Depiction of Vampires

Started by Evil_Ash2 pages

Depiction of Vampires

Problem I have come across with many vampire flicks (particularly modern ones), is that the vampires themselves aren't really scary like they're intended. They are often characterized too human, and performs stupid Kung-Fu moves. There also seems to be eroticism involved with Vampirism, which is usually overly done...

In Stephen King's vampire mythos, once a vampire is created they become complete slaves to their hunger and epitomize evil. The best thing for them is to stake them. Salem's Lot (1979) presents vampires as what they are, not stylish conversative and sometimes stupid sentient and pretty creatures, but meta-physical representations of evil in its superlative form, that is, SCARY, and I mean TRULY SCARY things to avoid like hell itself! They are are not the twisted politically correct teenager role model vampires of the '90s. They are hideously mysterious, ethereal, chilling and extremely dangerous demonic things with human form. Foul, corrupt and evil aberrations whose eyes glow in the dark like some animals' do.

Have you not seen fright night??

Originally posted by steverules
Have you not seen fright night??

Yes...

It's actually my favourite vampire movie next to Salem's Lot...

Re: Depiction of Vampires

Originally posted by Evil_Ash
Problem I have come across with many vampire flicks (particularly modern ones), is that the vampires themselves aren't really scary like they're intended. They are often characterized too human, and performs stupid Kung-Fu moves. There also seems to be eroticism involved with Vampirism, which is usually overly done...

In Stephen King's vampire mythos, once a vampire is created they become complete slaves to their hunger and epitomize evil. The best thing for them is to stake them. Salem's Lot (1979) presents vampires as what they are, not stylish conversative and sometimes stupid sentient and pretty creatures, but meta-physical representations of evil in its superlative form, that is, SCARY, and I mean TRULY SCARY things to avoid like hell itself! They are are not the twisted politically correct teenager role model vampires of the '90s. They are hideously mysterious, ethereal, chilling and extremely dangerous demonic things with human form. Foul, corrupt and evil aberrations whose eyes glow in the dark like some animals' do.

The annoying eroticism originates from succubi/incubi, creatures that have sex with the opposite gender they are at night and drink their victim's blood, which are obviously vampiric creatures.

near dark is the best

Bram Stoker is one of the writer's that caused the sexualization of the vampire....before his novel they were thought of as terrifying creatures not sexy beasts.

I agree that the vampire has taken a more docile role in horror. They are depicted more as aristocratic humans more than creatures. Bram Stokers novel as well as interview with the Vampire have just made it worse.

oooh Dusk till torn is good

DUSK TIL TORN?

Originally posted by Espantada23
DUSK TIL TORN?

😂

My favorite vampire movie is Interview with the Vampire. *shrugs*

I hate Brad Pitt, but he's just so stunning as Louis, my favorite vampire 🙂

I agree with you Evil Ash, one of the worst examples of this shit are movies like "UnderWorld". BTW the Original Salem’s lot did kick ass, one of my favorites Sanker was fawking spooky.

Though they are not accurately depicted, I really like Lost Boys... Except, when the guy revealed himself to be the head vampire, he went on about how a vampire cannot enter a house unless invited... Yet, his "kids" got into the house without being invited at all... Why is that?

.

Originally posted by Bat Dude
Though they are not accurately depicted, I really like Lost Boys... Except, when the guy revealed himself to be the head vampire, he went on about how a vampire cannot enter a house unless invited... Yet, his "kids" got into the house without being invited at all... Why is that?

Possible explanation: I think that he said ".. .It renders you powerless…" not that a Vampire absolutely cannot enter a house, unless invited. Maybe that's why his boys got wasted so easily, they were not invited and their powers were limited. You have a good point though, to be honest I never thought about that contradiction.

Originally posted by 2D_MASTER
I agree with you Evil Ash, one of the worst examples of this shit are movies like "UnderWorld". BTW the Original Salem’s lot did kick ass, one of my favorites Sanker was fawking spooky.

I still have a difficulties with watching this scene...

YouTube video

Originally posted by Evil_Ash
I still have a difficulties with watching this scene...

Hahaha yeah, that's why that movie is a classic. Ever read the book?

Originally posted by 2D_MASTER
Hahaha yeah, that's why that movie is a classic. Ever read the book?

Yeah. Good read. Although, I prefer the 1979 mini-series, mainly because I saw it as a kid before I read the book...

A lot of people disliked the Nosferatu-like version of Mr. Barlow. But I don't think the sophisticated, intelligent, and more-human Barlow from King's book would have the effect and scariness that we got:

YouTube video

I haven't seen the 2004 remake. I just recently bought it. Should arrive in the mail soon. Although, from what I've heard, it isn't so good. Despite it being apparently closer to the book....

Re: Depiction of Vampires

Originally posted by Evil_Ash
Problem I have come across with many vampire flicks (particularly modern ones), is that the vampires themselves aren't really scary like they're intended. They are often characterized too human, and performs stupid Kung-Fu moves. There also seems to be eroticism involved with Vampirism, which is usually overly done...

In Stephen King's vampire mythos, once a vampire is created they become complete slaves to their hunger and epitomize evil. The best thing for them is to stake them. Salem's Lot (1979) presents vampires as what they are, not stylish conversative and sometimes stupid sentient and pretty creatures, but meta-physical representations of evil in its superlative form, that is, SCARY, and I mean TRULY SCARY things to avoid like hell itself! They are are not the twisted politically correct teenager role model vampires of the '90s. They are hideously mysterious, ethereal, chilling and extremely dangerous demonic things with human form. Foul, corrupt and evil aberrations whose eyes glow in the dark like some animals' do.

yeah, but when you have 90 minutes to tell a visual story it is hard to tell a vampire story and keep it consistantly scary. Vampires, and werewolves are one dimensional. When your focusing on them for 90 minutes, you either focus soley on the attributes which make them scary, or try to add a new dimension and explore the personal story of the vampire. When you remove the person behind the vampire out of the story, you are left with what makes a vampire scary...,mystery. This path has a tendancy to become redundant though. You can only have a vampire leaping form the shadows so many times before it becomes typical. When you focus on the perosnal story of the vampire, it is near impossible to have fear in the story. People generally dont fear what they understand or sympathise with, its the other way around. The vampire has been done many times, it has also been perfected many times, which is why i believe filmakers try to stay away from the story. Monsters in the dark just isnt scary anymore, its already been done.

Originally posted by 2D_MASTER
Possible explanation: I think that he said ".. .It renders you powerless…" not that a Vampire absolutely cannot enter a house, unless invited. Maybe that's why his boys got wasted so easily, they were not invited and their powers were limited. You have a good point though, to be honest I never thought about that contradiction.
Your right. Remember they tried feeding him garlic and giving him holy water and it did nothing to him but it killed his boys.