Are you a big fan of the most famous vampire in history, Dracula, and want to watch the new Netflix TV Show? Be aware, the end may affect your expectations.
Dracula was made by Netflix and BBC Productions. Released this month, the show explores the vampire’s mind, personality, and knowledge. The show contains three episodes around 90 minutes each, filled with well done and modern twists accompanied by scary scenes that allude to the old horror movie style — face close for drama, for example, is really present in the show. However, it sinks slowly during the final episode with questionable choices for the end and some script holes.
Created by the same producers of Sherlock, Mark Gatiss and Steven Moffat, the show approaches some relevant debates like LGBTQ+ representation and women’s rights. Above all, it is important to recognize they did an overall good job with Dracula’s story. The first two episodes were spectacular, surprising, and engaging. They also received a really good review by The Guardian.
In other words, starts with a really good idea of breaking cliche expectations, going deep on the character’s manipulation and dark mind and high quality production. For example, the second episode ends with an awesome twist but the story doesn’t continue that well.
Along episodes that breaks cliches, instigate our curiosity, and make us feel the character’s essence, Dracula ends up following a trivial path. We’ll explain!
If you haven’t seen it yet, check out the trailer!
S P O I L E R A L E R T!
On the third part of story, Dracula shows up in London after falling in flames from a boat and spends 123 years on the sea. Another consequence of having him disappear all this time though living at the same time, the story gets confusing due to some questionable choices.
Here we have listed five holes in the story’s script, check them out!
Sister Agatha: what did she want from Dracula?
Let’s start this one with a quick fun fact: on the original story, Van Helsing is a man. Gatiss and Moffat changed the character’s gender to a woman.
Sister Agatha (Dolly Wells) seems to be super smart woman that tries to study and understand Dracula’s (Claes Bang) mind. In a weird and confusing way, however, she gets close to him so many times, even when protected. On top of it all, she never tries to kill him.
It seems to me a questionable attitude, especially with Jonathan Harker (John Heffernan) inside Budapest’s Convent. She found out Dracula needed an invitation to get inside the convent, the same place that had just interrogated Jonathan.
Now guess who invites Dracula inside? You guessed it, Johnny.
So what did she want from him? To let him go? Only study him through other people’s story? This point isn’t clear. And why didn’t they throw away his last box with soil from Transylvania?
Dracula’s appearance after 123 years on the sea
On the first episode we can see how old he looks without blood, a characteristic that follows the original story. But after all this time with no “food,” he looks… the same.
You can say “oh, it’s because he was inside the box.” In that case, why in Transylvania did he become older without blood? I don’t know.
How did Sister Agatha get to England?
This is a hole that really bothers me. During the second episode, Sister Agatha finds out she was on the boat while he tells the story. So how did she go to England and make a foundation with Mina (Morfydd Clark) if she drowned with the boat?
After all, it seems Dracula’s weakness all this time was death. He actually didn’t get affected by sunlight and the cross only scared him because Jesus wasn’t afraid of dying.
In conclusion, this sounds like an easy escape to everything involved in the show’s plot. Okay, one could say it approaches relevant modern questions, but are we seriously expected to believe that he can go out into the sun? Reminds me of Edward Cullen.
Feelings for Agatha/Zoe?
This wasn’t much of a problem, but the way Zoe dies in the end makes it seem like he had feelings for her. In fact, that differs from everything they showed before and romanticized what had nothing to do with that point of the story. In the end he seems just like a person but at the same time he isn’t. He’s the most famous vampire ever created and a much more complex character than that.
Unfortunately, the end left big holes in the storyline that buried the storyline. It decided to explore his mentality but missed his real essence in the first season. The choice to put him in London nowadays was also unnecessary and the holes, in my opinion, could’ve been fixed easily.
Instead of staying in the past (like in the first two episodes) and exploring Dracula’s mind as they were initially doing, the new directions of the plot are questionable. Compared with this show, it feels like Game of Thrones had a really good end.