Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter produced by Tim Burton in the works

[Peacemaker]

Gotta question here - maybe somebody who read the book can answer. It isn't clear in the film how vampires are made. We see one made, and it looks to me like basically Adam bites them and they're turned. Did I miss something there?

[Kestrel]

^ I had the same question actually; the vampire lore in the movie seems slightly fuzzy in a couple places, and how people get turned is one of them. Of course, I have been watching Buffy lately, so more used to that being spelled out.

Also, as pointed out, it seems odd that at one point Henry couldn't touch Adam, but at the end they could beat on each other no problem. Maybe Adam was just lying and had Henry in some sort of thrall the first time? Afterall, Henry also had no problem throwing around Coats on the docks. Actually, it could be as simple as vampries can't kill other vampires but can wail on each other no problem - hence the silver knife Henry couldn't use.

However, despite these minor quibbles I thought it was very good overall. Ben Walker did a great job as Abe and I agree with the "young Liam Neeson" remarks. Would've liked to see more Mary Elizabeth Winstead, but that may just be me and she was good in what she got.

io9 is definitely full of shit, and despite the inherent silliness of the concept and the constant slam-bang action through the first half (the fighting-in-a-herd-of-horses was great) I really really like the story. I mean, if you're going to turn antebellum slaveholders into mythological monsters, vampires is pretty much a perfect fit. Pampered elite sustained on the blood of innocents clinging to old ways maintaining a crafted "romantic" air and holding masses in thrall? Yup.

SG-17 wrote:

---

I thought that it was obvious that Joshua Speed didn't betray Lincoln but in fact was a part of the plan to lure all of the vampires onto the train?

It was revealed a bit too quickly I think. I definitely caught it and thought it was a really awesome moment - especially with lying to Henry as well - but it might have flashed by a bit.

[Nightowl1701]

If a vampire wants to turn you, all he has to do is bite and inject a large dose of vampire venom, while taking just enough blood to sate it. If it wants to kill you quick, it drains you dry. If it wants you to die slow... well, the book explained it as the vampire giving his victim a "fool's dose" of venom - a small amount that kills you (in extreme agony) without turning you. (That's what happens twice *spoiler warning* in the film.)

Kestrel wrote:

---

Also, as pointed out, it seems odd that at one point Henry couldn't touch Adam, but at the end they could beat on each other no problem. Maybe Adam was just lying and had Henry in some sort of thrall the first time? Afterall, Henry also had no problem throwing around Coats on the docks.

The impression I got was you had to catch the other vampire off-guard to attack - otherwise you get Hypnotoad-eyes from your opponent and freeze. You can't just go charging at 'em.

Kestrel wrote:

---

Actually, it could be as simple as vampries can't kill other vampires but can wail on each other no problem - hence the silver knife Henry couldn't use.

This. The very weapons you need to kill your opponent are toxic/lethal to you too.

[DarKush]

stj wrote:

---

Joshua Speed jealous? Lincoln sharing a bed with Speed for two or three years when they were young lawyers makes that relationship a centerpiece of the gay Lincoln claim. What's the subtext in the movie on this?

There was no bed sharing in the movie. As for subtext to that effect, it did seem to me that Speed was not pleased with Lincoln's close relationship with Will. He was cool to Lincoln taking off from work to help Will with proving he was not a slave and later he had a disappointed on his face when Lincoln ignored him while introducing Will to Henry as his closest friend at Lincoln's wedding. And Speed did decide to give Lincoln a place to stay and a job when he first arrived in Springfield, which he didn't have to do.

[DarKush]

Gaith wrote:

---

No, people, listen to io9, and don't bother!

A film like Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter is fascinating because it takes our claim that we're "over slavery" at face value — since we've all gotten over it, and it's no longer an issue, let's make a silly-but-taking-itself-kinda-seriously action movie about it. And yet, somewhere along the way, the makers of Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter probably realized that Americans really haven't gotten over slavery and the Civil War as much as we like to claim. Hence the fact that this film is really choppily edited — you get the sense that key scenes were taken out at the last moment.

Anyone who wants to see quite how wrong and pointless vampire stories can get should definitely rent Abraham Lincoln at some point. If your friends do drag you to this film in the theater, though, a bit of advice — take a half-hour pee break when he becomes president. The movie literally drags to a halt once he's got the famous beard.

And in not bothering, also kill off any remaining life-signs of the rightfully comatose Pride and Prejudice and Zombies adaptation while you're at it!

I followed the link to the review. Thanks for posting it. It was an interesting interpretation of the film. Even though I-apparently?-liked the film more than the reviewer I do agree that we as a nation are not 'over' slavery, and also that the movie doesn't really go too deeply in addressing slavery. And I don't have a problem at all with the criticism that the movie trivialized slavery. Though I would say that it trivialized a lot of Lincoln's life as well, including his complicated views on race. To be honest I'm happy that they mentioned slavery at all and showed even a glimpse of it's brutality. I'm also glad there was no moral equivocation of the Confederacy in this film. I think there is a tendency to minimize slavery and to romanticize the Confederacy too much in pop culture. This film didn't do that. Sure it could've explored the horrors of slavery and antebellum politics more, but at the same time its a summer vampire film. I wasn't expecting much and got more than I thought I would.

[stj]

Thanks for the infor DarKush.

[Peacemaker]

Thanks Nightowl for explaining that. This is the sort of stuff that was lacking in the movie, IMO. It was little things like that which added up.

[Temis the Vorta]

Just skimming this thread now since it looks like we're getting into more spoilery specifics, but I thought it was worth quoting this insight from Deadline, re the movie's tepid box office:

...if original live-action movies like this and others keep not doing well, and especially those movies where the moguls have shown a willingness to take chances, then audiences can’t criticize Hollywood for an unimaginative diet of sequels and prequels and reboots. Because that’s all filmgoers seem to want and obviously to deserve.

As good a The Avengers was, there's a big lesson here for Hollywood in its success: it's based on a comic book AND it's a sequel of a number of movies (Iron Man, Thor, Captain America, Hulk). If moviegoers aren't sending Hollywood a message with their $$$ that "we want you guys to take risks," then why should they take risks? They'd be perfectly justified just doing nothing but sequels and movies based on comic books and sequels of movies based on comic books from here on out.

[Gaith]

Temis the Vorta wrote:

---

As good a The Avengers was, there's a big lesson here for Hollywood in its success: it's based on a comic book AND it's a sequel of a number of movies (Iron Man, Thor, Captain America, Hulk). If moviegoers aren't sending Hollywood a message with their $$$ that "we want you guys to take risks," then why should they take risks? They'd be perfectly justified just doing nothing but sequels and movies based on comic books and sequels of movies based on comic books from here on out.

Are you saying that Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter is a more original movie than Iron Man or Thor? Because if so, you must be joking: not only is it based on a fairly well-known book, how many vampire movies have there been in the past decade? Heck, even the period vampires angle isn't new: Van Helsing, Underworld 3, BloodRayne, etc. Oh, and don't forget that 1994 Brad Pitt movie that mixed vampires with the Old South.

If Hollywood is so concerned with giving people what they want, maybe they should aim for a higher Metacritic score than 40.

[the G-man]

If moviegoers aren't sending Hollywood a message with their $$$ that "we want you guys to take risks," then why should they take risks? They'd be perfectly justified just doing nothing but sequels and movies based on comic books and sequels of movies based on comic books from here on out.

Come on, now, how much of a "risk" is a vampire movie, produced by Tim Burton, based on a best-selling novel?

As for "originality," it's basicially a remake of "Blade," with Abe Lincoln in the lead.

The simple fact of the matter is that this movie isn't doing well in large part because it's getting bad reviews and bad word of mouth, not because it's too "original" or "risky."

[Temis the Vorta]

I've been reading Iron Man and Thor since before I even knew how to read, so no, those don't sound very original to me.

A movie about a colorful superhero character is mainstream now. Taking the superhero trope and placing it in a historical context is more risky than placing it in a modern context, simply because it's not the expected thing.

Hollywood doesn't do risky concepts. But when they try something that isn't a sequel, or a superhero comic book movie (ie, the most expected thing), they get smacked down. That's not going to send a message to get more risky. Just the opposite - that any inkling of risk, however small, is going to be punished.

[the G-man]

Temis the Vorta wrote:

---

I've been reading Iron Man and Thor since before I even knew how to read, so no, those don't sound very original to me

First off, your familiarity with a particular subject matter is largely irrelevant to whether its original or not.

Second, the first Iron Man was considered pretty risky. You had a second-string character, a director known for comedies and an actor known for indie films, TV and substance abuse issues. Similarly, Thor was about a second string character set in a world that looked like Dino DiLaurentis' Flash Gordon, with an unknown star and a director known for historical dramas and indie films.

And, finally, you're going to argue that vampire movies aren't mainstream? They've been mainstream since at least the 1930s when Bela Lugosi first told us he never drinks wine.

[Mr. Adventure]

This is a pretty solid flick, good action and the historical setting works well. Plus, Lyle the Intern!

[Dorian Thompson]

Saw it today. I found it extremely enjoyable and Ben Walker very charming and quirky in the lead role. The ending made me wistful as Abe hurried off to the theater, leaving Henry behind. This got bad word of mouth? From whom? Transformers fans?

[Kestrel]

Gaith wrote:

---

Are you saying that Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter is a more original movie than Iron Man or Thor? Because if so, you must be joking: not only is it based on a fairly well-known book, how many vampire movies have there been in the past decade? Heck, even the period vampires angle isn't new: Van Helsing, Underworld 3, BloodRayne, etc. Oh, and don't forget that 1994 Brad Pitt movie that mixed vampires with the Old South.

And comic books have been around for how long? And there've been regular superhero movies since 2000.

Gaith wrote:

---

If Hollywood is so concerned with giving people what they want, maybe they should aim for a higher Metacritic score than 40.

Because the Transformers movies were such abject failures...