Iggy Horror THread VII: Do Modern INterpretations Do a Disservice to the Vampire Myt

[Martin]

His main weakness is looking like a retard and being able to be killed by Josh fucking Harnett.

[Timothy225]

To focus on the vampires/zombies element Iggy mentioned, there's been evidence of that as far back as the Blind Dead flicks or earlier (in the first film of that series, the Knights Templar are vampires, though they look and move like zombies. In the second film - Return of the Blind Dead - they are destroyed by sunlight. By the time of the third film, Ghost Galleon, they're dismembering their victims and eating flesh like a zombie does).

I think with the advent of blood-borne diseases like AIDS, etc. plus the realization that real-life vampiric tendencies are often physical maladies proven by science (photosensitivity, porphyria, and so on), science has pushed out a lot of the supernatural feel of vampires (you seldom see them turn into bats or mist anymore, right?), which makes books like The Strain seem more realistic. More's the pity, and it takes part of the fun out of the myth, too.

I'd also argue that the supernatural elements are also more expensive for modern moviemakers to put into production - vampires are pretty cheap to make when you come right down to it. Slap on fangs and contact lenses, maybe a latex appliance if you've got the bucks, and go to town. You start running into production costs when you have to CGI in a bat transformation, for example, so that part of the myth gets jettisoned. Granted, stuff like From Dusk til Dawn had that, true, but the modern popular vampire interpretations don't really touch on it (haven't seen too many bats in True Blood, and unless you're playing baseball with the Cullens, bats are nonexistant in Twilight).

[V]

His main weakness is looking like a retard and being able to be killed by Josh fucking Harnett.

There will be no disrespect to Danny Huston while I am here.

Ever.

[IggytheBorg]

I think with the advent of blood-borne diseases like AIDS, etc. plus the realization that real-life vampiric tendencies are often physical maladies proven by science (photosensitivity, porphyria, and so on), science has pushed out a lot of the supernatural feel of vampires (you seldom see them turn into bats or mist anymore, right?), which makes books like The Strain seem more realistic. More's the pity, and it takes part of the fun out of the myth, too.

That's what they want you to think.

I just finished The Strain (I'll post my thoughts in the Book Nook thread shortly), and re-read some of the review snippets at the beginnning of the book; they seem to be saying the whole disease aspect makes the book terrifying on another level.. I still say we already had that done to death in zombie books.

[Timothy225]

From the way you described it, Iggy, I'm inclined to agree.

I'd read something awhile back where tuberculosis in the 19th century was considered a "chic" disease to have. The symptoms included pale skin, weakness, flush cheeks, which at the time was also considered a very desirable look amongst the ladies of the time (think "heroin chic"). Some cases had the afflicted spitting up bits of blood on their lips - very similar to the descriptions given to the victims in Stoker's Dracula, as well as some works by Shelley.

The parallels twixt vampirism and zombie plagues are strong, but I have to agree with you that disease borne stuff should really be kept in the zombie themed stuff. Vampires are one of the few remaining areas were supernatural stuff is a given, or at least used to be.

[IggytheBorg]

Personally, I think the disease aspect CAN add to a vampire novel, but I like the idea of the agents spreading the pathogen - the subordinate vampires themselves - to have some kind of evil, malevolent intelligence, and not be mindless meatbags spreading the disease thru sheer, animal or viral instinct like zombies do. Not only does this, IMO, make it more terrifying (or at least, a different kind of terrifying) in that the "germs" are strategizing how best to coordinate their efforts and maximize speed of spread, and stealth; it also just plain differentiates it from the zombie novel. IMO, and I know I can't stop pimping this book, this concept was done extremely well in Robert McCammon's "They Thirst". I strongly suggest you read that if you haven't already. And FWIW, I've read a ton of zombie novels passed off to me by my brother, and some of them have had central zombie intelligences controlling their lesser brethren (David Wellington's "Monster" trilogy leaps to mind). So the converse has been done already. But strangely, while I don't like making vamps into zombies, I really LIKED the smart zombie spin in some of these books (like "The Rising" and "Wet Work"). My guess would be that making normally stupid zombies smarter ADDS something to them. Making vampires dumb & less evil. . . well, all that does is take something away IMO.

But I'm sure Del Toro & Hogan are hearing gripes like this, and laughing all the way to the Bank. With some of my money in their pockets. And more to follow.

[Captain Russ]

After seeing that first NU Fright Night trailer, I'm thinking the answer is "yes."

[B_Metal]

You know I was all set to poop on that but the trailer actually has me interested.

[Captain Russ]

Phasers still set to poop.

Until Pete Vincent shows up, always bet on black. Stool.