Adam Wright56 said:I’m not entirely sure if this thread belongs here or in the TV section, but there seems to be more of a crowd here, and film knowledge is definitely relevant.
Anyway... here is something I was debating with a friend last night while we were watching Buffy. (I wasn't really paying close attention; I don't typically follow it).
Naturally. And I also accidentally typed "asian + free + teen + lesbian + pr0n" into Google. My fingers just slipped on the keyboard... Yes, that is exactly what happened. 😁
There is no need to feel embarrassed about watching Buffy! We are only human! We all have our weaknesses!
I was just commenting on how they have "trivialized" the appearance of vampires. It used to be that the mere presence of these creatures would give me chills, but now I either die laughing or find it so pathetic that I just change the channel.
I don't know, it's a matter of taste, but honestly, vampires have always been like this to me. I mean, I can't stand that whole "Oh, how beautiful they are... yet so dangerous... so lovely... but oh, so deadly... such an intense blend of Eros and Thanatos!" melodrama. If it's done in small doses or with a certain sense of style—like in Interview with the Vampire or Bram Stoker's Dracula, which I find pleasantly over-the-top in a Gothic-romantic way—then it works for me. Otherwise, it's just a pain in the ass.
My biggest complaint is their look... they all have those "wrinkled," almost snake-like faces when they go into "vampire mode," and I'm curious as to when that specific aesthetic became the standard for vampires.
Yes, I find that quite silly too. I think the whole point of a vampire is that they should be elegant, stylish, graceful, sexy, and charismatic... On one hand, they possess everything that we mere mortals (and yes, the wordplay is intentional 😁) desire, yet they pay a passionate price for it. They shouldn't just be your run-of-the-mill monsters under the bed.
Speaking of which, that is precisely why I dislike Rice's vampires: it feels like they get far too much for far too little.
Advantages: eternal life, superhuman strength, superhuman charisma, superhuman intelligence, superhuman fashion sense, etc., etc., etc.
Disadvantages: you have to drink blood and hide from the sun.
So, what happened to Dracul's Achilles' heel? He couldn't cross running water, see his reflection, enter a home without an invitation (if I recall correctly), and so on... if nothing else, Buffy stays fairly true to that concept.
By the way, I know that in the movie Lost Boys by Schumacher (or whatever that idiot's name is who gave us Batman three and four), vampires are depicted in the style of FDTD: basically just a bunch of common thugs who happen to be vampires and look terrifying once they "turn."
There is also the fact that lately, vampires have become very "stupid"... it's as if they are being equated with zombies....
Those zombies must be loving this. Cursed zombies and their endless propaganda!
As if any girl could just take them on.
Not just any girl! There's a reason she's called "Buffy the vampire Slayer"!
It feels a bit lazy to me... not to mention the clichés. It might pass for a TV show since they lean into the melodrama, but we have a whole library of movies where they all look identical (like Blade, for instance).
Perhaps people simply haven't seen enough older vampire films to actually understand what a proper cinematic appearance should look like.
Actually, I suspect that is precisely where the issue lies. How *should* vampires look? If every single vampire looks and acts exactly like Dracula—with that ridiculous accent, the sharp wardrobe, and his specific powers—then they aren't really distinct characters; they're just clones. I agree that FDTD takes things to an extreme, but one really ought to create some semblance of distance from tradition, don't you think? In fact, which films come to mind when you imagine vampires who actually look like the real deal? Mind you, I am referring to films that do *not* feature Dracula himself.