Super Heroes on the Small Screen (Or how comics are invading your TV!)

Over the past decade superhero movies have become so prominent that they're pretty much synonymous with the Hollywood blockbuster. Just this year we've had Captain America, Amazing Spider-Man, X-Men and later Guardians of the Galaxy, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles and Sin City shall be upon us and those are just the big guns, leaving aside more stealthy adaptations most people probably assume aren't drawn from comic books such as I, Frankenstien and ones with tenuous links to their original works like 300: Rise of an Empire. This doesn't seem to be changing any time soon, with Marvel claiming they have plans well into the next decade and Warner Bros/DC finally pulling their finger out of whatever orifice they've had it in these past few years and deciding they need to make a concentrated effort to catch up. I personally can't say I approve of the method they're going by to catch up, but I guess it's nice to finally seem them get over the self-inflicted wound that was Green Lantern and do something.

Looking at the television schedules lately, it looks like the comic book adaptation isn't happy with it's lot as the king of cinema and it's coming for the smaller screen. We've already seen this in dribs and drabs, with The Walking Dead continuing to shuffle on, the wildly entertaining Arrow bursting into its second series with a gusto and Agents of SHIELD - A much maligned show that I'll happily defend to the death, coming to an initial close and all set up for a second series as well. True it had a slow start, and the initial few episodes suffered from characters who carried all the traditional Whedon stereotypes and very little of the associated charm, but over time it's built itself into a thrilling mammoth of a series, and I hope they can carry that momentum forward into their much deserved second outing.

TV series based on comic books are often mooted, but like so many movies of the same ilk (anyone remember the proposed Magneto or Silver Surfer spin-offs? The Flash movie that was rolling around in development hell with Wonder Woman post DC crawling into a hole when anything without a bat in it wasn't working out for them?) they often fall flat on their face. Despite their best efforts, Wonder Woman will have to remain Lynda Carter on the small screen for awhile longer and the often talked about Fables adaptation (canalised as it was into Once Upon A Time) seems to constantly wind up off and on the table as the years roll by. But something extraordinary happened these past few weeks. We got trailers. A whole host of trailers.

I already covered Gotham in a previous blog, but in the same rough time span we saw a glimpse of what was to come for two other DC properties that are coming soon. These are The Flash, based on DC's première scarlet speedster, and Constantine, the smarmy, no nonsense demon hunter who you wouldn't want to trust with your daughter. Or anyone else. Possibly not even your worst enemy. I have to admit, I'm very excited for both of these, but let's take a look!

Well... I have to admit I have mixed feelings on this one. The man they have playing Constantine, visually, is spot on. The only way you could get a better representation of the character is inventing a time machine and stealing 1980s circa Sting. There was also a moment in the trailer that made me jump out of my skin, immediately followed by a 'Feck me that's gross!' which is exactly what you want from something relating to Hellblazer. However. However. I can't help but get a nagging feeling about this. Maybe it's how the trailer is cut, but this does have the whiff of... Well, let's not beat around the bush, there are parts of it that reminded me of Charmed and other rather dubious 90s shows that featured heavily signposted plots and relationships and passable acting from anyone who didn't have a major role. That scene with the mum talking to her daughter is a prime example, and made me cringe a little. But the information landfill that was the conversation with the angel he had was pretty bad too.

I also can't seem to get used to Constantine himself. Everytime I've seen him he's either been stand-offish or extremely sarcy and enigmatic, yet here there's something of the cheerful jokester and emotional guardian to him. Again, this is snippets and not a whole representation, and it's true that even though he's terrible - Constantine does strive to be a good person. The inherent tragedy of the character is that for as much good as he tries to do, more people around and close to him seem to suffer. That'll take anyone off the rails, and maybe this version of the character just hasn't suffered enough yet. But I think it'll still take me awhile to get used to him.

I was also going to complain about the accent. I'm not sure where the accent comes from, and can only assume it's Matt Ryan's own, but it's... Very Welsh. With possibly the slightest hint of Irish (making him all the more jaunty!). However, considering Constantine is supposed to be a scouser, it could've been far, far worse I suppose. C-C-Constantine Vision! Demonic runes to me, demonic runes to you, and other jokes that will be lost on our international friends. I'm sorry guys. It happens sometimes.

That being said, the idea of starting the character out in an asylum is pretty inspired (and the chaos that goes on there looks fantastically fun!) and some of the supernatural elements were pulled off well. But on the whole I think I'll be stepping into this one a little cautiously, not only because of everything listed above, but because compared to the other two trailers released recently - This looks to be the less polished of the lot, and I was really hoping for some fantastically visceral and creepy set pieces from this one.

That said, it could really surprise me, and hey! At least there's no Keanu Reeves in sight!

Now this is more like it! I have to admit, I've been looking forward to this one for awhile and from the glimpse above it doesn't look like it's going to disappoint. I instantly fell in love with Grant Gustin during his cameo on Arrow, and the team behind that show has won an awful lot of good will with me over the course of its run. Like Agents of SHIELD, Arrow got off to a rocky start but soon pulled itself out of the rut with compelling plots featuring the mysterious island and John Barrowman. Seriously, John Barrowman is a power player of this series, and I'm over the moon he's coming on full time for series 3.

The minds behind that series are some of the few over at Warner Brothers I trust to deliver me compelling, comic book action I actually enjoy and from the trailer above? It seems like they've got the foundation for something good. On the downside there seems to be a lot of elements from more current comic book lore creeping in, Geoff Johns' ridiculous grimdark origin story for Barry Allen, for example, which doesn't even fit the television version of the character from what we've seen of him.  But I did love the slight glimpse we got of Thawne! He looks fantastic. It also seems like we're going to get a set of Rogues who instead of relying on tricks and costumes and their own personal charm are going to gain actual powers from being mutated by roughly the same force as Barry himself.

I can't say this doesn't rub me the wrong way, mostly because if that's the connection they are going with then guys? Hey guys, Speed Force doesn't work that way! But I'm not despairing quite yet. Arrow's treatment of heroes and villains alike have been slightly off kilter to their comic counterparts, but the personalities and quirks always shine through in the end and it's wound up being the most faithful and exciting series for comic book fans lately. Deathstroke and Deadshot seem to come more and more alive and in line with their characters the more we see of them, for example, and even Count Vertigo as a deranged drug pusher worked in it's own way. Besides, having everything neatly tied together (much like Oliver's Island list) makes for better TV I suppose. Ultimately the important thing about the Rogues isn't going to be their powers or how they came about, it's going to be their personalities and if we ever see them band together in a dysfunctional family. That'll make or break them, and I urge the creators not to screw it up.

Other than that, I have to say I'm very impressed. From a technical point of view, it's certainly the trailer with the most eye candy. While Constantine barely looks polished in places, Flash looks slick from the outset and the special effects are beyond passable. Barry's movement, for example, just looks like it was torn right from the pages of the comics and is masterfully done while the super speed stunts look impressive in themselves, though I have to wonder how many bones Barry broke pulling off some of them.

The premise and performances seem solid as well. Barry being backed by STAR labs makes more sense than him jobbing it alone (Ollie can afford his hobby, a police scientist? Perhaps not!) and opens up a whole new element of the TV universe for them to explore. Hopefully this element doesn't get in the way of Barry's superhero antics and personal life, as if I'm honest that's what I really want to see, but it's an interesting addition none the less. Weather Wizard's power set seems spot on too, even if there's little in the trailer to distinguish him from ever other cackling super villain on Earth, and from the brief glimpse we got of her the lady they cast as Iris West seems perfectly charming in her own right as well. So we'll hopefully be spared the initial teething pains of Ollie's family being the most grating thing in the world in the early episodes of Arrow.

Of course, the show itself could be awful and the trailer only the very best, hand selected portions of the lot (it certainly had a better editor than Constantine's!) but I'm optimistic. The ultimate question, I suppose, is if it's going to turn out more flash than substance?

So there you have it. Walking Dead, Arrow, Agents of SHIELD, Gotham, Flash, Constantine and then of course the Netflix Marvel shows, the proposed Sandman television series and many others beyond that we'll either see... Or we won't. Comic books are coming for the small screen in a big way, and hopefully they'll wind up on par with the kind of movies we're being treated too now, and not the TV equivalents of Catwoman.

Tiny Bat Adventures! Gotham gets younger.

Sometime in 2010 comic book team Jeff Thomas and Celeste Green were commissioned by DC comics to create an animated series called Gotham High. The premise was a pretty simple one, take the basic premise of Batman and all his allies, enemies and general world, deage them all to teenagers and make them attend high school together.

It's not really my cup of tea, but it looks like it could be a fun, campy take on some of the characters. Plus when you think about it, Batman's whole wheelhouse is psychological drama and what better hot bed of psychological drama to throw the likes of poor, deformed Cobblepot, intellectually isolated E. Nygma and the positively split in two Harvey Dent than a high school setting. It had potential, and the artwork is particularly beautiful if you wish to check it out (the image above is thanks to the Batman wiki, which I'll link to shortly) but sadly was buried under a cascade of other Batman projects in the pipeline.

If your interest is piqued I suggest heading to Jeff and Celeste's blog for more art and the aforementioned Batman wiki for a potted synopsis.

But if you're really despairing at the loss of this show, then never fear! For Fox seems to have taken this idea and ran with it for a live action feature it's own!

Ladies and Gentlemen, allow me to introduce you to Gotham the latest attempt by DC to tell one, drawn out origin story for their heroes because they presumably want to save the really good stuff for their movies?

I really don't know, and I don't want to judge the series entirely from its trailer. However, there is a very clear albatross around this shows neck and it's part of the reason I brought up Gotham High above.

You see, Gotham has a lot of potential because it was already walking on fairly proven ground. A television show about Gotham city police department? That's essentially live action Gotham Central and that sounds awesome. Even if young Gordon doesn't particularly scream 'Jim Gordon'. However this show has done something particularly strange, they've decided to mix it up with the origin of young Bruce Wayne too.

This doesn't really need to be a problem by itself either. Having a sub-plot involving a budding relationship between young Wayne and Gordon is a pretty alluring idea, the problem is that where there's a baby Batman? There are baby villains too! And by goodness that trailer is pushing more than I'm comfortable with.

The fact that it reminded me of Gotham High is a white flag in itself, as this show is seriously setting itself up to be a serious drama on par with other show like Arrow and Smallville and we're essentially having seven to fourteen Bruce Wayne (I'm guessing, as traditionally Bruce loses his parents about seven, but they may want to up his age for television purposes) and his entourage of occasionally weird looking, tiny villains plaguing his life before the bat suit is even a thread between its tailors fingers.

I can't help but think this will lead to convulsions and awkward situations later down the line. If nothing else the show is going to have a very strange tone for it and I really can't help but think that they'd all have done a whole lot better abandoning the prequel angle entirely and just having an adult Commissioner trying to lead his team of detectives against the Riddler's latest perplexing puzzle. Racking their brains to solve a crime that spans the entirety of the city for clues before time runs out!

At least, that sounds more fun to me...

In The Flesh - A more complex take on the walking dead.

Zombies, eh? For decades they've been the obsession of horror aficionados and just regular obsessives alike. What self respecting human being who's seen Dawn of the Dead or 28 Days Later doesn't have a zombie survival plan? Doesn't have that one building in their area they look at and think 'Yeah, I could probably gather up everyone important to me and hole up in there!' For the record, Shaun of the Dead led to me keeping an old cricket bat by my bedside for years. You know, just in case. Well, I've got good news for anybody waiting for the flesh eating apocalypse with bated breath, it already happened, and we seem to be coming out the other side okay! Or at the very least, it happened to our media.

For years it seems like the shambling vestiges of humanity have been shuffling, walking and running at a variety of speeds across our popular culture. Exploding into television, comic books, movies, literature, you name the medium, it got a taste of the undead. Not even Jane Austen was safe! In the midst of all this insanity, even the BBC jumped on the bandwagon with a three episode television drama called In The Flesh. Airing on BBC3 in March last year, I think it's my favourite piece of zombie related media that I've ever been exposed too.

The series takes place after 'The Rising', and featured a world where the uprising of the undead had actually been quelled (for the most part) and humanity were back on top again. Instead of taking all the zombies and lining them up to be put down like rabid animals, their condition came to be treated like a mental illness. They were given drugs to control the blood lust, make up and contacts to hide the ravages of being a walking corpse and then returned to their families and communities after an intensive psychological course had taught them how to behave like regular human beings. Of course, this is a world where people had spent years locked in a vicious kill-or-be-killed struggle with the walking dead and the men and women who pushed back the hordes and kept their communities safe by killing them off like the vicious, predatory beasts they were are still praised like heroes. So not everyone is particularly happy to forgive, forget and have them back.

The premise alone is pretty great, but how it was handled elevated it above that into some truly engaging television. It featured very complex characters, including a main character who was as meek and mild as you please, yet still struggling with what he was and what he did during his time as wild undead. This becomes even more of a struggle when his best friend, a soldier killed in Afghanistan and found wandering around the foreign country and brought back home, is refused to be allowed to acknowledge that he's dead because his father is the leader of the local militia that pushed the zombies back from their small village in the first place. In denial, he treats his son as a war hero who survived, one hundred percent alive, even though anybody with eyes, ears or a decent sense of smell can tell otherwise.

These kinds of characters allowed the story to touch on both sides of persecution, and explore the various aspects of what it's like to persecute and be persecuted very well. The persecuted, even though there is a very strong argument that they had no choice in what they're being persecuted for and truly had no control over it, are often left felt like they deserve every bit of it and there are definitely pressures in society that back this up. Of course, this doesn't apply to every undead character in the series. For example, a trend springs up where the a few zombies shrug off the make up, shrug off the contact lenses and just decide to start walking around au-natural. Even though it potentially leads to a much harder time for them.

On the flipside, the persecutors aren't just there as a bunch of utter bastards for us to shake our fist at as we sympathise with the zombie protagonists. True they can can often be a big sack of knobs, but you can understand their fear and their reluctance. While our main character, and most of the other zombies we meet, may appear cured, it's not a clean cut, black and white situation and there are certainly still wild zombies wandering the woods. When they capture them they're supposed to turn them over to the government, but if you'd seen people you loved being chowed down upon by the grinding teeth and cold, splintered eyes of the undead, would you want to just save everyone the trouble and put a bullet in their brain? Of course, it goes deeper than that. As with most groups that hold a grudge against another, hypocrisy is rife. As I mentioned above, the leader of this militia is one of the most ardent supporters of putting them all back in the ground that we meet, but when his own son turns out to be one of them...

I feel like this series has a lot to say to anybody who has ever felt like they've been an outcast, for whatever reason. It also doesn't hurt that all these characters and elements were pinned together by a story that I wound up finding absolutely riveting. In the last episode there was an excellently executed twist, that I feel like I should have seen coming but didn't because I'm kind of dumb like that, which revolved around the main characters death and put a lot of the themes of the series into a whole new perspective. Not to mention it just took me completely by surprise and felt absolutely perfect. It's one of the few times I've had to pause a TV show to digest and wrap my head around what I'd just seen, but I commend them fully for it.

And I honestly thought that would be it. Some of the best, most thought provoking and relevant drama that the BBC has produced in years, gone after three episodes. I thought that if the zombie trappings hadn't put people off, which I wouldn't blame them after years of not being able to look anywhere without seeing a walking corpse chewing somebody's guts out in the corner of your eye, the decision to hide it away on BBC3 would. BBC3 is a channel that's long been fading away into irrelevance, assuming it had any to begin with, and if it wasn't for Being Human I'd never have realised this show even existed. At the time I saw no buzz for it, nobody seemed to be talking about it and I thought this was just another piece of quality entertainment that had slipped under the radar.

Turns out, I was wrong. Much to my surprise and delight, the BBC have commissioned a second series for In The Flesh and it begins to air on Sunday 4th of May at 10pm both in the UK and in the USA. It's going to be six episodes long, and among other things is going to be picking up the storyline involving 'The Undead Prophet', an extremist group that urges the undead to shrug off not only their make up, but also the drugs that keep their condition under control. I'm hugely looking forward to it, and I urge you all to catch up with series one and jump right on board! Because while BBC3 itself might be going down the pan, I wouldn't mind seeing In The Flesh shuffle on forward for a few more years to come.

A Tale of Two Minas.

Over the past few months I've been watching the latest television adaptation of Dracula, which in essence is an excuse for Jonathan Rhys Meyers to be all smouldering and tormented as he moves like no man is supposed to move. Full credit to him, I can fully believe he's a vampire, and his performance is top notch throughout. Yet the show falls into this same, vast canyon a lot of American television shows seem to find themselves in for me these days. When it comes to television from my home country, I tend to be able to decide very quickly if it's something that's for me or just something I don't have time for. For media from the States, though? I either really, whole heartedly enjoy it or just... Can't work it out for the life of me. I floundered with Arrow for half of the first series, the awful Dexter style narration and weak characterisation of his family bogging down a show that otherwise, had so much potential. In that case they kicked it up a notch with the John Barrowman and island plots, and the series hasn't slowed down since, becoming some truly fantastic television.

On the other hand, I watched every single episode of Defiance, and that show is a disappointing mess of loose plots and characters that seem to have been stolen wholesale from every other genre television show that has been popular in the last decade or two. Yet if anybody else says that, I feel like I need to jump to it's defence with thoughts like 'Hey! Grant Bowler and the guy who played the mine owner were really good! And it had some interesting ideas in it... Kind of...' Which I think strikes at the heart of the whole thing. Defiance, in reality, was a great tapestry of really inspiring ideas and some fairly abysmal ones, barely woven together to make a rather mundane whole, and already coming apart at the seams. Yet I hoped against hope the inspiring elements, the performances that were great, the design and lore that was actually good would win out. You know what, I'll still be there in the Summer when series 2 comes around, hoping the same hopes, because on some level I'm clearly some strange, televisual masochist that will never, ever learn. Heck, maybe I'll even bring you guys along for the ride! Blogs on Defiance, truly I am a generous and kind hearted writer to bring you such gifts!

Sarcasm aside, Dracula isn't quite that bad, but if anybody asked me to give it a solid recommendation I'd struggle to call it good.  Now don't get me wrong, there's a lot to like. As you can see from the trailer above, it's all very slick and polished (although for my money, I much prefer this Sky Living one which I sadly can't embed. It's what drew me into wanting to watch the series in the first place.) and I like the underlying premise and the basic plot. Count Dracula comes to London, posing as an American industrialist to unravel the organisation that tore his mortal life apart. It's something with so many possibilities, and they revel in toying with them. At first I wasn't sure how I felt about Dracula being on the side of the Angels, but as the series has progressed I find myself asking... Who are the angels in this scenario?! This is a much more meaty dynamic than anything Defiance ever came up with and arguably enough to justify watching too.

It also sparked my interest because the TV show was the second utterance I'd heard of the phrase 'Order of the Dragon'. Now in my 2013 retrospective, I mentioned West Wind Miniatures - A fine company, who make fine products, and if you have any interest in wargaming, hobby craft or Victoriana/historic campaigns then you should be doing yourself a favour and at least give their line a gander. As it turns out though, thanks to Westwind I already had an Order of the Dragon - Except... They were Dracula's posse. His boys. His crew. His other generic term to make Dracula sound like a gang leader in inner-city Birmingham. Yet in the show they seemed to be an order of vampire hunters who were set up to be his main antagonist. Add to that the fact that certain characters clearly had very different roles than what I understood them to be from other Dracula infused media I'd consumed, and I was very confused indeed.

So I did the smart thing.

I went back to the book.

(My own take on the Count and Renfield, from Westwind's Order of the Dragon set)

Now before you get any ideas, no, the purpose of this blog is not to drag the TV series over hot coals because it's not a faithful adaptation of the book. Like I said, the premise and main plotline? Absolutely fine. I love it. It's not supposed to be a straight up adaptation of the book, it's intended to be a soft modernisation using more sophisticated story telling techniques to tell the story of the character at a slightly different slant. Upon reading the book though, a few stark contrasts came to mind and a few things that had been sat in the back of my brain, nagging at me, refusing to let me enjoy the show whole heartedly did come to light.

To jump right into that latter category, let's talk about the women! The novel features two main characters, Mina Harker and Lucy Westenra. There's also Mrs. Westenra, who plays a more minor role, but not enough to really be ranked on the same level as these two. Lucy is a very sweet girl, beloved by the majority of the male characters (indeed, two of them proposed to her and one went on to marry her) who at times can come across as more of a story element than a character in her own right. The Westwind line identifies her miniature as 'The Lost Love', which is very apt really. Stoker does not imbue Lucy with a very strong or terribly unique personality beyond being a doe-eyed, dutiful damsel, but he epitomises her as the very essence of innocence, beauty and sweetness - So when tragedy befalls her, it really takes it's toll, both on the characters and the readers. As to Mina, we'll get onto her a bit later.

The television show also features Lucy and Mina, but it also has a third, new character who... I honestly cannot remember the name of without looking it up. I wanted to call her Lady Jane Grey, but a quick search reveals her surname to be Weatherby, and me an idiot for muddling fictional characters up with English royalty. In the TV show, we see Lucy become a more selfish and manipulative character, while Lady Jane is... Also extremely selfish and manipulative. You see, there is a very good reason I couldn't remember her name - And that is because if it wasn't for the fact Lady Jane fought vampires, had a lot more sex and was a touch older, I wouldn't be able to tell the difference between these blonde schemers. In fact, there have been times when I've mistaken Lady Jane for a re-imagining of Mrs. Westenra herself, which became very awkward when the two of them started to get rather more, ah, intimate on screen. For as much as I want to roll my eyes at Lucy's fey, aristocratic girly-girl attitude in the book, her characterisation in the series is in some ways worse. It's not more complex, it's not even any more mature, it's like they just gave her a complete tonal shift and set her down to cause trouble, and given how closely aspects of her personality resemble Lady Jane's - She comes across as rather redundant at the time of writing.

Mina Harker though, is a much more interesting case. In the book, Mina is the loving and faithful wife of Jonathan Harker, who works as a school mistress. She is portrayed as resourceful and practical, yet the fingerprint of a woman's role in polite Victorian society (especially in regards to her husband) is imprinted as heavily on her forehead as the red mark that embellishes it in the later part of the book. Mina knows her limitations as a woman, and she accepts them. On the surface, the Mina Harker of the series is much more progressive. She refuses to be an accessory to Jonathan, and has a much more progressive occupation as she is training to be a Doctor. The problem is, she's also a massive flake. True, Jonathan in the series is even more of a massive flake than she is, but the point stands - If the chips were down and the stakes (a-heh-heh!) were high, I'd want novel Mina in my corner every time.

The fact of the matter is, for as progressive as the series creators have tried to make Mina's character - Insofar she hasn't really done all that much. At all. Really, the series seems to make her as much of a plot device as Lucy was in the book at times. By some strange co-incidence, Mina resembles Dracula's wife, who died centuries before her own birth, and when the two meet? She falls for him. She falls hard. And that... Is about the extent of her storyline. Trying not to succumb to the Count's dark charms, while trying (and failing) to keep her marriage with Jonathan alive. Meanwhile, over in that Victorian text they're all adapting, Mina is strong, resourceful, brave and every bit as part of the adventure as the men that surround her. In fact, it only seems to be when the men decide it's a good idea to cut her out of proceedings (and she, naturally, agrees because... Hey, that's just what a polite, well spoken woman does!) that things become really problematic for them and the Count truly gains the upper hand.

I think for me, the disconnect comes because Mina in the series is clearly a character they are pushing as progressive, yet ultimately she shows so little personality or even practical thought outside of her three love interests. We're told she has drive, we're told she has ambition, but in reality she's eternally reacting, and every idea she has seems to have been spurred to life by John, by Lucy or by the Count himself. In the book however, Mina may well be mindful of her role to society and her comparative status to her husband and their male friends, but she's the spinning dynamo that keeps the group together. They'd be thoroughly screwed without her. For me, it casts a whole new perspective on her role in League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, especially why Alan Moore chose her as the leader of the little band of misfits. It's simply an extension of her role in the novel, as that brave and gallant woman at the heart of everything.

(The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, led by Mina Murray. Image taken from Comicvine.) 

Perhaps as the series progresses, the Mina of the television show will begin to show some of those traits, however I don't think I'll be holding my breath. If only because there's another significant flaw the series suffers, and that is the other plot. The one that's not brilliant, or fun, or really does anything but get in the way - Yet in some ways is far more central to the show than the revenge plot I talked about earlier. That, my friends, is the love triangle. Well, I call it a triangle, it's more of a love polygon.

You see, the Count, posing as American business man Alexander Grayson, loves Mina as he believes she's a reincarnation of his dead wife. Mina loves the Count, because maybe she is! Or maybe it's because her husband is a raging, ignorant dumbass, or because, as we discussed earlier, she's a touch of a flake herself. Jonathan loves Mina, and has loved her for years, wanting to make her his adoring wife and... At times going about it the complete wrong way (see raging, ignorant, dumbass comment above). Okay, so far, so soap opera! However, the kinks really do come out when it's revealed that Lucy also loves Mina, and is trying to win Jonathan's heart to get back at Mina for spurning her, while at the same time Lady Jane is using Lucy to get at Mina through John because she's fallen head first for Grayson while it's clear that he only has eyes for Mina.

And this is where the wheels come off for me.

Honestly, I don't mind big, entangled, intricate love stories. They can add spice to an interesting narrative, and help to further the emotional development of characters. The problem? Most of these characters just aren't likeable or altogether very well defined. I think you're ultimately supposed to be rooting for Mina and the Count to rekindle their lost love, but it's a hard sell when the Count is at times a charming socialite and at times a ruthless monster. It's also hindered by the fact that Mina and John had a nice, normal thing going on and as much as I dislike John's character - He was really coming around to his wife's needs before the Count stepped in. Of course, he's the one who ultimately seems to have ruined that, so I've got no sympathy or love for him again here either. As for Lucy, well, the only discernible reason I can find for Lucy to even be in love with Mina is 'Yay! Women making out on TV is hot!' so I'm not really feeling that one either. In fact, the only one I do feel for is Lady Jane. The Count made her love him so he could use her, and was ready to toss her aside at a moment's notice, but at the same time, their relationship was so physical that it's hard to tell if Lady Jane is truly hurt because she loved him, or that she can't seem to satisfy all his needs herself. Either way, that relationship is so complicated and both characters involved lead double lives that make them hard to like for terribly long (if you even like them at all) that it's hardly strong enough to support all the other strands of this mad web of relationships on it's own.

(Behold the mighty Love Fish and despair!)

What works for the revenge plot, that feeling of not knowing who to trust and everything, even the monstrous vampire Dracula and the sweet and cuddly Van Helsing, falling into that murky shade of grey that is as far from black as it is from white, doesn't really work here. Honestly? None of these relationships seem worth fighting for, none of them seem healthy and most importantly of all - Few of them are all that interesting on their own merits. John and Mina's relationship in the book may have been a simple one, but it was the glue that held everything together, that gave them a reason to bring the fight right to the doorstep of that foreboding Transylvanian Castle.

That's not to say the series gets all it's characters wrong. I've already praised Dracula himself, but a very surprising stand out is Renfield. The insect munching inmate of the book becomes a worldly, business smart former slave who acts as Dracula's right hand man throughout all his dealings. It's a surprising twist on the character, but works very well. Van Helsing's much more darker turn, and his very tenuous alliance with the Count himself, is also hugely intriguing and one thing I can't wait to play out. The Order of the Dragon, headed by Ben Miles putting in a fantastic performance as Mr. Browning, adds such an interesting element to the story that... Well, they're the ones that made me chase down the book in the first place. Truly, the series has a lot going for it, but at the same time it's hampered by characters that don't shine as brightly as their Victorian era counterparts and a convoluted tangle of relationships that I doubt I'm ever going to be able to force myself to care about. A Song of Ice and Fire this is not.

I suppose if there's one thing to learn from a comparison of the novel and the series, two very different animals though they are, it's that for all the complexity, intrigue and 'mature and modern' storytelling of the television show - Sometimes a more simplistic approach is the best. It can work better for the overall narrative, and can produce far more interesting and developed characters.

Still no idea where or how this 'Order of the Dragon' stuff originated, though! 

The Strange Case of Mycroft Holmes.

Now, this was originally going to be a blog about Dracula - And considering I have that partway written, I'll probably go ahead and post that next week. But something has been rattling in my head today, that I think I want to discuss, so I'm going to do just that!

Originally I didn't think I had an awful lot to say about Sherlock. It returned, it was brilliant, but there seemed to be nothing to really delve into as far as discussion points went. Oh, don't get me wrong, I saw that big cliffhanger as plainly as you did, and yes, I know what you're thinking 'What about the other big thing that happened?!' and all I can say to you is, yes it's all very interesting. But nothing really reached out and grabbed me. Until... Until I started pondering one of the smaller details, that could be laying roots for much greater things, but doesn't seem to be getting all that much discussion. In fact, few people I've talked to even noticed it - So maybe it's all in my head. But by the end of this blog, it's going to be in your head too, so I'd consider that a job well done for today!

As a warning, this blog is going to contain spoilers for series three of Sherlock. I don't know how I can make this any more clear for you, but for my American friends, my friends who have not quite yet caught up, or anybody else who hasn't jumped on the Sherlock bandwagon but may want too in the future and doesn't want to be spoiled? Well, this has spoilers in it. Sorry, it's unavoidable, but please! Do, feel free to come back when you're all caught up! These words aren't going anywhere, I promise. 

As an apology to those people, I offer you this fun (and spoiler free!) little video where Sherlock meets the Doctor. It definitely put a smile on my face when I first saw it, and is very well made, although the way Smith and Cumberbatch's faces and mouths move may haunt your dreams for months.

You're welcome.

Now then, with that out of the way, let's get down to business. The one thing that series three of Sherlock brought to my mind was a very simple question, that doesn't have any kind of simple answer. That question?

Is Mycroft Holmes dying?

This may seem like it's rather left field to some of you, but something is most definitely up with Mycroft in the third series. The most obvious indicator is that we're seeing a lot more of him, but at the same time this doesn't mean an awful lot on it's own. If there's one unifying theme in this series, it's family and friendship and how the two are almost interchangeable. John and Mary are as much Sherlock's family as Mycroft and his parents, perhaps even more so, and having Mycroft be more prominent in the episodes is a good way to highlight his differing relationships with both. It also could be argued that this series placed character building above the cases, and that Mycroft's increased presence was a way of fleshing him out in the same way other characters were fleshed out. Not to mention the climax of the third episode depended on the audience believing that Sherlock was indeed Mycroft's pressure point, with the whole series working hard to present and highlight the chain that Magnusson talks about to us before he even makes an appearance. Mary influences John, John influences Sherlock, and Sherlock... Well, you get the picture. 

But let's shift focus a bit and look at Mycroft's motivation in the series. His one, main goal throughout (aside from his usual, national terrorism and homeland security goals) is making sure that Sherlock is exactly where he belongs. In Baker Street, in London, protecting Queen and Country from whatever may crop up under the surface. He brings Sherlock home after two years of globe trotting dismantling Moriarty's criminal network for exactly this reason, and throughout the series we see Mycroft chastising his brother for being an impulsive child - Both in person, and in his head. Who is it that sits in judgement in Sherlock's courtroom scenario, demanding he concentrate and focus on the facts of the murder at John's wedding? Who is it that pulls him away from the minor detail of the gun and tells him to open his eyes and see what's obviously in front (well, in this case behind) him? Who is it that warns him off Magnusson because he knows that a confrontation between the two couldn't go any other way than how it did? Sherlock might read people like a book, but Magnusson understands them like a clockmaker, he was never going to win in a conventional sense. That look of abject disappointment on Mycroft's face, coupled with Sherlock pictured as a child after he shot him, was perfect. And for one final question, who is it that turned that plane around as soon as a hint of Moriarty appeared? 

It's very clear that Mycroft wants Sherlock in Baker Street and is going to great lengths to keep him there. I even wonder if the terrorist threat he called Sherlock back to deal with was really beyond Mycroft's scope to take care of at all. It didn't seem a terribly complicated case in the end. He's also constantly pushing, both in Sherlock's head and otherwise, for the Great Detective to grow up. To be better. To take responsibility. The question I ask in response is, why? He never seemed particularly bothered before. In fact, he seemed happy to let his brother loaf around and do what he liked, on the one provision he didn't get in the way. Could it be that Mycroft isn't going to be around much longer, and needs somebody of his own calibre to protect his city, his country, while he's gone? That he needs Sherlock, because he's not going to be around much longer to do what needs to be done himself?

Still pretty flimsy, huh? Okay then, let's get physical! Throughout the series we see that Mycroft has not only taken up exercising, but can also no longer handle his cigarettes. That first one isn't all too alarming, Sherlock doesn't seem surprised to find his brother exercising although from his remarks about it could be deduced that Mycroft doesn't do it often.The other thing though, although Sherlock passes it off on him smoking cigarettes with too much tar and just being stubborn about it, is where things for me get interesting and really got my mind racing. It seems to be a very deliberate, if a little blink and you'll miss it, sign of physical decline. Of course, we could also just assume that Mycroft is getting out of shape. I believe, in the books he was a rather large, unwieldy man - Bloated from being behind a desk for too long. This could just be a suggestion that Mycroft in the series is going that way (and I am all about Mark Gatiss in a fat suit!) or a cheeky nod to his character in the books from Gatiss and Moffat.

However, there's also an emotional element going on here. We see Mycroft spending more time with his parents, taking them to see Les Mis in London and of course, coming around for Christmas. Naturally it's torture for him, but it's torture he's putting himself through when (in one case, at least!) his brother is choosing not too. Not to mention his very open display of affection towards his brother, when he tells Sherlock that he loves him. Again, this could just be set up for Magnusson's pressure point, but it does seem far too sledgehammer subtle for that. We know how fond Sherlock and Mycroft are of each other. They belittle each other, they fight, Sherlock thinks of all the people he knows Mycroft is the easiest to murder, but isn't that the definition of brotherly love? If you haven't pondered murdering your siblings at least once in your lifetime, I daresay you don't have a healthy relationship with them. 

So if all this is true, why hasn't Sherlock noticed? Well, I daresay he has. We've been in Sherlock's head a lot in this series, and while many people in his life populate it, one keeps coming up again and again. Mycroft. He's very dominant in his thoughts, and while that could just be down to the fact that Mycroft is as close to an equal as Sherlock has, it could also be that he realises something is going on and is either in denial or simply is choosing not to make a big deal of it because... Well, he practically choked on his cigarette at Mycroft even admitting that he loves his brother, how well do you think emotions are generally dealt with in that family?

Given all these subtle and unsubtle nods, I can't help but think that something is up with Mycroft. Perhaps he's not dying, which I'd be quite pleased with because I love Gatiss' take on the character, but something is going on. I wouldn't be terribly surprised if Mycroft orchestrated the 'return' of Moriarty for the same ends as bringing his brother back to London in the first place. All we saw was a .gif with some writing photoshopped onto it, anybody on Tumblr can and does do that, but who has the power and skill to hack the country's media network? Moriarty, obviously. One of his generals Sherlock missed, possibly. Perhaps even the 'true' Moriarty who used the current one we know and love as a cover all along (the descriptions of Moriarty the victims gave in series 1 didn't match up with what we eventually got, afterall. But then again, it's more likely Moriarty used a cover when talking to them to keep Sherlock off the trail, revealing his bouncy, flamboyant self later) possible but unlikely! Taking away the criminal element and the possibility of it being a new player altogether, that leaves The Woman and... Mycroft. 

As cool as the set up for the return of Moriarty actually being a preface for the grand return of Irene Adler would be, there's something about a dying Mycroft, faking Moriarty's return to save his brother from banishment because... Well, he's the only one he trusts to carry on his work and keep the country safe, and also, on another level - He's his brother and he loves him that I find incredibly touching and at the moment, rather more plausible than Moriarty coming back from blowing his brains out on a rooftop. I suppose we'll have to wait and see, but for the moment - I'm calling it. Sherlock series 4 or 5, a big bombshell is going to be dropped about Mycroft. At the moment, the only thing that eludes me (despite the case I've made for his death above), is what?

And now it's time for one last bow...

"... Like all your other selves. Eleven's hour is over now, the clock is striking twelve's."

So, new blog! New thoughts to ramble out into the cyberspace. I could do an introductory spiel, lay down a mission statement, even introduce myself - But no, I think not. In truth, I don't know what this blog is about. I don't know if it'll last, or even if I'll share it for a wider audience. Quite frankly, I'm simply bored, in need of an outlet and so desperately want to write something, anything, to pass the time. So, let's begin with something that has occupied my mind for the past month, at least. 

When some people think of Christmas, they think of snow, of Santa Claus, of tinsel, and wrapping paper, and gifts, and chestnuts roasting on an open fire - Some, I dare say, may even spare a thought to little baby Jesus lying in his manger. But for me, being a rather cynical adult who spends a great deal of time with his family in any case and isn't too huge a fan of large roast dinners or excessive amounts of chocolate - Christmas has come down to two very distinct things. Finding weird and wonderful presents for the select amount of people I buy presents for and hoping to God they enjoy them, and Doctor Who. For almost a decade now, the Doctor Who Christmas special has been something of a Christmas staple and I have to be honest, for as much as I look forward to them, more often than not they're... Disappointing. For every A Christmas Carol or The Snowmen, there's a The Doctor, The Witch and the Wardrobe or The End of Time to counteract it. But I look forward to it eagerly and expect the best every year regardless because, well, it's Doctor Who! And especially in these days of series being split in half over two years, as a fan, you've got to take every precious drop of that you can. 

Only this Christmas, it was different. This Christmas promised so much more. The end of one era and the beginning of a new! A capstone to everything the last three series of Matt Smith's Doctor threw at us, and the launchpad of a shining new age spearheaded by potty mouthed spin doctor, or Oscar winning director, depending on which way you'd like to spin it - Peter Capaldi. One Doctor I've come to love and admire leaves, as a Doctor I have such very high hopes for enters. 

As you can imagine, my expectations were set pretty high - A situation not quite helped by such amazing, high energy trailers such as this;

And how did it do? Very well, I thought. But that's not quite why I'm here. I could talk for days about the soaring triumphs, the odd murky low and the somewhat frequent 'Hold on a minute!'s of the Time of the Doctor. But ultimately - All you have to know is this. It was a beautiful tribute to a wonderful actor who, over the course of the last few years, has crafted a Doctor with a heart of pure gold. That, ladies and gentleman, is why we're here. Because while I could talk about the special itself, I'd much rather talk about the man at the centre of it. 

You see, the Moffat/Smith era is deeply important to me. I'll own up right here and now to being a rather new Doctor Who fan. I was born in 1987, the year that McCoy stepped into the role of the very last televised Doctor for more than a decade. For most of my life, Doctor Who has not been a consistent part of British television. I was aware of it, of course! As every good Briton should be! But I never grew up with it, never had anyone there to introduce me too it. Much like all the science fiction and fantasy and other worldly fiction I now love and cherish, I had to find it on my own. So when the reboot happened, and those amazing, overly dramatic trailers with Christopher Eccleston running from a ball of flame started to appear, I was there! 

It's funny really, I can still remember the first time I watched this silly old show. Huddled up on an uncomfortable sofa in the caravan, watching Rose unfold on a tiny little TV screen with poor reception. Not the most glamorous of introductions, but I was intrigued enough to watch more - And by the time The Unquiet Dead hit I was hooked. I still have a poster of Chris and Billie stood in front of the TARDIS hanging proudly over my computer desk to this day. The only problem? That wonder couldn't last. By the time David Tennnat's second series was over, I was done. The magic had been lost, and the show had started to collapse for me under the weight of it's own silliness. Not just the overt silliness such as the Scooby Doo homages and large doses of Peter Kay in Love and Monsters. Nor the sappy, sentimental silliness of Fear Her. No, it just seemed like the whole universe was nothing more than a joke, or simply expendable, to both the Doctor and the writers. 

Villains were brought back and cast aside with a causality that destroyed their reputation, here one minute as a galaxy dominating army only to be gone the next, never to return! Until next series, that is. The Doctor himself was also distressingly human and, worse than that, like a casual, know it all tourist who's just bored of the universe. Every time he stepped out of the TARDIS there was the usual 'Oooooooh, it's this place! I know this place!' as if the universe held no wonder for him and he was just retreading the same old stomping grounds, seeing the same old sights.To pick up the tourist analogy again, he was the equivalent of a man who travels to Asia yet refuses point blank to eat anywhere but McDonalds. Not only that, but he picked up another ugly tourist habit to boot - That if he shouted at people loud enough and made enough of a fuss, everyone would just fall in line and follow the Doctor, regardless of the fact he'd displayed no actual authority whatsoever. Unless having the loudest voice and being able to shout the angriest is a mark of authority, which in this universe it seems, was the case! 

I'll raise my hand and admit that I was one of those people who ranted and raved about Russel The Davies with the same passion and intensity as the Moffat denouncers I roll my eyes at now. Yet even given the above, I have to admit I regret that now. I've come to recognise that for all the obvious chinks in RTD's armour, he brought so much to the show and we have so much to thank him for, and David Tennant himself is a fantastic actor - Something I always knew throughout his run, even if there were times I was bitter to him by association. Given the right script, that man was the Doctor. Without a shadow of a doubt. 

So how did I come to that realisation? Well, funnily enough, and getting, belatedly, to the point of all this - It was through Matt Smith. 

See, I may have been lapsed, but I never gave up on Doctor Who. I was waiting patiently for a new writer, a new Doctor, and when I learned that new writer was going to be Stephen Moffat - Not only the man behind some of my favourite episodes, but also the sublime Coupling, I knew it didn't really matter who the Doctor was - I was more than ready to give it another shot. And oh! I'm so glad I did. It seems cheesy to say it, and perhaps somewhat unrealistic to judge a man off an appearance that only lasted a few seconds, but I loved Matt the moment he appeared as the Doctor. While others were getting their underwear in a twist over him being too young, or his manic, spitting on the console while the TARDIS burned around him, I just remember loving his energy. The way he bounced around the set, marvelling at his own legs like they were the greatest thing in the world - It was so out there! So alien! 

That one short appearance was all I needed to spark my love, my passion for this series into a flickering flame again. I watched Iplayer like a hawk and managed to watch all the episodes I missed. Finally caught such gems as Blink, The Shakespeare Code, Planet of the Ood and the first appearances of River Song, linked above. I discovered that even though series two took a plunge off the deep end, and series three often continued that trend (as well as featuring a rather bland companion who still had Rose's puppy dog infatuation with the Doctor to boot) series four was... Actually kind of good. I don't know if it was the fact that Donna, a character who was strong, independent and written like a woman and a friend to the Doctor rather than his lovestruck groupie gave the whole show a brand new dynamic that was far more enjoyable or if the ante had just been upped because this was Tennant's last full series. All I know is that, despite some of the silliness still being there, I was rather sorry I missed it the first time around. 

Even so, by the time Smith's first episode rolled around I was still nervous. Just because the first little taster was a welcome change, doesn't mean the rest is going to be up to standard. But come the Eleventh Hour, I was spellbound. Smith brought everything I loved about the character back, all of Eccleston's otherworldly charm and quick, memorable one liners but added a whole other layer to it. It's hard to imagine Eccleston or Tennant's Doctor being so at ease with young Amelia Pond. Don't get me wrong, Eccleston seems to be a very soft spoken and kind individual off screen and Tennant is fantastic with children, but number Nine is so full of fire and regret and number Ten... Well, Ten is the action hero. He swoops in, solves the problems, snogs all the girls and then swoops out just as quick. There's something about Eleven, about Smith's portrayal, that allows those quieter moments more power - That gives him a more reassuring aura.

A lot has been made about his old eyes, and how his Doctor is a stuffy old professor in a young man's body. But there's much more to him than that. His Doctor is a man that wears many masks. In some respects, he's the most ancient and knowledgeable being in the room - And unlike Ten, he has the authority to back that up. In The Eleventh Hour he sends proves his credentials by sending calculations far beyond that of any human mind to the world's leading scientific officials and in A Good Man Goes to War he overthrows an army through guile, cunning and a very clever use of a lot of favours. Yet, there's another element to Smith's Doctor that often goes unappreciated - His innocence. His pure, naivete. 

While he may be thoroughly brilliant in some respects, in others he's... Well, he's just from another planet. While Ten was a ladykiller, Eleven approached women like they were a whole different animal - And even when it comes to River Song, the woman he married, he approached her, more often than not, more like a naughty schoolboy than a husband or a lover. It was also clear in his fashion sense, his unusual concept of 'cool' but also in the way he carried himself. Matt's Doctor was a never ending fountain of curiosity, of wonder! You got the impression that he'd never grow tired of the universe, that he'd never stop trying to find that one little nook and cranny he'd never seen before! Even when he was retreading old ground, it wasn't met with an 'Ooooh, this place!' it was met with a 'Hey! Look at this! Isn't this awesome!'. He was constantly poking around, constantly touching his surroundings, constantly in a state of awe with the universe that to me, just felt exhilarating. His energy wasn't just in the way he sprang into a mad dash from danger, or his daft Dad dances or even the way he pirouetted around the TARDIS console - He put that energy into every expression, every movement, everything he encountered. To the Eleventh Doctor the entire universe was an adventure, and it was hard not to be swept along with it. 

Of course, this is far from the end of his talents - Nor is it the end of what really made the show work for me again. I loved Moffat's new approach to story telling, how he was unafraid to use time travel as a plot device rather than just somewhere to change the setting from London to Cardiff every other episode. Or how he wasn't afraid to address the classic series in clever little asides that were just pronounced enough to be spotted, but not enough to alienate. Not to mention the wonderful array of characters introduced, from Amy and Rory, to the Patternoster Gang, right down to those we only saw for a second - Like Dorium, the space Pirates, Porridge, Brian, Canton Delaware, all of which could carry a story, and some even a series, on their own. 

At the end of the day though, I owe the reignition of my love for this series to Matt Smith. I owe it to that first exciting glimpse of him wondering if he was a girl at the end of the otherwise underwhelming conclusion to the End of Time, I owe it to the way he's delivered a Doctor who is so thoroughly alien yet also so painstakingly human when it counts. To the magnificent highs of his grand speeches, be they atop Stone Henge or  addressing the sun of Akhatan. To those, sometimes incredibly subtle, emotional lows. He was the old professor dawdling about the universe solving any old problem that came his way. He was the intergalactic Boogeyman to every monster in existence, saving children everywhere from the perils of the universe. He was the excitable child, snogging with confidence when he was overexcited but not knowing what to do with any single part of his body when snogged in return. He was the lonely God, crushed by death, despair and defeat at every turn - And never knowing why the Universe feared him as much as he thought they loved him. 

Most importantly though, he was the Doctor. He was my Doctor. And in his final hour, as the bushy eyebrowed visage of Peter Capaldi is a-coming, I'd like to say thank you. Thank you for pulling me out of the wilderness, and making me fall in love with this fantastic, absolutely barmy show all over again. Long may it grace our television screens, and long may it survive and flourish and continue to entertain me without you!