got five stars from the Guardian. Meanwhile, they also gave Chibnall’s rubbish four stars. Still, 3.6 million views is rather telling...

First off, glad you appreciate the cartoon!

Next - I actually enjoyed the first episode - visually impressive, heaps of black humour and grotesque imagery. However, perhaps inevitably, it's bogged down with the same old Moffat themes, tropes and obsessions - a feisty, sarcastic, snarky, female lead (Agatha Van Helsing), clever-clever banter, smutty innuendo, misplaced camp comedy, 19th Century characters talking and acting like people in a 21st-century rom-com and the Count himself - less an undead aristocrat, more a boastful Cockney crime-lord in a Brit gangster flick.  

Still, Dracula was reasonably entertaining for what it was, but I still maintain that the best adaptation of Stoker's tale was the 1977 BBC production, starring Louis Jourdan. Less gore, fewer jokes, but a more worthwhile version.

The 1977 version is utterly haunting. It definitely stays with you long after viewing.

Kaijuko wrote:

Bernard Marx wrote:Agreed. An excellent drawing, Kaijuko.

Saw Episode 1 of Dracula last night. The first 30-40 minutes or so were actually bearable enough (if littered with tonal inconsistencies and the occasional piece of obvious Moffat humour that instantly signalled were things would shortly go), but it falls flat on its arse during the second half, where the Dracula character is depicted as downright farcical, camp and parodic in the least inspired way, and the episode resorts to tedious bathos every 3 minutes or so to the point of piss-taking. Hardly surprising, mind, but I wonder if it’ll get even worse from here...

And it got five stars from the Guardian. Meanwhile, they also gave Chibnall’s rubbish four stars. Still, 3.6 million views is rather telling...

First off, glad you appreciate the cartoon!

Next - I actually enjoyed the first episode - visually impressive, heaps of black humour and grotesque imagery. However, perhaps inevitably, it's bogged down with the same old Moffat themes, tropes and obsessions - a feisty, sarcastic, snarky, female lead (Agatha Van Helsing), clever-clever banter, smutty innuendo, misplaced camp comedy, 19th Century characters talking and acting like people in a 21st-century rom-com and the Count himself - less an undead aristocrat, more a boastful Cockney crime-lord in a Brit gangster flick.  

I think it was those elements that particularly dragged it down for me. They’re the kind of qualities that frustrate me endlessly about NuWho. However, as I said, it was fairly good for the first 45 minutes, but Moffat’s more egregious excesses began to take serious shape after that. I’ll probably watch the next one, mind, just to see if things improve or not.

Tanmann wrote:The 1977 version is utterly haunting. It definitely stays with you long after viewing.

Indeed.

Not to mention Judi Bowker (who played Mina) is like staring into the pearls of Heaven itself.