Did Twilight really ruin vampires? (Death of Vamps/Zombies)

[DuplicateValue]

There's good and bad stuff out there.
I think Let the Right One In is the answer to Twilight, personally.

I completely agree.

That is, until that American remake shows up and spoils the party. Ugh, 'Let Me In'. *shudder*

 

[Caligulove]

I never have really thought that Twilight has somehow ruined the Vampire. Vampires can still be creepy if they are done right.

I do understand the idea behind making Vampires into actual characters, though. It is another way to dabble with the plot idea of immortals and how they live their lives. It is fairly interesting- but not scary. Because vampires started off as simply monsters for the enjoyment of the scare value.

Now... this shit can be ridiculous. I don't understand the idea of vampires being sexy or anything... It is just nothing to ever interest me.
All that Twilight has done is make REALLY shitty interpretations of Vampires that are neither scary nor things that can be taken seriously.

For god's sake- the (evil vampires ooooooh) in that film they do that whole half-assed crouching and bare their teeth and the whole time I'm wondering "What the fuck are you doing!? am I supposed to be intimidated by this??"
And I dont have to go on about the vampires in this interpretation. Theyre given immortality, (apparently) amazing good looks and super-powers all at the cost of eating animals a different way and GLITTERING in the sun?

Really?? that's the change off here? No burning in the sun? none of those bad things like that? Just looking like a cheap hooker every now and then?
Sounds like a pretty nice gig when you live in such a cloudy area. BE HAPPY- christ.
"ohhhh noooooooooo, everyone at School LIKES me and wants to have sex with me.... my life is so HORRIBLE"
Horrible story telling

 

[Harvey_Danger]

Twilight didn't ruin vampires. Vampire role-play ruined vampires.

Twilight just ruined popular literature.

 

[MasterKirov]

Please. This fad will pass just like everything else. Teens don't have the attention span to monopolize/shit on anything for long. Just be patient--real vampires come to those who wait.

I suppose we can all live in hope.

 

[Samoftherocks]

You follow up Twlight with a viewing of 30 Days of Night, and you should be ok...

 

[GrinningManiac]

I just don't like it

I'm a hobbyist novelist, and Twilight is just a fanfic of any other "modern day" Vampire flick, like Blade or something. Whatsherface just took the basics and changed it so 13 year old girls could get all emotional about it and say "Ommahgohd! Hee's Soooo HAWT" and woo over shizz.

And get this, "No Danger". She makes the Vampires indestructable (fair enough), Immortal (goes without saying, again, fair enough) but here's the problem:

What does everyone know kills vampires? Stake through the heart and sunlight

What does she do? Makes them sparkle, so they reveal themselves. They don't die or anything. She's too soppy about her characters to give them a constant handicap. The only problem they face is feeling incredibly "ashamed" of their powers, whilst climbing trees, surviving car crashes and living forever as attractive young adults

Um... The whole "vampires die due to sunlight" thing is in the same category as "beam me up, Scotty" or that long droopy Sherlock Holmes pipe: stuff that was misinterpreted, and doesn't exist in the original media. The whole nosferatu dying due to sunlight was added because in the original silent movie, he dies when the sun rises. The two were unrelated.

I, like Crispin Freeman, am completely okay with changing and altering mythology to suit ones purposes. Tolkien did the same thing. The only question is "did you like what they did", not "should they have done anything". You can reasonably dislike Twilight, and I do, but it's hypocritical at best to say "they changed it, now it sucks" when it comes to malleable fantasy elements

While that may be the case, the Sherlock pipe, Beam Me Up and the Sunlight thing have all become the standard because of these mistakes. To say "That's not what happens" because the original creator didn't mean it that way is irrelevant. Look at any event in history when misinterpretation has led to something completley different. The Charge of the Light Brigade, for (a morbid) example. Just because the order was misheard does not mean it didn't happen, and dosen't affect today. The Sunlight thing is practically interwoven with the vampire thing

Twilight, though? I dunno. The novelist in me (like I said) screams at the crappy writing and piss-poor setting. But to be honest, I think it boils down to arrogant, stubborn hatred. It's the same as when I hear a bigot scream something over the radio. It's a free country, it's his right to express his opinion, I tell myself. But, deep down, just as I tell myself people are allowed to choose and like whatever book they want, I just hate it and stop my feet like a little kid

 

[VanityGirl]

I personally find nothing about vampires scary. I think they're interesting though. I've seen more vampire movies than I care to mention, but scared? I never was.
I just get tired of people talking out of their ass because their favorite creature had a different spin put on it. Hell, I've read books where vampires can go outside, but cannot touch water, the vampire also had special powers and had to suck blood. *shrug*
It's up to the reader to decide if it's garbage or not, but to say that something RUINED it, is a bit extreme.

 

[delet]

When I mentioned Vampires before twilight, images of Dracula popped into everyone's heads.

When I mention Vampires now, sparkly things that love normal girls pops into everyone's minds, and girls start jabbering on about how they love it, and guys start jabbering on how it sucks.

Must I say more? Really?

 

[CrazyGirl17]

I think (though I'm not quite sure of this), that it might have begun with the Anne Rice novels... which I haven't read yet, but would really like to. At least Rice gets her facts straight..

And with all the hoopla around Twilight, it's really hard to take vampire seriously anymore.

 

[ajb924]

Now, back to vampires. I wouldn't dare say Twilight RUINED vampires. Sadly, vampires don't honestly have a set of "rules" to them. What do I mean by rules? Well, the only thing vampires have to do to survive is drink blood, their strengts and weakness are up to the person who creates a vampire character.

I don't know about not having rules, my favorite vampire book and in my opinion the only one that really made them scary was 'salems Lot by Stephen King. The rules were only somewhat defined in the story but there were two main ones: They couldn't enter a building without being invited in and the thing with the white eyed dog i can't remember the specifics of.

Now on topic, I don't think Twilight "killed" vampires. It just didn't really show what they were. I would love to say that it did because it wasn't an adequte representation, but FIDO didn't show how zombies were and i LOVED that movie. I don't like twilight and i think it did take away from what they should be, but if a good writer wrote a vampire book would it be less good because of Twilight? No. I read 'salems Lot after somebady forced me to see the first twilight movie with them. My opinion of 'salems Lot was no different than it would have been.

 

[OuroborosChoked]

@ OP - Are you like 12 years old? If you think the zombie movie is dead, your opinion should be taken for exactly what it's worth: nothing. One need only look as far as Zombieland to see just how effective zombies STILL ARE as a menace or looming threat. But more to the point, unlike vampires, werewolves, and the rest of the stock movie monsters, zombies are the perfect tool for social commentary. You can thank George Romero for that, but if you actually pay attention to how the zombie movie has evolved over the decades, you'll see how and why the changes are important. For just one quick example, the original Night of the Living Dead, zombies were slow but inevitable; always there and waiting to consume you. That was also the Cold War era, where the world was constantly afraid of the looming threat of nuclear war. The parallels are obvious. Flash forward to, say, 28 Days Later. Released in 2002, it can appropriately be thought of as a post-9/11 zombie* film. This time the threat is fast-moving... it can stike anywhere (for example, London) and anytime. This time the parallel is terrorism, and you can see that the change has taken hold, as most other zombie movies since then have had fast zombies (the remake of Dawn of the Dead and Zombieland, for two examples).

So no, girlie: Zombie movies are not going anywhere.

*I don't care if you disagree here: Yes, they are technically "the infected", not the living dead... but it's the same damn genre.

 

[etherlance]

I guess when you ask who killed the zombie/vampire films scariness we all know who it was....
it was us boys and girls, we did it, we raped the zombie and molested the vampire and we should all be sickened by our own reflections in the mirror each day.

Remember the first zombie films to come out?? they scared the SHIT out of us and WHY??
because we never saw it before.
The idea of the dead getting back up and then eating the closest person they could find terrified the hell out us.
But nowadays it's all "arse kicking this" and "vampire slaying that".
WE WENT TOO FAR PEOPLE....WE.WENT.TOO.FAR!!

In our mad quest to see hot girls and guys slaying vampires and zombies like they just stole their last Winegum, we never realised that we as a people....as a SPECIES had systematiclly pulled these once proud and noble creatures to the floor and took turns in raping their innocence.

Ladies and gentlemen the zombie looks in the mirror and calls himself a filthy whore, as the vampire rocks back and forth in the featal position AND IT'S ALL YOUR FAULT!!!

To answer the question, no Twilight didn't kill the vampire.....he was simply the next in a never ending line of rapists to unzip their flies and pulverize it's tender virgin arse.

YOU PEOPLE DISGUST ME......and so do I.........
so....do I *runs away sobbing*

 

[orangebandguy]

Twilight has just stagnated them in a manner of speaking. It's made them all mushy and taken their big awesome collars away.

Yes, because vampires never got mushy before Twilight.

...nevermind.

How careless of me, thanks for the reminder. I was never really a fan of Buffy or Angel.

 

[dragonburner]

Comedies and romance movies didn't "ruin" vampires and zombies. I think it is the fact that the concept is so supernatural and a little over saturated that they aren't scary. Zombies and vampires are so strange and common that they don't frighten anyone. However, it is not a bad thing. Also, Twilight is stupid.

 

[Seldon2639]

While that may be the case, the Sherlock pipe, Beam Me Up and the Sunlight thing have all become the standard because of these mistakes. To say "That's not what happens" because the original creator didn't mean it that way is irrelevant. Look at any event in history when misinterpretation has led to something completley different. The Charge of the Light Brigade, for (a morbid) example. Just because the order was misheard does not mean it didn't happen, and dosen't affect today. The Sunlight thing is practically interwoven with the vampire thing

Twilight, though? I dunno. The novelist in me (like I said) screams at the crappy writing and piss-poor setting. But to be honest, I think it boils down to arrogant, stubborn hatred. It's the same as when I hear a bigot scream something over the radio. It's a free country, it's his right to express his opinion, I tell myself. But, deep down, just as I tell myself people are allowed to choose and like whatever book they want, I just hate it and stop my feet like a little kid

My point wasn't that there can't be mutation to ideas, or even mythologies, much less memes and tropes, quite the opposite. My point is that no one snarls about how terrible it was for Tolkien to make up entirely new mythos to govern a bunch of creatures from Nordic mythology (and Old English, for that matter). I'm fine with misinterpretation, changes, and even intentional fucking with themes.

My problem is when people who fully accept "vampires die due to sunlight" then try to pull crap like "well, Twilight is totally destroying the concept of vampires". The concept of vampires, such as it is, is completely malleable. Ask any two authors to describe the powers and limitations of vampires, and you'll get three or four different answers. My point was not "nothing should change", but rather "given the fundamental changes which occurred when it came to vampires long before any of us were born, back off on that complaint".

You kind of made my point for me: "to say 'that's not what happens' because the original creator didn't mean it that way' is completely irrelevant". I wholeheartedly agree. So, with that in mind, let's do away with the argument about how Twilight is crappy because "What does everyone know kills vampires? Stake through the heart and sunlight", okay?

We can argue about whether the books are well written (I don't think they are), or overwrought (I think they are), or melodramatic (yeah), or pure soap opera (completely), but let's not try to make our argument stronger by pretending we're steadfastly holding on to a mythos which itself has already proven to be immensely changeable.

I think (though I'm not quite sure of this), that it might have begun with the Anne Rice novels... which I haven't read yet, but would really like to. At least Rice gets her facts straight..

And with all the hoopla around Twilight, it's really hard to take vampire seriously anymore.

You're really going to positively compare Anne Rice to Twilight. It's a sad day for books when Anne Rice has more cred than someone else. But, you're falling into the mindset I've been laboring valiantly against here:

There are no "facts" about vampires. There's a mythos which many writers have held to for a few decades, but the "romantic vampire" novel is about as old as traditional vampire novels (early 19th Century, for the record). And there's no consistent listing of what a vampire is and isn't. Some people give them shapeshifting, some don't. Some let them walk in light, some let certain types walk in light, some let none (as I said, the "death by sunlight" thing is not part of the "original" mythos). Some writers portray them as fighting against their animal natures and hungers, some portray them as being violent and bloodthirsty. Some make them handsome, some make them ugly as sin. Need I go on?

Talk about not liking Twilight, about not liking the writing, about not liking the characters, but there's simply nothing inherently incorrect with the interpretation of vampires qua vampires. There's no real "right" conception of them, so there can be no "wrong" interpretation either.

I don't know about not having rules, my favorite vampire book and in my opinion the only one that really made them scary was 'salems Lot by Stephen King. The rules were only somewhat defined in the story but there were two main ones: They couldn't enter a building without being invited in and the thing with the white eyed dog i can't remember the specifics of.

Now on topic, I don't think Twilight "killed" vampires. It just didn't really show what they were. I would love to say that it did because it wasn't an adequte representation, but FIDO didn't show how zombies were and i LOVED that movie. I don't like twilight and i think it did take away from what they should be, but if a good writer wrote a vampire book would it be less good because of Twilight? No. I read 'salems Lot after somebady forced me to see the first twilight movie with them. My opinion of 'salems Lot was no different than it would have been.

So, the fact that one individual author defined vampires in a specific way makes it a "rule" for vampires in general? I like Stephen King as much as the next guy, but he's no more the definitive authority on what makes a "real" vampire than anyone else who writes fiction with vampires. I like the Dresden Files conception of vampires, does that mean the rules Jim Butcher wrote are the god's honest truth of the matter? No, of course not.

Until an honest-to-goodness vampire introduces itself to someone, demonstrates supernatural abilities, and decides to write a primer on "the rules of vampirism" there's no individual construction for a vampire mythos which is any more or less valid.

In conclusion:

Until you can give me proof of what a 'real' vampire is like, don't ***** and moan about how Twilight is a bad interpretation of them. I never read the books, I don't want to read the books (lord knows), and I think they're tripe. But they're not tripe because their vampires are different. Either come up with a legitimate criticism, or shut the hell up. 'Cause one of the best series to involve vampires in the past decade (The Dresden Files)certainly has vampires wholly unrelated to most of what has come before

 

[0p3rati0n]

I kinda feel "yes" it did kill the whole concept of the vampire. But not so much of it than the annoyance of it. I can't go two books on a book self without there being some story of a vampire or twilight. I never watched the movie nor read the book and I don't plan to. But the annoyance of it all pisses the f*ck out of me. Also the vampire, person, fag, thing is not the "best" actor for the role.

 

[TheNumber1Zero]

(wich i have allreay ritually burned 3 copies of)

If you wanted to get rid of your money so bad, why not send it to me people who need it?

when the fuck will they get a werewolf costume right in a movie? to date i havent seen one looking anything like they should be...

[HEADING=2]There is no such thing as Werewolves.[/HEADING]

God this was the same bullshit that people pull with Twilight ruining what "actual" Vampires should be like.

When Vampires and Werewolves are fictional creations.

There's no such thing as "getting a werewolf right" because you can't get it wrong as long as it obeys the basic tenets of "Man-who-turns-into-wolf-creature" and often "Has link to the moon."

That's it.

That's true, there are no real werewwolves. As a matter of fact, the actual disease of Lycanthropy is a mental disease where one believes he becomes a werewolf at a full moon. I love it when people point out that something isn't real right after someone complains about sometyhing not looking like the real thing. It almost makes me giggle, but it doesn't.

 

[Sad Robot]

But I'm kinda torn about Twilight and such. Yeah, you can clearly see that they've taken their cues from Buffy and while I can imagine that if I was thirteen (and a girl, maybe) I would enjoy them. Maybe it's that I'm an adult now but I can't shake the feeling that Twilight and the other romantisized vampire offerings since Buffy suffer from a lack of decent, innovative writing and a slightly misjudged tone. Yes, Buffy was always about the end of the world and doomed love -- or how at least that's what life feels like for a teenager -- and how time changes those attitudes. But there was a certain humour and quirkiness that got lost in translation, I think, along the way, when people started doing these "new" versions of Buffy. Not that Buffy's idea was completely original but it managed to take its ideas and mix them into something fresh and engaging, a bit like Star Wars did a long time ago in a galaxy far away.