So here I am, still watching, still complaining. I’m not sure what’s going on with this version. I’m up to date on this season in the UK, so imagine my astonishment to see some of the new season 3 plotlines appearing in the US’ season 1. I find it confusing. I’d love to know what new fans think of it, because maybe it’s a BBC-Fan-Personal-Problem. See, the first season in the UK was all about the 3 roommates becoming close and relying on each other for safety, acceptance, and understanding. The US version seems all over the place. Storylines appear and disappear and a lot more characters have been introduced. Some of the differences work, and some I just don’t like at all. I’ll helpfully share just a few of each kind.
Last week’s Bernie episode went differently. Presumably the writers didn’t feel that it was realistic to have Aidan confide in Bernie’s mother and turn Bernie himself, leaving her with a vampire child (Mitchell’s move). That’s okay; most vampire fans have read enough and seen enough to believe that vampire children never work out for the best. (Claudia from IwtV anyone?) Instead Rebecca turns Bernie in the hopes of making a family with Aiden. Not bad; it goes along with her struggle in her reluctant life as a vampire. The only part that disturbed me was Bishop’s apparent sympathy for human children. I’ll explain that later.
This week’s episode was where the new UK season has showed up a lot. BBC has just introduced the concept of vampires hosting werewolf cage matches, so imagine my surprise when Josh gets kidnapped for this same purpose in Dog Eat Dog. The difference is that instead of tossing some poor human in to be slaughtered, the vamps pit two werewolves together. In the UK version, Mitchell was not even aware that the cage matches still existed; it is supposed to be another example of the crueler side of things that Herrick hides from Mitchell in order to keep him from leaving. That’s why it was hard for me to watch Aidan stand by looking chagrined at best, mostly just because his best friend happens to be involved.
The Elders that have been mentioned for the first time in the UK (whom we’ve yet to glimpse) have appeared here as Amish vampires who show up now and then to kill the vampire king. Their presence keeps Aidan from being able to outwardly rescue Josh, so he makes a deal to return to Bishop in exchange for Josh’s release. This takes the place of Mitchell deciding that vampirism is the answer to humanity’s problems after Bernie was killed, causing him to return to the fold.
If Aidan isn’t going to have this misguided epiphany, that could explain why I saw a very similar storyline to Mitchell and his human love, Jonie, shockingly applied to Bishop. Jonie is the one to help Mitchell see the error of his thinking, but now she isn’t necessary for Aidan. Of course, the story changes quite a bit, since Bishop is offered his leadership in exchange for giving up (by choking her to death) his love. This entire idea is a huge departure from Herrick, who has never had a moment that was not pure evil, unless you include his indulgence for Mitchell. Herrick scares the crap out of me most of the time, just because he is capable of anything and really enjoys himself all the while. Yet Bishop shows sympathy for human children, and seems as if he was once on the same journey as Aidan is now and was forced by the Elders and Aidan to give it up. What gives? How does this softness coincide with his plan to have vampires come out in the open and take over the world from humanity? More importantly, does this mean they won’t be including the following vital scene?
Anyway, right next to that big softy is Aidan when he was still drinking the kool-aid, quoting party lines and living it up vampire style. He’s the one convincing Bishop to renounce the human woman, threatening betrayal if he will not. I could be wrong, but I don’t recall a single Mitchell-Herrick flashback where Herrick was not completely in charge. Herrick has always been King, while it now seems that Bishop and Aidan were fellow peons once. BTW, I didn’t really appreciate this added line about Aidan, while fighting the Revolutionary War, leaving behind family, a wife and a son. Sounds sooo familiar…True Blood’s Bill Compton minus the pretty southern accent? Just about. Trying to differentiate your story from its source by borrowing from another, more popular story seems like a mistake. Maybe it’s just me.
Shocking to the point of horrifying, the trailer for next week’s episode shows Nora announcing that she’s pregnant, which causes nightmares for Josh. Is this for real? Nina is pregnant now, season 3, after they’ve been through so much and she’s actually a werewolf herself. Why make Nora pregnant before she even finds out about Josh? Season 1, they’ve just been getting closer together, and struggling to do so because of his gigantic, dangerous secret. Sure, throw a baby in the mix.
I don’t know what the Syfy version intends with all this skipping ahead. I do think my point of view is irrevocably biased in favor of BBC, so I can’t tell for sure if these changes are actual problems or not. Maybe it’s better to give Bishop a softer side and knock Nora up straight out of the gate? Maybe with more episodes in a season, events move faster? I don’t know. Maybe it doesn’t matter. George owns “Who wants some of my chair?” anyway.