Vampires?

[Jetfire]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vampire

^ The wiki rundown on Vampires.

It seems to me that Vampires today are like Superman...speed, strength, superhearing, almost invinsible, I don't recall seeing them fly or shoot fire from the eyes...I bet that will be next.

My questions for you are: What abilities if any should a vampire possess & What vulnerabilites should they have?

Plus please mention your favorite portrayal of vampires in TV, Movies & Books.

 

[FluffyUnbound]

I too think modern vampires are overpowered.

I think a vampire's primary powers should be mental or intangible - they should be able to fascinate or mentally dazzle people with weaker minds [particularly those of the gender opposite that of that vampire]; they should be able to inspire fear or madness. They should be physically strong enough to overpower a victim, but they should not be the Incredible Hulk. And they should be able to transform into bats or some other "familiar" animal. But that's it.

 

[FluffyUnbound]

Oh, for vulnerability, sunlight and fire should pretty much be it. I never bought the stake through the heart thing.

 

[RoJoHen]

Oh, for vulnerability, sunlight and fire should pretty much be it. I never bought the stake through the heart thing.

What about decapitation?

 

[Checkmate]

Yeah, they've become too comic booky as of late.

Bram Stoker's Dracula was awesome not because of his supernatural abilities, but because of his charisma and personal power. An entire country feared him not because he could flip a carriage as an afterthought, but because he was the ultimate stalker and predator. Skulking in the dark of night, entrancing and seducing his prey, and feasting upon them until he's had his fill.

That's the only real requirement for a vampire. SupermanLite... not so much.

 

[FluffyUnbound]

Oh, for vulnerability, sunlight and fire should pretty much be it. I never bought the stake through the heart thing.

What about decapitation?

Actually, I think that dismemberment in general should not work but should merely render the vampire harmless...until the sequel starts, and the body parts can somehow get together again, and the vampire comes back.

 

[Jetfire]

I think vampire charms, being slightly stronger than humans, animal like senses, levitation(Not flying), teleporting(like Nightcrawler) and the whole creating fog is ok.

things that can harm or kill...Sunlight, decapitation, fire.

As long as I am adding my own stuff...vampires cannot cross moving water(without the use of a bridge or boat. Vampires have to avoid mirrors because they will entrance themselves.

 

[The Boy Who Cried Worf]

I think what really damages it is when a vampire's traditional weaknesses are played with. While none of us would want to meet a vampire we all know what to do if we see one. Get out the garlic, cross out fingers, put silver bullets in the 45. You can't make vampires too powerful or too immune because then it begs the question if the are so indestructible what has held them in check for so long. They should have enslaved the whole human race centuries ago.

 

[Jetfire]

I really don't like vampires getting rings and stuff so they can go out in the day...or vampires being able to go out in the day period.

 

[MeanJoePhaser]

Teleport?

Really? Too much power IMHO.

I think they should go by historical legends, some vampires (or similar creatures, if you will) had varying abilities and weakeness. But fiction seems lump them as one "race".

Also, power depends on how much the consume. Dracula drained a whole boat crew and could shape shift afterward. I might buy that to some degree (man-bat as opposed to a tiny bat)

Reminds, me some lore says vampire grow older in appearance without fresh blood (Bram Stoker's Darcula, Once Bitten)...modern versions never age past when they were turned.

However, walking in daylight is too much power, as Dark Journey said above, they could rule humanity if they could do that.

This memory erasing/manipulating/glamouring thing I'm iffy on. Their victims, yeah. Everyone they meet...not sure. A TRUE BLOOD vamp used this power to trick a mortal into inviting him in their house. That seemed like cheating.

The whole"have to invited into a home" thing is something modern versions keep, yet I wasn't familiar with that part of the myth until I saw Lost Boys.

Superspeed is ridiculous. I mean, they keep that but dump the "no reflection" (which is dumpable, I agree) and "garlic doesn't work"?

Decapititing is what you do after the staking, to ensure they do not return. Buring the corpse would work, too.

 

[Lindley]

Actually, I think that dismemberment in general should not work but should merely render the vampire harmless...until the sequel starts, and the body parts can somehow get together again, and the vampire comes back.

In all seriousness, I think for now I favor the presentation of The Dresden Files----that there are different types of vampires, each with their own strengths and weaknesses, and they're all essentially different species except for their feeding-on-humans thing. Red Court do the blood thing, White Court feed on sexual energy, Black Court are allergic to garlic, etc.

 

[Australis]

I'd like to see it rolled back. Checkmate's description on Dracula was pretty much what I'd be looking for.

 

[Unicron]

I tend to think they're generally not too overpowered looking at some of the traditional weaknesses - fire, decapitation, staking (which in some cases is only valid as long as they stay staked - pull it out of the heart, and they can heal), daylight (though I think perhaps times like dusk or cloudy days are okay.)

I don't really have a problem with advantages like superior strength, needing an invitation, or charming; I think it's good that these vary by individuals, but they also reflect for me that the vampire isn't the person they once were. One thing I dislike is the idea that a bitten person isn't a true vampire unless they bite someone themselves, because that's usually just a plot crutch to keep a protagonist from going bad. Shapeshifting isn't too bad either, so long as it's limited (a number of versions I've seen do so, to forms like a bat, wolf, or mist).

 

[FluffyUnbound]

I think a fundamental question has to be answered first, before a lot of these questions can be addressed:

Are we talking about vampires as an epidemiological or a supernatural phenomenon?

The powers and limits that make sense if we're talking about human beings who have a disease are different from the ones that make sense if we're talking about beings that fit into a certain religious/supernatural context.

Dracula could be harmed by holy water or a crucifix. Obviously that makes no sense if vampirism is just a disease.

 

[Lapis Exilis]

Forget superstrength and what not, I'm way over the emo vampires. Disease or supernatural curse, vampires should not retain their humanity. Even while reading Interview with the Vampire (more or less the book that started the whole thing), I quickly tired of Louis' incessant navel-gazing torment over his vampiric nature being in conflict with his humanity. We get it - you're tortured and romantic, blah, blha, blah.

To me the whole point of vampires is that they are horrible undead creatures who may appear seductive for a moment so they can get close, until their cold, decaying breath reveals the truth. I don't get the whole romanticized sexual appeal of vampires. They're monsters.

 

[Jetfire]

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

 

[The Boy Who Cried Worf]

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.)

 

[Jetfire]

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.

Like zombies but thinking more?

This topic is now giving me a headache.