Vampires?

I like the religious/supernatural vampire...that is more what I was thinking when I came up with this thread.

[Rageforthemachine]

Jetfire wrote:

---

I like the religious/supernatural vampire...that is more what I was thinking when I came up with this thread.

Vampires should always be considered undead creatures. Anything else is just wrong.

[Kegg]

Their strengths and weaknesses should be dicated by the story a film/TV series/book is intending to tell.

What? I think there's room for all sorts, even if all sorts interest me to varying degrees (I am usually most partial to monstrous Nosferatu vampires). Superpowered vampires, weak vampires, whatever - just as Let The Right One In and Shadows of a Vampire are fundamentally different films, so too do their vampires have precious little in common.

It's worth noting, though, that some things we consider classically vampirish, well, aren't - Bram Stoker's Dracula was well able to travel about in daylight, it's just that he got his awesome vampire powers when the sun went down.

It was the Murnau film which gave us vampires which actually burned up in the sunlight and were corpses by day.

As far as emo vampires go, well, I like ghoulishly inhuman ones but it's also possible to get some drama and humanity out of a vampire. One turns back to Shadows of a Vampire, which is far from a sympathetic portrayal of a vampire but Max Schreck does have his more poignant moments, what with Tichonius and such. Being an aged, lonely immortal sucks, eh? (The aforesaid Swedish film? Also rather dramatic and human and personal with some sex element regarding its vampires.)

Dark Journey wrote:

---

Vampires should always be considered undead creatures. Anything else is just wrong.

Like zombies but thinking more?

This topic is now giving me a headache.