Mistakes made in vampire movies
03-22-04, 12:03 AM
#27
Moderator
Originally posted by wm lopez
The one that liberal Hollywood is pusing is that a vampire can be good & fall in love.
How can it do that when it's evil & against God.
A vampire is on the level with the devil at least it was like that before the vampire movies in the 1990's.
The one that liberal Hollywood is pusing is that a vampire can be good & fall in love.
How can it do that when it's evil & against God.
A vampire is on the level with the devil at least it was like that before the vampire movies in the 1990's.
This isn't the "Other Forum." Not every post has to be a slam on liberals. Grow up.
03-22-04, 12:13 AM
#28
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 7,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's not slamming.
Like what do you make of that DRACULA movie of a couple of years ago that had Judas from the bible being Dracula.
I think that's kinda changing the rules and with an agenda in mind.
Like what do you make of that DRACULA movie of a couple of years ago that had Judas from the bible being Dracula.
I think that's kinda changing the rules and with an agenda in mind.
03-22-04, 12:15 AM
#29
Moderator
Originally posted by wm lopez
Like what do you make of that DRACULA movie of a couple of years ago that had Judas from the bible being Dracula.
Like what do you make of that DRACULA movie of a couple of years ago that had Judas from the bible being Dracula.
03-22-04, 01:34 AM
#31
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Sitting on a beach, earning 20%
Posts: 9,917
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
A round of applause for wm lopez, who can make ANY thread topic into something anti-christian!
I don't see "mistakes" in vampire films, I see different interpretations. It used to be lone, evil-consumed vampires in stories; nowadays it's subcultures of metrosexual vampires with a few bad apples ruining the bunch - so what? It's all fiction, and can be played with as such. There's no set of rules (more like guidelines, Barbossa). There's no agenda.
Nosferatu's a great film. But it parts from the traditional vision of the vampire in several ways - he shows up in mirrors. He's lonely-hearted. He's not even attractive. There's tons of different interpretations - some interesting (Martin, Interview With The Vampire), some incredibly silly takes (Underworld) - but it's all good. It's fiction. It's movies.
Oh, and if anyone's so protective and pretentious as to make comments about "VAMPIRE LORE", that's a signal that you need some serious self-reflection*.
*Lets hope your reflection SHOWS UP IN A MIRROR! OMG lol!!!11!!
I don't see "mistakes" in vampire films, I see different interpretations. It used to be lone, evil-consumed vampires in stories; nowadays it's subcultures of metrosexual vampires with a few bad apples ruining the bunch - so what? It's all fiction, and can be played with as such. There's no set of rules (more like guidelines, Barbossa). There's no agenda.
Nosferatu's a great film. But it parts from the traditional vision of the vampire in several ways - he shows up in mirrors. He's lonely-hearted. He's not even attractive. There's tons of different interpretations - some interesting (Martin, Interview With The Vampire), some incredibly silly takes (Underworld) - but it's all good. It's fiction. It's movies.
Oh, and if anyone's so protective and pretentious as to make comments about "VAMPIRE LORE", that's a signal that you need some serious self-reflection*.
*Lets hope your reflection SHOWS UP IN A MIRROR! OMG lol!!!11!!
03-22-04, 01:46 AM
#32
DVD Talk Godfather
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: City of the lakers.. riots.. and drug dealing cops.. los(t) Angel(e)s. ca.
Posts: 54,199
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I dunno, I Think any sort of sci fi/fantasy needs some sort of guidelines to maintain some sort of balance.
You certainly wouldn't believe Frankenstien if he was a smooth talking pimp.
You certainly wouldn't believe Frankenstien if he was a smooth talking pimp.
03-22-04, 01:55 AM
#33
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Sitting on a beach, earning 20%
Posts: 9,917
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
Originally posted by Jackskeleton
I dunno, I Think any sort of sci fi/fantasy needs some sort of guidelines to maintain some sort of balance. You certainly wouldn't believe Frankenstien if he was a smooth talking pimp.
I dunno, I Think any sort of sci fi/fantasy needs some sort of guidelines to maintain some sort of balance. You certainly wouldn't believe Frankenstien if he was a smooth talking pimp.
Then there's always Warhol's ideas... I haven't seen the film, but Criterion's site says "Maverick filmmaker Paul Morrissey’s Flesh for Frankenstein reevaluates the horror film, infusing it with satiric wit and sexuality."
Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm now going to write a film where Frankenstein is a smooth-talking pimp, who creates a monster out of the assembled parts of men his hos pick up. I see Jamie Kennedy in the lead. Did I mention it was a musical?
03-22-04, 04:25 AM
#35
DVD Talk Legend
I never really liked the religious tie-in in vampire movies either. Normally, I don't really see it anyway - most vampire movies don't really pull the god card. Even when they are affected by a crucifix, it often seems to just be more of a "I have faith and you can't touch me" sort of thing. I guess the holy water/crucifix thing is just usually presented as objects and weapons rather than as preachy messages about how vampires represent the devil or some such nonsense.
03-22-04, 05:38 AM
#36
DVD Talk Godfather
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Gateway Cities/Harbor Region
Posts: 63,602
Received 1,975 Likes
on
1,207 Posts
Like it or not wm lopez is on to something. I can't believe you guys are so ****ing rude you just blow his opinion out of the water as if he doesn't matter.
I have also noticed over the last few years when it comes to Vampires....Religious Icons no longer have any affect on them. I guess it's part of taking religion out of the issue and I suppose it's sign of the times.
Now Vampires are mostly explained as virus carriers.
I have also noticed over the last few years when it comes to Vampires....Religious Icons no longer have any affect on them. I guess it's part of taking religion out of the issue and I suppose it's sign of the times.
Now Vampires are mostly explained as virus carriers.
Last edited by Giantrobo; 03-22-04 at 05:41 AM.
03-22-04, 06:35 AM
#37
DVD Talk Legend
well if Lucas can make The Force all due to medichlorides or whatever in the blood, then vampirism can be a viral disease.
also - I wasn't trying to blow his opinion out of the water, I was simply expressing mine.
also - I wasn't trying to blow his opinion out of the water, I was simply expressing mine.
03-22-04, 07:31 AM
#38
DVD Talk Godfather
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Gateway Cities/Harbor Region
Posts: 63,602
Received 1,975 Likes
on
1,207 Posts
Originally posted by Trigger
well if Lucas can make The Force all due to medichlorides or whatever in the blood, then vampirism can be a viral disease.
also - I wasn't trying to blow his opinion out of the water, I was simply expressing mine.
well if Lucas can make The Force all due to medichlorides or whatever in the blood, then vampirism can be a viral disease.
also - I wasn't trying to blow his opinion out of the water, I was simply expressing mine.
1. I totally agree. It's all make believe anyway.
2. I'm just saying it seemed a few here just came down hard on him for his opinion. What's up with that? Of course we're all entitled to our opinions.
03-22-04, 07:52 AM
#39
DVD Talk Legend
well, judging from the comments, I'd guess that he's got a habit of bringing up jesus all the time and maybe people are tired of it. This is the first post I ever saw of his, so I don't know. Also, it's Groucho, so there you go.
03-22-04, 08:07 AM
#40
DVD Talk Godfather
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Gateway Cities/Harbor Region
Posts: 63,602
Received 1,975 Likes
on
1,207 Posts
Originally posted by Trigger
well, judging from the comments, I'd guess that he's got a habit of bringing up jesus all the time and maybe people are tired of it. This is the first post I ever saw of his, so I don't know. Also, it's Groucho, so there you go.
well, judging from the comments, I'd guess that he's got a habit of bringing up jesus all the time and maybe people are tired of it. This is the first post I ever saw of his, so I don't know. Also, it's Groucho, so there you go.
Mind you I never accused anyone directly....
03-22-04, 08:10 AM
#41
Moderator
It had to do with patterns rather than a single post.
I think this thread is good reading for everybody, not just posters in the "Other" forum:
http://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/showthr...hreadid=351718
I think this thread is good reading for everybody, not just posters in the "Other" forum:
http://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/showthr...hreadid=351718
03-22-04, 08:28 AM
#42
DVD Talk Hero
Vampire lore is something that is constantly changing and evolving.
That vampires have become immune to religious artifacts in modern times should not be surprising. Currently, the vampire has ceased being an evil, soulless creature, and has morphed into a tortured, cursed being that is forced to live in the human world while unable to be a part of it. An arguement could be made that the modern vampire is a homosexual metaphor. (You can thank Anne Rice for this.)
The original vampires (from central/eastern Europe, at any rate) were much more like what we would consider Romero-styled zombies than the urbane, foppish creatures of the night we're familiar with. There was a tangible fear -- in those days at least -- that the dead would rise if they were not properly buried, and the result would be more "Bub" than Lestat. (It's believed that these superstitions started because a dead bodies hair and fingernails will appear to grow after death as the skin dries and shirnks.)
The modern vampire was, if not born, then popularized with Stoker's "Dracula." Much of the vampire iconography and lore comes from this novel and the subsequent films it spawned.
It is true that Stoker's Dracula was not harmed by sunlight, and the first example of vampiric death by sunlight I can think of is "Nosferatu." (Which was a plagiarized adaption of Stoker's "Dracula" novel.)
The next big evolution of the vampire would've been Anne Rice's Vampire Chronicles novels. Here, the vampire became the protagonist instead of the villain (or anti-hero, most likely). And with this novel, the vampiric rules were changed yet again. Rice's creatures of the night were immune to crucifixes and stakes, could cast reflections in mirrors, and were seen as sympathetic, tortured souls. They could only be killed by immolation in fire or decapitation. Sunlight could kill or harm some of Rice's vampires, but it appears this only applied to younger vampires.
Now, in the twenty-first century, it seems that we are less and less inclined to view vampires with the old occult lens, and are seeking out scientific explanations for their existence. And as the vampire becomes secularized, it's not surprising that he no longer shrinks away from some goofball holding up a cross.
That vampires have become immune to religious artifacts in modern times should not be surprising. Currently, the vampire has ceased being an evil, soulless creature, and has morphed into a tortured, cursed being that is forced to live in the human world while unable to be a part of it. An arguement could be made that the modern vampire is a homosexual metaphor. (You can thank Anne Rice for this.)
The original vampires (from central/eastern Europe, at any rate) were much more like what we would consider Romero-styled zombies than the urbane, foppish creatures of the night we're familiar with. There was a tangible fear -- in those days at least -- that the dead would rise if they were not properly buried, and the result would be more "Bub" than Lestat. (It's believed that these superstitions started because a dead bodies hair and fingernails will appear to grow after death as the skin dries and shirnks.)
The modern vampire was, if not born, then popularized with Stoker's "Dracula." Much of the vampire iconography and lore comes from this novel and the subsequent films it spawned.
It is true that Stoker's Dracula was not harmed by sunlight, and the first example of vampiric death by sunlight I can think of is "Nosferatu." (Which was a plagiarized adaption of Stoker's "Dracula" novel.)
The next big evolution of the vampire would've been Anne Rice's Vampire Chronicles novels. Here, the vampire became the protagonist instead of the villain (or anti-hero, most likely). And with this novel, the vampiric rules were changed yet again. Rice's creatures of the night were immune to crucifixes and stakes, could cast reflections in mirrors, and were seen as sympathetic, tortured souls. They could only be killed by immolation in fire or decapitation. Sunlight could kill or harm some of Rice's vampires, but it appears this only applied to younger vampires.
Now, in the twenty-first century, it seems that we are less and less inclined to view vampires with the old occult lens, and are seeking out scientific explanations for their existence. And as the vampire becomes secularized, it's not surprising that he no longer shrinks away from some goofball holding up a cross.
03-22-04, 09:01 AM
#43
DVD Talk Legend
Check out some vampire movies from China - part of their vampire lore says that vampires have very little control of their legs. As a result you often see them getting around by doing the bunny-hop.
I'm not making this up.....
I'm not making this up.....
03-22-04, 12:51 PM
#45
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 704
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i come from the Anne Rice school of vampires. Her vampires not only love, but love with passion that human's don't understand, it's unisex and has nothing to do with sexual plesure. they like crucifixes, don't always sleep in coffins, the strong ones can survive daylight even though it burns them to a crips which takes some time to recover from. are strong, not like the weak ass underworld vamps.
that being said Queen of the Damned should never have been filmed without Anne Rice. that movie was beyond horrible
that being said Queen of the Damned should never have been filmed without Anne Rice. that movie was beyond horrible
03-22-04, 02:37 PM
#46
DVD Talk Godfather
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Gateway Cities/Harbor Region
Posts: 63,602
Received 1,975 Likes
on
1,207 Posts
Originally posted by Josh-da-man
Vampire lore is something that is constantly changing and evolving.
That vampires have become immune to religious artifacts in modern times should not be surprising. Currently, the vampire has ceased being an evil, soulless creature, and has morphed into a tortured, cursed being that is forced to live in the human world while unable to be a part of it. An arguement could be made that the modern vampire is a homosexual metaphor. (You can thank Anne Rice for this.)
The original vampires (from central/eastern Europe, at any rate) were much more like what we would consider Romero-styled zombies than the urbane, foppish creatures of the night we're familiar with. There was a tangible fear -- in those days at least -- that the dead would rise if they were not properly buried, and the result would be more "Bub" than Lestat. (It's believed that these superstitions started because a dead bodies hair and fingernails will appear to grow after death as the skin dries and shirnks.)
The modern vampire was, if not born, then popularized with Stoker's "Dracula." Much of the vampire iconography and lore comes from this novel and the subsequent films it spawned.
It is true that Stoker's Dracula was not harmed by sunlight, and the first example of vampiric death by sunlight I can think of is "Nosferatu." (Which was a plagiarized adaption of Stoker's "Dracula" novel.)
The next big evolution of the vampire would've been Anne Rice's Vampire Chronicles novels. Here, the vampire became the protagonist instead of the villain (or anti-hero, most likely). And with this novel, the vampiric rules were changed yet again. Rice's creatures of the night were immune to crucifixes and stakes, could cast reflections in mirrors, and were seen as sympathetic, tortured souls. They could only be killed by immolation in fire or decapitation. Sunlight could kill or harm some of Rice's vampires, but it appears this only applied to younger vampires.
Now, in the twenty-first century, it seems that we are less and less inclined to view vampires with the old occult lens, and are seeking out scientific explanations for their existence. And as the vampire becomes secularized, it's not surprising that he no longer shrinks away from some goofball holding up a cross.
Vampire lore is something that is constantly changing and evolving.
That vampires have become immune to religious artifacts in modern times should not be surprising. Currently, the vampire has ceased being an evil, soulless creature, and has morphed into a tortured, cursed being that is forced to live in the human world while unable to be a part of it. An arguement could be made that the modern vampire is a homosexual metaphor. (You can thank Anne Rice for this.)
The original vampires (from central/eastern Europe, at any rate) were much more like what we would consider Romero-styled zombies than the urbane, foppish creatures of the night we're familiar with. There was a tangible fear -- in those days at least -- that the dead would rise if they were not properly buried, and the result would be more "Bub" than Lestat. (It's believed that these superstitions started because a dead bodies hair and fingernails will appear to grow after death as the skin dries and shirnks.)
The modern vampire was, if not born, then popularized with Stoker's "Dracula." Much of the vampire iconography and lore comes from this novel and the subsequent films it spawned.
It is true that Stoker's Dracula was not harmed by sunlight, and the first example of vampiric death by sunlight I can think of is "Nosferatu." (Which was a plagiarized adaption of Stoker's "Dracula" novel.)
The next big evolution of the vampire would've been Anne Rice's Vampire Chronicles novels. Here, the vampire became the protagonist instead of the villain (or anti-hero, most likely). And with this novel, the vampiric rules were changed yet again. Rice's creatures of the night were immune to crucifixes and stakes, could cast reflections in mirrors, and were seen as sympathetic, tortured souls. They could only be killed by immolation in fire or decapitation. Sunlight could kill or harm some of Rice's vampires, but it appears this only applied to younger vampires.
Now, in the twenty-first century, it seems that we are less and less inclined to view vampires with the old occult lens, and are seeking out scientific explanations for their existence. And as the vampire becomes secularized, it's not surprising that he no longer shrinks away from some goofball holding up a cross.
Great post Josh. I like your breakdown and I agree.
Personally, I would like a variety of Vampire "Species" or "lines". It would get to muddy in a movie format but I know it's been done before. Lets say one line from this area of the world can see themselves in the mirror but they can't stand garlic, another lineage isn't bothered by water or garlic but fire kills them, yet another line can take small amounts of sun but they're vulnerable to water and silver...get my drift? I would be very interested in something like that. I also like having the Older Vampires gain immunity to certain things with time.
The video game SOUL REAVER did something like that with it's vampires. All the "ground zero" vampires and their "children" evolved their own special trates.
03-22-04, 03:11 PM
#47
Banned by request
Originally posted by Giantrobo
The video game SOUL REAVER did something like that with it's vampires. All the "ground zero" vampires and their "children" evolved their own special trates.
The video game SOUL REAVER did something like that with it's vampires. All the "ground zero" vampires and their "children" evolved their own special trates.
03-22-04, 04:09 PM
#48
DVD Talk Godfather
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Gateway Cities/Harbor Region
Posts: 63,602
Received 1,975 Likes
on
1,207 Posts
Originally posted by Suprmallet
The Legacy of Kain series is my favorite video game series of all time. Just had to mention.
The Legacy of Kain series is my favorite video game series of all time. Just had to mention.
I agree!Then you know what I'm talking about. Raziel can touch water but Kain can't. Stuff like that is interesting.
03-23-04, 03:11 AM
#50
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Originally posted by wm lopez
There's not going to be anything left that is considered evil to be evil.
The Harry Potter series did away with witches being pure evil.
But that seems to be this generations choice.
There's not going to be anything left that is considered evil to be evil.
The Harry Potter series did away with witches being pure evil.
But that seems to be this generations choice.
Harry Potter doesn't preclude witches (and warlocks) from being evil, it just doesn't have every single one of them being that way.
Like Josh-da-man explained earlier, these bits of folklore change according to how society changes. They can be a mirror, essentially, to see what we are really afraid of. There still are evil vampires and witches, etc, but they just aren't all portrayed that way anymore. And I think the fact that vampires and witches aren't seen as pure evil anymore goes to the fact that society, in general, has become more aware of different cultures.
