Vampires in modern media

[Havriel]

Hi , i have a question that occupies my mind at the moment.
In recent movies and tv shows vampires are nigh-invunerable with superpowers and all sort of strange ****.
So , why are they interpreted as such and why older types of vampires like dracula , or even the vampires from the old myths and legends are not good enough for adaptation to the screens ?

[Eldan]

Define "Old Myths". I preferred those where vampires are invisible to normal eyes, myself, and completely untouched by sunlight :smallwink:

On a more serious note, vampires and vampire-like creatures are ridiculously diverse in legends, as are the ways of killing them.

And there's also the opposite in media: ridiculously weak vampires. Action movies often seem to go for the sort who only needs to be lightly tapped on the chest with a stake in order to explode or disintegrate.

[Chess435]

And don't even get me started on Twilight! *shudder* :smalleek:

[Archpaladin Zousha]

I think people are still attached to the romantic notion of the vampire as a sexy, immortal predator rather than the bloated corpse caked in grave dirt that you saw in the old stories. Hard to make that seem attractive to anyone, let alone teenage girls. :smallbiggrin:

[kamikasei]

OP, do you think you could give examples of the recent movies and shows you have in mind, and the older stories you're comparing them to? It'd be interesting to see whether there's a real change at all, or just a selection bias.

Allowing, for the sake of argument only, that the power creep is real, two possible causes suggest themselves to me right off the bat:

One - as the number of stories pile up over time, the new twists and extra abilities different creators give their vampires in order to set them apart glom on to the myth in the collective consciousness and get taken as read for the next generation of vamprie stories;

Two - as time passes and technology improves, monsters have to be made tougher and more dangerous in order to remain similarly frightening.

That's if what you describe is a real phenomenon at all rather than an ahistorical blip.

[Haruki-kun]

I think people are still attached to the romantic notion of the vampire as a sexy, immortal predator rather than the bloated corpse caked in grave dirt that you saw in the old stories. Hard to make that seem attractive to anyone, let alone teenage girls. :smallbiggrin:

Vampires always had a seductive nature. I have a friend who says she even had a crush on Nosferatu of all people....

[Lord Seth]

Hi , i have a question that occupies my mind at the moment.
In recent movies and tv shows vampires are nigh-invunerable with superpowers and all sort of strange ****.
So , why are they interpreted as such and why older types of vampires like dracula , or even the vampires from the old myths and legends are not good enough for adaptation to the screens ?This complaint seems odd to me, given that Dracula was "nigh-invulnerable with superpowers and all sorts of strange ****."

[Tanuki Tales]

Did he just make the statement that Dracula isn't a Super-vampire? :smallconfused:

He has more powers, is far stronger and much more difficult to kill than most other vampires shown in fiction.

Half the time you actually find a vampire more powerful than classic him it's either one his children, an evolved version of himself or just a different interpretation of him.

[Archpaladin Zousha]

Vampires always had a seductive nature. I have a friend who says she even had a crush on Nosferatu of all people....

I find it hard to think of a girl who'd be interested in the filthy living corpses that wrestled with soldiers in the graveyard until dawn.

[Tanuki Tales]

I find it hard to think of a girl who'd be interested in the filthy living corpses that wrestled with soldiers in the graveyard until dawn.

There are fan girls of Resident Evil who think The Regenerator or Nemesis are absolutely adorable and huggable. And that's the most innocent attraction you'll find. *shudder*

[JabberwockySupafly]

OP, do you think you could give examples of the recent movies and shows you have in mind, and the older stories you're comparing them to? It'd be interesting to see whether there's a real change at all, or just a selection bias.

Allowing, for the sake of argument only, that the power creep is real, two possible causes suggest themselves to me right off the bat:

One - as the number of stories pile up over time, the new twists and extra abilities different creators give their vampires in order to set them apart glom on to the myth in the collective consciousness and get taken as read for the next generation of vamprie stories;

Two - as time passes and technology improves, monsters have to be made tougher and more dangerous in order to remain similarly frightening.

That's if what you describe is a real phenomenon at all rather than an ahistorical blip.

It's definitely not a blip. Vampires started being viewed as tragic, sexual creatures right after Bram Stoker's Dracula. Vampires before then were mostly described to look like Count Orlok from Nosferatu. If you're unaware of what Orlok looks like, he's this swingin' fellow right here. (http://www.google.com.au/imgres?imgurl=http://www.reuters.com/resources/r/%3Fm%3D02%26d%3D20080509%26t%3D2%26i%3D4201398%26w %3D460%26fh%3D%26fw%3D%26ll%3D%26pl%3D%26r%3D2008-05-09T165803Z_01_NOOTR_RTRIDSP_0_ARTS-BOOKS-DRACULA-SCHRECK-DC&imgrefurl=http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/05/10/arts-books-dracula-schreck-dc-idUSL0983779720080510&usg=__TX1YXjCfiak2jlTPnEAJjZE6qFA=&h=352&w=450&sz=15&hl=en&start=79&zoom=1&tbnid=ZWcpe-yWENixUM:&tbnh=113&tbnw=146&ei=tpLSTY29DIb6sAO38IyaCQ&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dcount%2Borlok%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26cl ient%3Dfirefox-a%26hs%3DUfh%26sa%3DN%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-GB:official%26channel%3Ds%26biw%3D1920%26bih%3D885 %26tbm%3Disch0%2C684&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=114&vpy=307&dur=7011&hovh=198&hovw=254&tx=135&ty=135&page=2&ndsp=82&ved=1t:429,r:13,s:79&biw=1920&bih=885).

And that was considerably attractive amongst the vampires of old. Take the Jiang Shi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jiang_Shi), or Hopping Corpse, which is the Chinese equivalent to a vampire, or the Malaysian Penanggalan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penanggalan).

Vampires throughout history in most cultures are meant to be hideous and repulsive monstrosities. They're meant to represent the feral, bloodthirsty, and animal nature that lurks within man and were originally described to physically represent this as well.

The vampire, before Dracula, was generally described as a rotting and hideous corpse which, if it hadn't fed, would be ghastly and thin, their skin pulled tight over the bones. After it had fed, it was supposed to be fat with the blood of victims to point their skin would be distended and bloated like a drowned body.

Dracula cast vampires in the same light as Paradise Lost did Satan. It made them tragic, romantic figures to ultimately be pitied. Basically, Stoker did a Hollywood Make Over before Hollwood existed. Since most of us have grown up in the mid-to-late 20th Century, we're not aware of the folklore and myths that have surrounded most Movie Monsters.

Most of their powers (shape shifting, flight, nigh-invulnerability, allergy to silver) were created by books or films for the most part. I only know what I know from a fair bit of research into mythology for my own personal enjoyment and would never have been the wiser if it weren't for the fact that mythology and folklore fascinate the heck out of me.

[Archpaladin Zousha]

There are fan girls of Resident Evil who think The Regenerator or Nemesis are absolutely adorable and huggable. And that's the most innocent attraction you'll find. *shudder*

DAH! :smalleek:

[Brother Oni]

It's definitely not a blip. Vampires started being viewed as tragic, sexual creatures right after Bram Stoker's Dracula.

Possibly by the mainstream, but Interview with the Vampire (1976) and the Vampire Lestat (1985) novels by Anne Rice also portray them in the same light.

Bram Stoker's Dracula probably did have a major influence on the visuals of the Interview with the Vampire film though.

[Lord Seth]

It's definitely not a blip. Vampires started being viewed as tragic, sexual creatures right after Bram Stoker's Dracula. Vampires before then were mostly described to look like Count Orlok from Nosferatu. If you're unaware of what Orlok looks like, he's this swingin' fellow right here. (http://www.google.com.au/imgres?imgurl=http://www.reuters.com/resources/r/%3Fm%3D02%26d%3D20080509%26t%3D2%26i%3D4201398%26w %3D460%26fh%3D%26fw%3D%26ll%3D%26pl%3D%26r%3D2008-05-09T165803Z_01_NOOTR_RTRIDSP_0_ARTS-BOOKS-DRACULA-SCHRECK-DC&imgrefurl=http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/05/10/arts-books-dracula-schreck-dc-idUSL0983779720080510&usg=__TX1YXjCfiak2jlTPnEAJjZE6qFA=&h=352&w=450&sz=15&hl=en&start=79&zoom=1&tbnid=ZWcpe-yWENixUM:&tbnh=113&tbnw=146&ei=tpLSTY29DIb6sAO38IyaCQ&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dcount%2Borlok%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26cl ient%3Dfirefox-a%26hs%3DUfh%26sa%3DN%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-GB:official%26channel%3Ds%26biw%3D1920%26bih%3D885 %26tbm%3Disch0%2C684&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=114&vpy=307&dur=7011&hovh=198&hovw=254&tx=135&ty=135&page=2&ndsp=82&ved=1t:429,r:13,s:79&biw=1920&bih=885).

And that was considerably attractive amongst the vampires of old. Take the Jiang Shi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jiang_Shi), or Hopping Corpse, which is the Chinese equivalent to a vampire, or the Malaysian Penanggalan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penanggalan).As counter examples though, consider succubi and related creatures (e.g. Lilith, Estries).


Dracula cast vampires in the same light as Paradise Lost did Satan. It made them tragic, romantic figures to ultimately be pitied. Basically, Stoker did a Hollywood Make Over before Hollwood existed. Since most of us have grown up in the mid-to-late 20th Century, we're not aware of the folklore and myths that have surrounded most Movie Monsters.Except Dracula didn't have Dracula be tragic or romantic. Sure he had female victims, but he never seduced them, he just hypnotized or attacked them.

Granted, later retellings of the story added things like that, but that wasn't present in the original book, where Dracula was portrayed as a bad guy pretty much the whole way through. Not tragic and certainly not romantic.

[Lurkmoar]

And don't even get me started on Twilight! *shudder* :smalleek:

They don't count. They are elves I say! ELVES!

[Lord Seth]

They don't count. They are elves I say! ELVES!They're vampires. Maybe poorly written vampires that aren't well thought out, but they're vampires. People need to get over this nonsensical "they're not vampires" claim.

[JabberwockySupafly]

As counter examples though, consider succubi and related creatures (e.g. Lilith, Estries).

Except Dracula didn't have Dracula be tragic or romantic. Sure he had female victims, but he never seduced them, he just hypnotized or attacked them.

Granted, later retellings of the story added things like that, but that wasn't present in the original book, where Dracula was portrayed as a bad guy pretty much the whole way through. Not tragic and certainly not romantic.

Being seductive had absolutely nothing to do with him actually seducing women. He was supposed to be handsome, powerful, and immortal. Even better, he could make you immortal. You could be with him for all eternity, beautiful and powerful. You would be under his control, his love slave forever. That alone was considered quite seductive for many women at the time.

I didn't mean to specify that Dracula itself portrayed vampires are tragic. I just meant that works of fiction from the turn of the century, like Dracula, tended to cast vampires in that light. Upon re-reading my previous post, it's a glaring mistake I should have rectified, but I did write it at 2am, so I probably was too sleep-deprived to notice it.


Lilith, or Lilitû demons as they were known in Mesopotamia, were pretty hideous things, actually. Bird's feet, dessicated breasts, and while sexual predators toward men, didn't mate in the 'traditional manner' which , while never described in any information I can find, was meant to be a thing of fright to the people of the time.

Estries and Succubi, though, I will admit were almost always described as beautiful. I always seem to think of them when discussing demonology, but never vampires. Blind spot, I guess.

[Dr.Epic]

Hi , i have a question that occupies my mind at the moment.
In recent movies and tv shows vampires are nigh-invunerable with superpowers and all sort of strange ****.
So , why are they interpreted as such and why older types of vampires like dracula , or even the vampires from the old myths and legends are not good enough for adaptation to the screens ?

Your complaint is modern vampires are too indestructible and powerful and NOT that they've been turned into lame characters in tween romances?

[Lord Seth]

Being seductive had absolutely nothing to do with him actually seducing women. He was supposed to be handsome, powerful, and immortal. Even better, he could make you immortal. You could be with him for all eternity, beautiful and powerful. You would be under his control, his love slave forever. That alone was considered quite seductive for many women at the time.Again, from what I remember of the novel, Dracula wasn't described as being particularly handsome. He was powerful and immortal, however. Looking back at it, though, I think his victims were described as beautiful. Though it's certainly never portrayed as a good thing in the novel.
Lilith, or Lilitû demons as they were known in Mesopotamia, were pretty hideous things, actually. Bird's feet, dessicated breasts, and while sexual predators toward men, didn't mate in the 'traditional manner' which , while never described in any information I can find, was meant to be a thing of fright to the people of the time.I was referring more to the Lilith from Jewish folklore, who from what I can tell was supposed to be attractive. Incidentally, Lamia (which are apparently related to the Lilitû demons) do seduce people in the form of a beautiful women.

[TheSummoner]

There are fan girls of Resident Evil who think The Regenerator or Nemesis are absolutely adorable and huggable. And that's the most innocent attraction you'll find. *shudder*

Aww, but they just want a hug, how can you not want to hug them back?

Wait... Thats Iron Maidens, not Regenerators...


They're vampires. Maybe poorly written vampires that aren't well thought out, but they're vampires. People need to get over this nonsensical "they're not vampires" claim.

Twilight vampires are vampires much in the same sence that the author of Twilight is an author. That is to say, in name only.

------

Know what I would find hilarious, a "modern vampire movie" that actually goes into realistic detail about the results of idiotic teenage girls becoming infatuated with blood drinking parasitic monstrocities. Why bother hunting when your food comes to you, m'Iright?

Being seductive and being attractive are not one in the same... That is one distinction people need to get through their heads. A vampire could lure prey in with promises of power (or just their own power itself... Power is the ultimate aphrodisiac after all) without having to be particularly attractive.

[Lord Seth]

Twilight vampires are vampires much in the same sence that the author of Twilight is an author. That is to say, in name only.And...in what way is Meyer an author "in name only"? She wrote the book series. She may not have written it well, but she wrote it. She's an author. There's no technicality around it. There's no way she's an author "in name only."

You can say they're not well-written vampires. You can say Meyer isn't a good author. But they're vampires and she's an author.

There's plenty of legitimate problems in Twilight. "They're not vampires" is not one of them.

[TheSummoner]

Simply because I do not consider anything of particularly low quality worth being lumped in with anything average or better. You're free to disagree if you like, but that is the way I see things.

I was tempted to keep going, but I'm not going to be the one go any further down the path of turning this into a (anti-)Twilight thread.

Edit: Maybe it's subconsiously a way of me saying to myself "If you don't look at it, maybe it will go away." Wishful thinking, eh? Sturgeon's Law and all that.

[Lord Seth]

Simply because I do not consider anything of particularly low quality worth being lumped in with anything average or better. You're free to disagree if you like, but that is the way I see things.Where is the "lumping in"? No matter how much you may dislike Meyer's writing, she is, objectively, an author. She wrote the books. Even if you think they're the worst books ever written and she's the worst writer ever, they're still books and she's still a writer. There is no "lumping in." The whole reason words like "good" or "bad" (that is, adjectives) exist is to clarify what kind of something someone is.

Meyer is an author. Twilight has vampires. Trying to pretend that isn't true through some nonsensical "lumping in" claim seems almost the equivalent of putting your hands in your ears and yelling "LALALALALALA."

[Dr.Epic]

Twilight vampires are vampires much in the same sence that the author of Twilight is an author. That is to say, in name only.

Sir, you just won life. Good job.

[TheSummoner]

Then let me pose a question for you. Where is the line? I've drawn it for myself but what about you? If I were to write a 10 pages of nonsense and spelling errors and slap a cover on it, am I an author? How about a couple hundred pages? What if instead of writing anything on these pages, I just smear mud and peanut butter on them instead? Does the line lie in publication? What if I raise the money to get my "literature" published... or by some twist of fate have connections to someone who can get it published regardless of my hypothetical lack of skill or even effort?

Likewise with vampires... I say this is a vampire...
http://i435.photobucket.com/albums/qq72/brookncole/shadows/Crystal%20Vision/lolcatsdotcomxgircnpplydrbcqb.jpgIs it?

https://my.qoop.com/store/GoodTastePhotography-com-and-LaurainDigital-com-s-Print-Shop-66fb5d530bdc08dd3655ffc0af26957d3bd15a8d/Vampire-donut-by-Laura-Palmer-qpps_470754891440630.LG.jpgHow about this?

http://www.celebritysmackblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/taco-bell-dog-dies.jpgNow THAT is certainly a vampire!

I choose not to acknowledge sparkling mary sues as vampires. I choose not to acknowledge a hack who vomited a number of pages of crappy teen romance (the sort that never seems to ever happen in reality) as an author. You're free to draw your own lines if you like, but don't act as if I'm wrong for doing so.

[Lord Seth]

Then let me pose a question for you. Where is the line? I've drawn it for myself but what about you? If I were to write a 10 pages of nonsense and spelling errors and slap a cover on it, am I an author?Define "nonsense."
How about a couple hundred pages?See above.

What if instead of writing anything on these pages, I just smear mud and peanut butter on them instead?No.
Does the line lie in publication?No.
What if I raise the money to get my "literature" published... or by some twist of fate have connections to someone who can get it published regardless of my hypothetical lack of skill or even effort?Not applicable given my answer above.


Likewise with vampires... I say this is a vampire...
http://i435.photobucket.com/albums/qq72/brookncole/shadows/Crystal%20Vision/lolcatsdotcomxgircnpplydrbcqb.jpgIs it?Doubtful.


https://my.qoop.com/store/GoodTastePhotography-com-and-LaurainDigital-com-s-Print-Shop-66fb5d530bdc08dd3655ffc0af26957d3bd15a8d/Vampire-donut-by-Laura-Palmer-qpps_470754891440630.LG.jpgHow about this?Unlikely.


http://www.celebritysmackblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/taco-bell-dog-dies.jpgNow THAT is certainly a vampire!No.


I choose not to acknowledge sparkling mary sues as vampires.Why not? You haven't given any reason for it. They're immortal. They live on blood. They can turn other people into them. They have enhanced abilities. They have an aversion to sunlight (a stupid aversion, but an aversion). They're vampires. You need to validly explain how either sparkling or being a Mary Sue somehow disqualifies one from being a vampire. I have never seen anyone do this, they simply throw out the claim with no backup and call it a day.


I choose not to acknowledge a hack who vomited a number of pages of crappy teen romance (the sort that never seems to ever happen in reality) as an author.She didn't "vomit" it, she wrote it. And writing something that does not ever happening in reality (guess every vampire story ever isn't by an author, eh?) does not prevent someone from being an author.

Again: Call her a bad author if you want. I don't think she's good myself. But stop this "she's not an author" nonsense.


You're free to draw your own lines if you like, but don't act as if I'm wrong for doing so.You use hyperbole (e.g. "vomit") to try to draw your lines without giving a real reason for them. So yes, I do think you are wrong for doing so.

[Zaydos]

Off the subject of Twilight. It's a pointless discussion.

Dracula is still one of the most commonly portrayed vampires in media today, but usually they've put a new twist on him to keep him interesting. In Dracula's case that might be because everyone is assumed to be familiar with him. Dracula is also by no means a traditional vampire and is closer to today's vampires than to traditional ones, actually you could use him as the dividing line.

In the case of other vampires:
1) the classic book vampire just doesn't play up video media's strengths as well. Sure there's the scenes of Dracula's transformations, from man to beast or more gradually from old man to handsome count, but visual media relies on a quicker pace of story than text based media.
2) we know the classic vampire and it doesn't scare us anymore. Why? Maybe because of a sense of familiarity. This isn't completely true, Dracula is actually the scariest vampire novel I've read in many ways (others would be Salem's Lot, Interview with a Vampire, The Vampire's Apprentice, Vampire$, the first two Vampire Hunter D books, some short stories, several vampire mangas, a vampire vs X-Men novel, and some other stuff I've forgotten) and the only one that shook me (actually this relates to point 1 the story telling elements that make Dracula so haunting don't translate to film).

Also what about some good portrayals of vampires. I liked most of the things I mentioned above (didn't like Interview with a Vampire, and the X-Men one was rather silly).

[Mewtarthio]

I wouldn't say Dracula ever seduced anyone in the original book. Lucy just gets entranced and is left insensitive while Dracula takes what he wants. Mina gets outright assaulted. If there's any sexual metaphors to be gleaned from the story, then Dracula is a rapist, pure and simple. He doesn't really attempt to tempt people, either. Nobody in the story is interested in living forever as a vampire, nor does he offer anyone any sort of power. The closest he gets is with Renfield, and there he's just exploiting the guy's mental disorder.

Not to say that seductive vampires are a modern invention, of course. Carmilla came out a quarter century before Dracula, and that vampire falls in the seductive category (or so I'm told; I haven't actually read the novel myself).

[TheSummoner]

For nonsence... Lets say a slice of life tale that never really goes anywhere with flat characters and about 3 of them happen to be werewolves for no discernable or plot relevant reason. One is a lawyer-friendly version of C'thulu but hes actually a pretty nice guy though he doesn't do much of anything. The story seems to cut off randomly with nothing having been accomplished or learned.

Why are my examples not vampires? You've rejected them (as any sane person would), but why are they any less valid than sparkling superhumans who constantly wangst about how horrible it is to be immortal and superpowerful.

As for my own definition... Well, it's a bit like pornography... It can't be fully defined, but you know it when you see it. Some general guidelines for me though...


Vampires are immortal (but not invulnerable).
Vampires are powerful and can recover from some things that would kill a human.
Vampires have weaknesses, including but not limited to...

Sunlight
Holy objects
Garlic
Vampires are predatory. They do not have empathy for their prey.
Vampires feed on non-vampires (typically humans, though animals can be substituted if and only if humans are unavailable or the vampire is trying to avoid suspicion). Whether they feed on human blood or souls or any other such thing matters less than the fact that they feed on humans in general.
Vampires are something to be feared... Or if you're particularly ballsy/insane, hunted.
Vampires can shapeshift. The exact degree can vary.
Vampires do not reproduce. However, they have the ability to convert non-vampires.
Certain habits or traits can be used to distinguish a vampire from a non-vampire. Some possible examples being...
Inability to cross running water.
Inability to enter a home without invitation.
Severe OCD (must count every piece of rice!)
No reflection.


Not ALL of these have to be present... Like I said, these are guidelines and it is something that you simply know when you see it, not something that can be given a hard definition.

In Twilight's case, the biggest failing is trying to present a vampire not as something to be feared, but as something for preteen girls and tastless/mindless teenage and older girls to lust after. Yes, a vampire may use seduction as a tool to lure in prey, but that always tends to end rather badly for the one being seduced. A lesser (but this isn't saying much) problem is turning vampirism into something with all benefits and no drawbacks or vulnerabilities... Why haven't these things taken over the world yet? Oh yeah, they're too busy wangsting.

I'm much more willing to accept this
http://www.whitbyseafishing.com/images/dracula.jpg
or this
http://www.the-genies-lamp.com/images/H3_artwork/vampire.jpg
or this
http://hellsingmania.webs.com/alucard.gif
or even this...
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Media/Pix/pictures/2009/11/9/1257758922191/Sesame-Street-the-Count-001.jpgas a vampire than a Twilight "vampire"

Especially this actually...
http://fc07.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2010/041/d/e/Down_for_the_Count_by_poopbear.jpg

And before anyone says it, even though these examples may not all fit my guidelines perfectly, refer back to the paragraph right under the guidelines.

[Lurkmoar]

Also what about some good portrayals of vampires. I liked most of the things I mentioned above (didn't like Interview with a Vampire, and the X-Men one was rather silly).

Poor Dracula hasn't held up too well in Marvel and DC comics.

If I recall correctly, one of the gimmicks in The Death of Dracula was that the last issue came with a Death Certificate. My google fu isn't showing any links, so perhaps my memory is playing tricks on me. But he has been repeatedly killed and brought back to life.

DC killed him off by having him suck on Superman's solar powered blood. Yeah.

I choose to believe that the Twilight vamps are the fair folk, if only so I can ignore the fact that they're everywhere, good and bad. That's all I'll say on the subject.

If we ever get hit by a popular zombie teen romance novel then we're really in trouble.

[Lord Seth]

For nonsence... Lets say a slice of life tale that never really goes anywhere with flat characters and about 3 of them happen to be werewolves for no discernable or plot relevant reason. One is a lawyer-friendly version of C'thulu but hes actually a pretty nice guy though he doesn't do much of anything. The story seems to cut off randomly with nothing having been accomplished or learned.Yes, the person who wrote it is an author then. Likely not a good one though.


Why are my examples not vampires? You've rejected them (as any sane person would), but why are they any less valid than sparkling superhumans who constantly wangst about how horrible it is to be immortal and superpowerful.Outside of the "sparkling superhumans" having far more in common with what most people (including you!) consider vampires than the examples you listed?

First off, though, I didn't reject them. More information is necessary. For example, am I supposed to take the donut as a donut with a drawn on face, or is it actually a donut infected with vampirism, which takes that form? Is the kitten just a regular kitten that looks like it's biting someone, or is it actually sucking blood? Heck the dog could qualify now that I think about it. From initial impressions I would say they aren't, but I can't deny the possibility that in context they are.

But let's figure it out. What is a vampire? From what I can tell, the best definition is "a supernatural being who feeds on some aspect of the life essence of others, which is often (but not always) blood." That seems to encapsulate all the creatures that get labeled vampires (including those outside the supposed "traditional" European variety, e.g. Asian vampires) and the "supernatural" aspect throws out things like regular ol' leeches. This does bring up the issue of what separates a vampire from a zombie, though...that's a trickier one. I'd say it's the level of autonomy. Zombies are basically mindless monsters who are at best being controlled by someone else whereas vampires are capable of more complex thought.


In Twilight's case, the biggest failing is trying to present a vampire not as something to be feared, but as something for preteen girls and tastless/mindless teenage and older girls to lust after.The vampires are actually something to be feared, just not the "main" vampires. It's established that lots of the other vampires are still running around feeding on other people, and we see some of those and they menace the characters. James is presented as someone to be feared (he ends up being kinda lame, but he's still presented as such), for example. Just because a few particular vampires aren't presented as things to be feared doesn't mean the rest aren't. Heck, this is true of Buffy the Vampire Slayer with Angel. It doesn't mean the other vampires aren't things to be feared, just not this one in particular. Well, until Angelus is unleashed anyway, but that's a completely different issue.


Yes, a vampire may use seduction as a tool to lure in prey, but that always tends to end rather badly for the one being seduced. A lesser (but this isn't saying much) problem is turning vampirism into something with all benefits and no drawbacks or vulnerabilities... Why haven't these things taken over the world yet? Oh yeah, they're too busy wangsting.The issue of why the vampires have not taken over the world when they are so completely overpowered is a plot hole and an example of how they haven't been thought through well. But as I have stated, that does not somehow make them not vampires. It just makes them badly written ones.


or even this...
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Media/Pix/pictures/2009/11/9/1257758922191/Sesame-Street-the-Count-001.jpgas a vampire than a Twilight "vampire"But the Count on Sesame Street fits less than the Twilight vampires in your Vampire criteria. To claim he's more of a vampire makes no sense.

[Jerthanis]

I always find it amazing how much people who purportedly hate Twilight love talking about it so much. So much that it dominates conversation in threads not specifically about it.

While Dracula wasn't specifically seductive, and the comparison to a rapist is an apt one from a certain perspective, I think if you take into account the attitudes of the Victorian era, Vampires were meant to act as and represent sexual beings and the sexual desire. The Victorian age was a sexually repressed age, where premarital and extramarital sex was especially verboten. The fact that Dracula's first (?) victim was engaged to be married was no accident. The idea of being transformed into a being which is also hungry for blood mirrored the fear that sex would transform a maiden into a wanton girl. Blood is tied to sex in that your offspring are said to be 'of your blood' or 'share your blood'.

I'm no historian or Victorian cultural theorist, but it seems to me that while Dracula seems more rapist than seducer to the modern eye, and the story doesn't contain the same kinds of temptation and structure of a modern sexual tale, I believe that viewed in context it was meant to be that way.

I think that so many things about Vampires work with them as sexual metaphors that if the Vampire was at one time a more straightforward disgusting monster archetype, then the change did nothing but improve them.

[kamikasei]

It's definitely not a blip. Vampires started being viewed as tragic, sexual creatures right after Bram Stoker's Dracula.
At first I was confused as to whether you meant the book or the Oldman/Reeves movie, but looking again at your post it seems you meant the book. I don't think that's what the OP meant by "recent", though I might be wrong on that.

Also, I'm not sure why you seem to have switched from "powerful" to "sexy". Neither the OP nor I said anything about whether vampires were sexy.

[SPoD]

Like I said, these are guidelines and it is something that you simply know when you see it, not something that can be given a hard definition.

My grandmother would agree with you. She would also say that the noise those kids next door listen to isn't really music. She knows music when she hears it.

[Whiplashbash]

My grandmother would agree with you. She would also say that the noise those kids next door listen to isn't really music. She knows music when she hears it.

Well done ^.

I think there is as much Classic (whatever that can be defined as...) as neo-romantic styled vampires in the media today. Take 30 days of Night (both the comic series and the movie (of course which provides a stunning visual).


The OP defined the power of the vampire as "too much" in modern tellings, but almost all of the Power you see is situational.
In the Stoker version, and I would include Nosferatu, it is low-tech/ limited resoursces, combined with a lack of practical knowledge. In fact, one could say the latter about ANY vampire story. It nearly always has the victims scrambling to identify the predator for what he/she/they are, then discern the means to destroy.

Depicted properly (i.e., to spin a good yarn), a Vampire from any source should be invulnerable to most conventional attcks, but particularly weak when faced with the handful of things that they aren't immune to. Look at the old 60's-70's Hammer films; they show Vlad getting destroyed/ incapactitated in various means not shown much today.

I don't see where the Power imbalance is in modern-day vampire depictions versus the older versions, except in the telling (either we are in a Romantic tragic telling, or a brutal and feral goregasm).
The Vamp is simply built up to be a proper antagonist versus the protagonist.

[JabberwockySupafly]

At first I was confused as to whether you meant the book or the Oldman/Reeves movie, but looking again at your post it seems you meant the book. I don't think that's what the OP meant by "recent", though I might be wrong on that.

Also, I'm not sure why you seem to have switched from "powerful" to "sexy". Neither the OP nor I said anything about whether vampires were sexy.

I was trying to explain how vastly different vampires are in modern media compared to their mythological counterparts in more than just their abilities. Vampires have, for the most part, been completely reinvented save for a few core elements compared to how they were depicted in folklore and myth. I was merely trying to show this was not only in regards to what they were capable of, but even effected how they were personified. Plus, it's very difficult to argue against the correlation of sexuality and power in media. It has been around a lot longer than we think, and has even effected how we view our monsters.

[Archpaladin Zousha]

I always find it amazing how much people who purportedly hate Twilight love talking about it so much. So much that it dominates conversation in threads not specifically about it.

While Dracula wasn't specifically seductive, and the comparison to a rapist is an apt one from a certain perspective, I think if you take into account the attitudes of the Victorian era, Vampires were meant to act as and represent sexual beings and the sexual desire. The Victorian age was a sexually repressed age, where premarital and extramarital sex was especially verboten. The fact that Dracula's first (?) victim was engaged to be married was no accident. The idea of being transformed into a being which is also hungry for blood mirrored the fear that sex would transform a maiden into a wanton girl. Blood is tied to sex in that your offspring are said to be 'of your blood' or 'share your blood'.

I'm no historian or Victorian cultural theorist, but it seems to me that while Dracula seems more rapist than seducer to the modern eye, and the story doesn't contain the same kinds of temptation and structure of a modern sexual tale, I believe that viewed in context it was meant to be that way.

I think that so many things about Vampires work with them as sexual metaphors that if the Vampire was at one time a more straightforward disgusting monster archetype, then the change did nothing but improve them.

EXACTLY! As I said before, early vampires were little more than bloated corpses caked in grave dirt who wrestled soldiers in the graveyard until dawn, at which point they retreated, and then the village dug them up and burned them and as they burned they turned into bats, toads and lizards and stuff skittering away from the fire and they all had to be caught and killed or the vampire would return.

The makeover they got in the forms of Lord Ruthven, Carmilla and especially Dracula created a much more compelling image, something that was scary not just because of its unnatural behavior, but because it could infiltrate the society of the living to feed.

While I cannot speak to the quality of Twilight (I have never read the books nor do I care to, but I think they're just some silly teen romances, not the literary diahrrea so many people seem to scream that they are, though I have seen some genuine literary criticism of the books), I cannot fault it for its use of vampire tropes. Honestly, vampires in modern media haven't really changed. Meyers merely called our attention back to them.

[H Birchgrove]

Stephenie Meyer is a writer, not an author, the same way Ian Fleming and Mickey Spillane are writers but not authors. I don't know what Meyer has said on the subject but those two didn't just admit but were adamant that they were "merely" writers. (Spillane liked to point out that he sold more than Ernest Hemingway though.) To be an author, you need to write something with more literary value than pure entertainment.

I do know that Meyer admitted to not do any research on vampires before writing her novels. If that is a good or a bad thing, well, I haven't read her stuff so I leave that up to you.

[Mewtarthio]

Stephenie Meyer is a writer, not an author, the same way Ian Fleming and Mickey Spillane are writers but not authors. I don't know what Meyer has said on the subject but those two didn't just admit but were adamant that they were "merely" writers. (Spillane liked to point out that he sold more than Ernest Hemingway though.) To be an author, you need to write something with more literary value than pure entertainment.

The debate over how to judge the "value" of art has gone on for thousands of years and spawned countless movements. Let's just say that, if people can consider Cage's 4'33'' music, Duchamp's Fountain a sculpture, or Monterroso's "El dinosaurio" a piece of literature, I'm fine with calling Meyer an author.

[Mr. Scaly]

For myself, it's not the romantic or 'pretty' versions of vampires that bother me, and it's not even the sparkliness of Twilight Vampires that bugs me. The problem in my opinion is that when they're romanticised and portrayed as tragic figures, they're shown as being too human. I can understand in some cases...like if a vampire is freshly turned for example, and still clinging to its human life. But after a hundred years, two hundred, three, countless people fed upon, whatever strange mutations and changes they might undergo... Vampires should be alien to people. Pretty? Seductive? Sure, I don't mind that. But inhuman too. Creatures with their own morality and logic and way of thinking that's incompatible with what humans know.

[Tanuki Tales]

For myself, it's not the romantic or 'pretty' versions of vampires that bother me, and it's not even the sparkliness of Twilight Vampires that bugs me. The problem in my opinion is that when they're romanticised and portrayed as tragic figures, they're shown as being too human. I can understand in some cases...like if a vampire is freshly turned for example, and still clinging to its human life. But after a hundred years, two hundred, three, countless people fed upon, whatever strange mutations and changes they might undergo... Vampires should be alien to people. Pretty? Seductive? Sure, I don't mind that. But inhuman too. Creatures with their own morality and logic and way of thinking that's incompatible with what humans know.

Or at least realize that they're twisted, horrific monstrosities who, if they have any dredges of humanity left in them, are most certainly no more moral than someone like Hitler or a similar warmongering sociopath.

[H Birchgrove]

The debate over how to judge the "value" of art has gone on for thousands of years and spawned countless movements. Let's just say that, if people can consider Cage's 4'33'' music, Duchamp's Fountain a sculpture, or Monterroso's "El dinosaurio" a piece of literature, I'm fine with calling Meyer an author.

Duchamp was, if I'm not mistaken, trying to make people think and question certain aesthetic values. Thus Fountain was more than entertainment.

[Zaydos]

Just finished watching Daybreakers. It was a fun and interesting depiction of vampires which were actually quite a bit weaker and lower frills than Stoker's Dracula. It was also a fairly good and entertaining one in my opinion.

[Tiki Snakes]

Duchamp was, if I'm not mistaken, trying to make people think and question certain aesthetic values. Thus Fountain was more than entertainment.

Personally I always thought that his post-war stuff was a terrible waste of a talented painter crawling far too far up himself due to the inevitable trauma (assuming I'm not mixing up my artists, it's been a while). Frankly, if his Fountain was a work of art, then it's a collaborative piece with the lion's-share of the credit going to whoever designed the original item, just as the rest of his ready-mades.

All of which has very little to do with the thread, let alone the point.

It does remind me of a story I heard, where he tried to sign a sky-scraper around that same time so that he could claim it as a work of art of his own, or something, but was prevented by nervous officials. I can't help but imagine a team of very nervous ghouls and other vampiric minions trying to prevent the artist from signing their master's building just because they're worried that it'll either draw too much attention or simply because it might annoy him.

[The Big Dice]

Vampires started out as disease spirits, spreading illness. They changed into a fear of being buried alive by mistake, which was a real possibility at the time the stories first appeared. As the Victorian age picked up on the myths, they became the immortal, dead but somehow alive. Seductive, but savage too.

In mor emodern times, the vampire changed again, It became more human, but somehow less human at the same time. Less a figure of fear, more one of pity. Eventually, they became a blight to be fought be anti-heroes who were probably more violent than the thing they sought revenge on.

And now they have become the bad boy. The person who has done horrible things in the past, but it only takes the right girl/boy to straighten them out.

So they've gone from a myth to explain a natural phenomena, to a figure of fear that is strangely attractive too, into something to scare your friends with round a camp fire and eventually into the guy in a leather jacket on an Australian soap opera.

It's kind of sad, really. Vampires have developed from figures of terror to things of pity to a fate worse than death, if you ask me.

[Worira]

Or at least realize that they're twisted, horrific monstrosities who, if they have any dredges of humanity left in them, are most certainly no more moral than someone like Hitler or a similar warmongering sociopath.

You know, I've met someone more than 100 years old. She was, shockingly enough, not some sort of mega-Hitler. I'm not really sure where the whole "living a long time = evil" thing is coming from, here.

[TheSummoner]

I'm guessing the person you met didn't have to feed on humans to live that long.

[Worira]

OK, let's say she was severely anaemic and had had routine blood transfusions throughout her life. Still a pretty good bet on avoiding the whole Double Stalin deal.

[Tanuki Tales]

You know, I've met someone more than 100 years old. She was, shockingly enough, not some sort of mega-Hitler. I'm not really sure where the whole "living a long time = evil" thing is coming from, here.

Where are you getting that from? I was talking about Vampires, not immortals in general. :smallconfused:

[Yora]

Vampires started out as disease spirits, spreading illness. They changed into a fear of being buried alive by mistake, which was a real possibility at the time the stories first appeared. As the Victorian age picked up on the myths, they became the immortal, dead but somehow alive. Seductive, but savage too.
If there were a super villain list for the crime of botchering history and folklore, the Victorians would take the number one spot. Right above the contemporary Japanese.

[Zaydos]

Technically vampires as seductive, or at least horny, undead pre-dates Victorian england. Just like dhampyrs (half-vampires). They weren't Dracula with his undead brides, but they did have a tendency to knock up their widows. Then again in Romanian legends they were also invisible except to dhampyrs who were valuable vampire slayers for this reason.

Half-vampire vampire hunters is actually not a perversion of the original myths.

[The Big Dice]

If there were a super villain list for the crime of botchering history and folklore, the Victorians would take the number one spot. Right above the contemporary Japanese.
To be fair, modern day writers are just as bad or worse. Both for movies and books, they take an idea from mythology, then completely twist it out of recognition in order to make a B movie or a trashy novel.

[Lord Raziere]

if I were to make vampires, they'd either be stinky unwashed hobos who'd just knock you out then suck your blood, or crazed blood addicts with no subtlety at all who just beat you up then suck your blood.
they would be hunted by wizards who figured out how to travel through and live in mirrors.

[TheSummoner]

Technically vampires as seductive, or at least horny, undead pre-dates Victorian england. Just like dhampyrs (half-vampires). They weren't Dracula with his undead brides, but they did have a tendency to knock up their widows. Then again in Romanian legends they were also invisible except to dhampyrs who were valuable vampire slayers for this reason.

Half-vampire vampire hunters is actually not a perversion of the original myths.

Eh, if you wanna get technical, seductive and attractive are not one in the same. Seductive is more about personality than appearance.


if I were to make vampires, they'd either be stinky unwashed hobos who'd just knock you out then suck your blood, or crazed blood addicts with no subtlety at all who just beat you up then suck your blood.
they would be hunted by wizards who figured out how to travel through and live in mirrors.

Question! How would being able to travel through and live in mirrors help these wizards kill creatures who have no reflection and would thus have no reason to own or intentionally go anywhere near a mirror?

[Lord Raziere]

Question! How would being able to travel through and live in mirrors help these wizards kill creatures who have no reflection and would thus have no reason to own or intentionally go anywhere near a mirror?

cause they have no reflection, vampires can't go into the mirror world, its the only place they will be safe.

plus, since the vampires have no reflection, the mirror world is a world that exists without their influence, if you check a mirror list thats different from a real world list that means there are vampires on the real world list cause the mirror list can't reflect them, cause the mirror world is a world without the vampires influence, therefore you can track them down and kill them.

[TheSummoner]

Ok, so the mirror is more of a place that the wizards stay to be safe when not out hunting vampires than something they use to ambush them. Makes a bit more sence now.

[GenericGuy]

Cracked has done a short video(mostly humorous) video on the subject of modern vamps, for those interested.

http://www.cracked.com/video_18261_why-everyone-wants-to-have-sex-with-vampires.html

[Lord Seth]

Cracked has done a short video(mostly humorous) video on the subject of modern vamps, for those interested.

http://www.cracked.com/video_18261_why-everyone-wants-to-have-sex-with-vampires.htmlA somewhat interesting discussion I suppose, but I should point out that Being Human and The Vampire Diaries are not geared towards "teenagers and those with the mental capacity of the same" Being Human, from what I can tell, is meant for an older audience, and The Vampire Diaries is, like all primetime broadcast, most definitely geared towards people 18 and above (primetime broadcast shows prefer the 18-49 demographic because that's what the advertisers pay the most for, with THe CW especially being fond of the 18-34 female demographic). I guess 18 and 19 are teenagers, but it's still a misrepresentation both of target audience and of content also.

Speaking of videos, I always find College Humor's Vampire Reunion (http://www.collegehumor.com/video/5726452/vampire-reunion) video to be funny.

[Tanuki Tales]

plus, since the vampires have no reflection, the mirror world is a world that exists without their influence, if you check a mirror list thats different from a real world list that means there are vampires on the real world list cause the mirror list can't reflect them, cause the mirror world is a world without the vampires influence, therefore you can track them down and kill them.

Erm, what?