#like you have this rich plot layered with symbolism and nuance and all you want to do with it is write reader-insert and OOC imagines?????

[setaflow]

.

[vanhelsingenthusiast]

.... Omg! Can you please give us analysis of each character and how they are portrayed in the book and then the movies?

Oohh ok! (I’m just gonna go thru the characters and how they are in the book vs how they are usually portrayed in adaptations. These things do not apply to every single adaptation, or even necessarily one specific adaptation, full disclosure, lol) (also this will be very long, so, it’s under the cut.) 

Mina: 

~ In the book: kind, sweet, caring, motivated, intelligent, interesting, funny. I could go on and on. The protagonist. She IS the moment. She could defeat Dracula without the men but the men could not defeat Dracula without her. I said what I said. 

~ In adaptations: typically kind, but may or may not be any more intelligent than the men. Typically portrayed as a damsel in distress, though in the book she isn’t. Almost always Dracula’s love interest. Sometimes she even low-key betrays the Crew to help him. Her personality is very often reduced to one or two traits/archetypes so she can better fit the role of Dracula’s love interest. 

Jonathan: 

~ In the book: Damsel in distress. He can sometimes come across as boring, because he’s the only very average person in the book, but that’s because he’s supposed to be. It’s a compare and contrast type of thing. Even then, he’s incredibly brave, and incredibly determined. He represents the average person, rising up to the challenge. 

~ In adaptations: oh, Jonathan?? You mean the only reason why Mina and Dracula can’t bone??? Yeah but it’s fine if Mina cheats a little bc also he’s an asshole for no reason ://// 

Lucy: 

~ In the book: A delight. Absolute angel. Everyone loves her and she loves everyone but not always in the way they want. If she could she would move all of her friends into a little cottage and bake bread and make tea for them for the rest of forever. Part of the reason why her transformation into the Bloofer Lady is so scarring is because she was genuinely so good-hearted before that. 

~ In adaptations: lol she has three suitors so she must be suuuuper promiscuous (side note: not a bad thing but most adaptations portray it as such), and also because of that she definitely wanted Dracula to turn her into a vampire. 

Arthur: 

~ In the book: Lucy’s fiancée. Also he’s fuckin loaded so he helps fund the whole expedition. Interpretations of him change kinda drastically because he’s not given much canon personality or back story, but he’s overall a pretty decent guy. He can be mean but, like, in a loving way. 

~ In adaptations: if he’s there at all he’s usually Just Some Guy. Which, like. fair.  

Jack: 

~ In the book: a psychiatrist who desperately needs to see a psychiatrist but he is not self aware enough to know this. Used to be Van Helsing’s student. He definitely can be an ass (especially to Renfield), but it’s usually more that he just doesn’t think how his actions affect other people all the way through than him actively being a terrible person on purpose, if that makes sense. Him and his interest in science and technology symbolize the heralding of the new age, which is in contrast with Dracula, who is only ever “living” in the past (bedum tsss). 

~ In adaptations: sometimes he’s Van Helsing’s peer rather than ex-student. Usually he doesn’t still keep a phonograph, or even an active interest in technology, which is...a disservice. He can either be nice, or mean, usually not very nuanced or interesting. Honestly I feel like usually in adaptations he’s kinda just used as the gap to get Van Helsing there and then he does nothing after that.  

Quincey: 

~ In the book: literally the guy who kills Dracula. A Texan, as well, which seems funny now but at the time it was a fairly common trope to add in a foreigner. He’s pretty calm always, especially in a crisis, and also willing to step up and do whatever’s needed of him. And, again, he literally kills Dracula. Easily one of the more important characters in the book, except he doesn’t keep a diary so most people don’t acknowledge this. Also at one point it’s stated he’s rich af iirc so that’s funny. 

~ In adaptations: what do you mean we should add the guy who killed Dracula??? Nah it’ll be fine without him 

Van Helsing: 

~ In the book: he’s the hero of the story (not the protagonist, that’s separate). Him and Dracula are character foils. He’s the guy who knows everything about vampires, and also the guy who specifically knows how to stop Dracula. Even then, he isn’t a professional vampire hunter, or even, like, an expert. He just happens to know a shit ton about this. His name means “father of multitudes” and he is the Designated Dad of the group. He probably makes everyone hot cocoa and tells them weird stories about spiders drinking oil from lamps after a long day. 

~ In adaptations: murder grandpa is an asshole who also has no idea what he’s talking about because it makes Dracula look better 

Count Dracula: 

~ In the book: the villain. He could represent a lot of things — anything from a plague, to the past creeping up and not staying buried where it should, to Stoker’s internalized homophobia, to Stoker’s own xenophobia or antisemitism, or all of the above, or none. He has a lot of layers and each layer is a new level of villainy. We don’t know a lot about him, admittedly — who he was in life, why he became a vampire, what all of his powers are, or even his motivations for coming to London. He can represent any evil we want at all, which makes him a very affective villain. Also he’s supposedly related to Atilla the Hun which is funny af to me for no reason 

~ In adaptations: incel!Vlad III 

Renfield:  

~ In the book: admittedly, he does not have much baring on the plot. He tends to act as a meter for how close Dracula is at any given moment, until his death when Mina takes over that role. However, he introduces many themes and topics into the story: insanity, corruption, idealization of evil, etc., and he and Lucy work together to showcase how vampirism corrupts and how it can destroy even relatively innocent people. Even though Renfield has a bit of a reputation of being violent and volatile, he only ever really does something violent once, which wasn’t even entirely of his own volition and he sacrifices himself for the greater good. 

~ In adaptations: oh no scary evil insane man1!!11! he’s obviously just horrible it’s not like Dracula is manipulating him!11!! if Dracula were to manipulate him then Dracula wouldn’t be a sympathetic antihero :((( 

The Three Weird Sisters: 

~ In the book: the antithesis to Lucy’s suitors. They are supposed to be seductive, and dangerous, above all. They might be Dracula’s victims, or they could be some other vampires unrelated, we don’t really know. Not much is said about them and that’s likely very much on purpose. They have the same air of mystery about them as Dracula does, if not more. A lot of the horror in this book is based in the fear of the unknown. 

~ In adaptations: walking boobs with fangs. Usually so much is changed about the story that none of the above is even relevant or can be applied to them. 

Anyways thanks for the ask and I hope this answers your question :) 

[douxreviews]

Gotham - ‘I Am Bane’ Review

Eduardo: "Eduardo is dead, Jim. There is only Bane!"

How fitting that the title of this week's episode is 'I Am Bane' – because this episode also turned out to be the bane of my week.

To understand where I'm coming from, I need to preface this review briefly with my take on the character itself of Bane. First introduced into DC Comics in 1993, Bane's origin is wonderfully rich and distinguished as elaborated upon in Batman: Knightfall. Fans of Batman that aren't immensely familiar with the comics who dismiss Bane as a one-note villain whose only defining trait is his super-strength can be forgiven, because every live-action adaptation of this character simply fails to live up to the layered, dark-parallel of Batman that's featured in the comics. And a big reason for this is due to the major retoolings of Bane's origin with each adaptation. To put in other words, I don't mind that Gotham wants to shake up Bane's uprising, I just mind very much so that he's actually really boring by the end of it all. He doesn't feel much like somebody who is nuanced or unique when compared to other gunslinger characters, and at the end of the day, all Gotham has given us is a brooding hulk with a stick-up-his-rear who's put briefly at the mercy of Hollywood Healing to get his powers.

Not-Amanda-Waller (Jaime Murray) squirrels Eduardo away and has Hugo Strange, who's essentially Gotham's walking deus ex machina now when it comes to surgeries and resurrections, grant Eduardo his signature super-strength. Eduardo goes on to lead an arsenal of goons to interrupt a gathering between Gordon and the U.S. military, quite easily wiping the floor with trained policemen and soldiers all just to get to Gordon and Bruce. As far as suspensions of disbelief go, Gotham's finally gotten me to draw a doggone line in the sand and say "You know Gotham, I like spending time with you and all, but you really didn't think you could just show essentially Bob Parr in a Cruella de Vil coat tossing a few gas canisters, and effectively subduing at least a dozen serviceman who possess firearms and the training to respond rapidly to calamities like this, and not think I wouldn't raise questions?"

Yes, as it turns out, Eduardo is but another cog in the grand scheme of Not-Amanda-Waller's plot to plunge Gotham City into absolute destruction and ruin, relying on the aid of her mysterious organization that supposedly has eyes and ears everywhere, and...oh for goodness' sake Gotham, I get that you so badly want to be The Dark Knight Rises, but couldn't you at least be a little bit more subtle about it? I've seen disguises sported by Count Olaf that were more low-key than this episode's allusions.

Not-Amanda-Waller reveals herself here as Nyssa Al Ghul, the daughter of Ra's Al Ghul. From there on, any remaining trace of threat Nyssa exuded was eradicated. To begin with, I don't really care how much Nyssa wants to babble about how the League of Assassins or Shadows (or whatever they're calling themselves in Gotham) is on a mission to actually protect the world by destroying Gotham City, because once she reveals that she has a vendetta against Bruce and Barbara, this is all her entire undertaking ever seems to feel about: she hates Bruce and Barbara because they are directly responsible for the death of her father. Which only compounds my issues with this episode even further; wasn't it explicitly stated over and over in Season 4 that Ra's wanted to die? It was the whole reason he needed that unique dagger Barbara and Bruce were competing to obtain, wasn't it? Secondly, if I'm expected to at least get a sense of understanding for Nyssa's motives and anger, I don't, simply because Gotham never took the time to ever explore what kind of dynamic Nyssa had with her father; what kind of relationship did they hold, did she idolize her father, was Ra's training both Nyssa and Barbara to become possible heirs to the League which has led Nyssa to resent Barbara? Who knows? Thirdly, how does Nyssa even know it's Bruce and Barbara specifically that killed Ra's? Last I checked, Ra's death in Season 4's finale was only witnessed by Bruce, Barbara, Jeremiah, Tabitha, and Oswald.

What's even more amusing is that before Nyssa even identifies herself, she has Eduardo torture Gordon just as a way to get Bruce to try and figure out for himself who she might be. And as heart-wrenching as David Mazouz's performance is, it's too easy for the audience to side with Bruce as well, and wonder aloud in bewilderment at our television set over who this woman is, when we haven't had any buildup or hints whatsoever to her identity. Of course Bruce can't figure out who you are sweetie, your dad never even mentioned you to him!

While all of this is unraveling, a very twisted rendition of Gilligan's Island – consisting of Oswald, Ed and Barbara – is about to set sail aboard their newly-configured submarine, but the excursion is cut short when Barbara goes into labor. This is where I was kind of hoping Gotham would give us an indication of where we are in the timeline because wasn't it only four episodes ago that Barbara even dropped the bombshell that she was with child? I admit I've also never been present around what an actual childbirth is like, but Erin Richards absolutely is convincing enough, to the point that I'd even say she had the best performance of the entire episode. Once Nyssa sends Eduardo to kill Barbara, the dynamic duo of Ozzie and Ed cobbles together a few traps to buy Barbara enough time to escape, complete with endearing screaming fits from Ozzie, and Ed's pettiness needing to get the last word in to Lee ("For the record, you stabbed me first!")!

This fustercluck of an episode ends with Barbara successfully giving birth to her and Gordon's daughter, a genuinely touching moment, while Eduardo, just to further remind the audience that he is indeed Bane, breaks Alfred's back. Once again, all of my sympathies just go out to poor Alfred, for so many of the horrific injuries and torment that Bruce had to go through in the comics just seem to get shifted on to Alfred in Gotham. Apart from Erin Richards' performance and Ozzie and Ed always being a ton of fun together, there's not much else in this episode that gets me eager to see this merit-less conflict's resolution, in four weeks no less. I used to always remind myself during prior seasons that things may have to get worse before they get better, but with Gotham nearing the final curtain call, perhaps this episode's final scene of Gotham City being air-bombed is appropriate symbolism for the end – perhaps things only get worse.

Aaron Studer loves spending his time reading, writing and defending the existence of cryptids because they can’t do it themselves.