Poll: Twilight honored among "Exorcist" and "The Shining" at Academy Awards

[crimson5pheonix]

And how do you get horror~romance?

WARNING: this post will scare you.

Horror, and vampires in particular have always been about romance. Dracula was always portrayed as a charismatic, well-spoken man, he didn't force people into his castle, he lured and charmed them in. He even killed his victims in an embrace that looks and feels exactly like a bit of passionate necking until you feel the fangs sink in and then it's too late. If you want to see the inspiration for Twilight's vampires, look to the source. Twilight's vision of what a vampire is, is actually a lot closer in spirit to Bram Stoker's book than almost every other recent vampire film made, most of which take amazingly brazen liberties with the "vampire" formula (space vampires, zombie vampires, vampire werewolves, etc). A bitter pill for people here to swallow, no doubt, but Twilight succeeded while so many other vampire films disappeared into the land of 'meh' because Twilight actually mostly got vampires right[/i].

Grief counselling is available via PM for distraught horror fans (as this thread will be locked soon no doubt).

Well, maybe vampires for horror~romance, but not horror in general. How would you get romance out of an actual horror based werewolf movie?

Also, I thought the main vampire in Twilight didn't want to bight the main character, wouldn't that kind of mess things up? Or am I just wrong and he's toying with her?

Well, is that not where the appeal lies? The man is willing to (attempt to) exercise control the natural urges for the sake of her? This type of moral quandary also appears in Bram Stoker's book and several early vampire film incarnations and gave those early protagonists a bit of extra depth.

A werewolf is a man when he's not a wolf. In traditional werewolf literature, the werewolf only become a wolf during the full moon. Usually, once again, the werewolf in film "as man" is a romantic person with a love interest, who then has the torment of trying to hide his true nature and explain his awkward monthly absences to the girl he cares about. A constant battle between primal instinct and romantic ideals, once again, not unlike Twilight.

When did Dracula not want to feed? He only exercised control because it is socially uncouth to jump out and yell "Bleagh!" and start sucking.

As for the Werewolf one, then it becomes a romance movie instead of horror because the focus has shifted to love instead of constant stalking.

Well, yes, yes it does. Most werewolf films aren't just 90 minutes of a wolf chowing down. That would be boring (and most newer werewolf films that are nothing but this ARE very boring as a result). The classic werewolf films are all romance tales gone wrong.

Dracula always wanted to feed, but he had too much style and poise to go around just knocking off randoms. He knew the classiest way to feed on subjects of his required standard was to seduce his prey and let them come to him. He had the mansion, the bling and so forth, he knew what girls of the day liked. But there was always a little bit inside of him that had to try hard not to actually fall in love with the victims... hence the female character who always gets to stay in the house that little bit longer than her peers...

Well alright, fair enough. I still don't think horror and romance are intrinsic to each other, but it's there enough.

But the slight romance undercurrent in Dracula is different from the Twilight romance. His romance was a deepening feature to make him appear more human and that he was trying to turn himself into a true monster. But the Twilight vampire that has already given up and accepted romance is now nothing more then a super strong jumping jack. Part of why the Dracula romance is part of the horror is that he's still hunting people despite his lingering humanity. But Twilight vampire isn't actively hunting characters. He could be replaced with Superman and it would still work. That's all romance with the only horror coming from outside characters attacking.

For the record I've read the original Dracula and its nothing like that. In fact it's really very boring. Dracula comes to London. Dracula feeds on two pretty girls after hypnotizing them (and they don't remember). Then Jonathan Harker and co. (include Dr Van Helsing) hunt Dracula down in England. Then they hunt him down in Transylvania.

If your referring to a specific movie (ie Dracula 2000) then I apologize. Oh and i don't know which Dracula movie it is, but the one where he turns out to be Judas is such a cool twist. And for all you smart arses who say you saw it coming, well i was very young at the time.

But it is a bit like that. I have also read Dracula and found it very entertaining. Part of the entertainment did come from Dracula struggling with his former humanity.

 

[BonsaiK]

And how do you get horror~romance?

WARNING: this post will scare you.

Horror, and vampires in particular have always been about romance. Dracula was always portrayed as a charismatic, well-spoken man, he didn't force people into his castle, he lured and charmed them in. He even killed his victims in an embrace that looks and feels exactly like a bit of passionate necking until you feel the fangs sink in and then it's too late. If you want to see the inspiration for Twilight's vampires, look to the source. Twilight's vision of what a vampire is, is actually a lot closer in spirit to Bram Stoker's book than almost every other recent vampire film made, most of which take amazingly brazen liberties with the "vampire" formula (space vampires, zombie vampires, vampire werewolves, etc). A bitter pill for people here to swallow, no doubt, but Twilight succeeded while so many other vampire films disappeared into the land of 'meh' because Twilight actually mostly got vampires right[/i].

Grief counselling is available via PM for distraught horror fans (as this thread will be locked soon no doubt).

Well, maybe vampires for horror~romance, but not horror in general. How would you get romance out of an actual horror based werewolf movie?

Also, I thought the main vampire in Twilight didn't want to bight the main character, wouldn't that kind of mess things up? Or am I just wrong and he's toying with her?

Well, is that not where the appeal lies? The man is willing to (attempt to) exercise control the natural urges for the sake of her? This type of moral quandary also appears in Bram Stoker's book and several early vampire film incarnations and gave those early protagonists a bit of extra depth.

A werewolf is a man when he's not a wolf. In traditional werewolf literature, the werewolf only become a wolf during the full moon. Usually, once again, the werewolf in film "as man" is a romantic person with a love interest, who then has the torment of trying to hide his true nature and explain his awkward monthly absences to the girl he cares about. A constant battle between primal instinct and romantic ideals, once again, not unlike Twilight.

When did Dracula not want to feed? He only exercised control because it is socially uncouth to jump out and yell "Bleagh!" and start sucking.

As for the Werewolf one, then it becomes a romance movie instead of horror because the focus has shifted to love instead of constant stalking.

Well, yes, yes it does. Most werewolf films aren't just 90 minutes of a wolf chowing down. That would be boring (and most newer werewolf films that are nothing but this ARE very boring as a result). The classic werewolf films are all romance tales gone wrong.

Dracula always wanted to feed, but he had too much style and poise to go around just knocking off randoms. He knew the classiest way to feed on subjects of his required standard was to seduce his prey and let them come to him. He had the mansion, the bling and so forth, he knew what girls of the day liked. But there was always a little bit inside of him that had to try hard not to actually fall in love with the victims... hence the female character who always gets to stay in the house that little bit longer than her peers...

Well alright, fair enough. I still don't think horror and romance are intrinsic to each other, but it's there enough.

But the slight romance undercurrent in Dracula is different from the Twilight romance. His romance was a deepening feature to make him appear more human and that he was trying to turn himself into a true monster. But the Twilight vampire that has already given up and accepted romance is now nothing more then a super strong jumping jack. Part of why the Dracula romance is part of the horror is that he's still hunting people despite his lingering humanity. But Twilight vampire isn't actively hunting characters. He could be replaced with Superman and it would still work. That's all romance with the only horror coming from outside characters attacking.

I don't see that as a problem. It's still a far, far less butchered interpretation of "vampirism" than just about all the modern variants I've seen. Besides, millions of people love it, so who am I to argue?

 

[LiquidXlr8]

And how do you get horror~romance?

WARNING: this post will scare you.

Horror, and vampires in particular have always been about romance. Dracula was always portrayed as a charismatic, well-spoken man, he didn't force people into his castle, he lured and charmed them in. He even killed his victims in an embrace that looks and feels exactly like a bit of passionate necking until you feel the fangs sink in and then it's too late. If you want to see the inspiration for Twilight's vampires, look to the source. Twilight's vision of what a vampire is, is actually a lot closer in spirit to Bram Stoker's book than almost every other recent vampire film made, most of which take amazingly brazen liberties with the "vampire" formula (space vampires, zombie vampires, vampire werewolves, etc). A bitter pill for people here to swallow, no doubt, but Twilight succeeded while so many other vampire films disappeared into the land of 'meh' because Twilight actually mostly got vampires right[/i].

Grief counselling is available via PM for distraught horror fans (as this thread will be locked soon no doubt).

Well, maybe vampires for horror~romance, but not horror in general. How would you get romance out of an actual horror based werewolf movie?

Also, I thought the main vampire in Twilight didn't want to bight the main character, wouldn't that kind of mess things up? Or am I just wrong and he's toying with her?

Well, is that not where the appeal lies? The man is willing to (attempt to) exercise control the natural urges for the sake of her? This type of moral quandary also appears in Bram Stoker's book and several early vampire film incarnations and gave those early protagonists a bit of extra depth.

A werewolf is a man when he's not a wolf. In traditional werewolf literature, the werewolf only become a wolf during the full moon. Usually, once again, the werewolf in film "as man" is a romantic person with a love interest, who then has the torment of trying to hide his true nature and explain his awkward monthly absences to the girl he cares about. A constant battle between primal instinct and romantic ideals, once again, not unlike Twilight.

When did Dracula not want to feed? He only exercised control because it is socially uncouth to jump out and yell "Bleagh!" and start sucking.

As for the Werewolf one, then it becomes a romance movie instead of horror because the focus has shifted to love instead of constant stalking.

Well, yes, yes it does. Most werewolf films aren't just 90 minutes of a wolf chowing down. That would be boring (and most newer werewolf films that are nothing but this ARE very boring as a result). The classic werewolf films are all romance tales gone wrong.

Dracula always wanted to feed, but he had too much style and poise to go around just knocking off randoms. He knew the classiest way to feed on subjects of his required standard was to seduce his prey and let them come to him. He had the mansion, the bling and so forth, he knew what girls of the day liked. But there was always a little bit inside of him that had to try hard not to actually fall in love with the victims... hence the female character who always gets to stay in the house that little bit longer than her peers...

Well alright, fair enough. I still don't think horror and romance are intrinsic to each other, but it's there enough.

But the slight romance undercurrent in Dracula is different from the Twilight romance. His romance was a deepening feature to make him appear more human and that he was trying to turn himself into a true monster. But the Twilight vampire that has already given up and accepted romance is now nothing more then a super strong jumping jack. Part of why the Dracula romance is part of the horror is that he's still hunting people despite his lingering humanity. But Twilight vampire isn't actively hunting characters. He could be replaced with Superman and it would still work. That's all romance with the only horror coming from outside characters attacking.

For the record I've read the original Dracula and its nothing like that. In fact it's really very boring. Dracula comes to London. Dracula feeds on two pretty girls after hypnotizing them (and they don't remember). Then Jonathan Harker and co. (include Dr Van Helsing) hunt Dracula down in England. Then they hunt him down in Transylvania.

If your referring to a specific movie (ie Dracula 2000) then I apologize. Oh and i don't know which Dracula movie it is, but the one where he turns out to be Judas is such a cool twist. And for all you smart arses who say you saw it coming, well i was very young at the time.

If you did read the book and not the wiki entry, then either you skimmed it or... well I wont be rude. But the entire novel was Stoker's thinly veiled attack against pornography (according to most Oxford Dons) and hundreds if not thousands of literary minds have written whole dissertations on the sexual overtones and undertones of Stoker's Dracula. Did you ever wonder why Lucy was killed in just a few days before becoming a revenant, but the Count decides to kidnap the much more chaste and pure Mina Harker around the world? Read deeper, my friend.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

And how do you get horror~romance?

WARNING: this post will scare you.

Horror, and vampires in particular have always been about romance. Dracula was always portrayed as a charismatic, well-spoken man, he didn't force people into his castle, he lured and charmed them in. He even killed his victims in an embrace that looks and feels exactly like a bit of passionate necking until you feel the fangs sink in and then it's too late. If you want to see the inspiration for Twilight's vampires, look to the source. Twilight's vision of what a vampire is, is actually a lot closer in spirit to Bram Stoker's book than almost every other recent vampire film made, most of which take amazingly brazen liberties with the "vampire" formula (space vampires, zombie vampires, vampire werewolves, etc). A bitter pill for people here to swallow, no doubt, but Twilight succeeded while so many other vampire films disappeared into the land of 'meh' because Twilight actually mostly got vampires right[/i].

Grief counselling is available via PM for distraught horror fans (as this thread will be locked soon no doubt).

Well, maybe vampires for horror~romance, but not horror in general. How would you get romance out of an actual horror based werewolf movie?

Also, I thought the main vampire in Twilight didn't want to bight the main character, wouldn't that kind of mess things up? Or am I just wrong and he's toying with her?

Well, is that not where the appeal lies? The man is willing to (attempt to) exercise control the natural urges for the sake of her? This type of moral quandary also appears in Bram Stoker's book and several early vampire film incarnations and gave those early protagonists a bit of extra depth.

A werewolf is a man when he's not a wolf. In traditional werewolf literature, the werewolf only become a wolf during the full moon. Usually, once again, the werewolf in film "as man" is a romantic person with a love interest, who then has the torment of trying to hide his true nature and explain his awkward monthly absences to the girl he cares about. A constant battle between primal instinct and romantic ideals, once again, not unlike Twilight.

When did Dracula not want to feed? He only exercised control because it is socially uncouth to jump out and yell "Bleagh!" and start sucking.

As for the Werewolf one, then it becomes a romance movie instead of horror because the focus has shifted to love instead of constant stalking.

Well, yes, yes it does. Most werewolf films aren't just 90 minutes of a wolf chowing down. That would be boring (and most newer werewolf films that are nothing but this ARE very boring as a result). The classic werewolf films are all romance tales gone wrong.

Dracula always wanted to feed, but he had too much style and poise to go around just knocking off randoms. He knew the classiest way to feed on subjects of his required standard was to seduce his prey and let them come to him. He had the mansion, the bling and so forth, he knew what girls of the day liked. But there was always a little bit inside of him that had to try hard not to actually fall in love with the victims... hence the female character who always gets to stay in the house that little bit longer than her peers...

Well alright, fair enough. I still don't think horror and romance are intrinsic to each other, but it's there enough.

But the slight romance undercurrent in Dracula is different from the Twilight romance. His romance was a deepening feature to make him appear more human and that he was trying to turn himself into a true monster. But the Twilight vampire that has already given up and accepted romance is now nothing more then a super strong jumping jack. Part of why the Dracula romance is part of the horror is that he's still hunting people despite his lingering humanity. But Twilight vampire isn't actively hunting characters. He could be replaced with Superman and it would still work. That's all romance with the only horror coming from outside characters attacking.

I don't see that as a problem. It's still a far, far/i] less butchered interpretation of "vampirism" than just about all the modern variants I've seen. Besides, millions of people love it, so who am I to argue?

Of course, that's if we go by Dracula as the base. The actual base is older than dirt and shows up in most cultures around the world. The first use of the term vampire shows up in eastern Europe. Folklore vampires were vicious, nocturnal (though not explicitly weak to the sun, just nocturnal is all that's said), and probably behaved more like slasher movie vampires than stuck up counts. But either way, most of the people who share my tastes don't like Twilight so statistics say I probably won't either. And I still don't count it as horror.

 

[LiquidXlr8]

And how do you get horror~romance?

WARNING: this post will scare you.

Horror, and vampires in particular have always been about romance. Dracula was always portrayed as a charismatic, well-spoken man, he didn't force people into his castle, he lured and charmed them in. He even killed his victims in an embrace that looks and feels exactly like a bit of passionate necking until you feel the fangs sink in and then it's too late. If you want to see the inspiration for Twilight's vampires, look to the source. Twilight's vision of what a vampire is, is actually a lot closer in spirit to Bram Stoker's book than almost every other recent vampire film made, most of which take amazingly brazen liberties with the "vampire" formula (space vampires, zombie vampires, vampire werewolves, etc). A bitter pill for people here to swallow, no doubt, but Twilight succeeded while so many other vampire films disappeared into the land of 'meh' because Twilight actually mostly got vampires right[/i].

Grief counselling is available via PM for distraught horror fans (as this thread will be locked soon no doubt).

Well, maybe vampires for horror~romance, but not horror in general. How would you get romance out of an actual horror based werewolf movie?

Also, I thought the main vampire in Twilight didn't want to bight the main character, wouldn't that kind of mess things up? Or am I just wrong and he's toying with her?

Well, is that not where the appeal lies? The man is willing to (attempt to) exercise control the natural urges for the sake of her? This type of moral quandary also appears in Bram Stoker's book and several early vampire film incarnations and gave those early protagonists a bit of extra depth.

A werewolf is a man when he's not a wolf. In traditional werewolf literature, the werewolf only become a wolf during the full moon. Usually, once again, the werewolf in film "as man" is a romantic person with a love interest, who then has the torment of trying to hide his true nature and explain his awkward monthly absences to the girl he cares about. A constant battle between primal instinct and romantic ideals, once again, not unlike Twilight.

When did Dracula not want to feed? He only exercised control because it is socially uncouth to jump out and yell "Bleagh!" and start sucking.

As for the Werewolf one, then it becomes a romance movie instead of horror because the focus has shifted to love instead of constant stalking.

Well, yes, yes it does. Most werewolf films aren't just 90 minutes of a wolf chowing down. That would be boring (and most newer werewolf films that are nothing but this ARE very boring as a result). The classic werewolf films are all romance tales gone wrong.

Dracula always wanted to feed, but he had too much style and poise to go around just knocking off randoms. He knew the classiest way to feed on subjects of his required standard was to seduce his prey and let them come to him. He had the mansion, the bling and so forth, he knew what girls of the day liked. But there was always a little bit inside of him that had to try hard not to actually fall in love with the victims... hence the female character who always gets to stay in the house that little bit longer than her peers...

Well alright, fair enough. I still don't think horror and romance are intrinsic to each other, but it's there enough.

But the slight romance undercurrent in Dracula is different from the Twilight romance. His romance was a deepening feature to make him appear more human and that he was trying to turn himself into a true monster. But the Twilight vampire that has already given up and accepted romance is now nothing more then a super strong jumping jack. Part of why the Dracula romance is part of the horror is that he's still hunting people despite his lingering humanity. But Twilight vampire isn't actively hunting characters. He could be replaced with Superman and it would still work. That's all romance with the only horror coming from outside characters attacking.

So if I were to post images from "Interview with a Vampire" into that gallery, would that have been considered horror. Because it obviously had horror elements. Anne Rice even won the Bram Stoker award for the series. But is also HEAVILY based around the romances. At one point you even have vampires who can and do walk in the sun.

It has horror elements, but is not a horror story. The way I figure it, the focus is on the romance enough that if you pull out the horror elements, it still stands on its own as a romance novel. It straddles the line better than Twilight, but I consider it in the same genre of Romance over some light horror. But again, all the horror comes from outside influences apart from the main characters. So it shouldn't be in a horror montage, but it has more horror credibility than Twilight.

Forgive me, I may be misunderstanding, but doesn't all horror come from "outside influences apart from the main characters"? Jason, Freddy, and Michael for example. Even the demon from the Exorcist could be considered an "outside influence"

 

[^=ash=^]

this is how the world will end ... with twilight trying to squeeze into every genre

 

[LockeDown]

I don't see that as a problem. It's still a far, far less butchered interpretation of "vampirism" than just about all the modern variants I've seen. Besides, millions of people love it, so who am I to argue?

Who are you to argue? You're a logical, thinking, singular human being. You argue because you see something that has become popular, despite there being virtually no redeeming quality to it, and question this reality.

And as for the aforementioned "butchering" of vampirism, I have yet to see a single film where the vampires in question have been so thoroughly butchered as Twilight. Most of the other vampire media I've seen at least retains the core vampire traits:

-Drink blood of humans
-Enhanced strength, agility, speed, and sense of smell (to a degree)
-Flight (occasionally)
-Transformation (ocasionally)
-Weaknesses (Sunlight burns, holy water burns, stake through heart kills, garlic bad, etc.)

And most importantly:

-Vampirism treated as something that makes you not human or monstrous and not a quality that makes you appealing to women.

My problem with Twilight is that it's got nothing to do with vampires other than the "vampires" saying that they're vampires. The material could have been devoid of superpowers completely, and the themes would have probably worked better than with them (painting Edward's family as some sort of local upper-class nobility rather than "veggie-pires", and Bella as anything besides the pants-on-head retarded chick).

 

[Heeman89]

I thought it was hilarious, I'm guessing it was just a shot at the two people announcing the Horror thing

 

[LiquidXlr8]

And how do you get horror~romance?

WARNING: this post will scare you.

Horror, and vampires in particular have always been about romance. Dracula was always portrayed as a charismatic, well-spoken man, he didn't force people into his castle, he lured and charmed them in. He even killed his victims in an embrace that looks and feels exactly like a bit of passionate necking until you feel the fangs sink in and then it's too late. If you want to see the inspiration for Twilight's vampires, look to the source. Twilight's vision of what a vampire is, is actually a lot closer in spirit to Bram Stoker's book than almost every other recent vampire film made, most of which take amazingly brazen liberties with the "vampire" formula (space vampires, zombie vampires, vampire werewolves, etc). A bitter pill for people here to swallow, no doubt, but Twilight succeeded while so many other vampire films disappeared into the land of 'meh' because Twilight actually mostly got vampires right[/i].

Grief counselling is available via PM for distraught horror fans (as this thread will be locked soon no doubt).

Well, maybe vampires for horror~romance, but not horror in general. How would you get romance out of an actual horror based werewolf movie?

Also, I thought the main vampire in Twilight didn't want to bight the main character, wouldn't that kind of mess things up? Or am I just wrong and he's toying with her?

Well, is that not where the appeal lies? The man is willing to (attempt to) exercise control the natural urges for the sake of her? This type of moral quandary also appears in Bram Stoker's book and several early vampire film incarnations and gave those early protagonists a bit of extra depth.

A werewolf is a man when he's not a wolf. In traditional werewolf literature, the werewolf only become a wolf during the full moon. Usually, once again, the werewolf in film "as man" is a romantic person with a love interest, who then has the torment of trying to hide his true nature and explain his awkward monthly absences to the girl he cares about. A constant battle between primal instinct and romantic ideals, once again, not unlike Twilight.

When did Dracula not want to feed? He only exercised control because it is socially uncouth to jump out and yell "Bleagh!" and start sucking.

As for the Werewolf one, then it becomes a romance movie instead of horror because the focus has shifted to love instead of constant stalking.

Well, yes, yes it does. Most werewolf films aren't just 90 minutes of a wolf chowing down. That would be boring (and most newer werewolf films that are nothing but this ARE very boring as a result). The classic werewolf films are all romance tales gone wrong.

Dracula always wanted to feed, but he had too much style and poise to go around just knocking off randoms. He knew the classiest way to feed on subjects of his required standard was to seduce his prey and let them come to him. He had the mansion, the bling and so forth, he knew what girls of the day liked. But there was always a little bit inside of him that had to try hard not to actually fall in love with the victims... hence the female character who always gets to stay in the house that little bit longer than her peers...

Well alright, fair enough. I still don't think horror and romance are intrinsic to each other, but it's there enough.

But the slight romance undercurrent in Dracula is different from the Twilight romance. His romance was a deepening feature to make him appear more human and that he was trying to turn himself into a true monster. But the Twilight vampire that has already given up and accepted romance is now nothing more then a super strong jumping jack. Part of why the Dracula romance is part of the horror is that he's still hunting people despite his lingering humanity. But Twilight vampire isn't actively hunting characters. He could be replaced with Superman and it would still work. That's all romance with the only horror coming from outside characters attacking.

I don't see that as a problem. It's still a far, far/i] less butchered interpretation of "vampirism" than just about all the modern variants I've seen. Besides, millions of people love it, so who am I to argue?

Of course, that's if we go by Dracula as the base. The actual base is older than dirt and shows up in most cultures around the world. The first use of the term vampire shows up in eastern Europe. Folklore vampires were vicious, nocturnal (though not explicitly weak to the sun, just nocturnal is all that's said), and probably behaved more like slasher movie vampires than stuck up counts. But either way, most of the people who share my tastes don't like Twilight so statistics say I probably won't either. And I still don't count it as horror.

Fair Enough, and a vaild point. And while I am hesitant to call it horror at all, I will reiterate that its popularity may be good for the horror genre. And while they are not amazing in ANY sense of the word, I still encourage people to read them, at least so they can know what and why they dislike it, and at most to encourage people to read something outside of their comfort zone. I find the books (at least as a Religious Studies and Anthropology double major) an interesting look into the mind of Stephanie Meyer, and I enjoy seeing how her Mormon upbringing has affected her views on what her fanasy romance is like.

 

[joshthor]

i dont wanna sound gay, but i have watched twilight twice. in theatres. luckily, my freinds paid for me both times, ya know, cause im awesome. twilight is definitely not a horror movie. maybe torture movie, ya know, cause it sucks. but not a horror movie.

 

[ZydrateDealer]

Oh yes I've always found shiny pricks with an aversion to having sex with a eager women terrifying...but then I am so tragically homophobic...not really but the point I'm trying to make is that NO twilight is not a horror film it's a romance!

It is however a work of fiction where any way you look at it there are supernatural creatures trying to kill the protaganists.

I would personally characterize it as a work of "dark fantasy" however, despite the romantic aspects, simply because the character "Edward" is the equal of most of the threats being faced. Or at least strong enough where I can't see him as being a victim in the truest sense.

I see the big differance between fantasy and horror is that in fantasy the protaganists are worthy of the opponents they face, in horror they are not and are typically underdogs far below most heroes (even weak ones who are supposed to be outclassed).

Unleash a bunch of aliens on an unprepared group of civilians on a space station and see a bloodbath, following the story of those civilians and you have horror. Drop someone like Master Chief or another Space-Marine type hero into the same enviroment, even with carnage all around, and now your looking at a work of space fantasy rather than horror, where all
you did was change the protaganist and his/her capabilities.

Take the first Alien movie for example, while set in space that was Horror. For Master Chief it would have been an annoyance (Blam! one shot from an uberweapon, the movie ends).

I suppose it's a romantic fantasy then but then if you think about your argument it really must be a horror because Bella is the protagonist and she could be killed at any point; don't worry I'm not saying it is because genres are defined by more than ONE feature and a piece of media(game/movie/TV programme/etc)can have features that are inclusive of different genres.

Eventually it all comes down to how you would classify the piece of media because humans have to categorise everything they see. On that note I see Twilight as a romance personally but I could have my arm twisted into saying it's a fantasy mostly because it is a complete work of fantasy on Meyer's part but also because I don't feel strongly enough about Twilight to argue over what the genre should be I just know that it shouldn't be a horror because there's no predictable scares, gore, psychopathic killers or titties...shame really.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

And how do you get horror~romance?

WARNING: this post will scare you.

Horror, and vampires in particular have always been about romance. Dracula was always portrayed as a charismatic, well-spoken man, he didn't force people into his castle, he lured and charmed them in. He even killed his victims in an embrace that looks and feels exactly like a bit of passionate necking until you feel the fangs sink in and then it's too late. If you want to see the inspiration for Twilight's vampires, look to the source. Twilight's vision of what a vampire is, is actually a lot closer in spirit to Bram Stoker's book than almost every other recent vampire film made, most of which take amazingly brazen liberties with the "vampire" formula (space vampires, zombie vampires, vampire werewolves, etc). A bitter pill for people here to swallow, no doubt, but Twilight succeeded while so many other vampire films disappeared into the land of 'meh' because Twilight actually mostly got vampires right[/i].

Grief counselling is available via PM for distraught horror fans (as this thread will be locked soon no doubt).

Well, maybe vampires for horror~romance, but not horror in general. How would you get romance out of an actual horror based werewolf movie?

Also, I thought the main vampire in Twilight didn't want to bight the main character, wouldn't that kind of mess things up? Or am I just wrong and he's toying with her?

Well, is that not where the appeal lies? The man is willing to (attempt to) exercise control the natural urges for the sake of her? This type of moral quandary also appears in Bram Stoker's book and several early vampire film incarnations and gave those early protagonists a bit of extra depth.

A werewolf is a man when he's not a wolf. In traditional werewolf literature, the werewolf only become a wolf during the full moon. Usually, once again, the werewolf in film "as man" is a romantic person with a love interest, who then has the torment of trying to hide his true nature and explain his awkward monthly absences to the girl he cares about. A constant battle between primal instinct and romantic ideals, once again, not unlike Twilight.

When did Dracula not want to feed? He only exercised control because it is socially uncouth to jump out and yell "Bleagh!" and start sucking.

As for the Werewolf one, then it becomes a romance movie instead of horror because the focus has shifted to love instead of constant stalking.

Well, yes, yes it does. Most werewolf films aren't just 90 minutes of a wolf chowing down. That would be boring (and most newer werewolf films that are nothing but this ARE very boring as a result). The classic werewolf films are all romance tales gone wrong.

Dracula always wanted to feed, but he had too much style and poise to go around just knocking off randoms. He knew the classiest way to feed on subjects of his required standard was to seduce his prey and let them come to him. He had the mansion, the bling and so forth, he knew what girls of the day liked. But there was always a little bit inside of him that had to try hard not to actually fall in love with the victims... hence the female character who always gets to stay in the house that little bit longer than her peers...

Well alright, fair enough. I still don't think horror and romance are intrinsic to each other, but it's there enough.

But the slight romance undercurrent in Dracula is different from the Twilight romance. His romance was a deepening feature to make him appear more human and that he was trying to turn himself into a true monster. But the Twilight vampire that has already given up and accepted romance is now nothing more then a super strong jumping jack. Part of why the Dracula romance is part of the horror is that he's still hunting people despite his lingering humanity. But Twilight vampire isn't actively hunting characters. He could be replaced with Superman and it would still work. That's all romance with the only horror coming from outside characters attacking.

So if I were to post images from "Interview with a Vampire" into that gallery, would that have been considered horror. Because it obviously had horror elements. Anne Rice even won the Bram Stoker award for the series. But is also HEAVILY based around the romances. At one point you even have vampires who can and do walk in the sun.

It has horror elements, but is not a horror story. The way I figure it, the focus is on the romance enough that if you pull out the horror elements, it still stands on its own as a romance novel. It straddles the line better than Twilight, but I consider it in the same genre of Romance over some light horror. But again, all the horror comes from outside influences apart from the main characters. So it shouldn't be in a horror montage, but it has more horror credibility than Twilight.

Forgive me, I may be misunderstanding, but doesn't all horror come from "outside influences apart from the main characters"? Jason, Freddy, and Michael for example. Even the demon from the Exorcist could be considered an "outside influence"

Not necessarily. As BonsaiK said when I brought up werewolves, the horror comes from your former lover trying to eat you. The entire story could revolve around the 2 main characters giving us a defined and fleshed out protagonist and antagonist. Or we could consider both characters the protagonist and the act of transforming the antagonist. But with Twilight, we have two main characters get assaulted from people who are brought up from time to time as episodic villains of sorts. The characters love each other and their love is assaulted by person with a grudge #4. The only thing that separates this from a full romance novel is that the antagonist wants to kill or maim one of the main characters instead of just breaking them up. A true horror story doesn't have their love assaulted, it would just be a casualty of them dying.

 

[LiquidXlr8]

Oh yes I've always found shiny pricks with an aversion to having sex with a eager women terrifying...but then I am so tragically homophobic...not really but the point I'm trying to make is that NO twilight is not a horror film it's a romance!

It is however a work of fiction where any way you look at it there are supernatural creatures trying to kill the protaganists.

I would personally characterize it as a work of "dark fantasy" however, despite the romantic aspects, simply because the character "Edward" is the equal of most of the threats being faced. Or at least strong enough where I can't see him as being a victim in the truest sense.

I see the big differance between fantasy and horror is that in fantasy the protaganists are worthy of the opponents they face, in horror they are not and are typically underdogs far below most heroes (even weak ones who are supposed to be outclassed).

Unleash a bunch of aliens on an unprepared group of civilians on a space station and see a bloodbath, following the story of those civilians and you have horror. Drop someone like Master Chief or another Space-Marine type hero into the same enviroment, even with carnage all around, and now your looking at a work of space fantasy rather than horror, where all
you did was change the protaganist and his/her capabilities.

Take the first Alien movie for example, while set in space that was Horror. For Master Chief it would have been an annoyance (Blam! one shot from an uberweapon, the movie ends).

I suppose it's a romantic fantasy then but then if you think about your argument it really must be a horror because Bella is the protagonist and she could be killed at any point; don't worry I'm not saying it is because genres are defined by more than ONE feature and a piece of media(game/movie/TV programme/etc)can have features that are inclusive of different genres.

Eventually it all comes down to how you would classify the piece of media because humans have to categorise everything they see. On that note I see Twilight as a romance personally but I could have my arm twisted into saying it's a fantasy mostly because it is a complete work of fantasy on Meyer's part but also because I don't feel strongly enough about Twilight to argue over what the genre should be I just know that it shouldn't be a horror because there's no predictable scares, gore, psychopathic killers or titties...shame really.

Actually psychopathic killers makes up the better part of the last three books.

 

[Eremiel]

its so bad its scary?

Only reason I can think of.

 

[Xan Krieger]

-Vampirism treated as something that makes you not human or monstrous and not a quality that makes you appealing to women.

Actually in the movie Interview with a Vampire (one of my favorite vampire movies) the main vamp whose name I forget at the moment (Lestat? I know that name was in the movie, might be the vamp's name) is good with women and it's for a reason that makes sense. He's able to live a normal social life, go to parties and such, and doesn't have to use the physical effort to leap out of the shadows and carry someone off to feed. Instead he talks to women, rapidly gains their trust, then he takens them somewhere more private to make her into a beverage. It's acceptable to me because it's a vampire that uses his mind instead of brute force to get a drink. Thing that you'll probably catch me on is they never realize he's a vampire until he's got his teeth into their neck (or in one interesting scene, breasts).

 

[LiquidXlr8]

And how do you get horror~romance?

WARNING: this post will scare you.

Horror, and vampires in particular have always been about romance. Dracula was always portrayed as a charismatic, well-spoken man, he didn't force people into his castle, he lured and charmed them in. He even killed his victims in an embrace that looks and feels exactly like a bit of passionate necking until you feel the fangs sink in and then it's too late. If you want to see the inspiration for Twilight's vampires, look to the source. Twilight's vision of what a vampire is, is actually a lot closer in spirit to Bram Stoker's book than almost every other recent vampire film made, most of which take amazingly brazen liberties with the "vampire" formula (space vampires, zombie vampires, vampire werewolves, etc). A bitter pill for people here to swallow, no doubt, but Twilight succeeded while so many other vampire films disappeared into the land of 'meh' because Twilight actually mostly got vampires right[/i].

Grief counselling is available via PM for distraught horror fans (as this thread will be locked soon no doubt).

Well, maybe vampires for horror~romance, but not horror in general. How would you get romance out of an actual horror based werewolf movie?

Also, I thought the main vampire in Twilight didn't want to bight the main character, wouldn't that kind of mess things up? Or am I just wrong and he's toying with her?

Well, is that not where the appeal lies? The man is willing to (attempt to) exercise control the natural urges for the sake of her? This type of moral quandary also appears in Bram Stoker's book and several early vampire film incarnations and gave those early protagonists a bit of extra depth.

A werewolf is a man when he's not a wolf. In traditional werewolf literature, the werewolf only become a wolf during the full moon. Usually, once again, the werewolf in film "as man" is a romantic person with a love interest, who then has the torment of trying to hide his true nature and explain his awkward monthly absences to the girl he cares about. A constant battle between primal instinct and romantic ideals, once again, not unlike Twilight.

When did Dracula not want to feed? He only exercised control because it is socially uncouth to jump out and yell "Bleagh!" and start sucking.

As for the Werewolf one, then it becomes a romance movie instead of horror because the focus has shifted to love instead of constant stalking.

Well, yes, yes it does. Most werewolf films aren't just 90 minutes of a wolf chowing down. That would be boring (and most newer werewolf films that are nothing but this ARE very boring as a result). The classic werewolf films are all romance tales gone wrong.

Dracula always wanted to feed, but he had too much style and poise to go around just knocking off randoms. He knew the classiest way to feed on subjects of his required standard was to seduce his prey and let them come to him. He had the mansion, the bling and so forth, he knew what girls of the day liked. But there was always a little bit inside of him that had to try hard not to actually fall in love with the victims... hence the female character who always gets to stay in the house that little bit longer than her peers...

Well alright, fair enough. I still don't think horror and romance are intrinsic to each other, but it's there enough.

But the slight romance undercurrent in Dracula is different from the Twilight romance. His romance was a deepening feature to make him appear more human and that he was trying to turn himself into a true monster. But the Twilight vampire that has already given up and accepted romance is now nothing more then a super strong jumping jack. Part of why the Dracula romance is part of the horror is that he's still hunting people despite his lingering humanity. But Twilight vampire isn't actively hunting characters. He could be replaced with Superman and it would still work. That's all romance with the only horror coming from outside characters attacking.

So if I were to post images from "Interview with a Vampire" into that gallery, would that have been considered horror. Because it obviously had horror elements. Anne Rice even won the Bram Stoker award for the series. But is also HEAVILY based around the romances. At one point you even have vampires who can and do walk in the sun.

It has horror elements, but is not a horror story. The way I figure it, the focus is on the romance enough that if you pull out the horror elements, it still stands on its own as a romance novel. It straddles the line better than Twilight, but I consider it in the same genre of Romance over some light horror. But again, all the horror comes from outside influences apart from the main characters. So it shouldn't be in a horror montage, but it has more horror credibility than Twilight.

Forgive me, I may be misunderstanding, but doesn't all horror come from "outside influences apart from the main characters"? Jason, Freddy, and Michael for example. Even the demon from the Exorcist could be considered an "outside influence"

Not necessarily. As BonsaiK said when I brought up werewolves, the horror comes from your former lover trying to eat you. The entire story could revolve around the 2 main characters giving us a defined and fleshed out protagonist and antagonist. Or we could consider both characters the protagonist and the act of transforming the antagonist. But with Twilight, we have two main characters get assaulted from people who are brought up from time to time as episodic villains of sorts. The characters love each other and their love is assaulted by person with a grudge #4. The only thing that separates this from a full romance novel is that the antagonist wants to kill or maim one of the main characters instead of just breaking them up. A true horror story doesn't have their love assaulted, it would just be a casualty of them dying.

Could we perhaps concede that it is a fantasy romance, with heavy horror elements, perhaps? Using the same logic I could easily strip the horror from both jaws and silence of the lambs, calling one a monster movie (and if jaws is horror then so is Jurassic Park) and Silence being a long form Crime Drama/Thriller that is easily in the same vein as CSI or BONES?

 

[Comma-Kazie]

Horrible, maybe, but not horror.