One Ring, One Coin, One More Series....

So Grimm is quite interesting so far. It's still the first series so there's a likely chance it will get worse - but for now.....  I like it.

Let's not overthink my afinity for such things, da?

Although, I find the actors annoying at times. The guest ones, mostly. Mainly the ones I've seen elsewhere.

Let's start with him first.

He was in Mentalist. He played well against Jane, but I think I mainly just liked Jane driving his very expensive car blindfolded....

(Like everything Jane does, it worked perfectly - but then he forgot to set the brakes on a hill. Leading to a hedge. Leading to a cliff. Typical Jane. Thankfully the car was empty...)

So in Grimm SPOILERS  no, of course he's not going to be the villain: he's just going to seem like it, but he'll turn out to be a nice guy.

Where. To even. Start.

I've actually seen her in several things: Agents of SHIELD; Joss Whedon's Much Ado About Nothing which was actually my introduction to her; and then, of course, Person of Interest.

The latter, of course, now permeates everything.

Because SPOILERS she's going to be a villain, but you're REALLY going to relate to and feel sorry for her, but she's not really going to care.

I really, really, really can't stand her. She's prettier as a spider though, I can grant that....

(On a side  note: I really am horrid about those spoilers. Not in general, but for Finch. One person finally watched past the scene and....  Oh, I'm definitely evil.)

Speaking of Person of Interest, that series was even worse at taking actors I knew and using them in basically every other episode. It was annoying. And such fun to guess the ending - I wonder if that has aired again yet....

I digress!  My hands are stiff....

But it is quite interesting. Incredibly predictable in most points, but what can you expect from a television series? Most follow the same paths. The same basic characters, the same basic forumla, the same basic ending...  More or less.

I'm talking characters, not episodes. Although those have been pretty predictable too - but that's irrelevant and normal. I characterise.

And the main characters are pretty dull. Nick Burkhardt is thrown into a world he doesn't understand and didn't know of, and he's pulling those he knows into the world with him. Monroe is someone that loves history and is alone and is teaching the world.

More or less. There's nothing to learn about them. And Juliette is the girlfriend who knows nothing about the world - that's going to end terribly....

(By the way, can magical creatures automatically read German? Or are they all taught it as children?)

Really, there's only one interesting character here on the series: the Captain.

Why? Because we know nothing about him.

SPOILERS!!! IN GENERAL!!!! Mostly for Flash and Grimm.

We know that he has ties in with and knows of the supernatural world around him. We know that he has high standing IN the world. We know that he works with very dangerous people in that world. And we have no idea what side he's truly on.

Nor do we know what he is. Is he a Grimm? Is he human? Is he a creature?

We don't know.

And that is the best part.

We also know he has a Smeagol-like affinity for certain gold coins, but I think that's the One Coin's fault and not his.

Sound familiar at all?

 Harold Finch did (and does) the same thing: we know nothing about him.

But Grimm is basically following almost the same thing as Flash - although you might say the 'reverse'.

It was unavoidable.

But while Wells was basically good and helpful and you couldn't believe that he was evil, the Captain is basically bad and we really doubt that anything good he does is truly for any good reasons.

Either way, the end result is the same: I want to follow his story line at expense of basically everyone else.

And I really, really hope he doesn't turn out completely bad - that has a bad habit of happening.

While we're talking of Flash that was still an idiotic ending. THE PARADOXES JUST WHY????

At least Doctor Who hides it better!!

Back to Grimm.

Actually, not quite: speaking of Flash and annoying crossover actors.....

Dr. Caitlin Snow. Who is annoying in Flash and about a hundred times more interesting in Grimm - but this probably has something to do with the fact that she's a supernatural character. What is there not to like?

She's also incredibly annoying as a character given her actions, but not nearly so much as Snow, so....  (That's ironic. She plays snow and breathes fire. I love it. Yes, I over-complicate things massively - I recommend not encouraging me unless you want me to continue weaving insane crossover universes....)

But back to the Captain.

Yet another character with an expertly chosen name: Sean Renard. Sean means either 'gift from God' or 'God is gracious', and Renard means 'fox'. Basically.

Which, alright, the meaning of the first might be a stretch to match up given - as I said - we know nothing of the Captain. However, he is certainly fox-like. He's wily and cunning and playing more than one part and he's smooth. Certainly a fox if nothing else.

And the first name can be twisted to basically anything, but I personally am leaning toward the presumption that he will end up fighting with Nick. Which, alright, I admit is wishful thinking - but I can dream.....  Besides, him being a villain would be dull. Much more fun to make him on the side of the hero and then get to make him, really, really double sided and multi-leveled. The best sort of character.

Although, as a fox, right now his character really reminds me of Heather Dale's song...

And up spoke our master huntsman, the Master of the Chase:

"If only the Devil himself come by, we'd run him such a race."

The men, the hounds, the horses went flying back to town;

And all on their heels went a little black fox, laughing as he ran:

"Ride on, my gallant huntsman, when must I come again?

For you should never want for a fox to chase all over the glen."

Which is....Oh, I really hope he's on the side of the good guys mostly - it would be a brilliant character arc then. (And yes, the song is a little weird, but it does apply....)

And for goodness sakes, STAY AWAY FROM COINS OF POWER!!!

Yes, that is what I've named those things. It fits.

Alright, now I'm curious.... Do more of the names fit? Again?

Nicholas Burkhardt -- 'People's Victory' and literally 'strong or hardy fort or castle'.

This name is genius. He's a Grimm - he's not really a supernatural being. He's basically a human. and, of course, not really. But by killing and hunting the evil supernatural things - even by just bringing criminal's to justice - he brings victory for the people. At the same time, he does defend the people - he is a Strong Keep to shield those unprepared and unknowing of the supernatural world around them. Just like a fort.

(Although, the more I think about it, a 'Grimm' is ancestral and hereditery too - it basically is a Wesen, isn't it?)

Let's see who's next...

Ah, Monroe. Finally learnt his name - danke schonn. He also only has one. Which irks me. I like two names. More fun.

Anyway!

 Monroe -- 'from the mouth of the red haired'.

Loose application. But in certain lights, his hair really does look more red than brown, or it could be applied to the bloody connotation's of a werewolf's role. But he is the one Nick goes to for information so the 'from the mouth' part definitely fits.

Ooh....this one's brilliant. On the level of Sean's and Nick's so far.

Actually, there are very few main characters here......

Adalind Schade -- I couldn't find 'Adalind' specifically, but Adaline was the same and means 'noble'. The surname means 'damage' or 'to do damage'.

The first? Is that it's a German name. this is brilliant in it's own right - actually, many seem to have names with German roots. Completely surprising, I know...

Now, 'noble' is trickier... It can mean someone of rank, someone (or something, just....assume the two are synonymous right here) high bred, renowned, well-known, illustrious..... It means more than just pertaining to rank or blood. It also means something of superior quality.

Now, onto her surname. It was a word that referred to either a thug or clumsy person, or to a robber knight that would raid other people's lands. And, of course, it's translation of 'to do damage'.

So her name literally means 'illustrious beginnings to do damage'. More or less, combining versions of definitions.

"You do ugly so well."

Really a brilliant choice for her character!

Juliette Silverton -- 'father's child' and 'white thorn'

Well, obviously, she is her father's biological child. Bit impossible not to be. Without knowing whether or not her character is like her father's, I can't say if that name fits perfect on all levels.

'White thorn' does fit, and a bit more characterly than her given name does. Because she's pure. Untouched. White. The 'thorn' I'm taking to mean the forests and thorny brambles in faerytales, given that this is Grimm and it's basically completely from faerytales. Now, the thorns or forests (are there ever any safe forests in faerytales? No. Thus? There are thorns. However, thorns stand for women and femininity, actually - sensibly, given the forests shroud and protect things and that is the essence of modest in a woman. Propriety. Ideal.

They also stand for refuge, and she is that to Nick - she is his refuge from the supernatural and the homicidal.

On a side note, in reference to her first name's meaning as 'father's child', Adam is the father of humans - it's the mythological Lillith that where in the WORLD did she come from that's the line of monsters. Thus? She is her father's child given that she's human and not supernatural.

She's also an example of a name that barely works until you overthink it massively.

And, by the way, she has grown on me since the Pilot. She is an excellent character - my only complaint against her is that she's a girlfriend. It would be immensely easier to ignore if they'd stop kissing please. And touching like that. It could be worse, I know - but it could be better.....

Hank Griffins -- 'enclosure or home ruler' and 'lord or prince'.

And his name is a perfect example of why I probably read into things too much. Because unless you take it to mean that he's the ruler of his house because he lives alone? This really doesn't match unless you stretch it so much that it could mean anyone. So, I'll get back to this at some point. Maybe. If they work with his character more.

Now, he is another problem with this series because he is entirely too much like the Asian from Sleepy Hollow for me to separate the two. Except he's thankfully alive. And, after I looked it up, thankfully they have different names - that would have been really, really creepy....

Which is basically the only reason he's on here because his name is incredibly dull and just means 'military or masculine'. Incredibly discriptive...

I do hope he comes up much more - I enjoy him.

What is it with me and my stubborn ability to prefer background characters over the main characters? Very, very irksome....

It is interesting though, how many series do this.

By the way, I wasn't going to include her, but I've seen more of her and think that it would be interesting.

Rosalee Calvert -- Well, I learnt something new. 'Rosalee' comes from 'Rose' comes from German words that mean 'fame' and 'kind or sort or type'. So the closest I could translate that is 'fame of a sort'. Very interesting......Of course, it also means 'rose like' and roses are associated with femininity, and innocence. And 'Calvert' simply means 'cattle herder'.

Sometimes, names are just brilliantly chosen, and then at other times it's obvious that I'm reading into this.

So. Rosalee. I majorly spoiled myself for her. Thanks a lot subconcious head. Thanks a lot. anyway!

Her name if I was to profile it or characterise it comes from her knowledge and innocent appearance and yet thorns of experience in her past, as well as her ability leading and corraling Nick and Monroe. Who really do just...lumber into things.

Yes, feel free to say I'm overthinking things. I'm aware of it.

Vampyres of All Kinds Abound on Earth

 

I learnt something quite interesting today.

 

I like older books - classics. They are generally safe to read, which was always the best part; and the plot and humour and drama tended to be more to my taste. The men were gentlemen, the women ladies - all was right with the world.

Actually, for the most part, I had only read classics and old books, so this was my normal outlook on life. Sadly, times have changed....

 

But as much as I love the characters and people in older books, so often there isn't enough. The character I like best is there for perhaps on chapter. My favourite scene is poorly written and expanded on. My least favourite character would be so much better if a few things were changed....

 

But plaigerism is something worse than other forms of stealing - especially as I am a writer and the idea is simply.....horrific.

 

My darling characters and scenes, taken and rewritten by another? Simply because there is an aspect of them the reader did not like?

 

However, recently, there was a film made about Pride and Prejudice, marrying the classic with zombies.

 

Against my better judgement, I'm actually intruiged. Vampyres would have been better - but I ever prefer the more elegant and intelligent of antagonists. it gives me something to distract my mind with.

 

But. But. How do filmmakers do that?

 

How many adaptations of Dracula are there? Over two hundred films, second only to one other character. And how many times has Sherlock Holmes been returned to mediums of entertainment? More than two hundred in film alone.

 

And those are just the two most commonly adapted.

 

Then there's Frankenstein, faery tales, Jane Austen in general - and on, and on, and on....

 

But - they're taking characters and scenes and entire plots from books!

 

Now, of course, they can negotiate with the holders of the copywrites - but what when no one holds it? How does one manage it then?

 

Well, apparently, the characters and plots within a story under a lapsed copywrite are...fair game? So as long as one takes inspiration from the public domain subject, then one is protected from bloodsucking lawyers.

 

Which at least explains why people can continue remaking things like Sherlock Holmes and Dracula - they merely have to endeavour to keep their works of fiction separate from modernly copyrited fanfictions. Such as in the event of Elementary and Sherlock.



 

 

 Alright - Elementary should never have been produced.

 

That is just...wrong. On so many levels.

 

On a side note though, I just realised a few weeks ago that shows like Merlin, Sherlock, Elementary, and especially The Hobbit (alright, not especially - but that irks me immensely. I still can't believe it...) are actually fanfiction.

 

And who says fanfiction isn't really writing.....  HA!!  They make money off of it!! Of course, they also got the iea first, so there is that.....  *sighs*

 

And I think The Hobbit is still copyrighted. Which is probably a good thing. Maybe.

 

But PJ!!  WHYY????

 

 

 No one does.....  Probably money. I don't care. LOTR was terrific - The Hobbit needs to be properly remade. But! But! Lee is dead now!!!

 

You had one chance and you squandered it....

 

However, it is a thought.

 

I do enjoy a good vampyre story. As I said, there's something elegant about them - or at least there was.

 

Unfortunately, there are....flaws (stated briefly elsewhere....) with modern vampyres. They're not nearly as enjoyable.

 

I should read Stoker's Dracula. I've been meaning to anyway, given that it's apparently a classic - but perhaps I could write modern vampyre stories.

 

They couldn't possibly be worse than other author's attempts.

 

I'd hope not at least. I may think myself to be a horrid, scatter-brained author; but at least I have some confidence in my abilities.

All Bleed the Same Way That We Do

Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing

Van Helsing as a vampyre is just...frightening. For whatever reason.

I suppose it's rather like what Sherlock Holmes said of the horrid father in The Speckled Band - how that a doctor gone bad (paraphrase mine....) is the worst.

And, it makes sense too! Just as a doctor knows the ways to heal and diagnose and treat and can easily turn such knowledge to darkly serve his turn, so could Van Helsing adapt all of his knowledge of hunting vampyres to protect himself should he be turned.

Although, Van Helsing would probably walk out into the sun rather than remain soulles and undead..... The only way he'd stay a vampyre would be if - as with Buffy's vampyres - his personality was changed too. Or however that works....  I've not actually seen that series.

Of course, there's also the chance that he would continue to exist and still hunt vampyres. Or study them to create a cure for others....  He's a very interesting character, certainly.

Although, on the subject of vampyres, how would that even work? Killing oneself that is....

I'm going to just preface this here and say that I am not Catholic, and know very little about it save what I know from history. So....please forgive my ignorance.

First, the destruction of vampyres has countless ties in with the Christian religion. Quite sensibly, given that the Church dominated most of the civilised world. Holy Water, crosses, prayers, wooden stakes - all have their origins in Christianity. Even the idea of vampyres being soulless and of Satan has its roots in it.

Of course, vampyres (the blood-sucking monsters at least) predate even Rome in some instances, and have been around longer than Christianity has - but the modern vampyre has it's roots in the vampyre of the Medieval ages. Or late Medieval ages as the case may be.

So, if so many other things come from Christianity, perhaps the reason that they don't kill themselves did as well.

Of course, there are the vampyres that are completely evil - Dracula and whoever the son was in Brides of Dracula... - and there are the vampyres that seem to be basically brainless - the Brides that follow the men for the most part - and then there are those that hate what they've become. On that list there's only one certain name - although Harker likely fit as well.

She had tried to keep her son that had become a vampyre, and she never killed him. This ended up being a mistake - of course - and he turned her. And she hated it. And yet, she doesn't do anything about it, really. Tell Van Helsing, of course.

Baron Von Meinster! That was his name. Sorry....

But she reveals herself to Van Helsing, who had come for her son, and she does nothing to him. He kills her, and then she is at peace.

But what if killing themselves didn't work? A suicide was damned eternally - how would a vampyre suicide fare? Hardly any better! But if another killed them, another freed them..... Then perhaps they could be at peace.

If this is true, then it would make sense that the vampyres keep fighting: because letting someone kill you is the same as suicide. More or less.....

"Who is it that has no fear?"

 

"Only God has no fear."

 

"Why have you come hear?"

 

"To find your son."

 

"Then you know who I am?"

 

"I know who you were."

 

"We haven't asked for any help."

 

"You need it all the same."

 

"I have been expecting you.

 

"I rather thought you might."

 

Those quotes aren't all from the same people, nor are the even from the same film. The same series, certainly; and every other line is Van Helsing's - but lines seven and nine are from two different films. Lines seven and eight are from Horror of Dracula, and lines nine and ten are from the film Satanic Rites of Dracula, I think? I don't know - I've not seen it, just read the dialogue from that scene. Lines one through six are from Brides of Dracula. Like I said: same series.

 

Yes. This is going to be yet another rambling musing on things related to Peter Cushing. If you've read anything I've posted up to this? The Reader should not be surprised. Besides, I could be dumping these all in one post instead of spreading them out over several days.....

 

He's an intruiging man. Van Helsing is. or Cushing's at least - I've not gotten around to reading Stoker's book yet.

 

 he's no one important, really - simply a doctor, or a professor. In Hammer's 1958 film, he says that he has studied the vampyres or the 'Undead'. but he is still just a man working alone. He spends his free hours researching monsters in the dark and in the shadows, and then he leaves the safety of his rooms and goes out to meet them on their own ground.

 

He's weak compared to them - and he is wholly aware of it. If he's too tired, if one should catch him unawares, if he is looking away.... There are countless ways they could get the advantage of him. For goodness sakes - he's armed with water, crucifixes, and wooden stakes that are basically useless unless the vampyre is asleep.

 

He's not strong. Once he falls into the grasp of the vampyre, he's soon overpowered. The one time he escaped was because the vampyre stood up and so wasn't holding him tightly any longer. (And if Dracula at any point after thought he had any hope of being victorious over Van Helsing, he should have remembered his actions then...) He also faints under stress (well, in rewatching it, it's possible that he was also passing out from oxygen deprivation. If one assumes that the makers shortened the time necessary for such deprivation to occur by a LOT at least....) and is hardly the champion one would choose to fight off the Undead.

 

 He is a gentleman. He's much better suited for the academic or healing circles. He belongs in the sitting room, or in the street laying out his cloak for a lady to cross a puddle. He's soft spoken, and rather introverted: someone who spends his days reading and his nights dreaming.

 

He's a healer - indeed, he sees his actions as an act of great healing. While that's true, he shouldn't be one to have murder sleeping people - even if they are monsters and undead.

 

What started him on this path? What made him begin to research and learn all he could about Vampyres? Who has he had to kill that he knew? He knew Jonathan, and yet he was still able to kill him.....  And he had to kill Lucy himself too - were there others? Nearer perhaps?

 

Why does he keep going? Why does he go to the ends of the world to find these people? How does he not hate them for what they are?

 

He's much stronger than he looks. Physically, probably - but morally certainly. It's why he can kill them and get their blood literally all over his hands. It's why he can walk out into the night knowing what would like nothing better than to eat him for dinner. It's why he can leave the safety of his rooms and venture out into lonely lands after monsters that could turn suddenly at bay and undo him.

 

"Who is it that has no fear?"

 

"Only God has no fear."

 

And he's terrified. He has researched these creatures. He knows what will happen to him if he slips up once  - and he has had his nightmare fullfilled. He walked away that time, but how does he know it wasn't a one-time thing?

 

Indeed - why did he do that?

 

It's why I think that he would walk out into the sun rather than remain a vampyre. He pressed a red-hot square of iron to his throat to burn out a vampyre bite - and he's not such an idiot to think it wouldn't be agony.

 

He's stronger than he seems, but he does not advertise it. He is content to remain in the background, yet he does not linger when he is needed in the forefront. He cares deeply for those around him, but he does not let sentiment cloud his judgement.

 

He is.... He is a safe man. And he fears God. There's just...something about him. The items he holds, they are not merely instruments that work to destroy the undead.

 

....how else might he have found out they worked? He had to have met a vampyre to know they exist.....