Not signed in (Sign In)
This discussion has been inactive for longer than 5 days, and doesn't want to be resurrected.
  1.  (1087.1)
    Taking a previous conversation from this and running with it .

    Does anyone have a problem with the popularized version of vampires as these suave, sophisticated debonaire dandies in poofy shirts and hot pleather pants?

    I know I have a small problem with that that…they're no inherently terrifying. There's no threat with that mystique. No danger. The danger is in the turn from sexual to malicious, and even that has been defanged (pun intended) from the earlier Stroker vampires. As I've mentioned before, Dracula was a sort of over the hill guy who gave women the ocular version of a roofie to get them into his coffin. He is described as " once handsome " and the Count is sort of a person past his prime, trying to keep up with the young kids and have all that crazy sex he wished he had earlier in life. Count Dracula wasn't cool, not until Bela Lugosi made him cool in the famous Universal adaptation of broadway adaptation for Dracula, which Lugosi played the role of the Count. Essentially, Dracula was changed from this older gentlemen of indeterminate age who was sort of like you're creepy grandfather who decided to bust a move whenever company came over and more terrifying scaled on walls like a lizard, to this rather proper and sophisticated man in his mid forties.

    And this is where I think the vampire first became seen as a proper sex symbol(not that Stroker's original novel wasn't highly sexual by standards of the time, but you really sort of felt that came from the three smoking hot and perpetually horny brides instead of the Count himself). Out of all of this, there was now a popularized image of what the vampire was and it became synonymous with Lugosi's performance as the Count.

    Mmm. What a tangent.
      CommentAuthormuse hick
    • CommentTimeFeb 19th 2008
    i like both versions of the vampire, all versions -- it is a pliable archetype and the fact that there are two extreme poles you can go to -- monster or suave creature, is useful for writers, it gives you something to play off.

    the sexuality of the vampire has always plugged straight into the texts regardless of how they looked, it is something animal -- triggers weird things like making the freudian slip of constantly calling Stoker Stroker (sorry, couldn't resist).
  2.  (1087.3)
    Heh, Stroker.

    I like to see the different archetypes played with and taken in new directions. The 'classic' vampire style does wear a little thin, purely because it has been used so much and so badly by some. Even the new BBC Three series, Being Human, has gone for the 'uber cool' version. I like to see the feral version when it is occasionally put to use, although similar to werewolf portrayals then I suppose.
    • CommentTimeFeb 19th 2008
    I'm having a time out until I can learn some manners.
    I found the feral 30 days of night brunette vampire kind of hot. Yeah I would probably hit it.

    The way I would do a vampire book or movie the sex thing would be like a scent or hormone release as a means of attracting prey.
    Using hot actors and actresses but making them look a bit demonic or even that indeterminate botox age like Demi or Nicole Kiddman.
    Those chicks are already creepy and sort of hot.
    • CommentAuthorOddcult
    • CommentTimeFeb 19th 2008
    Right. Let me educate you kiddies who are continuing to Get It Wrong about early vampire fiction and Dracula in particular.

    Yes, the Eastern European vampire myths were pretty much all about your nasty walking corpses, but Dracula was by no means the first aristocratic vampire character. He was predated by about fifty years by Sir Francis Varney in the 'Varney the Vampire' series of penny dreadful pamplets. Sir Francis Varney was also cursed to become a vampire and was tormented by his condition, eventually killing himself, so your whole angsty, whingy Angel/Anne Rice type thing is hardly original either.

    Now - Dracula. Right. Let's sort this out for you. Everyone misses the point about Dracula very badly, especially regarding the three vampire women in the castle. Despite almost every film version ever made, in the original story they most definitely aren't "three smoking hot and perpetually horny brides" - they are his two sisters and wife. And the reason he wants to go and live in London, is because he's really fucking fed up with them all henpecking him.

    The description of the two dark haired ones with 'high aquiline brows similar to the count himself' clearly indicates they are related - and these two call each other 'sister', and there's also several indications that the blonde one was his wife who he 'loved once', but has now fallen out with.

    Basically, when Van Helsing does his Captain Exposition bit and explains about Dracula being 'taken by the devil' as the one in ten students of black magic that is due to him, if you put two and two together, Dracula infected his two sisters and wife before he knew what he was doing and then instead of being a hot and horny harem, they were a total drag. If they were so great, why did he want to go to London?

    Dracula is also *not* what the locals fear. No, he's not a particularly nice bloke, but he doesn't go around killing the locals - indeed, some of them are his allies. The three women would go nuts on the local population, however, if Dracula didn't keep them locked up most of the time.

    More evidence that Dracula isn't seen as preying on the locals is fairly comical and doesn't really work - when he goes out to steal a baby to feed from so that he can grow young, he wears Jonathan Harker's suit whilst doing so. And when the mother comes to the castle and sees Harker at a window, she screams at him, obviously having been taken in by this cunning disguise. Which is kinda clumsy storytelling, but anyway.

    So, Dracula wants to go to London because he's completely fed up with having to deal with these demanding nightmare women and drinks blood for possibly the first time in decades, so that he can be young again and have a second chance at it all somewhere else.
  3.  (1087.6)
    Leather-trewed/frilly shirt vamps = lust object in Mary-Sue wank fantasies.
    Evidence = Anne Rice, Laurel K. Hamilton, etc etc etc

    Just sayin'...
    • CommentAuthorOddcult
    • CommentTimeFeb 19th 2008 edited
    When Anne Rice was a fucked up alcoholic nihilist, she wrote one and a half good books. Then she just... I dunno... found God again and started copying passages out of clothing magazines and interior design brochures, I think.
  4.  (1087.8)
    1) invoking "Mary Sue" immediately invalidates any opinion you may be expressing.

    2) never trust an "alcoholic" who only likes beer. That's not an alcoholic. That's a poseur with a fat bladder.
  5.  (1087.9)
    "Shadow of the Vampire", Wilhem Dafoe gives this unbelievable performance as the vampire behind the filmed version of "Nosferatu". There's this scene where he describes the woman who made him. How he had a gold statue, then a portrait, then a locket, then nothing, just ashes. He's this sad, weird little deathless creature who whines and begs for blood and can barely remember who he is most of the time. That's how I picture a vampire. A leech. A thing. Pathetic.

    All the frilly collars and courtly manners are just for fancy dress.
  6.  (1087.10)
    I loved shadow of the vampire, but never could snatch it up locally. Might have to amazon it... like practically everything else. Hah. The film struck me as being funny and sad at the same time, and very well done.
    • CommentTimeFeb 19th 2008
    "The Hunger" influenced me pretty heavily when I was a kid. I guess you could say I like pretty vampires that have an element of the grotesque to them-- something to remind you that they're monsters. "Blade" was a very cool movie, but the vampires died too easily, and they were self-cleaning like video game monsters. that kind of treatment removes all philosophical questions about mortality and morality, which are two of the biggest and most interesting issues that vampires bring up.

    re: this thread being sunk already, while the zombie thread has been allowed to hang around forever-- I'm guessing it happens when people start Telling Us All How It Is and being condescending and such. unless our illustrious hosts just have a vampire prejudice.
  7.  (1087.12)
    I completely forgot about Varney. No, as a matter of fact, a lot of people were on and my reading was a little off. I haven't thumb thorough the book for a while, so my memory being what it is lead me astray a little bit. I did catch the adaption of 30 Days of Nights recently and I thought " This is nothing without Ben Templesmith ". And I think that's an accurate statement. I felt the story was " eh " and without the rest of Templesmith's atmospheric art to make the world all twisted and spooky, it was just sort of " eh " too.

    Is Damn Nation about vampires? I thumbed thorough it recently and I thought of picking it up. Who recommends it.

This discussion has been inactive for longer than 5 days, and doesn't want to be resurrected.