Earlier in the year I wrote an article on WhatCulture about why Dracula should get a second season (can be found here), which also included some general concerns about a renewal for people to mull over. I think now the decision has been made to cancel Dracula, it has added a sheen to season one. Season one is now special and precious – one of a kind. It has also made me wonder if a second season would have carried on the subtle brilliance or grown stale.
Ignoring personal preference for a moment, imagine if they never made The Matrix into a series of films, if all we had to cling to was Neo flying off into the sky and the outcome of the war unknown. I personally think that would have been best, others would disagree. Dracula begs the question, is it better to burn out than to fade away?
The series had a steady pace and certainly kept me engaged, would a second season be the same?
Obviously, those are rhetorical questions that I have sent out into the cosmos for someone to read and wonder. However, Dracula season two has some amazing possibilities. I am no script writer, I am no Dracula expert and I am definitely not a super-fan of the show – I am just someone with an opinion, and WordPress give anyone with the internet (and a keyboard) a platform to share theirs.
Someone on the WhatCulture comments said this:
This really got my brain ticking, imagine if that was what they did with season two? Harker and Lucy could be the Jamie and Cersie Lannister of the gothic horror world. I too completely forgot about Mina pinching the formula, and the dead rat. It is possible that they didn’t draw too much attention to that so it could be a pivotal point of S2, alas we will never know.
So why did it get cancelled? Dracula wasn’t the only victim of NBC’s cancelling spree so maybe they were making room, time and money for bigger ventures? They also didn’t make it easy for the show to get the attention it deserved, the muddled episode schedule and somewhat lack of advertising did put the series at a disadvantage. Once ratings picked up and the storyline really got going, people seemed to enjoy it, although fans of traditional Dracula story lines did admit to it having elements of the ridiculous (read the comments here).
The concept of a fresh approach, a reimagining of who Dracula is and what he wants out of life is exciting to say the least, but as genre theory has constantly proven, people like to watch what they know. If a film doesn’t stay true to the book it causes friction, so maybe this was the same? Maybe NBC decided that we aren’t ready for a new Dracula and maybe the Stoker/Lugosi legacy is what audiences want?
Let me know what you think.