|
|
View Poll Results: Which era of vampire movies do you prefer?
|
|
Black and white classic oldies
|
  
|
7 |
35.00% |
|
1960s and 1970s remakes
|
  
|
1 |
5.00% |
|
Modern day remakes
|
  
|
9 |
45.00% |
|
Other (please state below)
|
  
|
3 |
15.00% |
 |
|

06-19-2008, 12:28 PM
|
|
Pupil
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: North East UK
Posts: 121
Credits: 663
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by I Am
Very, very well put. As a vampire who grew up in the 1930's, and whose interest was sparked by the 1950's Hammer Dracula films, it is nice to see someone who can appreciate the older films for what they are in comparison to the entire genre, rather than what they aren't in comparison to Interview with the Vampire, or Underworld.
I voted for the black and white oldies, for once I saw the Hammer films, I managed to see the Lugosi Dracula, as well as the superb Carmilla adaptation simply called "Vampyr," which I think got a special DVD release not long ago. And of course, there is the superb Nosferatu, as well as London After Midnight, which, by the way, I have seen in it's entirety.
Of course, I have a soft spot for Christopher Lee's portrayal of Dracula, as I cannot think of anyone outside Boris Karloff who could say so much without opening his mouth. Of course, when he did speak, it made sense; well, most of the time.
The 1980's had some great films for vampires in my opinion, particularly The Lost Boys, Fright Night, and Near Dark. These three films were great, but I particularly enjoyed Near Dark. It seemed to take itself more seriously than the other two for some reason.
As for modern films, I can enjoy them. Interview with the Vampire was a great film in itself, however I feel that it has contributed to a watering down of the genre, and where vampires were once glorious creatures of darkness, and death, and decay, they are now hopeless romantics with postmortem depression. Of course, it isn't just the film, but all of Anne Rice's vampire franchise. Of course, I do not pin the blame all on her. I think that those who follow in her footsteps are just as much, if not more to blame for this. I was glad to see 30 Days of Night, a film I really enjoyed, bring the vampire somewhat closer to it's roots. Sadly, many of those who have grown accustomed to the Casanova-type vampire did not understand this film, and did not enjoy it.
Why do I, a vampire, prefer the more monstrous depiction? Because, as I've said before, not only is it, to me, more entertaining, but it distances the real vampires from the ones people think of when they hear the word. It is easier to blend in with normal people when everyone is looking for a monster, rather than someone much more like them.
EDIT: I'd like to add that the special effects methods in a film do not make the film. Look at Bram Stoker's Dracula. This film used very old methods that hadn't been seen since the black and white films of old, and they accomplished more than any CGI I've seen in any recent vampire film. Those effects were dated, yes, but at the same time, they were something that CGI cannot be: sincere.
|
I am so glad you made that point about Special Effects, it was something I tried to get across in my post but I should perhaps have said 'CGI and SFX are the tools of over-priced modern film making and creates lazy actors and screenwriters'.
I find your comment about the 'monstrous' depiction of vampires interesting as in many ways I agree. If you notice male vampires are now brooding sexual pitied beings who are only truly monstrous when they have to be, yet the females are 'vampish' as in predatory, sexual and corruptive. A softening of the 'atypical'.
I feel that sometimes its nice to have had a softening, or romanticising, of the genre as it makes peoples perceptions move towards tolerance, however why should it be something that (along with many other items) has to be explained and infused with modern pop-culture?
Let the monstrous, predatory and evil images reign, since afterall fiction is what its meant to be.
One element of course which has been missing in modern films is the essence of vampires, in the lyrical sence, the focus has been on the physical form rather than the psychological impact of the very terminology Vamp/Vampyr/Vampire has within cultures past and present to cause fear, violence, justification for action and other associated metaphors.
I would like to see more of that really, maybe i shall dig out some old old old script material I have on floppy disk 
__________________
Vix
"Now, you must go on a bit longer as a creature of this earth. Only until we have left behind those who would destroy us"
|

06-19-2008, 09:06 PM
|
|
Fledgeling
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2008
Age: 90
Posts: 53
Credits: 226
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Youripper
I am so glad you made that point about Special Effects, it was something I tried to get across in my post but I should perhaps have said 'CGI and SFX are the tools of over-priced modern film making and creates lazy actors and screenwriters'.
I find your comment about the 'monstrous' depiction of vampires interesting as in many ways I agree. If you notice male vampires are now brooding sexual pitied beings who are only truly monstrous when they have to be, yet the females are 'vampish' as in predatory, sexual and corruptive. A softening of the 'atypical'.
I feel that sometimes its nice to have had a softening, or romanticising, of the genre as it makes peoples perceptions move towards tolerance, however why should it be something that (along with many other items) has to be explained and infused with modern pop-culture?
Let the monstrous, predatory and evil images reign, since afterall fiction is what its meant to be.
One element of course which has been missing in modern films is the essence of vampires, in the lyrical sence, the focus has been on the physical form rather than the psychological impact of the very terminology Vamp/Vampyr/Vampire has within cultures past and present to cause fear, violence, justification for action and other associated metaphors.
I would like to see more of that really, maybe i shall dig out some old old old script material I have on floppy disk 
|
I agree. For hundreds of years, if not longer, vampires were monsters, plague bringers; decaying leeches with arms and legs. It was not until too recently that this image has completely changed, so it is with reluctance that I call the modern depiction "vampires" at all. Bram Stoker's Dracula was a good balance, if you ask me. Yes, there was the romance between he and Mina, but it wasn't forced, it wasn't something that didn't make sense. And besides, he was selfish throughout the whole film, the only exception being with Mina in a couple of scenes. Monsters are not made by deeds, but in the selfishness of them. And you don't get much more selfish than relying on stealing the life force of others to survive (before I offend any other real vampires here, take note of the word "stealing" in that sentence).
I prefer the true vampire, the stealer of life, the bearer of the plague, who sleeps in the grave. I prefer the blood thief, the immortal with a glorious past, and a future spent sleeping under maggots, worms, and earth. I prefer the Nosferatu of old. Some call it cliche. I call it tradition.
|

06-19-2008, 09:59 PM
|
|
Pupil
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: North East UK
Posts: 121
Credits: 663
|
|
*nods*
I agree with respect to Bram Stoker's original novel, Dracula comes across as a polite, accomodating gentleman and it is not until later that his demon side is revealed. The power of the menace is from his normality and that switch. He doesn't need to me a heart bleeding romantic.
I do however feel that the romantic element of the genre has caused misconceptions even if, on occasion, it can be a nice change to see a different interpretation on something.
But to remove the beast is to remove the natural fear of the traditional legend from our society - e.g. el chubacabra and the Vampyr in the Americas and Eastern Europe/Asia passed between young and old, even today.
How can something in its romantic and heart worn interpretation when in societies eyes it isn't a human but a monster? We should live with the fiction and historical tradition to keep it alive.

__________________
Vix
"Now, you must go on a bit longer as a creature of this earth. Only until we have left behind those who would destroy us"
|
 |
|
| Thread Tools |
|
|
| Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 07:23 PM.
|