Like The Historian Without the Historical Accuracy: Starz Making "Dracula" Television Series
I wasn't going to care about this series. But then they brought history into the picture and got me all riled up. Starz, having mastered the art of destroying "Torchwood" and airing softcore porn set in ancient Rome, has decided to move on to the father of all vampire legends. Here's the official summary:
The project is a unique spin of the classic tale, blending the historical facts of the 15th century Prince of Wallachia, with the fictional Dracula whose story is known around the world and continues to fascinate audiences. "Vlad Dracula" traces his evolution from a revered ruler to the world's most feared vampire, and his slow downfall as he struggles desperately to hang on to his humanity, his wife and his kingdom.
Revered! His nickname was "The Impaler" and it wasn't because of his gentlemanly pursuits. I don't think "revered" is a description of particular historical accuracy in this case.
I would very much like to be able to only see the good in the project, and emphasize the potential for a tale that walks the tightrope between the monster that a character is forced to be by necessity and the monster he becomes by coming to enjoy the darkness. Or to see the potential for a story that combines flashbacks to history with the character of today, delving into the madness that was necessary in a prince defending Eastern Europe from the Turkish advance of those dark years when the West could almost have been snuffed out before it detonated outward and created the modern world.
But I don't see those things. I just see a network with a "z" where an "s" should be and the vague anger that "Children of Earth" was followed by such a disappointing effort.
Are you following Pajiba on Facebook or Twitter? Because every time you do an angel does the Paul Rudd dance
Around the Web