What is/isn't a vampire to you?

[DoPo]

Dracula was stunned by light, it never damaged him.

No, he lost (most of?) his powers. During the day, he was just a random dude, but capable of very much being active and all that. Remember, there was that scene where they saw him outside during the day and he just looked as a creepy stalker guy - old wrinkly and ogling somebody (in a park, if I recall correctly).

 

[IvoryOasis]

Ooo this :3 But also, I love all the different takes on vampires. I think if every vampire was exactly the same in every movie that it would get old REALLY fast.

 

[Olrod]

I think Vampires should take the best of both worlds, Twilight-wise vs. everything-else wise.

When in direct sunlight they should EXPLODE INTO A SHOWER OF GLITTER!

 

[CrimsonBlaze]

I basically point to any vampire in the Twilight saga and say, "Definitely not that."

More specifically, there is a general checklist that classifies a monster as a vampire:
* They have fangs that are capable of piecing flesh and drinking blood.
* If a vampire bites a mammal or causes the mammal to ingest vampire blood, the mammal will become a vampire.
* Sunlight irritates their skin and can cause them to completely burn up into ashes.
* Traditionally, vampires can be killed by driving a wooden stake into their heart.

Edited for the point.

If these are must-haves, and without them there is no vampirism, Dracula was not a vampire. He shape-shifted his fangs. He had elongated (wolf-like, you say?) canines, but when he fed, he mysteriously left a snake bite behind. This isn't a simple error, it's pointed out.
Dracula didn't feed on people's blood to turn them. He ritualistically fed them his own blood.
Dracula was stunned by light, it never damaged him.
Dracula put up a hell of a fight, after being staked, and had to be dismembered with bowie knives.

I hate to defend Twilight, but people's reasons for hating it have nothing to do with its flaws. How are the Cold Ones not vampires? They are undead, and they drink blood, which are literally the only qualifications to being a vampire. Sparkling is creative license. Stupid creative license, but nothing that rules out vampirism.

...Not sure if you're criticizing my post or defending Twilight.

First off, I mentioned at the end of my list that these may or may not all be attributed to a single interpretation of what constitutes a vampire. Not all vampires turn to ash in sunlight, not all are affected by religious idols, and there may be various manners of disposing them. I was merely making a list of what has been commonly attributed to vampires as a species.

Secondly, most of what you described about Dracula are what I listed in my post about some common characteristics of a vampire.

Lastly, I don't pick on Twilight vampires because its inception was largely to attract the attention of a female predominant audience, but because I feel like the author cannot stick to a consistent archetype of what constitutes a vampire. One minute they have vague magical powers, the next they are sparkling in sunlight, and the next they're having sex and impregnating humans.

Think Alucard from Hellsing and all will be right in the world.

 

[DANEgerous]

To me any cursed being of power should be a split of having massive benefits and massive drawbacks. Vampires should be blatantly more powerful than a human in every regard but must have serious drawbacks such as not being able to consume normal food, death by sunlight or silver or by being sapped by such things.

Rather simple to be honest.