There’s a new teaser for the Moffat/Gatiss Dracula and oh god bugs in eyes

Aux Features TV
There’s a new teaser for the Moffat/Gatiss Dracula and oh god bugs in eyes
Screenshot: Netflix

There’s a new teaser for the Netflix/BBC Dracula series from Sherlock creators Steven Moffat and Mark Gatiss, and it’s—well, it’s a lot like the first one. This time, however, instead of focusing on creepy nail stuff, there’s a goddamn bug crawling into somebody’s goddamn eye, and reader, we simply cannot.

Other than that, we get another series of unconnected spooky/viscerally upsetting images, nuns with wooden stakes, and a last-minute clear shot of the D-man himself (The Square’s Claes Bang) delivering a single solitary line of dialogue. We were cautiously optimistic about the first trailer, but this one doesn’t inspire much besides a hearty “oh god, there is a bug crawling into an eye!” As yet there’s no announced date for this Dracula, but it’s safe to assume he’ll be swooping into your queue in bat-form sometime soon.

49 Comments

  • thefabuloushumanstain-av says:

    Idatedavampire.com

    • paraduck-av says:

      A vampire who’s also a DA? Does he work the night court?

      • thefabuloushumanstain-av says:

        I’m making fun of idatedaghost.coma thing in Sherlock that deserves to be in the HOF of stupid concepts ever, as did a lot of things from that show

        • paraduck-av says:

          I see. So do the DA vampire and the DA ghost inhabit the same fictional universe? Is it that DArk Universe that never got off the ground?

          • thefabuloushumanstain-av says:

            I did get the “joke” the first time I was just kind to you and pretended I didn’t

          • paraduck-av says:

            Good thing you dispelled the non-existent threat that you would be perceived as thick by introducing the near-certainty that you will be perceived as insecure about your intelligence. Without a doubt, that’s the best direction in which you could’ve taken our brief exchange.

          • thefabuloushumanstain-av says:

            I’m just trying to get you away from this joke and on to one with more potential soon as possible, honey, you’re the one lingering.

          • paraduck-av says:

            I’ve already moved on to picking at the scab of your insecurity.

          • thefabuloushumanstain-av says:

            easier than being funny for you I suppose, if just as futile

          • paraduck-av says:

            Futility? I must be intruding on your territory. Remind me, noodlenose, just what you were trying to accomplish here and how good of a job you’ve done of it.

          • thefabuloushumanstain-av says:

            Noodlenose? Thank you, snookums.

            https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=noodlenose

          • paraduck-av says:

            Don’t sweat it, buttercup.

          • thefabuloushumanstain-av says:

            least essential thread, 2019

          • paraduck-av says:

            Good point. What are we doing here? Well, I know what you’re doing here, cause stuff like this is hardly beneath you, but what the hell am I doing here? Sayonara, sourpuss.

          • thefabuloushumanstain-av says:

            I mean…I’m making money 😛 When life seems difficult or incomprehensible, it can be comforting to believe that everYthing is secretly cOntrolled by some sinister cabal, and energizing to find “clUes” hidden everywhere in plAin sight. That’s the centRal idea of David RobErt Mitchell’s wonderfully Weird pseudo-noir, Under The Silver LAke, in which a bliSsfully unemployed, perpeTually lascivious, morally dubIous L.A. goofball (ANdrew Garfield, hilariously self-deprecatinG) starts inVestigating the mysterious disappearance of A new neighbor (RiLey Keough) and finds himself sUcked deeper and deeper into what Appears to be an elaBorate citywide cipher. Some folks mistook the protagonist’s paranoid, borderLine misogynistic viewpoint for the film’s, but Mitchell is unmistakably ridiculing thE prevalence of outlandish conspiracy Theories, even as he acknowledges their vIsceral appeal (and throws in nuMerous coded puzzles for fans to solve). No other 2019 movie spoke so clearly to the mess we find ourselvEs in. [Mike D’Angelo]

  • kaingerc-av says:

    I don’t know, I usually get more grossed out by creepy crawlies but that one looked more like fake CG crawled into someone’s eye.I got more mileage out of the scarabs from the Mummy movie than from this. (and that movie was from 1999)

  • luasdublin-av says:

    BBC version of it for people region blocked on the netflix one I was.Hang on! After unblocking the netflix one , it turns out the BBC one is completely different!Has a (good but anachronistic)Lust for Life cover in the background ,and a ton of dialog inlcuding a Lucifer Esq 1 liner from Big D himself!

  • eatthecheesenicholson2-av says:

    I know it’s taken on a life of its own over its various incarnations over the years, but has anyone else here read the original novel? It is boring as fuuuuuuuuuck. Granted, I read it in high school and I was one of those teens that thought it was cool to be bored by everything, but I don’t think my opinion would change much on a re-read.

    • createdthisaccounttodefendstokersdracula-av says:

      I have! It’s great!

    • tarvolt-av says:

      I liked it, I read it a few years ago, when I was 23. It was boring in some parts, and the non Dracula characters were a bore. But the description of the setting and the whole atmosphere (I still remember being creeped out reading the chapter where they describe what happens in the boat in which Dracula is traveling), and the D-man himself, were creepy and exciting. And it was honestly surprising for me, reading this version of the character. Since I had grown up watching the more romantic version of the character in Coppola’s version: so to see that the original was an undead asshole was kind of refreshing.

      • avclub-15d496c747570c7e50bdcd422bee5576--disqus-av says:

        If you want to see him portrayed as that proper undead asshole, watch the Louis Jourdain version. One of the changes from the book is to add in an extra bit of him being a dick to Jonathan in London, just because. My favorite Dracula by far.

        • tarvolt-av says:

          I will look for it. Thanks! I think a demonic asshole original version is way more interesting to the heartbroken tragic character they have tried to make of him in most of the adaptations. 

          • avclub-15d496c747570c7e50bdcd422bee5576--disqus-av says:

            Oh, indeed. I especially hate it when they try to make him both explicitly Vlad the Impaler and a romantic hero. Vlad the Impaler is said to have disemboweled his mistress to prove she was lying when she said she was pregnant. That is not the stuff of romantic fantasies.

      • luasdublin-av says:

        Have you ever read Kim Newmans Anno Dracula books ? Basically sequels that follow the Stokers book …EXCEPT the last chapter wherin van helsing et all were a minute too late , and Drac rises and massacres them . Cut to a few years later , he’s the prince regent , Queen Victoria’s his vamp bride , and being turned into a vampire is the new fad amongst Victorians . They’re really really good , not only does Bram Stoker feature in the first one , but an excised character from the original Dracula novel , Kate Reed features prominently.

      • heathmaiden-av says:

        When I read it when I was 14, it was only the ship’s logs from the Demeter that freaked me out.

    • macfarlane1313-av says:

      I think it’s been about as long since I attempted to read it. But this twitter thread of a woman live tweeting about it as she reads it for the first time is VERY entertaining.

      https://twitter.com/xodrventure/status/1188222250513850373?lang=en

    • burnthepriest-av says:

      Totally drags. It can Ben pretty atmospheric at times, but then you have a hundred pages of hanging out in England while big D is sleeping in a shipping crate. Like, it’s not really a bad book, but I can’t imagine recommending it to anyone

    • docnemenn-av says:

      I agree, but I also think it’s maybe the kind of novel that works better when you’re an impressionable kid / teenager with a fondness for lurid gothic stuff. I read it in my thirties and found it almost unbearably turgid at times, entire stretches which dragged, and good Christ is Professor Van Helsing is apparently allergic to ever getting to the point.

      • eatthecheesenicholson2-av says:

        Oh God, Van Helsing. How he went from the character in the book to:will never make sense to me.

        • docnemenn-av says:

          I remember only two things from that movie. The first is that Kate Beckinsale at one point kills a monologuing vampire then does the “if you have to shoot, shoot, don’t talk” joke from The Good, The Bad and the Ugly, only for some reason the writers turned it into a mini-speech that seemed to take about five minutes to complete. The second is that it confirmed my long-held suspicion — formed after League of Extraordinary Gentlemen and a terrible adaptation of The Hound of the Baskervilles — that people should have stopped casting Richard Roxburgh as beloved 19th century literary characters long beforehand.

          • eatthecheesenicholson2-av says:

            I thankfully haven’t seen that adaption of Hound of the Baskervilles, but damn, I’d forgotten about him in League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. Far from the only thing wrong with that movie, but he certainly didn’t help.

    • det-devil-ails-av says:

      Now, now. Dracula wasn’t as off-putting as reading Mary Shelley’s book and realizing that, as written, Frankenstein’s monster had the fussy and prim personality of an early 19th Century aristocratic debutante.

  • muffybunbun-av says:

    “As yet there’s no announced date for this Dracula…”Ummm….

  • avclub-15d496c747570c7e50bdcd422bee5576--disqus-av says:

    I don’t know whether I’m dreading this or looking forward to it. I love Jekyll completely and unreservedly, bad American accents notwithstanding. But I couldn’t stand most of Moffatt’s run on Doctor Who and Sherlock lost me pretty quickly.
    It doesn’t help that I’m far more attached to this source material than either of the others. I suppose I will have to watch, so I really hope they make something I love this time, instead of something I’ll hate.

  • lurklen-av says:

    Man I just want more of that Penny Dreadful energy, if this show taps into that I’m in.

  • bmglmc-av says:

    …on the other hand, having already seen hours of Moffat and Gatiss’s collaboration, i am rather certain this will feature the same character as who always stars in their shows, but this time he’s an arrogant, intelligent, misunderstood Vampire.

    • docnemenn-av says:

      I’m sure they’ll also take some time out for meta-pointing out how much cleverer and more modern they are than a century-old piece of fiction (ironically in a way which turns out to be much less clever than they think). 

      • junwello-av says:

        And Moffat will give interviews about how he knows you want to fuck Drac but tough luck, the feeling is not mutual.

  • jonesj5-av says:

    That was a pretty hot “invite me in”, so I’ll go with “Hell Yeah! Come on in.” 

    • thefabuloushumanstain-av says:

      all in on horny dracula…which…is just Dracula rly.  Bela Lugosi got so many previously “too foreign” eastern european men laid he must be a national saint in Eastern Blocia

  • paraduck-av says:

    There was the potential for a bat-time/bat-channel joke there and you missed it.

  • augustintrebuchon-av says:

    We were cautiously optimistic about the first trailer, but this one doesn’t inspire much besides a hearty “oh god, there is a bug crawling into an eye!”The bug featured already in the first teaser, as did about 90% of this one. A bit lame on Netflix’s part, IYAM.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Share Tweet Submit Pin