can we bring back good vampires please?

[Lexodus]

There seem to be some shared traits, though.

Only around the edges.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_vampire_traits

Ahahaha. Scroll down and read the 'Sunlight' column; most say either affected or fatal, and then there's... 'Identifiable as non-human by sparkling skin'.

You can tell which one's NOT A FUCKING VAMPIRE.

 

[Amnestic]

You can tell which one's NOT A FUCKING VAMPIRE.

Alucard, who a lot of people are praising, isn't affected by Sunlight at all. Neither is Count Chocula, lord of all vampires.

 

[Lexodus]

You can tell which one's NOT A FUCKING VAMPIRE.

Alucard, who a lot of people are praising, isn't affected by Sunlight at all. Neither is Count Chocula, lord of all vampires.

'Least he doesn't sparkle.

 

[Inverse Skies]

I love being apathetic towards this whole situation. I never thought vampires were cool or interesting before the whole Twilight phenomenon happened, and now that it has and 'ruined' vampires I don't mind, because I never had any love for them in the beginning anyway. It's times like this I'm glad I never had any interest in them, because now I can sit back and watch, being amused at everyone complaining over Twilight and what it has done.

 

[banhammer]

So I would like to gon on record and say: I am not a Twilight fan in the slightest.

With that being said my fiance mad me go see New Moon with her the other day and unlike Twilight it didn't make me want to peel off every piece of skin on my body with a potatoe peeler. The vampires are gay and Bella is a pretty stupid character but as far as movies go it wasn't horrible. The wolves made it pretty decent.

I would like to say the books are poorly written and the writer but what can you expect from a fat Mormon woman?

 

[RanD00M]

You can always do as i do and ignore all those new age fairy-vampires.

 

[Seldon2639]

Im thinking you cant take one story and change it to what you like, like the writer of Twilight did. I also think you shouldn't put well established work from someone else and turn it into what you want, lets say a teen romance film. There is no lore that is the most correct, but i hate what Holywood is doing to ancient European lore and history, turning it into something teenagers will obsess about. One last thing, calling upon wikipedia is never a good idea, since its a free encyclopedia made by volunteers, its information is not exactly solid and is not always to be taken as fact.

Right, so your complaint isn't the changing of vampire mythos qua vampire mythos, but the fact that it's a teen melodrama. That's fine. That's a good complaint. Criticize the work for being overwrought, poorly written, ect. But stop falling back on the fact that Meyers changed "real" vampires. That's just a silly argument.

"I also think you shouldn't put well established work from someone else and turn it into what you want". But then we come back to this. So, really, mythology should never evolve or change? Vampires should be as Stoker wrote them, or (more correctly) how Polidori wrote them... But Polidori's book was a vampire romance book... But it came before Stoker. So, really, Stoker shouldn't have taken Polidor's well-established work and change it into Dracula, much less Nosferatu.

See the problem? To say "this is the right way to write vampires" ignores that you only think it's right based on you liking it. That's all. It's not objective, it's not "real" it's purely subjective. It's your opinion. You prefer older myths about vampires. That's good, but that doesn't make you right in any objective way. There is no wrong answer because there is no right answer.

Finally, Wikipedia still cites more sources than you did, and was more correct than you were. So I'm comfortable going with Wikipedia.

 

[Seldon2639]

Ahahaha. Scroll down and read the 'Sunlight' column; most say either affected or fatal, and then there's... 'Identifiable as non-human by sparkling skin'.

You can tell which one's NOT A FUCKING VAMPIRE.

Really, that's the only thing you took from the chart? How about: "Highly susceptible to sunburns, Eventually Fatal". Yep, a vampire which just gets Melanoma. That's awesome. Or "Weakened during the daylight hours but not actually affected by the sun "light". Hmm... But every other "real" vampire is hurt by the light itself. In fact, in Blade (for instance) it's only the light that hurts.

So, let me know, which one is a "FUCKING VAMPIRE": the ones from Blade, or the ones from Bram Stoker's Dracula.

And what about those supernatural powers (speed, senses, strength)? They don't really exist in the original folklore of vampires. Does that mean Bram Stoker was wrong again?

Or, perhaps, because it's fiction, people can do whatever the hell they like with mythologies which have no set rules.

 

[FurthestLocutus]

alas I fear the age of awesome vampires has come to an end.
So i've moved on to Frankenstein and zombies, as soon as I hear about a love story involving one of those I'll be convinced that nothing is sacred and go jump off of the nearest bridge.

 

[Altorin]

lol... blade having good vampires?

I'm afraid you got off on the corner Wrong Avenue and Fail Juncture this afternoon.

 

[ayailla]

And now with New Moon, warewolves are next. You could already see it on the WoW forums when Blizzard announced the Worgen race.

That's just Blizzard throwing fuel on the Furry fire though...

 

[childofbodom]

And in case you didn't get this:
WE ARE TALKING ABOUT LITERATURE YOU C*NT!
And FYI Vampyrism WAS a real thing back in the "good old day" as you could call them, due to porfyria (or however it's spelled) which was very common in Romania at the time since they didn't really care whoever they f*ucked and major part of the villages were inbred. Porfyria is vaer funny since it made you highly light sensitive (sores and other horrible stuff in direct sunlight), and you had to consume a lot of iron: I.e. blood. And you know what, you should be very happy there is no real vampires cuz then you probably would've been killed ages ago. Now go blaspheme in a completely different forum.

Um... Except the whole "vampires = porphyria" thing is based on the premise that sunlight hurts those who have porphyria, and hurts vampires. Here's the thing, "sunlight hurts vampires" wasn't part of vampire lore until 1922, when people misinterpreted the original silent film Nosferatu. Vampirism (and I'll never understand the pretentious desire to throw "y"s in where "i"s belong) was a myth, in the same way any supernatural creature is. Thus the myth is mutable and malleable.

Also, if you honestly think that vampirism was simply an offshoot of misconceptions about porphyria, where does the rest of it come from? The whole "can't cross a threshold" or "stopped by running water" stuff?

Or, how about we accept that there's never been a consistent set of "rules" for vampires, and move on with our lives?

I can explain the water thing. Hydrophobia. All the things that are put together in the Vampire myth is probably mostly based on things people noticed; i.e. "Seeing is beliving". And as far as the threshold thing goes, they might've just not want to showthemselves to people. Embarresment.

As for the Y thing, I swedish, so have mercy on me.

 

[Orcus The Ultimate]

Best Vampire must be Smiling Jack C'mon! he's awesome! i'd add any other character from Vampire The Masquerade Bloodlines too...

 

[Sleipnir]

Although Vampires in Twilight have been completely bastardized, at lease Jacob is sticking to the original werewolf story and ends up being a paedophile...

As for sparkling vampires, the only way a vampire should sparkle in sunlight is via a misinterpretation of glowing ashes.

 

[Seldon2639]

~snip~

It's possible, and I was perhaps a bit more annoyed at your post than I should have been. After fielding a good fifteen posts about how Twilight doesn't have "real" vampires, I was getting a bit tired of the entire discussion. Yes, it's possible that the stories of vampirism were actually based on real medical problems, but that wouldn't change the fact that the mythos is far from concrete or consistent.

Even within the realm of the folklore, many cultures had many different vampire myths. Once you open it up to literature (and it's important to remember that the first "vampire romance" novel actually predates Bram Stoker's Dracula), it's a potpourri of "whatever someone wants to make vampires seem like that they think is cool"

 

[axia777]

If you want old-fashion Stoker-esque vampires, I recommend you get writing and hope it takes off. Otherwise, you might as well deal with the Anne Rice evolution.

I will say it again, TRUE BLOOD. Eric would tear any of these new idiot Vamps a new one. He is a fucking Viking Vampire. He raped, pillaged and burned entire towns. The scene where he tears that guys legs off and eats him is so damned awesome. Hell, even Pam his servant has ten time more balls than the entire Twilight series. Download or buy True Blood. You will not be wasting your time.

I would like to say the books are poorly written and the writer but what can you expect from a fat Mormon woman?

She is Mormon?! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Lord Beautiful]

While we're at it, can we bring back the search bar. I don't know where it might have gone off to, but apparently it's inaccessible. Escapist staff, could you please try to locate the errant search bar, so people can try to find other threads which talk about how terrible vampire mythos has become in light of Twilight.

OT:

Dude, shut up. There's no consistency in vampire lore to begin with, so it's all about picking a series you like a reading it. If you don't like Twilight vampires, do what I did: ignore them. Go read the Dresden Files, go read I am Legend, go read anything else you like. I didn't like Twilight, I never read them, and the concept sounded a bit soap-opera-ish, but we all sound like jackasses when the best we can come up with by way of criticism is:

"Nurr, I don't like your vampires. You changed it, now they suck"

Criticize the writing, the characters, whatever you like, but until you can find me actual evidence for what a "real" vampire would be like, stop being a pretentious idiot. Jim Butcher writes different vampires from Anne Rice, from Laurel K. Hamilton, from Bram Stoker, from Richard Matheson, from Stephanie Meyers, and from White Wolf Publishing. There's no consistency, and hence no "good" or "bad" only different interpretations of what a vampire "would" be like.

Stop the presses, one writer has a different concept of mythology from another. I'm shocked, shocked I say, to find that there isn't one universal way to think of vampires.

This man, he speaks the truth.

 

[Eldarion]

It used to be that vampires were aristocratic social beings who seduced chicks, drank their blood and made them theirs. Now its all about depressing looking johnny depp sparkle knockoffs that listen to fallout boy and eat animals

I agree.

Twilight must die.

It has been pissing on real vampires long enough....