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

[Charisma]

Did Twilight really ruin vampires?

No - not because I liked it, but because it's just far too weak to have any effect on the vampire. The franchise and its godawful fanbase can exist, shunted into the corner along with all the other movies, books, music, and video games for idiots. It doesn't hurt the quality content, or even affect it.

That said, I'm not against the idea of the vampire as a sympathetic creature. I don't even have a problem with the vampire as an attractive creature. I'm on board with genre exploration as a creative endeavor. Fiction evolves; that's just how it is.

 

[Fizzlewinks]

So, Twilight did not "kill" vampires, nothing can. They are too much a part of our culture. But the fans, sure as hell have killed twilight.

Very well put, I think I would be a little more willing to give the series an actually try if it weren't for the fan base. They just irritate me so much...

Last semester I made a comment that someone in my class "avoided the sun for fear he would burst into flame like a vampire." To which a girl in the back, with a Team Edward pin on her shirt replied "What? Sunlight doesn't burn vampires, it makes them sparkle. Idiot."

Yeah, I'm the idiot.

 

[Jandau]

Saying Twilight contains vapires is like saying my pants contain the a nuclear bomb. Just beacuse I say so doesn't make it true, and even if I name the contents of my pants "Nuclear Bomb" it still doesn't mean it has much in common with an actual nuclear bomb.

Twilight isn't about vapires, it's about some wierd sparkly emo people who like to call themselves vapires for the fun of it. Once I started looking at it from that perspective, I suddenly found that vapires weren't "ruined" anymore.

Now, I'm off to read some old World of Darkness books, prefferably one involving Tzimisce...

 

[Gralian]

I'm glad this thread has been brought up. I've been aching to explain this to people for some time.
Yes, vampires and zombies are losing their 'scare factor'. However, i might argue that it's not just pop culture that's killing them off, but the fact we live in a desensitised and globalised society in which we are being exposed to more and more avant garde things, that monsters such as bloodsuckers and walking dead no longer hold such a significant threat to us. We're more concerned about muslim extremists and young people stealing or stabbing you in the street.

Back on topic, i would argue, in the case of zombies, that it is because they have lost so much of their mystique. Gone are the days of "zombies rising out of the ground for absolutely no reason and consuming the brains of the living, for them to join the ranks of the dead truly brainless", as the irony may be. No. Now it is all about "viruses" and other "logical explanations" - take Resident Evil (film and game) and even Left 4 Dead, which is about a rabies virus. And 28 days later. They're not zombies, they're just mentally damaged folk who have gone feral. That's how i see them. Not as the reanimated dead. I think the movie and game industry needs to find a way to stop explaining the appearance of zombies in rational terms because it humanises them to the point of us no longer associating them with the living dead full stop. The fact most "modern" zombies now run and can almost think also contributes to this humanisation. It's atrocious. Look at "night of the dead" - slow, unthinking, mindless zombies that came out of nowhere and had no thought. Nothing. That is what they should have remained.

On to vampires. Now, i'm not big on vampires in general, i won't admit to having sat through Dracula all the way through, nor do i find them particularly scary or interesting as a concept. But there comes a time where i have to agree and say that pop culture has killed off the 'vampire'. In the words of moviebob, "vampires needed a new home now that they had become a fetish for sexually frustrated female novelists - thank you soooo much ladies". Not that myself or moviebob is making a sexist comment, but frankly, he's right. It's always some pathetic sappy love story woven into a vampire film and it's nearly always usually men. Why? Why does it have to be vampire men? This frustrates me to no end. If anything, it should be vampire women. Vampires typically were LUSTFUL creatures. None of this lovey-dovey bullsh*t. They hunger for blood and sex. Have you ever seen pictures of classic vampires? It's like an orgy of blood and bare bodies. They have no compassion. This is how a contemporary vampire SHOULD be. One may even argue that lust shouldn't even enter the equation at all. Seduction and trickery is what a vampire uses to get their meal, if they cannot overpower their prey. STOP TURNING THEM INTO PUSSYCATS AND MAKE THEM INTO LIONS.

Frankly, if you ever read a horror novel with vampires in, and then watch a movie with them in like Twilight, you'd think they were two entirely different beings.

I think Werewolves are probably the only unmolested creatures left, and i'm sure Hollywood will find a way to jack that up too.

 

[Fizzlewinks]

I think Werewolves are probably the only unmolested creatures left, and i'm sure Hollywood will find a way to jack that up too.

There are Werewolves in the next Twilight movie. There you go.

 

[Postman667]

Twilight is in the same boat as any movie based off a book, comic, t.v. show, former movie and so on. Movie producers have to make these movies appealing to the general populace, regardless of how much it kills the fans of said genre. Do you every notice how a love story or some sort of sexual tension is placed in 90 - 95% of these current movies (exp: the Star Wars prequels), even if the movie really doesn't call for it? It may ruin a movie for some, but it brings in people who would ordinarily not come to see it.

 

[Pimppeter2]

Never watched it, never plan to

To give the movie some props, the werewolves in the new one look pretty cool

 

[10BIT]

The problem with Twilight vampires is that they go against the two fundamental factors that make up a vampire:

1.Vampires feed off human essence to survive. Although 'human essence' could mean blood, it could also mean emotion, life force, flesh, etc., the vampire lore isn't specific on what it is that they gorge themselves on, it only states that whatever it is it comes from humans. Twilight wasn't the first to dismiss this, plus few believe it is 'human essence' rather than blood that vampires require, so it would seam nit-picky to call Meyer out on this.

2.Vampires are unholy creatures. This attribute of vampires however has only been ignored by Meyer so far. The best example to give to show that she has reversed this attribute is how these vampires react in sunlight. The sun is revered by many religions an thus is seen as the holiest object of them all. The light from the sun is supposed to identify evil/holy objects and then cleanse evil beings and empower holy beings, hence why vampires spontaneously combust when in the daylight. Twilight vampires on the other hand seam to radiate their own light, thus implying that the sun has identified these beings as holy, and the opposite of what people have agreed vampires are.

While I don't care much about how vampires are perceived, I feel she has changed them more than 'artistic licence' should allow.

As for whether or not twilight ruined vampires, I'm sure there will be more Bram Stoker vampires than shimmering shrew swallowers in the future.

 

[TheAngryMonkey]

The bottom line is this.......Twilight is nothing more than the bad boy fantasy for girls as said previously...the producers could easily replace vampires with lets say, Bikers, some inner city gang and the upper class girl story. You could even replace it with an misunderstood and edgy foreigner, whose accents dashes the girls away.
If you walk in the sun and don't seduce women/men to turn them or feed on them, YOU ARE NOT A VAMPIRE. You are a marketing ploy, and boy is it working. Whats next warewolves that let you walk them like dogs, and sleep at the food of your bed. "Oh, who's a cute wittle warewolf, mummy got you a new outfit."

Then again I have never seen the show or movies, and my information comes from my buddies 15 year old sister, and the previews I catch on TV.

 

[Hatman Jam]

(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.

Technically there is an existing idea of vampires and werewolves, though the creatures don't exist themselves.

People can say things like "what actual vampires/werewolves are like" because they're referring to how they were originally portrayed and appreciated. When they see twists on the concept that turn out to be radical transformations and bastardizations, they have every right to complain and say "Twilight is ruining what actual vampires should be like."

 

[Amnestic]

(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.

Technically there is an existing idea of vampires and werewolves, though the creatures don't exist themselves.

People can say things like "what actual vampires/werewolves are like" because they're referring to how they were originally portrayed and appreciated. When they see twists on the concept that turn out to be radical transformations and bastardizations, they have every right to complain and say "Twilight is ruining what actual vampires should be like."

Do tell, what was the 'Original Portrayal' as you see it? Considering how the folklore of a vampiric creature has been around for many centuries - probably millenia, I'm unsure of which story I should be abiding by. Even when they did start using the term vampire or a variation thereof the stories superstitions aren't consistent.

There's no such thing as an original portrayal of a Vampire - okay, that's silly, of course there's one original portrayal, but we'd be going back into the BC years - probably quite far back - to find it.

 

[MagnetoHydroDynamics]

I think what peoples main problem is that vampires are now looked more upon as a teenage sex symbol akin to Zac Efron rather than their original role as demonic symbols of horror and blood lust.

This.

I mean, even Anne Rice had some genuine creepyness although Lestat was an emo pussy at times.

 

[Gralian]

*** Ignore this post, was meant for a different topic and i don't know how to delete posts yet ***

 

[Neosage]

All I know is this, before twilight came out, I thought being a vampire would be totally awesome. Now I don't. It has ruined vampires for me. Why? I'm not entirely sure, although I don't think it has anything to do with scariness...probably somehting to do with the masses of fangirls.

 

[jboking]

snip

As much as I would love to claim that twilight killed vampires, it didn't. It was just another stake in the coffin (ba-dum-tish). Even movies as wonderfully fun and awesome as Blade were signaling the end of vampires as we once knew them. It seems to me that we have been spending our time trying to modernize the vampire, and because of it we have bastardized the original myth. The only reason I personally hate the vampires in Twilight is that their myth pretty much kicks the classic myth right between the legs by removing most of their weaknesses(except for fire). Of course lots of movies and books, such as blade, did this long before Twilight. Yet another reason Twilight is anything but original.

See: Vampire diaries September 1991.

 

[Amnestic]

bastardized the original myth.

Which one?

 

[myxomitosis87]

I just have one thing to say. They sparkle?! They freakin' sparkle?! That's what Edward wanted to show Bella? That's the reason he can't go to school when it's sunny? What happened to the blood-sucking creatures of the NIGHT? His skin doesn't melt away, it sparkles!!! Are you happy girls? When it's sunny, he wears as much glitter as you do!

It's just a tactic to sell more books. Do 13 year old boys read more than 13 year old girls? No, they play videogames and hockey.

As for the movie... It sucked ass. I mean, it was terrible. The romance was not at all credible. Bella doesn't even smile once before telling Edward she loves him. It's just sad, emo bullshit. And don't tell me you've never shared at least one happy moment before falling in love with that special someone. Maybe there is such a moment depicted in the book, but I don't care, cause I don't read. I play hockey!

 

[Hatman Jam]

(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.

Technically there is an existing idea of vampires and werewolves, though the creatures don't exist themselves.

People can say things like "what actual vampires/werewolves are like" because they're referring to how they were originally portrayed and appreciated. When they see twists on the concept that turn out to be radical transformations and bastardizations, they have every right to complain and say "Twilight is ruining what actual vampires should be like."

Do tell, what was the 'Original Portrayal' as you see it? Considering how the folklore of a vampiric creature has been around for many centuries - probably millenia, I'm unsure of which story I should be abiding by. Even when they did start using the term vampire or a variation thereof the stories superstitions aren't consistent.

There's no such thing as an original portrayal of a Vampire - okay, that's silly, of course there's one original portrayal, but we'd be going back into the BC years - probably quite far back - to find it.

Sure, you can branch back to BC to find the origins of how a proper idea of a vampire came to be, but you'd wanna check more around the 19th century for the more widely appreciated portrayal. When people think 'real vampire', Count Dracula is most likely to come to mind. Dracula has set the staple for a publicly acclaimed vampire. When I was younger, I was told a vampire was a monster who looked like a human, possessed the ability to transform into a bat, and could extract a human's blood from their neck to turn them into their slaves. The scary part was that their motivation for doing so was simply, "they need to drink blood to survive". But don't worry, vampires can't be exposed to sunlight otherwise they'll whither away and die. Ok now I have an idea of a vampire, it's supposed to be frightening, I like this. Now when we get shit like Twilight telling us they can bend the rules for the sake of romantic story telling, that's when people will start to get into a hissy fit.

I will agree to the fact that there is no "original portrayal", you're right there, but I will remain steadfast to the fact that there is an appreciated portrayal which is commonly called 'the original', and Twilight does not meet that criteria and receives a huge penalty in failing to do so. It's like making the next Rocky film about him starting his own business as a barber when he's famous for boxing and then passing it off as Rocky 7.