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

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Which is fine, I'm sure the characters themselves are quite poorly written. Once again, not actually read the thing; however when people start claiming that they're 'ruining' vampires and urinating on the 'Original' vampire concepts I have to stop and laugh.

I believe that most people are up in arms about the media-caricaturisation that happens to most popular franchises.

See : Spiderman firing his web shooters? That's not possible! We'll get him to spray it from his wrists......?!?!??!?

What killed the series stone-dead (instead of undead) was something touched on a moment ago. If you're going to have a mystical opponent, then he has to be mystical. If you bring in physics, then you really have to know a little about what you're talking about.

Star Trek/Doctor Who can get away with technobabble, because all of the items it refers to are defined as technobabble. There is no such thing (or could be) as gold-pressed latinum; so it works fine as a currency that you can do anything with.

Meyer's hideous mistake (ok, one of them) was to define what sunlight does to a Vampire. All we know from the legends is that it hurts them as it is usually taken as God's Life striking down the Devil's work, which is why the stake works as it's built from wood, representing God's Earth. Same with the crucifix, holy water etc. It's all Faith based McGuffins.

Now, in Edward we have a predator that glows, which you can sort of see why that would be a bad thing, but then she makes it attract Bella and rounds it off by making it because his skin in full of diamonds.

At this point, the suspension of disbelief shatters.

That's what sends everyone up in arms; and that's well before the Venom is introduced, or the Canine-Cesarean.

If something's mystic, like the original Zombies, cool. If it's scientific, like L4D's infected, then you have to be careful as you've just opened a can of worms.

If you write a book that takes no notice of mysticism, biology, geography, physics or literature BUT references them, you'll get a lot of folk really angry.

 

[sholden]

And as for Buffy, I had no idea it was about vampires since I watched in the middle and stopped.

It was only called "Buffy the Vampire Slayer", though it did go a while without bothering with including vampires

 

[Dark Cleo]

I agree with your point that the film didn't kill vampires, but it has pushed vampires further into the "teenage" catagory which is a damn shame.

 

[faceless chick]

I wouldn't've cared much about Twilight if it wasn't so successful.
Just like Picasso, if it's their own style and keeps it to themselves, fine, but when they make money, they spark a wave of even crappier imitators trying to cash in on their "style" as well.

Now that the extra-pussy vampire style made big bucks,t here'll be a wave of imitators there to consolidate the "genre" and vampires will "evolve" into even crappier versions than Anne Rice or Hamilton imagined.

I myself prefer the monster vampires-they're soulless killing machines, keep'em like that!
You can still innovate the genre without making them all angsty and emo, for god's sake!

As was mentioned before, Hellsing is one of the few modern interpretations of vampires that was close to the idea- Alucard is IMO, the closest to how a vampire actually is, and I loved him for it.

Underworld felt like a Hellsing-rip-off to em, as the same idea was already done by this series bigger and better.

Still, they took many liberties with the concept, as did The Night Flier and 30 days of night, but at least they FELT like vampires, not a teenage wet dream only named "vampire" because the name sells.

So , no Twilight didn't "kill" the vampire genre, but it does help 're-define" the vampire myth for a "new" generation , which to me means vampires can only get pussier and pussier, which is NOT what i want them to be.
This isn't "evolution" , this is "de-volution"

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Now that the extra-pussy vampire style made big bucks,t here'll be a wave of imitators there to consolidate the "genre" and vampires will "evolve" into even crappier versions than Anne Rice or Hamilton imagined.

Hey, I like Lauryl K Hamilton's Vampires for the fluff that they are. And you've got to admit that Nikolaos is a damn scary vampire.

 

[ByJingo]

I want to go back to when Vampires rode motorcycles, had Big hair and bit through the skulls of people while listening to anthrax.

Frog Brothers > van helsing

 

[KazNecro]

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.

I don't think zombies have lost their mystique. I'd like to believe that they've simply evolved for a more demanding audience. Things like this happen in order to avoid diminishing return from audiences. If I went to a movie with the stereotypical slow-moving, "BRAINS!" zombies, I'd get bored right quick, because I've seen it all before. To me, it'd be the same mouthwash swishing into the other cheek. I'd rather spend my $10 at the theater on something that doesn't adhere to my expectations. Hell, even George Romero evolved his zombies, and gave them the ability to problem-solve in "Land of the Dead".

And let us not forget what MovieBob said in his Zombieland review: "We love zombies, because we hate each other." Pandemics and chemical warfare are really more at the forefront of the modern moviegoers' minds than a biblical apocalypse, whether they admit to it, or not. Making zombies less mindless hellspawn, and more diseased or mentally damaged actually help modern audiences to accept the lingering "humanity" of the zombies, and more willing to kill them for the fun of it.

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.

Agreed. With the exception of "30 days of Night", vampires are no longer monsters, just REALLY Emo humans who need someone to love them to reach that next level of humanity. Can you guess who their target audience is, in this case? In the past, vampires were a symbol for carnal lust, and completely devoid of any thoughts of love, and this was fine. With so much sexual frustration back in the heyday of black and white film, this concept appealed to the women of that era. Anyone remember the original "Dark Shadows" TV series? In an interview with one of the actresses, she mentioned that the actor who played the lead role of Barnabus Collins would get fan mail with topless photos that had the words "Bite me, Barnabus" written on them. Women secretly wanted a feral sex symbol to ravish them. Nowadays, they want a dark brooding sex symbol that they can love and take care of.

Note: I single out women only because I have yet to read about, or see a movie about a female vampire that wasn't already a pure sex symbol to men. We are fairly easy to figure out. Just give us a woman in super skimpy clothing, and fangs, and you'll have our attention.

 

[data_not_found]

Twilight didn't screw up vampires by doing the hole falling in love bit. We can thank Buffy for that, but Joss Wheadon(sp?) did that well. Twilight was bad because it trivialized vampirism to having sex, two things that have NOTHING to do with each other, under the guise that it was modernizing Romeo and Juliet (that was west side story, twitards!). Twilight acts like teenagers can understand love, which is ridiculous. The first couple times any one is in a relationship are basically the "learn to cope with the pain" stage. Twilight treats that stage like it's going to be the rest of your life, and it's paaaaiiiinfuuuuuuuuuul.

 

[KazNecro]

Now that the extra-pussy vampire style made big bucks,t here'll be a wave of imitators there to consolidate the "genre" and vampires will "evolve" into even crappier versions than Anne Rice or Hamilton imagined.

Hey, I like Lauryl K Hamilton's Vampires for the fluff that they are. And you've got to admit that Nikolaos is a damn scary vampire.

I used like Hamilton's early Anita Blake stuff, until her books started reading like a bad Ann Rice novel. Here's the formula as I left it: Start the story/Sex scene/continue the story/sex scene/discuss choosing between a vampire and a werewolf/sex scene/feeling disgusted about having feelings for monsters/sex scene/oh wait! there's an actual plot we should be following!/sex scene

I know I'm overdoing it, but Hamilton really disappointed me with the direction she took with her main character. I was really into the concept of a tough-as-nails female lead, until she was given more of an annoying vulnerability that made my bile churn.

 

[faceless chick]

I thought Anite Blake was a Mary Sue.
Then again, it's hard to write a good female main character without making her a Mary Sue...

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Now that the extra-pussy vampire style made big bucks,t here'll be a wave of imitators there to consolidate the "genre" and vampires will "evolve" into even crappier versions than Anne Rice or Hamilton imagined.

Hey, I like Lauryl K Hamilton's Vampires for the fluff that they are. And you've got to admit that Nikolaos is a damn scary vampire.

I used like Hamilton's early Anita Blake stuff, until her books started reading like a bad Ann Rice novel.

Yeah, they started descending rapidly as soon as they got into the 7th book or so. 13th and 14th were basically unreadable.

I checked out the Meredith Gentry series, but that's just UBERSEX.

 

[GloatingSwine]

Hey, I like Lauryl K Hamilton's Vampires for the porn that they are. And you've got to admit that Nikolaos is a damn scary vampire.

Fixed that for you


Anyway, vampires have have been about emo moping since Bram Stoker. 90% of gothic romance, of course, being wistful pining.

 

[Geekmaster K]

IF YOU WANT SOME GOOD FOOD FOR THOUGHT ON THIS SUBJECT, READ ALL OF THIS!!!

Okay, so I've never read Twilight or seen the movie, but I know enough about it to make a valid statement. This is mostly due to the fact that my mom and sister love Twilight. They're not crazed fangirls, but they ARE fans, nonetheless. The question of whether or not Twilight "ruined" vampires is really a matter of opinion. One of the reasons my mom and sister love it is also one of the reasons so many people hate it: vampires glowing in the sunlight. The reason they like that idea is because it changed the way they thought about vampires. Neither of them have ever been fans of horror stories about vampires, and the fact that Twilight broke all the conventions of vampires other than drinking blood to survive made it easier to read for them.

Now, I'm not saying this means you have to like Twilight, nor am I saying I want you to mock me for being related to a couple of Twilight fans. All I'm saying is that for everyone who hates it, Twilight will always have a fanbase. So, Twilight didn't ruin vampires, but it didn't help keep their image scary. What's weird to me is, Shaun of the Dead and Zombieland take the scare factor out of zombies, but people don't hate them for it the way they do Twilight.

Personally, my favorite type of vampire fiction has always been the "action vampire" type, which is why I really like Underworld and Van Helsing. I also somewhat liked the short-lived TV series, Moonlight (NOT to be confused with Twilight) because it changed the way I thought of vampires in terms of their strengths and weaknesses. For those of you who don't know, Moonlight was a detective show with vampires that was canceled after only one season because of the writers' strike. Anyway, one of my favorite things about this show were that wooden stakes don't kill vampires, they just paralyze them until the stake is removed. Also, vampires don't sparkle in the sunlight, but they don't instantly die either. They can survive in sunlight for a few hours, but after spending too much time in direct sunlight, they get sick, and eventually die.

Well, there's my take on this. I hope you got something out of it.

 

[KazNecro]

Yeah, they started descending rapidly as soon as they got into the 7th book or so. 13th and 14th were basically unreadable.

I checked out the Meredith Gentry series, but that's just UBERSEX.

I've been reading Jim Butcher's 'Dresden' series (not exactly a vampire series, but it has vampires in it, so its close enough) nowadays and he has yet to disappoint, so try him.

 

[C_Topher]

In my opinion, the problem with 'Twilight' is it's not actually about vampires. It's a teenage romantic drama with vampires thrown in to try to be different, and sadly, it worked. Even worse, it has no original content. The second instalment, 'New Moon', is nothing more than a modern rehashing of 'West Side Story' with rival gangs replaced with vampires and werewolves.
As for zombies, the still scare me. Sure, everyone says they want to take on a zombie hoard, but I'm pretty sure most people would be terrified if they were confronted by the real thing. Why? Because of the Uncanny Valley effect zombies have, especially when they eat someone. The best example I can think of is the original 'Night of the Living Dead' when the little girl becomes a zombie and eats her mother. It's so disturbing and wrong, I get chills just thinking about it. That's what makes zombies scary.
And that is MY rant.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Yeah, they started descending rapidly as soon as they got into the 7th book or so. 13th and 14th were basically unreadable.

I checked out the Meredith Gentry series, but that's just UBERSEX.

I've been reading Jim Butcher's 'Dresden' series (not exactly a vampire series, but it has vampires in it, so its close enough) nowadays and he has yet to disappoint, so try him.

Dresden is a god, though Jim Butcher does sort of stack shit up on him until it's Godzilla size. The TV show (cancelled now, boo) was very good as well.

Fixed that for you

We prefer the term "erotica"

 

[robincb]

At my school there is a lot of fuss about twilight (Mainly the GIRLS are all like *TWINKLE EYES* TWILIIIIIIGHT *drool*). But i think twilight is just an underworld ripoff. I do like the idea about them being nice and everything. but i don't think one NOT scary movie can ruin an entire race. Basically if i made another scary movie. the vampire would surely relive. What i asm most afraid of is that other people will try to make money off the success of twilight, basically striking the final blow to the vampire franchise. making it so lame that no one will dare touch it with a 20 foot pole

 

[A random person]

Anyone who thinks Twilight ruined vampires is giving it too much power.

Spoiler: Instead, know that good vampires do exist, and here's a couple: