But vampire lore is centuries older than motion pictures.
Which I explicitly
stated, twice. The point being that restricting instrinic properties of vampires in fiction to folklore is pretty limiting.
Of course you don't mean vampire works that are centuries older than motion pictures. Or even a decade older than motion pictures (though a couple decades older than Nosferatu), you basically just mean Bram Stoker's Dracula
, apparently. And also:
"Intrinsic" means essential, part of the fundamental nature of a thing. If it were intrinsic, then it would be impossible to tell a vampire story without it.
Then the only intrinsic
part of the vampire idea is that they're called vampires (if that). They don't need to suck blood, be undead, have the ability to change into wolves or climb walls (to cite Bram Stoker), they just need to be identified as vampires.
...otherwise they're just beings similar to vampires (like the 'salt vampire' in "The Man Trap") or basically
vampires given a different name.
And while this is basically true - a writer can use a word of an unreal thing, like a vampire or an ogre or whatever, to mean whatever he wants it to mean in the context of his story - it's not that helpful in defining what we usually mean when we talk about vampires, and what we may expect from a vampire story.