Thread: Vampire: "Classic" vs "Modern". Which do you prefer, and why?

Tweet

Originally Posted by Allen H

As far as vampires go....anyone remember Radu from the Subspecies movies?

Oh yes I dooooooooo........................

So delightfully over the top. But, pretty classic. You got to love Radu

Yeah he is a great archetype- the kind of vamp that does not blend in.

Originally Posted by hollow

Yep. I like the whole sun goes down, out they come vampire aspect...no real vampire would eat Chinese food!

Only Werewolves of London eat Chinese.

The "Classic" vampire is the top preditor in my view. All the new vampires lack all the traditional powers. Vampires don't walk in day light. They don't sparkle. They don't wear sunglasses because hey man it is night. They can disapear in fog or mist. They can change into bat or wolves. They can control minds. They can't come in unless invited. They sleep in coffins and drink blood. All the new crap is just insulting to the classic idea of a rotting courps that must feed on the living to servive. They live in castles or mansions, have a minion that does the masters will. They are smart and cunning and fabulously wealthy. As for Zombies...Zambies don't run.

Originally Posted by Allen H

As far as vampires go....anyone remember Radu from the Subspecies movies?

Of course. Who could forget that drooling, wheezing, undead weirdo?

Hey all.. Been lurking for several weeks, but first time poster.. This topic grabbed my attention...

Originally Posted by savagehaunter

The "Classic" vampire is the top preditor in my view. All the new vampires lack all the traditional powers. Vampires don't walk in day light. They don't sparkle. They don't wear sunglasses because hey man it is night. They can disapear in fog or mist. They can change into bat or wolves. They can control minds. They can't come in unless invited. They sleep in coffins and drink blood. All the new crap is just insulting to the classic idea of a rotting courps that must feed on the living to servive. They live in castles or mansions, have a minion that does the masters will. They are smart and cunning and fabulously wealthy. As for Zombies...Zambies don't run.

But Savagehaunter, if you consider Bram Stoker's vampire as "Classic" as many others do, then you will recall that Dracula (which Gary Oldman was fan-freakin-tastic as Drac) states that he is quite fond of sun light, and he is seen outside in the day. Sure 80% of vamp movies, they don't like sun light, but i don't let it bother me if a particuler "version" or movie makes them day-walkers...

Speaking of Day-walkers, I personally likes the take that the Blade Trilogy took, in the sense that, I can buy the idea that a baby would retain some humanity if born to a just biten mother who has not yet turned. And I like how the non-pure blood, newer vampires are all "modern", but the "Ancients" were still a little more old school, with cloaks and robes and long nails (referring to the father in the second movie). In the third one, i could have done without the "original vampire" getting so trendy, but i like how he had that carnal vampire ability to change into a beast-like vampire too.. So the Blade Trilogy, imh, captured a little aspect of all other vampire sources, whether anyone else liked them or not, i did.


As for zombies, I enjoy a good zombie flick (and yes, the Walking Dead series is awesome) Zombieland awesome, and the 28 Days Later and 28 Weeks Later movies were good, i don't mind fast zombies... But what makes zombies so terrible are the sheer numbers and relentless stamina and pursuit, as illustrated here:

I think you guys will have to come to terms with today's vampires. Just like how zombies changed, vampires will too and there's nothing you can do about it. Btw, why does everyone pick on Twilight but seem to ignore Vampire Diaries and True Blood? Those feature pretty much the same or similar vampires. Also Look at Angel and Spike from Buffy. Sure they're all hardcore but then they get all flustered and mushy when it comes to Buffy. Not exactly vampiric personalities if you ask me. I mean Angel turns into a horrible monster but only if he experiences true love and that is why he doesn't let himself love anyone. If Buffy TVS had never existed and Angel was a character on Twilight with the same conflictions you guys would be joking on him the most.

Originally Posted by WeirdRob

I think you guys will have to come to terms with today's vampires. Just like how zombies changed, vampires will too and there's nothing you can do about it. Btw, why does everyone pick on Twilight but seem to ignore Vampire Diaries and True Blood? Those feature pretty much the same or similar vampires. Also Look at Angel and Spike from Buffy. Sure they're all hardcore but then they get all flustered and mushy when it comes to Buffy. Not exactly vampiric personalities if you ask me. I mean Angel turns into a horrible monster but only if he experiences true love and that is why he doesn't let himself love anyone. If Buffy TVS had never existed and Angel was a character on Twilight with the same conflictions you guys would be joking on him the most.

I agree with you in some ways. Vampires have "evolved" and we probably won't see the Classic cape wearing vamp again anytime soon.

I actually like all types/subtypes of vamps. I think each person has a "type" they prefer. The Buffy vamps have all the rules I like about vamps.

I just didn't really like the "30 Days" vamps too much. They were a vamp/zombie hybrid that couldn't even talk, except for their leader.

I guess somebody could do a website on the chronology of the vamp, different types, subtypes, characteristics, etc. There has to be such a site already- anybody know of one?

Originally Posted by Rhinowish

Hey all.. Been lurking for several weeks, but first time poster.. This topic grabbed my attention...



But Savagehaunter, if you consider Bram Stoker's vampire as "Classic" as many others do, then you will recall that Dracula (which Gary Oldman was fan-freakin-tastic as Drac) states that he is quite fond of sun light, and he is seen outside in the day. Sure 80% of vamp movies, they don't like sun light, but i don't let it bother me if a particuler "version" or movie makes them day-walkers...

Speaking of Day-walkers, I personally likes the take that the Blade Trilogy took, in the sense that, I can buy the idea that a baby would retain some humanity if born to a just biten mother who has not yet turned. And I like how the non-pure blood, newer vampires are all "modern", but the "Ancients" were still a little more old school, with cloaks and robes and long nails (referring to the father in the second movie). In the third one, i could have done without the "original vampire" getting so trendy, but i like how he had that carnal vampire ability to change into a beast-like vampire too.. So the Blade Trilogy, imh, captured a little aspect of all other vampire sources, whether anyone else liked them or not, i did.


As for zombies, I enjoy a good zombie flick (and yes, the Walking Dead series is awesome) Zombieland awesome, and the 28 Days Later and 28 Weeks Later movies were good, i don't mind fast zombies... But what makes zombies so terrible are the sheer numbers and relentless stamina and pursuit, as illustrated here:
Attachment 106815

I have never seen "Blade." I know, I am a slow loser. I will watch it tonight!

I agree that different "types" of vampires probably would have different qualities.

I am glad to know I am not the only person in the world who thinks about this kind of stuff!

Allow me to offer some amusing footage that demonstrates some of the reasons why some of us refuse to include the sparkly ones among the likes of Dracula, Lestat, and Spike, to name a few.