Was Twilight's sparkle vamps just the evolution of vampires or a completely missing the point?

[Ekonk]

Completely missing the point. And not just the sparkling. There are no drawbacks to vampirism in Twilight, but still Edward . Pun intended. Anyway, that's just a plothole, one of many.

Seriously, True Blood. Let's talk about something vampire-related and good.

 

[Lust]

Apparently you loose your soul when you become a twinlepire, and yet you retain your affection for other beings, you can control your bloodlust, and you can actually go into the sun... so you get immortality and super strength, but none of the side effects of being a vampire?
Hell only the "bad" vampires drink human blood... the "good" ones drink animal blood. Hell there are cultures today that does that and we don't call them vampires now do we?

Actually, the whole soul thing was just Edward's angsting. No other vampires believe that. Also, the bloodlust is what attracted him to Bella according to the flimsy plot. (She smelled delicious.)

Also, there were plenty of perfectly "good" vampires who drank human blood as well.

That's true, there were some good vampires.

Remember the movie Thirst?

The main character was a vampire and a priest. He drank blood. He he had super strength and he could fly. He also had sex too. Oh no, watch out now.

But he also was a very rational man. Never took a life to satisfy his needs.

 

[VladShadeu]

I think half of the people posting here are completely missing the point as to WHY Stephanie Meyer wrote it. It wasn't a logical, evolutionary standpoint. It was plot cavity-filler. She needed to explain why vampires still had a reason to stay out of the sun. Nothing else. She wasn't doing it because it was cool, or because it would make the mythos any more interesting, she was just doing it so she could tell her dang story without people like us complaining.

Thats not to say we SHOULDN'T complain though. She did "ruin" vampires. Vampires, despite not being real, are an accepted part of mythology, and she completely ignored our accepted view point for no reason either than to have her protagonists look cool (which she failed at). Like a number of people have said, they aren't even vampires, they're SUPERHEROS, and lame ones at that. "Vampire" was just the term used to make them look "edgy". She's essentially doing all of this with the respectability of a 14 year old girl with a wall poster of the Jonas Brothers and a story about an author-insurgent redhead clutz with no pretense of likeability by anyone other than herself and her giggling group of friends. Personally, I like Heather Brewer's interpretation. They aren't indestructible and aren't particularly superhuman, but have some of the neglected vampiric power disciplines (Telepathy, "sensing the blood", animal transformations). They do the sunscreen thing. I really like the sunscreen thing.

(Sorry for the Edit, I accidently skipped over this post and simply HAD to talk about it)

The issue with True Blood is that it tries to make Vampires exactly what they aren't: Human. The allure of the Vampire is not sex, as seems to be the case these days, but sacrifice. By going on "living," the "traditional" Vampire can never see a sunrise or sunset, can not eat any of the food or drink any of the drinks they might have liked, and if you go by Vampire: The Masquerade rules, can never see or talk to your friends and family again. They are a cursed being that continues to go on living. It's an analogy of underlying human perseverance, even.

In short, Vampires are monsters, not teddy bears.

With ALL DUE RESPECT, comrade, you honestly couldn't have missed the point further.
The whole idea of True Blood was TO make them seem human. It was talking about vamps in a way that no other mythos could. Even White Wolf's magnum opus always told the story in a manner that kept them as far away from all humanity as they could socially, where True Blood reversed that. They idea of having them come into the world as we know it was so that vampiric and human society could clash. And they DO make them not seem human, most of the conflict of the entire series was about that. The murderer of Season 1 (Or book 1, depending on your cannon) showed that vampires were the new cultural hate target. The relationship between Bill and Sookie was the ideal version of Steph Meyer's "Forbidden love", and showed the "trying to keep my grip on humanity" concept that the White Wolf mythos was just as obsessed with.

 

[the_pleasure_is_mine]

Vampo Novis...KILL THE SPARKLY ONES!

*guess the reference, I dare you*

I'm going to go with... Metro 2033!

OT: I just hate sparkly disco balls... if they had a good reason for being sparkly maybe I'd care less.

DING DING DING! YOU WIN SIR, YOU MAY TAKE WHAT'S BEHIND DOOR NUMBER ONE OR DOOR NUMBER TWO!

Door 3 D:

Or 2 :3

 

[zombiejoe]

Behind number

Vampo Novis...KILL THE SPARKLY ONES!

*guess the reference, I dare you*

I'm going to go with... Metro 2033!

OT: I just hate sparkly disco balls... if they had a good reason for being sparkly maybe I'd care less.

DING DING DING! YOU WIN SIR, YOU MAY TAKE WHAT'S BEHIND DOOR NUMBER ONE OR DOOR NUMBER TWO!

Door 3 D:

Or 2 :3

And behind the door is...BILLY MAYSE!

 

[Czargent Sane]

bah! vampires are a second rate evil anyway, I've always seen the majority of vampires the same way you see twipires.

 

[the_pleasure_is_mine]

snip

Awesome HI I'M BILLY MAYSE

 

[VanityGirl]

I think a lot of you miss the entire concept of a vampire.

The scariest vampires and the most well fed vampires, are one who use their charm (and looks I guess) to lure women into their grasp. Vampires have always been, in a strange way, alluring, sexual and strangly charming.

This has been done far before Twilight. As a matter of fact, most vampire books I've read have had a female who sees a vampire and immediately falls in love with him. The vampire will either kill her or not kill her (depending on the novel).

Also, vampires falling in love with humans is nothing new either. I've read books about vampires falling in love with humans. It's actually rather sad because their human lovers also die of old age and the vampire is then left alone again. It's sad, unless the vampire turns the girl/boy to a vampire, then they live together.


Howver, in Twilight... Well, there is some interesting stuff, but it just didn't translate well to movies I guess.
I could see why they sparkle. We humans are drawn to shiny stuff, maybe if you're hiking in the forest, and you see a person sparkling like diamonds, you'd approach them. You'd then be dead because the vampire would kill you by then.

Another thing I think is interesting is the fact that the vampires can't just have a little blood from a human, they have to go all or nothing. If they only drink alittle, they'll turn the person into a vampire (which may not always be desired). If they drink it all, well the person will die.

My 25 year old brother has read ALL of the books and actually found them interesting. The most interesting thing he found was that Edward, the male vampire, cannot get too excited around Bella or he might kill her. If she cut her finger, if she kisses him too much, if she touches his weener, all these things could push Edward to get overly excited and lose his control and then BYE BYE Bella.

So while interesting ideas are there, it is sad it didn't translate well.


And no, I have not read any of the books, but I have seen the movies. (Saw it out of curiosity and now have to finish them all. I can't leave sagas uncompleted, it bothers me. >_<)

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

As for how this applies to the OP: sparkly vampires suck, but vampires being able to survive in sunlight is okay by me, because it's actually closer to the original myth.

I'm curious to know what you consider the original myth. Dracula is by no means the original myth. I think definitively identifying the original Vampire myth would be impossible.

However, the common myths of vampires throughout history agree that vampires feed during the night. Doubtless this is where the negative reaction to sunlight originated.

I would say either have negative consequences for exposure to sunlight or have no consequences at all. Sparkling just is not an option...

EDIT: BTW, like the name. Good reference.

I honestly did mean Bram Stoker's version when I said the original myth -- not because he created vampires, but because the modern mythos grew almost entirely out of his work. Medieval and earlier vampires were nothing like what we think of vampires being today, and nearly everything we think of with vampires today is either directly based off of Stoker's work, or deliberately subverting it -- as in the sparkling Twilight vampires.

Also, thanks for the compliment. Nice to see you got the reference -- Owyn is one of the most obscure characters from a cast of hundreds, if not thousands. I don't remember him even being mentioned past the first couple of books...

Edit: and if it wasn't clear in my earlier posts, I meant sparkling was closer to Bram Stoker's version because in Dracula, vampires were somewhat weakened by sunlight, but definitely not killed by it.

 

[Mechalemmiwinks]

From a scientific standpoint, I guess anything could evolve. From another scientific standpoint, I really can't link evolution to creatures made of fairy dust and angst.

 

[Rusty pumpkin]

... do you realize what that would mean? every vampire like thing would have to mention the sparkles... i am simply horrified by that thought. because no words can describe how horrendous this would be, i have found a video for it. warning, contains loud noise. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E29iOPSxF94

 

[FinalHeart95]

snip

I like to read it through Nerimon

They probably all want to kill each other for the simple fact that they have to deal with being in Twilight. So maybe Twilight is the only place where you can get around wanting to kill each other for love?

Nice video. Thanks.

 

[Fallen-Angel Risen-Demon]

They're fictional characters, based on folklore. The only thing all fictional, which would be all of them, vampires have in common is that they suck blood.

So, this whole discussion on 'TWILIGHT RUINED VAMPIRES' is absolutely ridiculous. There is nothing to ruin.

Yes but they ALL had a weakness to sun of some kind weather it was as serios as burning differd though. We hate shiny end of.

 

[DeathWyrmNexus]

I think that it was the author's attempt at being original and completely backfiring. I can see some good intentions in someone who is willing to "tweak" the vampire formula to make something original and unique, but Twilight was fucking ridiculous.

Sparkling?!?! Sparkling?!?! That isn't the least bit threatening or cool at all. Other things such as vampirism being a "venom" I can kinda get behind, but the angsty-ness, and the sparkles were fucking stupid.

So yeah, she "tried" evolving vampires, but ended up missing the point in the end.

Pretty much this. Even she admits that her vampires feel more like superheroes than monsters. Therein lies the rub. Monster, a cursed monster. There is pretty much no drawback to being a vampire in Meyer's universe, period.

If there is no drawback, there is no reason to angst over being a vampire. She could have gone the angle of immortality as a curse by itself... But didn't. No, nothing of the horror of watching every single thing die around you while you get to pristinely move on through th ages.

See, she took the Bite out of being a vampire. That is the problem. Evolution isn't always good. It is based on random mutation and chance. So... Sometimes you go from Nosferatu to Dracula and sometimes... You evolve into something that only provokes disgust and ridicule. Saying evolution doesn't anything a pass. We shouldn't grade things on a curve. If it sucks, it sucks.

/viewpoint

And for the record, I could have gotta behind the whole Vampirism is venom thing but I still personally prefer the idea of a conscious act of embracing rather than accidental biting. Makes it more of a violation.

 

[CaptainCrunch]

After they left the mythos of tribal custom, vampires became romantic figures - and have been ever since. Think about the book Dracula, (and I suppose the movie with Gary Oldman). While this doesn't always equate into romance in the sense of sexual interest, vampires are always presented with the sense of identity that all romantic figures have.

Yes, there are some vampires that are definitely just monsters, but generally "monster vamps" are portrayed as mindless zombies. (Blade, 30 Days of Night, Daybreakers) However, even these examples will include at least one classic romantic vampire as a main villain.

I can see where you're coming from with sparkle vampires as the next evolution of the 'human' vampire, but they've been 'human' all along. The vampire as a character is a spinoff of the original tragic hero concept, but falling as far as anyone possibly can - into a state of undeath.

Since sparkle vampires seem to be another step in the direction of "returning to the grace of God", I'm going to a go with a reluctant yes. They're annoyingly emo, and stupid as a bag of hammers, but I've never considered any vampire outside the mindless drones for the 'monster' label anyway.

 

[Lucifer dern]

vampires came from vlad the impaler. this dude shoved stakes up peoples asses and out there mouth for fun. he was a serusly nasty peice of work.
so how the fuck did we get from that to colledge fuck wads that sparcle in the fucking sunlight and fall in love with annoying girls with no personality at all...
a creature of darkness does not sparkle enless its from the blood of the ones hes killed reflecting the light.

 

[Azhrarn-101]

I'd say Twilight sort of missed the point. Vampirism is supposed to be a curse, not the greatest gift possible.

In my opinion, the best "evolution" of the Vampire would have to be Geralt Tarrant in the Coldfire trilogy by C.S. Friedman (Black Sun Rising, When True Night Falls and Crown of Shadows).

Human in appearance (quite handsome apparently), Immortal, allergic to sunlight but not terminally so, he has to deal with sunlight on more than one occasion, and generally survives, although severely drained of power and generally burned to a crisp.
He feeds on emotions (fear, hopelessness and so on), can feed on blood, but generally won't need to do so unless in dire circumstances. Fantastically powerful sorcerer as well.

Spoiler

He is one of the good guys in the books I might add (except in the first one)

.

 

[WitherVoice]

Vampires have been sensual if not sexual creatures since a little bit before Stoker wrote Dracula. The old-timey Slavic vampire myths conform more closely to modern zombie lore than modern-day vampires.

The sparkling was an excuse for explaining the "vampires haet sun" meme. There have been HEAPS of such explanations in various fiction. Explosive combustion, smouldering, rotting, poof into dust immediately, just keel over and die, get severe headaches, lose supernatural powers... the "sparkling" is not a distinguishing mark that makes Twilight vampires less vampire. Their presence in a rather tedious, very stock piece of literature does not make them less vampire either, just more boring.

Meyer has managed to capture the essence of how to write fiction that will appeal to teenage girls - and their soul sisters of more advanced age - to an almost ludicrous degree. I have read a fair bit of it, and it's not THAT bad. It's just not that GOOD either, and it's MUCH more popular than the quality of the work dictates. Which is an excellent explanation as to why so many people heap scorn and hatred upon this ultimately forgettable book series and its derivatives.

I'm fairly certain that if people just shut up with the hate, this whole phenomenon would go away faster. The moms of the world are already doing their utmost to destroy its popularity with young girls, by being fans of it themselves.

 

[Imat]

As for how this applies to the OP: sparkly vampires suck, but vampires being able to survive in sunlight is okay by me, because it's actually closer to the original myth.

I'm curious to know what you consider the original myth. Dracula is by no means the original myth. I think definitively identifying the original Vampire myth would be impossible.

However, the common myths of vampires throughout history agree that vampires feed during the night. Doubtless this is where the negative reaction to sunlight originated.

I would say either have negative consequences for exposure to sunlight or have no consequences at all. Sparkling just is not an option...

EDIT: BTW, like the name. Good reference.

I honestly did mean Bram Stoker's version when I said the original myth -- not because he created vampires, but because the modern mythos grew almost entirely out of his work. Medieval and earlier vampires were nothing like what we think of vampires being today, and nearly everything we think of with vampires today is either directly based off of Stoker's work, or deliberately subverting it -- as in the sparkling Twilight vampires.

Also, thanks for the compliment. Nice to see you got the reference -- Owyn is one of the most obscure characters from a cast of hundreds, if not thousands. I don't remember him even being mentioned past the first couple of books...

Edit: and if it wasn't clear in my earlier posts, I meant sparkling was closer to Bram Stoker's version because in Dracula, vampires were somewhat weakened by sunlight, but definitely not killed by it.

Still off-topic: Yeah, no, I thought I recognized the first name based solely on the last name, had to actually go back and make sure that was his first name.

on-topic: I would agree that the modern vampire, or at least the most common modern vampires, draw on Dracula quite a bit. But I prefer other versions, versions which do not sparkle...Such as the Oblivion/Morrowind vamp or the Majesty vamp.