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

[Not G. Ivingname]

Before you flame, hear me out. Yes, I think Twilight is a blight on the world that should of come to be. However, I been thinking that the sparkle vampires is just the grim result of the mythos of vampires. Look back at what vampires was like.

Spoiler: This is what they were like

Nosferatu, 1922.

Vampires were monsters, pale, weird, dangerous, and scary. That thing doesn't even begin to look human. This is what was in mind when Dracula was written, this is what vampires looked like until...

Spoiler: the Movie Dracula

Still scary, but more dashing I guess, could pass for a human. For the most part vampires stayed like this. However, the mythos was slowly dropped from here. Some tales said that cow blood is just as good as human blood. Vampires stopped being pale, stopped wearing capes. The wolf transformations just are forgotten, bat transformations have been more or less phased out. Teeth became retractable so humans don't notice. The ugly vampires at times appear, like in Buffy or in Blade, but more often they are either really powerful/old vamps or could make themselves look like regular humans. Some times the death by sun either required some decent amount of exposure, could be circumvented with technology or simple became an irritation.

Keep going on this trend of more human vampires with the mythos steadily dieing... does the sparkle vampire seam like it is to far out of reach? It is sad that we reached this point, and vampires show signs of going back to the old days with "Daybreakers," but there denying that the huge pile of money that anything Twilight related brings means that... sadly, Sparkle vampires are here to stay.

 

[Mr. Grey]

I like how The Gates are handling it. Just dab on a lot of sunscreen lotion and you're good to go.

No really, that's how they handle it... and I like it.

As for sparkly vampires, I've already said that if you're against sparkly vampires you're against evolution. The concept of which is that they act like Venus fly traps and we're the flies. They've literally adapted themselves to be the perfect predators. Hell, there are vampires out that that actually act like vampires should. And they're in greater numbers. It's just the Cullen Family have werewolves on their side for some stupid reason that doesn't equate to anything logical. So naturally they're going to get a lot of leeway.

The way the story goes is atrocious, but some of the ideas aren't actually that bad. They're just horribly executed.

 

[MrNickster]

Wait, do you mean that when Bram Stoker was writting Dracula, he was trying to make The Count look like a monster? Cause I've read the book and Dracula is described as being a normal looking man with irregularly pointed ears, red lips and slightly longer canines. He even grows a beard at one point.

But back on topic. Vampires might want to lure humans by looking and behaving like them, hence the 'phasing out' of some of their characteristics (In my mind, vampires will always have the power to turn into bats), but sparkling like a disco ball does anything but look human-it defeats the whole luring purpose. Let the Twilight vampires be a weird, one off re-imagining of Vampire mythos.

 

[Toaster Hunter]

I think of vampires as a threat to humans. I can't comprehend why they would be an object of desire. The whole point of vampires is that they are something to avoid or destroy, not have sex with. The details (weakness to sunlight, appearance, etc) is open to interpretation, but they had better be viewing humans as a food source and little else. They are superior to us an love it, not angst about it.

For some reason, though, True Blood doesn't bother me. I guess its because even the nice ones are violent at times.

 

[zombiejoe]

Vampo Novis...KILL THE SPARKLY ONES!

*guess the reference, I dare you*

 

[Enigma6667]

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.

 

[Rednog]

My problem with the whole twilight sparkle is that it eliminates one of the flaws of what a vampire is. The whole point of being a monster is that it isn't all fun and games, seriously if someone came up to you and was like super strength and speed and you don't age all you have to do is feed on humans occasionally, I'm sure a good deal of people would readily accept. Whereas other adaptations being a vampire means you lose a significant portion of yourself and have a trade off of new pros and cons.
I still think the World of Darkness has the best/ most believable adaptation for a modern world (at least the core clans).

 

[Meemaimoh]

I honestly have no problem with the sparkly vampires. When I read it for the first time, I barely even noticed. I was too busy laughing at everything else in the scene, especially the way that kissing Edward was so sensuously described as "like kissing a statue". Mmmmmm.

In the hands of almost any other writer, the concept could have been okay. Odd, but okay. But the fact is that it was Meyer's idea, and it's so much easier and more lighthearted to mock sparkly skin than a horribly abusive boyfriend. Sparkly vampires have thus become the best "silly" reference to Twilight.

I do have to concede that Meyer was clever in setting the whole thing where she did, though. The rainiest city in the US? Pretty good thinking. (Mind you, I'm taking the book at its word that this is the case. Is it?)

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Wait, do you mean that when Bram Stoker was writting Dracula, he was trying to make The Count look like a monster? Cause I've read the book and Dracula is described as being a normal looking man with irregularly pointed ears, red lips and slightly longer canines. He even grows a beard at one point.

In addition to this, Dracula was able to survive in sunlight just fine -- he was weakened to something approaching normal human abilities, but that was it. As a matter of fact, most of today's vampire mythos has nothing to do with Bram Stoker's version, and everything to do with what was possible on film before CGI made almost anything possible. In Dracula, vampires turned into wolves -- not bats. They were also able to stretch themselves out in order to go through small cracks, such as the ones between doors and walls. There's also the fact that the ending of that book was absolutely epic -- it's one of the few things that nobody can say the term is being misused on. Unfortunately, I have yet to see a movie version actually follow the end of the book. It was so violent and awesome that it would make a cool Castlevania ending.

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.

 

[Layz92]

I just don't like the new breed of vampires because they are overpowered. As if minmax your vampires. They lost all mystique with twilight. They just sacrificed all the things that made vampires cool like bat transformations etc in favour of wolverine. Think about it, twilight vampires are essentially wolverine. At least Sergei Lukyanenko played his vampires closer to true vampirism.

 

[eggy32]

I really don't like the sparkly vampires. It doesn't make sense to say that they're trying to lure humans with sparkles, because honetly that would just make people think you're a creep.
I like the vampires in Soul Reaver though. They are pretty human apart from their claws and teeth and wings, which are hidden most of the time.

 

[CobraX]

Sprakling makes the vampire funny and it's not creepy or scary like Vampires are supposed to be. A Old Yet Strong Man in a suit and black cape with fangs who can transform into a bat (sometimes other things too) and who strikes from the shadows is scary. A pale emo kid who's strong and sprakles in the light is laughable.

The whole point of Vampires is that their scary monsters that look human. Once it get's to the point where their just humans with super strength and sprakle powers, They are no longer Vampires as they are no longer monsters and are no longer scary.

 

[Spinozaad]

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.

 

[PoliceBox63]

How the hell is sparkling evolution? In what way did sparkling benefit vampirekind for it to emerge as a common trait?

 

[cuddly_tomato]

*Golf claps op*

Well said! And I agree! Vampires should be like Nosferato, otherworldly, bestial but intelligent, not fucking metrosexuals.

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.

Nooo! Vampires are an important part of the whole darkness-within gothiness kind of thing which a lot of teens go through when they are trying on the various masks to see which is the most comfortable. They need to be different in every way from the pretty-boy testosteronely-challenged "men" from (for example) deoderant commercials. Filling the vampire ethos with these... ladylike males is destroying a small but important part of our mythological heritage.

 

[Valksy]

Is Twilight not Meyer's guilty little masturbatory tale where she stars as "Bella" and is wanted and desired by the most beautiful and perfect? (I would consider this a "MarySue", where the writer injects themselves into the story).

Forget the sparkly skin or the broody emo bullshit. Why, if you were sort of immortal, or at least long-lived, would you bother hanging out at High School if not to eat the bloody students?

 

[Arawn.Chernobog]

Bram Stoker's Dracula (the origin story of all vampire mythos, not counting folk tales) was supposed to be an analogy, see if you can guess what it was about:

A wealthy count, feared and respected by the peasants, is a suave individual that attracts people towards him (through fear or his luxurious lifestyle) only to suck their blood and thus turn them into non-human monsters as well

So, a high class individual is a monster that feeds off the blood of seduced lower classes, occasionally corrupting a few into "monsters" as well. =\= I wanna scratch my minge to sparkle-pires.

 

[Deacon Cole]

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

That will depend on whether or not anyone else uses sparkle girlwank vampires ever again.

 

[GrinningManiac]

Sparkling aside, I was annoyed at how they were basically God Mode people, and they didn't even have to suck blood or stay out of sunlight

Youthful
Immortal
Good-Looking (allegedly)
Powerful
Psychic powers
Superhuman senses and capabilities
Don't have to kill humans
No real weaknesses
Don't bleed
Don't get cold/warm
Don't have to breath
Ze Garlic, It Does Nothing

And then you have all that bull about Ickle' Eddie "not wanting to bring this CURSE upon Belle"

I mean, the only downside I can see is that he'd have to watch his human friends and loves grow old and die, but if he VAMPIRISED Belle, that problem's sorted