Twilight and Vampires

[WillieWonka]

“Tell me why previous generations didn’t have this issue? What makes the current generation different from past generations? Special or spoiled?”

Each succeeding generation has had more and more media avalable for consumption. It has everything written before it was born, plus everything written since it was born. So current generations have choices that were not available to previous generations. Rather then being limted to Bram Stoker as some previous generations were, we now have Dracula, Buffy, True Blood, and Twilight. It’s these current generations that are choosing the old folklore or the new. From sales, they really like Buffy, True Blood, and Twilight.

Anybody remember how popular Barnabas Collins was? That was forty years ago and he was definitely a departure from traditional vampires of folklore.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Anybody remember how popular Barnabas Collins was? That was forty years ago and he was definitely a departure from traditional vampires of folklore.

Was he really? I grew up watching the originals at 4pm on ABC after school and they stayed very much to the established folklore and any departures were always reversed as far as I can remember.

 

[Sir_Knight]

The problem is not all these characteristics are as binding as you would desire them to be, hence the difference.

Such as?

Michael Bay has as much chance as killing a franchise (a franchise that’s been running since the 1980s) as Christopher J. Brough et al did when they came up with Beast Wars: Zero.

The same thing would have been said in the 1980’s about killing off the Spider-Man franchise which was started in the early 1960’s and had six top selling books and yet it nearly happened in the 1990’s when the “new-ness” of the changing continuity wore off.

 

[WillieWonka]

“Was he really? I grew up watching the originals at 4pm on ABC after school and they stayed very much to the established folklore and any departures were always reversed as far as I can remember.”

Yes. Just compare Barnabas to Stoker’s Dracula. Dracula was just evil, with no redeeming virtues. Barnabas was struggling with good and evil. Consider Barnabas the beginning of the modern evolution of vampires. True Blood and Twilight continue the trend even further. The TV series Moonlight has a positively good vampire.

Even Stoker’s Dracula was an update of previous folklore on vamps. Before Dracula, they were hideous looking creatures. Stoker gave Dracula an urbane cosmitolitan air to compliment his wretched core.

Stoker wrote Dracula in 1897. Barnabas appeared in the late Sixties. Twilight in the last few years. Folklore is not fixed. It’s a living thing that has always changed over time.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Anybody? Not with people like you going around condemning deviations from tradition. Which is why, just like Brecht, I believe no model of good form should ever be in force indefinitely… because it never could. Constantly trying to freshen something that has to be within the the same old guidelines sounds like nothing more than milking a specified concept till it’s dry. Now that I think about, I believe the ones who lack creativity are actually the ones conforming to these guidelines. They’re just going by the book, taking their ideas from it and not attempting to add anything new.

And before you go off with your challenge again about how one should then just make something new entirely, let me tell you that it’s a joke. No art is ‘truly original’ for there will always be strong influences and inspirations from other things. Say for example that if I were to create a character who…

Shoots energy bats.
Has fangs.
Dresses in black.
Sprouts bat-like wings.
Has red eyes.
Has pale skin.
Has frightening strength
Drinks human blood.

It’s all too obvious already of what type of creature that being is and where I got the ideas from. However, just because I decide to make such a character into one of the good guys I have start coming up with a morphological Frankenstein of a word as a replacement for the more convenient word ‘vampire’? No way. Forget it.

I disagree. TRUE creativity creates new “worlds” instead of messing up / confusing existing ones.

I refer you to the Hulk – a combination of Dr. Jykle & Mr. Hyde mixed with a werewolf looking like Frankenstein with the modern element of radiation mutation thrown in. The Highlander – a breed of “immortals” who stopped aging when they are “killed” and can only truly die if their head is chopped off. Additionally, if their head is chopped off by another immortal, that immortal receives their lifeforce. See any similarities to other folklore? of course but instead of messing up the continuity of exisiting folklore, they created an entirely new one.

They added instead of introducing confusion.

 

[Sir_Knight]

“Was he really? I grew up watching the originals at 4pm on ABC after school and they stayed very much to the established folklore and any departures were always reversed as far as I can remember.”

Yes. Just compare Barnabas to Stoker’s Dracula. Dracula was just evil, with no redeeming virtues. Barnabas was struggling with good and evil. Consider Barnabas the beginning of the modern evolution of vampires. True Blood and Twilight continue the trend even further. The TV series Moonlight has a positively good vampire.

Even Stoker’s Dracula was an update of previous folklore on vamps. Before Dracula, they were hideous looking creatures. Stoker gave Dracula an urbane cosmitolitan air to compliment his wretched core.

Stoker wrote Dracula in 1897. Barnabas appeared in the late Sixties. Twilight in the last few years. Folklore is not fixed. It’s a living thing that has always changed over time.

It isn’t fixed but traditional characteristics need to remain. You don’t take the characteristics of a Ghoul and give it to a Zombie. That is what was done with the “Night of the Living Dead” stories. First, the zombies took on the Ghoul’s attribute of eating people. Then in the remakes, the zombies lost their slow moving’ness and had quick reflexes – making them more ghoul than zombie.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

I disagree. TRUE creativity creates new “worlds” instead of messing up / confusing existing ones.

I refer you to the Hulk – a combination of Dr. Jykle & Mr. Hyde mixed with a werewolf looking like Frankenstein with the modern element of radiation mutation thrown in. The Highlander – a breed of “immortals” who stopped aging when they are “killed” and can only truly die if their head is chopped off. Additionally, if their head is chopped off by another immortal, that immortal receives their lifeforce. See any similarities to other folklore? of course but instead of messing up the continuity of exisiting folklore, they created an entirely new one.

They added instead of introducing confusion.

Similarities? Actually, my answer would be… no. What you pretty much see as ‘borrowed’ concepts are actually just what I call the very basic concepts that aren’t unique to any species or archetype. A succubus can suck the life force out of people just as effectively as your immortals can. Neither is Superman the only super hero who shoots lasers from his eyes or wears a cape.

Besides, you forget that your so-called ‘established folklore’ isn’t considered a world. The concept of vampires (along with many other fictional creatures) has always been the result of different depictions and different myths from all over.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

It isn’t fixed but traditional characteristics need to remain. You don’t take the characteristics of a Ghoul and give it to a Zombie. That is what was done with the “Night of the Living Dead” stories. First, the zombies took on the Ghoul’s attribute of eating people. Then in the remakes, the zombies lost their slow moving’ness and had quick reflexes – making them more ghoul than zombie.

I beg to differ. I’ve already seen tons of video games where ghouls are just considered a more vicious and upgraded form of zombies. For someone who sounds like he wants to defend the so-called ‘traditional’ depiction, you’ve pretty much failed in stopping them in defying it

 

[WillieWonka]

“You don’t take the characteristics of a Ghoul and give it to a Zombie”

Who doesn’t?

 

[latin_rite]

The point is just because vampires are horror monsters, it doesn’t mean horror junkies like you get to say what type of story they go in and what kind of beings they are.:

Because i am a fan. And as a fan i can say what i like and what i don’t like. And i’m sorry. but writing isn’t some elitist section of community above the reproach of us mere mortals. If i don’t like it i will say so.

Besides, what do you think I’ve been trying to say all this time? If Optimus and Megatron can be capable of undergoing redesigns then I don’t see why vampires can’t.

But… the tradtional vampire and the “wigglewoggles” Aren’t the same. Optimus prime and megatron are the same… Just their looks have been updated. I was responding to your post that You think optimus and megatron have under gone great fundamental changes. When they haven’t. Yesthey look slightly different. But 1. you can still tell by looking who is who. And 2. What they are and how they are haven’t changed. Their modus operandi is the same.

Secondly, people aren’t stupid. Everyone can tell that the count is a vampire Muppet. Period. Google him and every source you’ll find says he is a vampire. Finally, where the heck did I say you have to like what I like? You know it’s even ironic given that your criticism is pretty much similar. “Either you do it this way or not at all.” Gimme a break. I’m not saying that you should like something that’s not to your taste but mainly not impose your tastes on people’s writing styles.

Well like i said. i never heard him say he was a vampire. I did say i could be wrong. But i’ve never heard him say it. I’ve never said those that stories about wiggle woggles shouldn’t be written. I said i don’t like them. they are pathetic in my opinion. And since when is voicing an opinion ( which everyone is entittled to do.) Is imposing one self onto someone else? I’ve never said or implied for anyone to do it my way or don’t do it.

If we’re talking about fanbase, Trekkies have as much geeky connotations as the hobbyists who collect toy and robot merchandise. Heck, I’ve never been into Star Trek myself and neither do a lot of people I know of around my age.

Actually i was talking about how sir Knight said that fictonal Chracters who maintained a High level of consistency have remained …well not only maintained a high level of success But have a fan base that continues to grow. And you mentioned how shows like Kamen Rider and Super Sentai have little or no continuity. And i said which shows/comics have massive world wide appeal and which ones doesn’t? It seems like you like to put words in peoples mouths. as in say they said or implied something they haven’t. Someone said that if you don’t like vampires you should invent a new genre. And the reply was. "its harder to update a old genre than invent a new one. two things…

1. It is harder to “update” a new genre, than to invent a totally new one? No it isn’t. IN this case all you do is change something that is just pure evil into a whinny emo.
2. People today who write about wigglewoggles have invented nothing new. wiggle woggles have been around since the late 80’s maybe even longer. So really…you can’t say you are have some great immangination if you’re doing something that people have been doing for 20 yrs or so. you would have concieved nothing new at all. So you can write about wiggle woggles all day if you like. I really don’t mind. but please don’t try and imply you are being “new and creative”.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Because i am a fan. And as a fan i can say what i like and what i don’t like. And i’m sorry. but writing isn’t some elitist section of community above the reproach of us mere mortals. If i don’t like it i will say so.

Sure you have that right. Just don’t think your opinion is important enough to count. You horror fans have no control over how a creature is used, even it originally was from your genre. Period. If guys like you can turn something as innocent as a doll into a crazed demon like Chucky then I can turn a vampire (or even in my case, a warlock) into an anti-hero who is seeking redemption.

But… the tradtional vampire and the “wigglewoggles” Aren’t the same. Optimus prime and megatron are the same… Just their looks have been updated. I was responding to your post that You think optimus and megatron have under gone great fundamental changes. When they haven’t. Yesthey look slightly different. But 1. you can still tell by looking who is who. And 2. What they are and how they are haven’t changed. Their modus operandi is the same.

buzzes Wrong. Ever watched the new Unicron Trilogy? How about Transformers: Animated? Slightly different is a pathetic understatement. These shows have invented a whole new alternate Transformers universe. Their personalities have different quirks, their abilities have changed and their alternate modes aren’t even the same anymore. (Optimus Prime as a fire truck? Prowl as a ninja-bot motorcycle?) Sure some basic principles have remained but the point is, they’re basic. There are many characteristics that many people consider ‘basic’ to vampires. However, these are things that only serve as an archetype or theme that tells people what type of being a character is. There is no eternal law that says these features have to be bound all together in an obsolete, ‘traditional’ archetype all the time.

Well like i said. i never heard him say he was a vampire. I did say i could be wrong. But i’ve never heard him say it. I’ve never said those that stories about wiggle woggles shouldn’t be written. I said i don’t like them. they are pathetic in my opinion. And since when is voicing an opinion ( which everyone is entittled to do.) Is imposing one self onto someone else? I’ve never said or implied for anyone to do it my way or don’t do it.

The way you glorify traditional depictions as something of gold value while demeaning the deviations as pathetic and uncreative tells me otherwise.

Actually i was talking about how sir Knight said that fictonal Chracters who maintained a High level of consistency have remained …well not only maintained a high level of success But have a fan base that continues to grow. And you mentioned how shows like Kamen Rider and Super Sentai have little or no continuity. And i said which shows/comics have massive world wide appeal and which ones doesn’t?

Excuse me? Do you see people cosplaying as Spock or Kirk in geek conventions? No, you’re more likely to find them mixing with those who believe in alien conspiracy theories.

It seems like you like to put words in peoples mouths. as in say they said or implied something they haven’t. Someone said that if you don’t like vampires you should invent a new genre. And the reply was. "its harder to update a old genre than invent a new one. two things…

Actually the one putting words in people’s mouths is you. I never said updating was harder than creating something new. I said both have the potential to be equally creative.

1. It is harder to “update” a new genre, than to invent a totally new one? No it isn’t. IN this case all you do is change something that is just pure evil into a whinny emo. 2. People today who write about wigglewoggles have invented nothing new. wiggle woggles have been around since the late 80’s maybe even longer. So really…you can’t say you are have some great immangination if you’re doing something that people have been doing for 20 yrs or so. you would have concieved nothing new at all. So you can write about wiggle woggles all day if you like. I really don’t mind. but please don’t try and imply you are being “new and creative”.

And just how old is the concept of the traditional vampire? First you go off and say that being old is what gives the traditional its value but now you’re the one saying the same about a trend that’s barely even half a century old? Following your logic, those who follow the even older tradition of vampires must be worse. So yeah, go ahead, write about your typical cheesy vampire villain with his cape and his corny Transylvanian accent but quite glorifying it now. You’re being ironic.

 

[latin_rite]

Sure you have that right. Just don’t think your opinion is important enough to count. You horror fans have no control over how a creature is used, even it originally was from your genre. Period. If guys like you can turn something as innocent as a doll into a crazed demon like Chucky then I can turn a vampire (or even in my case, a warlock) into an anti-hero who is seeking redemption.

Of course i shall continue to think my opinion is important. And I don’t think some “wanna be” fictional writer will make think other wise. secondly Vampires aren’t my “genre” they are just a Genre that i like. I certainly don’t worship them. I’ll never be as pathetic t oworship any fictional character. So stop projecting. I didn’t turn Chucky into a crazed demon (he wasn’t even a demon ). Clap clap clap. you have done something that many writers have done. made a vampire or in your case a warlock into a anti hero. looks for creativness nope can’t find any there.

buzzes Wrong. Ever watched the new Unicron Trilogy? How about Transformers: Animated? Slightly different is a pathetic understatement. These shows have invented a whole new alternate Transformers universe. Their personalities have different quirks, their abilities have changed and their alternate modes aren’t even the same anymore. (Optimus Prime as a fire truck? Prowl as a ninja-bot motorcycle?) Sure some basic principles have remained but the point is, they’re basic. There are many characteristics that many people consider ‘basic’ to vampires. However, these are things that only serve as an archetype or theme that tells people what type of being a character is. There is no eternal law that says these features have to be bound all together in an obsolete, ‘traditional’ archetype all the time.

Well they aren’t really transformers then are they. (well they are. but the characters aren’t the same). again no creativness.

The way you glorify traditional depictions as something of gold value while demeaning the deviations as pathetic and uncreative tells me otherwise.

It seems that you are over sensitive. I don’t know why. In voicing my opinion i was in no way imposing my opinion. maybe Chritisism, but not imposing. besides I don’t know why you are taking it so personaly. You haven’t written any thing to criticize

Excuse me? Do you see people cosplaying as Spock or Kirk in geek conventions? No, you’re more likely to find them mixing with those who believe in alien conspiracy theories.

I wouldn’t know i don’t go to them. But i hope you’re not implying that people who believe in alien conspiracy theories believe in them because of comic books?

Actually the one putting words in people’s mouths is you. I never said updating was harder than creating something new. I said both have the potential to be equally creative.

You will see i said “Someone”, lets not lie. If you said they both have the potential to be equally creative. Then i shall say. when will writers of wiggle woggle stories start showing some potential? And yes you do try and put words in peoples mouths.

And just how old is the concept of the traditional vampire? First you go off and say that being old is what gives the traditional its value but now you’re the one saying the same about a trend that’s barely even half a century old? .

What are you talking about? I never said that the new soppy wiggle woggles have any value at all. Besides Did i say that just being old is what gave vampires its value? I don’t think so. I did say that the older more tradtional ones are far better than the new soppy ones.

Following your logic, those who follow the even older tradition of vampires must be worse. So yeah, go ahead, write about your typical cheesy vampire villain with his cape and his corny Transylvanian accent but quite glorifying it now. You’re being ironic.

where did i say that vampires have to have capes and cheesy accents? I said my two favourite vampire movies were salomns lot and 30 days of night. Except for Barlow. none of them wore capes or had cheesy accents. (was barlows attire a cape or a robe? i’ll have to take notice next time i watch the movie). Like i said stop putting words in people mouths… O wait you have. You have gone from just trying to twist peoples words to Making up entire post full of lies. Maybe if you used some of that creativness on your writing you would finally be able to call yourself an author.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Of course i shall continue to think my opinion is important. And I don’t think some “wanna be” fictional writer will make think other wise. secondly Vampires aren’t my “genre” they are just a Genre that i like. I certainly don’t worship them. I’ll never be as pathetic t oworship any fictional character. So stop projecting. I didn’t turn Chucky into a crazed demon (he wasn’t even a demon ). Clap clap clap. you have done something that many writers have done. made a vampire or in your case a warlock into a anti hero. looks for creativness nope can’t find any there.

And I shall continue to write and defy ancient literary traditions and no narrow-minded, high-horsed opinion of some “wannabe” critic isn’t going to stop me. And I did not say you created Chucky but the whole genre of horror managed to turn something as innocent as a doll into a whole new type of horror monster simply by changing its alignment. And unlike you, I considered such a deviation from tradition creative.

If they can do that though, then I don’t see why the reverse should be seen as uncreative (like you do with vampires).

Besides… vampires being nothing more than gory, blood-sucking monsters… yeah that’s new. The concept of a villain (with looks and powers that match) turning to the side of good however, seems rather new to me.

Well they aren’t really transformers then are they. (well they are. but the characters aren’t the same). again no creativness.

So giving new features and adding new angles is uncreative? Wow, I guess I can see where you’re finally coming from now.

It seems that you are over sensitive. I don’t know why. In voicing my opinion i was in no way imposing my opinion. maybe Chritisism, but not imposing. besides I don’t know why you are taking it so personaly. You haven’t written any thing to criticize

You call me a wannabe writer and don’t think anything you’re saying is personal? Calling something uncreative isn’t criticizing? What kind of dictionary are you using in that head of yours?

I wouldn’t know i don’t go to them. But i hope you’re not implying that people who believe in alien conspiracy theories believe in them because of comic books?

I’m implying that you shouldn’t glorify a fanbase that has (if not, more) eccentric and geeky connotations such as the Trekkies.

You will see i said “Someone”, lets not lie. If you said they both have the potential to be equally creative. Then i shall say. when will writers of wiggle woggle stories start showing some potential? And yes you do try and put words in peoples mouths.

I’m not stupid, you were clearly referring to my reply to that person (regardless of how skewed your interpretation of what I actually said is). And the fact is, you have a narrow-minded taste because you insist on slapping certain features of vampires that don’t necessarily have to be. I’d go as far as to bet that you wouldn’t care if the vampire was actually some human mutated by a virus (as in 30 Days of Night) as long as such vampires were just portrayed as inherently evil monsters that have no hope of redemption. You don’t seem to realize that there are other aspects that scream ‘vampire’ when placed on a character (the color black, bat-themed abilities, blood sucking, red eyes, super strength, hypnotism, fangs etc), It doesn’t have to be the traditional depiction of their nature or alignment.

What are you talking about? I never said that the new soppy wiggle woggles have any value at all. Besides Did i say that just being old is what gave vampires its value? I don’t think so. I did say that the older more tradtional ones are far better than the new soppy ones.

You can’ t read very well can you? You said Meyer’s way of depicting vampires was around since the 1980s. That it’s not new at all. However, as you said over here with regards to the older depiction of vampires being evil monsters:

Yes they can get old. And they get old for one reason. they are good. Its the tradition that gives them their value.

Thus, if we’re going to say something is getting old in a negative sense then you’re just proving me right about the typical portrayal of vampires as evil. If you think that Meyer’s portrayal of good vampires is old, I have the same sentiments with regards to the vampires you’d like to see.

where did i say that vampires have to have capes and cheesy accents? I said my two favourite vampire movies were salomns lot and 30 days of night. Except for Barlow. none of them wore capes or had cheesy accents. (was barlows attire a cape or a robe? i’ll have to take notice next time i watch the movie). Like i said stop putting words in people mouths… O wait you have. You have gone from just trying to twist peoples words to Making up entire post full of lies. Maybe if you used some of that creativness on your writing you would finally be able to call yourself an author.

You don’t get my point do you? I’m criticizing your view that vampires have to be evil. I could’ve easily just said “So yeah, go ahead, write about your typical slasher/horror vampire who drools and drips blood from his mouth and rips people’s throats out but quit glorifying it now.” but I didn’t have time. I was being nagged to wash the dishes.

 

[Little_Katie]

This really is a dumb argument. Everyone is being so defensive (including me). What I think it comes down to is some of us like “good” vampires and some of us don’t. Since it has no effect on our eternal souls, let’s just agree to disagree?

 

[Emma_Grace]

Oh please people. Much has been written by some who obviously not read these books. I have to speak up.
Vampires are mythical creatures. They are as real as unicorns, elves and faeries. They are monsters only in the stories in which they reside. They are PRETEND. As in NOT REAL.
Books are written by authors who have the ability and the right to pen whatever stories they wish. If we don’t agree with the caricature’s of those in the books (vampires in this case), or a problem with the subject matter, you have the right NOT to like the book. These books project a kinder, gentler vampire, and fans of that genre may not appreciate that. Others are uncomfortable with the subject matter. But really, do we need to fear a book about something that does not exist?

The Twilight books are not perfect, there are definitely weird parts, but evil? I think not. There are references to the soul, prayer and an effort to live moral lives. If we are going to look for evil in every piece of fiction that we read, we’d better take another look at Captain Hook (and his obsession with a young boy), Alice in Wonderland (with the hookah pipe and magic mushrooms) and Cinderella (who places her trust and receives her rewards not from Glod, but from a fairy). I think that sometimes people read too much (so to speak) into the stories and are unable to see a book for what it is, entertainment.

If you have a firm and undying love for our Lord, and do not decide to worship something that does not exist, you are not in danger of being led into evil by a mythical creature or stories about them. God is good, He will guide us.

 

[latin_rite]

And I shall continue to write and defy ancient literary traditions:

O yeah you’re a real rebel.

and no narrow-minded, high-horsed opinion of some “wannabe” critic isn’t going to stop me. And I did not say you created Chucky but the whole genre of horror managed to turn something as innocent as a doll into a whole new type of horror monster simply by changing its alignment. And unlike you, I considered such a deviation from tradition creative.:

I do have a high horse. and upon my horse it is very comfortable and i can see all that is wrong. No you said when you people as in me, as if i had anything to do with it. And i liked chucky. i thought it was great. although they hardly created a “whole” new horror monster. evil dolls have been around before chucky. So please don’t assume anything about me.

Besides. vampires being nothing more than gory, blood-sucking monsters. yeah that’s new. The concept of a villain (with looks and powers that match) turning to the side of good however, seems rather new to me.

Of course they aren’t new. But they are better and an more imangintive creature. Wiggle woggles. are just plain boring things written by un talnted unimanigive people. Who are so untalented as to think up a creature using their own creativness. (Which they lack in the first place)

So giving new features and adding new angles is uncreative? Wow, I guess I can see where you’re finally coming from now.

No i never said that. I think blade was great vampires with guns… great idea. Until every untalnted hack jumped on the bandwagon. and spawned such pathetic vampires movies such as underworld.

 

[latin_rite]

You call me a wannabe writer and don’t think anything you’re saying is personal? Calling something uncreative isn’t criticizing? What kind of dictionary are you using in that head of yours?.

Did i say that i wasn’t criticzing? You said i was imposing my veiws on you. i replied. that i wasn’t i said “In voicing my opinion i was in no way imposing my opinion. maybe Chritisism,” where did i say i wasn’t criticizing anything. What kind of dictonary am i using? Who’s post are you reading?

I’m implying that you shouldn’t glorify a fanbase that has (if not, more) eccentric and geeky connotations such as the Trekkies. ?

Are you talking about people who think they are real vampires? Well i agree with you there. those people show a level of strangeness bordering on retardation.
Don’t confuse someone who likes a certain genre (one amongst many genres i like) with some mental simpleton who actually thinks he is the creature he is watching. Please i said it before.

I’m not stupid, you were clearly referring to my reply to that person (regardless of how skewed your interpretation of what I actually said is).

Paranoid much? I said somebody said. because i couldn’t be bothered going back to see who said what. excatly.

And the fact is, you have a narrow-minded taste because you insist on slapping certain features of vampires that don’t necessarily have to be.

I am narrow minded because i happen to not like a certain style of books or movies?
Do i have to like everything under the sun to not be narrow minded?

I’d go as far as to bet that you wouldn’t care if the vampire was actually some human mutated by a virus (as in 30 Days of Night) as long as such vampires were just portrayed as inherently evil monsters that have no hope of redemption).

Actually if the creatures were mutated by a virus then they wouldn’t be vampires.That would be like calling the mutants from I am legend " zombies. But i would have enjoyed it if they were called mutatnts. Still would have been a good movie. But i wouldn’t have called them vampires.

You don’t seem to realize that there are other aspects that scream ‘vampire’ when placed on a character (the color black, bat-themed abilities, blood sucking, red eyes, super strength, hypnotism, fangs etc), It doesn’t have to be the traditional depiction of their nature or alignment.

if they wore the colour black i think of sickly emo’s. Dracula was the only vampire i can recall turning into a vampire…o wait The one in fright night did. I’m sure they’re are others. But were probably too cheesy for me to take interest in. But of course they don’t need those things. I’m talking about the pathetic jane austen type vampire, that uncreative writers are fawning over

You can’ t read very well can you? You said Meyer’s way of depicting vampires was around since the 1980s. That it’s not new at all. However, as you said over here with regards to the older depiction of vampires being evil monsters:

They aren’t new by comparsion. I was talking about how writers these days think they have invented something new. When they haven’t.

Thus, if we’re going to say something is getting old in a negative sense then you’re just proving me right about the typical portrayal of vampires as evil. If you think that Meyer’s portrayal of good vampires is old, I have the same sentiments with regards to the vampires you’d like to see.

I never said you had to like the more creative traditional vampire. I’m saying the new kind is boring and un creative. And everything gets old. But theres old as in. its old and worn out and of no value. or old as in its been done too many times when it should have stopped long ago…(remember time is relative). And there are things that get old because they are good. and stay around because they are still good.

You don’t get my point do you? I’m criticizing your view that vampires have to be evil. I could’ve easily just said "So yeah, go ahead, write about your typical slasher/horror vampire who drools and drips blood from his mouth and rips people’s throats out but quit glorifying it now.

I don’t mind that you don’t like the traditional vampire. Its a free world. And i don’t glorify any type of fictional monster. I just find some a lot more entertaing than others.
Emma grace. settle down. Take a context chill pill. I doubt any of us, no matter what side we take, fear anyones particular tastes in books.
And i certainly don’t worship vampires ok? so stop worrying about my mortal soul. You’re being ridculous.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

I do have a high horse. and upon my horse it is very comfortable and i can see all that is wrong. No you said when you people as in me, as if i had anything to do with it. And i liked chucky. i thought it was great. although they hardly created a “whole” new horror monster. evil dolls have been around before chucky. So please don’t assume anything about me.

You’re missing the point. The point is if horror nuts are capable of turning something as innocent as a doll into a terrifying monster and call it creative, then I don’t see any reason why being able to turn something that was once evil such as the vampire into a hero.

Of course they aren’t new. But they are better and an more imangintive creature. Wiggle woggles. are just plain boring things written by un talnted unimanigive people. Who are so untalented as to think up a creature using their own creativness. (Which they lack in the first place)

Better and more imaginative? If that’s what you call your typical feral vampire that does nothing but rip throats with blood dripping down its chin all the time.

No i never said that. I think blade was great vampires with guns… great idea. Until every untalnted hack jumped on the bandwagon. and spawned such pathetic vampires movies such as underworld.

I was referring to you calling the Unicron Trilogy uncreative. So you think Prime being able to combine with other Autobots is uncreative? How about that the Autobot-Decepticon war was over powerful robots called Minicons instead of just some glowing purple juice called Energon? Yeah, you should be the next top toy designer cuz they’re soooo uncreative.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Did i say that i wasn’t criticzing? You said i was imposing my veiws on you. i replied. that i wasn’t i said “In voicing my opinion i was in no way imposing my opinion. maybe Chritisism,” where did i say i wasn’t criticizing anything. What kind of dictonary am i using? Who’s post are you reading?

Read my questions piece by piece genius. Don’t lump them all together simultaneously. And yes, you are imposing your opinion. That’s what criticisms do. Plus the fact that you like it up there on your “high horse” thinking that it lets you “see all that is wrong” tells me that you’re obviously in denial.

Are you talking about people who think they are real vampires? Well i agree with you there. those people show a level of strangeness bordering on retardation.
Don’t confuse someone who likes a certain genre (one amongst many genres i like) with some mental simpleton who actually thinks he is the creature he is watching. Please i said it before.

You know what, I think it’s you who doesn’t read people’s posts thoroughly. First you claim that the continuity of Star Trek has given it massive worldwide appeal and an awesome fanbase when the latter is clearly not awesome at all. Now you’re confusing Trekkies with the freaks you’re talking about? Where did that come from?

Besides far as I know, Star Trek has sunk into the category of Old Pop Culture.

Paranoid much? I said somebody said. because i couldn’t be bothered going back to see who said what. excatly.

You should. You’d give more well thought-out responses that way and wouldn’t skew people’s words.

I am narrow minded because i happen to not like a certain style of books or movies?
Do i have to like everything under the sun to not be narrow minded?

So as long as you continue to blatantly call something deviant uncreative because it’s not to your personal tastes then yes, you are narrow-minded. There’s a difference between saying I don’t like it cuz it’s not to my taste and saying it’s uncreative because it offends my tastes. What you’re doing is the latter.

Take me for example. When it comes to zombies, I actually prefer the ones created via necromancy instead of some creepy mutant virus like they did with Resident Evil and goodness knows how many other zombie-survival movies. However, does that mean I’m going to label them as uncreative for having a different take on zombies?

No.

I simply just say, “Meh it’s cool I guess but just not my thing y’know? :”

Actually if the creatures were mutated by a virus then they wouldn’t be vampires.That would be like calling the mutants from I am legend " zombies. But i would have enjoyed it if they were called mutatnts. Still would have been a good movie. But i wouldn’t have called them vampires.

Eh, well I’m afraid you actually did.

My two favourite vampire movies are the original saloms lot and 30 days of night. Saloms lot did have a interesting story line. And 30 days of night didn’t have much of a story really. But they both had one thing in common. The vampires in it were just plain evil. They didn’t go around boring thier victims by asking them the meaning of life or harassing them for a date. They were just pure evil. Which was the source of the horror. I guess Modern writers aren’t able to or don’t have the talent to write that stuff anymore.

if they wore the colour black i think of sickly emo’s. Dracula was the only vampire i can recall turning into a vampire…o wait The one in fright night did. I’m sure they’re are others. But were probably too cheesy for me to take interest in. But of course they don’t need those things. I’m talking about the pathetic jane austen type vampire, that uncreative writers are fawning over

If that’s your problem with “good” vampires then it’s not really the fact that they are vampires that you should be criticizing. You should be criticizing their character. You think all “good” vampires are emos or something? Rubbish.

Then again, the very idea of a “good” vampire is enough for you to label it as uncreative so I would bet that even if someone were to come up with a vampire with an upbeat, bubbly character then you would still label it as uncreative.

Then again, I’d equally bet that as long as such a vampire was “evil” it wouldn’t matter if that vampire looked more like an animal, had rows of teeth instead of just two fangs and spoke in a some guttural language, you’d still consider it a “creative” vampire wouldn’t you?

They aren’t new by comparsion. I was talking about how writers these days think they have invented something new. When they haven’t.

The concept of turning something that was traditionally considered evil into some form of hero will always be new compared to old cliche villain archetypes and typical horror-gore scenarios.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

I never said you had to like the more creative traditional vampire. I’m saying the new kind is boring and un creative. And everything gets old. But theres old as in. its old and worn out and of no value. or old as in its been done too many times when it should have stopped long ago…(remember time is relative). And there are things that get old because they are good. and stay around because they are still good.

Like I said, if you consider the idea of making vampires into one of the good guys as something as worn out and of no value then I actually feel the same way about the traditional “evil” vampire. I’ve seen it many times, from the typical corny count with the cape and the bats to the unsightly monstrosities that are always dripping blood and roaring like some sort of animal… ugh, please, give me something new before a regurgitate my last meal.

I don’t mind that you don’t like the traditional vampire. Its a free world. And i don’t glorify any type of fictional monster. I just find some a lot more entertaing than others.
Emma grace. settle down. Take a context chill pill. I doubt any of us, no matter what side we take, fear anyones particular tastes in books.
And i certainly don’t worship vampires ok? so stop worrying about my mortal soul. You’re being ridculous.

Yes you are glorifying them because you’re making them as if they were the perfect model that’s only worth following for people to be considered “creative” which is just downright snobbish if you ask me. Say you don’t like something because it’s not to your taste but from now on, refrain from whipping out the critics pen and calling the simple act of deviating from tradition “uncreative” simply because they’re not to your tastes. A real critic has varied tastes in case you didn’t know.