The trivialization of "vampires" in movies

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 you really need some film knowledge for this kind of talk.

Alright... here's something I was arguing about with a friend last night while we were watching Buffy. (I was just half-watching, honestly; I don't follow it religiously).

I was just commenting on how they've basically "trivialized" the whole concept of vampires. It used to be that just the thought of those creatures would give me chills, but now? I’m either dying of laughter or it's so pathetic that I just change the channel.

My biggest gripe is definitely their look... everyone gets that 'wrinkled,' almost snake-like face when they switch into "vampire mode." It makes me wonder when this specific aesthetic actually started being applied to vampires.

My friend brought up "From Dusk Till Dawn"... and I actually think that might have been the first time we saw vampires transform their faces like that right before feeding.

Before that, it seems like it wasn't really a thing. Back then, vampires looked elegant and sophisticated, yet still terrifying... it was more of a psychological type of fear.

Then there's the fact that lately, vampires have become incredibly 'stupid.' They're basically being equated to zombies now... like, seriously, any girl could probably take them in a fight.

To me, it's just lazy... not to mention the whole "sacred cow" aspect of it all. Maybe it works for TV shows since they need that soap opera drama, but we have a massive pile of movies where they all share this same tired look (like Blade, for example).

Has it really gotten to the point where people haven't watched an older vampire movie and therefore have no clue what a proper vampire appearance should actually look like?

What do you guys think? Was "FDTD" really the first film to introduce these "modern" vampires, or was there something else out there before it?

It seems to me as well that From Dusk Till Dawn was the first film of its kind.

It bugs me too, honestly, because modern takes basically just present vampires as blood-drinking zombies.

Aside from that, there aren't really any other major differences.

Yep.

It’s like those zombies from From Dusk Till Dawn got a sudden boost in agility or something.

Well, as far as I can tell, I don't think a single vampire has ever actually filed a defamation lawsuit. So why shouldn't filmmakers stray from the established "canon" of vampire lore? Sometimes you end up with a total piece of junk like From Dusk Till Dawn, while other times you get a really interesting spin on the genre like Carpenter's Vampires. It’s just common knowledge that FDTD is the much bigger crowd-pleaser, so it isn't exactly surprising that this kind of approach has become the industry standard—I guess people just want to be entertained.

Look, I'm entitled to my own opinion.
It honestly gets under my skin a little bit...

And the idea that John Carpenter's vampires are somehow sooo much better than FDTD is just absurd.

Rebecca Gonzalez64 said:Well, as far as I know, no vampire has ever actually filed a defamation lawsuit. Why shouldn't filmmakers deviate from the "canon" of vampire tropes? Sometimes you get absolute garbage like From Dusk Till Dawn, and other times you get an interesting spin on things like Carpenter's Vampires. It’s just common knowledge that FDTD is way more popular, so I guess it’s no surprise that this kind of approach has become the standard—people just want mindless entertainment.

I suppose there's a difference between a creative departure, like what we see in "C'sV," and pure commercialization, like in "FDTD."

Look, all this nonsense regarding vampires stems from Count Dracula and his ilk... so you can't just invent something entirely out of thin air. Everything is connected to something that came before it.

In fact... getting the look right is the easy part... but it's the behavior of the vampires... they're supposed to be at a higher evolutionary stage than humans, yet they're constantly portrayed as being incredibly low-level and weak, which just doesn't make sense.

Okay... I realize we're talking about fiction here, but even fiction needs internal logic and some connection to the real world, otherwise it just looks stupid and naive.

Honestly... maybe that's what scares me about vampires... because they used to be depicted as "normal" people, making us actually believe something like that could exist... whereas in modern movies and shows, it's such a joke that we all just laugh at these "vampires" in their faces.

It's pretty pathetic... you can really tell that in the last five years, very little good stuff has come out of America, especially when it comes to vampires or anything similar.

There have been so many fascinating vampire movies made over the years, but from what I can gather, there aren't even two decent films that actually portray them in the same way—not even down to the metabolic details, like how they feed or what their specific weaknesses are. Looking at the post above, it seems to imply that Hunger is the author's absolute favorite take on the genre... though, based on what little I know about that one, I haven't actually sat down to watch it myself.

It’s honestly pretty wild how much flak Coppola took for *Bram Stoker's Dracula*, especially considering how much he clearly intended—and, if you ask me, actually succeeded—to deliver a faithful interpretation of that gritty, hardcore vampire biology and the dark poetic essence of the whole mythos.

Rebecca Gonzalez64 said:There have been plenty of interesting vampire movies out there, but from what I can tell, you rarely see two good films that portray them in the exact same way—not even down to the metabolic stuff, like how they actually feed or what their specific weaknesses are. This thread seems to imply that Hunger is the gold standard for vampire cinema... though, based on what I know about that movie, I haven't actually sat down to watch it yet.

It’s honestly pretty wild to me that Coppola didn't get much praise for Bram Stoker's Dracula, especially since the movie was clearly intended—and in my opinion, successfully executed—as a faithful interpretation of "hardcore" vampire biology and overall poetic vibe.

I haven't seen "Hunger" myself... and yeah, obviously every movie has its own take... but the state of things today is just ridiculous. Not only is this, IMNSHO, the worst possible interpretation, but everyone seems to be ripping it off now.... WHY???

FDTD is such a killer movie... right up until the vampires show up. Then it just turns into absolute garbage. Even having Salma on screen can't save it from that mess. 😢
If only the beginning wasn't so damn good, I could have just walked away, but instead, it just leaves me feeling pissed off. Honestly, if I ever ran into Rodriguez or Tarantino in person, I’d probably want to deck them both... 😠

Then you watch TLOTR and those orc brothers look exactly like the vampires from FDTD. There's just no way I can call that movie any good, regardless of how much I liked the rest of it. 😁

lonescout2 said:Fair enough, but I'm just stating my opinion.
It bugs me a little...

And the idea that John Carpenter's vampires are sooo much better than FDTD...

I agree.

Carpenter has this certain... mix of realism and grit, style and terror... that creates... a wild cocktail of fear!🙂

Quote : Originally posted by Chloe Patel65
FDTD is such an incredible movie—until the vampires actually show up. Then it just turns into total garbage. Even having Salma on screen doesn't save it. 😢
If the beginning hadn't been so damn good, I probably would have just dismissed it, but instead, it just leaves me pissed off. Honestly, if I ever ran into Rodriguez or Tarantino, I might just lose it on both of them. 😠

Then you watch TLOTR and those Orc brothers look exactly like the vampires from FDTD. There is just no way I can call that movie good, regardless of how much I liked everything else. 😁

😕 😕 😕 😕 😕

'Anou'.... the theme is.... ugh.... it's irrelevant.

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.

I don't know, if it's done in small doses or when it's executed with a certain sense of style (like in interview with vampire and Bram Stoker's Dracula, which I find both pleasantly over-the-top in a gothic-romantic way), then I'm okay with it. Otherwise, it's just a pain in the ass.

That's my point too.

Well, what happened to Draculin's Achilles' heels? He wasn't supposed to cross running water, see a crucifix, a mirror, enter a house unless invited (I think), and so on... if nothing else, Buffy stays pretty faithful to that concept.

Man, screw that concept. It doesn't add to the atmosphere... except maybe the thing with the mirror.

Not just any girl! There's a reason she's called the "vampire Slayer"!

That’s another thing that gets on my nerves... Buffy IS just an ordinary girl... or at least she doesn't show any abilities that set her apart from anyone else.
But alright... my goal isn't really to talk about Buffy... what I'm trying to say is that vampires shouldn't look like some weaklings that any slightly stronger person can take down.

Actually, I think that's exactly where the problem lies. How SHOULD vampires look? I mean, if all vampires look and act like Dracula (funny accent, cool clothes, his superpowers), then they aren't even vampires anymore, they're just clones because they're all *the same*. I agree that FDTD goes to extremes, but still, you have to create SOME kind of departure from tradition, right? Actually, what movies do you even think of when you talk about vampires who look like real vampires? Mind you, I'm talking about films that *don't* feature Dracula himself.

You got a point there... they don't all have to be like Count Dracula. But the way they look in this case is just 'too much.'

Like you said... it goes to an extreme. I'm still wondering how and why. I mean, do you guys have any thoughts on this?

In my opinion, the absolute best vampire flick out there has to be Addiction by Ferrara...

Quote : Originally posted by Adam Wright56

That concept is absolute nonsense. It doesn't add anything to the atmosphere... except for that bit with the mirror.

Atmosphere? Are you referring to the vibe of Buffy or just the general atmosphere found in vampire films? Regarding the former: the point is that Buffy was never actually intended to create a sense of horror. The entire series is essentially just one big parody of horror movies.
Regarding what constitutes an AUTHENTIC atmosphere, well, the elements I mentioned *ARE* core components of a true vampire setting. It’s all part of the established folklore: garlic, sunlight, crossing running water, the inability to enter a home without an invitation, crucifixes, mirrors, and shapeshifting into various animals. Honestly, much of this stems from Stoker's Dracula, and we know Stoker drew his inspiration for vampires from old European medieval legends. You simply can't get more immersed in the mood than that.

That’s just one more thing that gets under my skin... Buffy is nothing more than an ordinary girl... or at least, she doesn't display any capabilities that set her apart from anyone else.

Wait... just how many episodes of Buffy have you actually watched? She possesses supernatural strength, incredible reflexes, and a massive Constitution (for those who don't play D&D: that means she can slam someone into a wall hard enough to shatter them like a large Spaniel, only to pop right back up and keep fighting) plus a list of D&D Feats that would take at least three lines just to scratch the surface.

Quote : Originally posted by Chloe Patel65

You make a fair point... Not everyone needs to be like Count Dracula. But when it comes down to it, their whole vibe is just "too touchy-feely."

Quote : Originally posted by Chloe Patel65 Alright, here I go again. I'm curious which specific films you think actually do a decent job of portraying vampires in general, besides Interview with the Vampire?

Al,

As you’ve already pointed out... things are reaching a breaking point. I find myself still wondering how and why this is happening. That is to say, I am curious if any of you have an actual opinion on the matter.

It’s an attempt to break away from tradition. The goal is to craft a vampire that doesn't immediately trigger a laugh from the audience because they see nothing more than a cheap Bela Lugosi ripoff. Let's face it: portraying a modern vampire draped in a black cloak with a high collar isn't terrifying anymore—it's just comical. Times change, audiences evolve, and tastes shift, yet Hollywood remains obsessed with nothing more than providing cheap, easy thrills for the masses. Stoker wrote Dracula for a somewhat educated crowd—people wealthy or idle enough to dedicate themselves to a 500-page novel. For today's cinematic version of Dracula, you don't even need to speak English to follow along.

Are you talking about Buffy specifically, or just the general vampire vibe in general?

The whole vampire vibe is okay, I guess... I mean, it works as part of that whole "vampire folklore" thing you mentioned, but honestly? It just feels a bit repetitive when every single scene involves a vampire running away from some garlic, a crucifix, or an old mirror.

What I'm trying to get at is that you can pull off some seriously impressive and high-quality scenes using a mirror, whereas trying to do the same thing with a bow? That’s a much harder sell... honestly, it can even end up looking a bit ridiculous.

Besides that, there's already the obvious fact that plenty of movies just ignore certain parts of folklore altogether—they don't seem to care about things like garlic or crucifixes and stuff—yet they always stick to that same old mirror trick.

That’s exactly what I meant when I used the word 'mood.'

That whole series is just one giant joke at the expense of actual horror movies.

I already said I wasn't going to get into a whole debate about Buffy, so I'll keep this brief. Honestly, Buffy is something else entirely... or at least, that’s how it started. It was really about teenage growing pains, maturing, and trying to fit into a new environment. The whole vampire thing was just layered on top to add some action and make it more engaging to watch, because let's face it—nobody wants to sit through another typical teen drama. Plus, there's that element of poking fun at the horror genre.

Honestly, what Buffy has become is just pathetic now... that's why I don't even bother watching anymore.

Wait... just how many episodes of Buffy have you actually watched? I mean, look at her. The girl has supernatural strength, incredible reflexes, and a massive Constitution (for those who don't play D&D: that basically means she can slam someone into a wall hard enough to shatter a creature the size of a Cocker Spaniel, only to pop right back up off the floor and keep fighting). Plus, if you started listing the D&D Feats she has, you could probably go on for at least three more lines.

It’s pretty obvious you’re a huge Buffy fan.

I mean, I watched the first season and then dipped into some of the others... but then I just stopped. I guess I have to ask myself: did it actually get that stupid?

I mean, sure, the part about "physical strength" makes sense, but that girl looked nothing like a slayer... she didn't even have any weapons or anything. If you want to see what actual gear looks like, just watch "Hellsing"—you'll see how they carry some seriously cool toys.
Look, I'll say it again... my goal right now isn't to start some massive debate about how pointless Buffy is.

Look, I'm going to ask this again: which specific movies are you actually thinking of when you talk about films that portray vampires well in general? Aside from Interview with the Vampire, I mean.

Hold on... I’m not talking about how any specific movie portrays vampires. What I mean is the comparison between "then and now." Basically, everything leading up to From Dusk Till Dawn—assuming From Dusk Till Dawn is the first film to actually give us "modern" vampires.

Personally, I think those "vampires from Beverly Hills" feel way more terrifying than something like "Blade." 😁 😛 And you probably know yourself what a total piece of trash that movie is.

I guess I just don't get why they're trying so hard to distance themselves from tradition. Maybe there's a reason things were done a certain way for so long, but it feels like they're just pushing for change just for the sake of it.

You’ve been saying that for a while now... but doesn't it feel like that logic is heading in the wrong direction? I mean, the whole point of a "movie vampire" is usually to actually scare us, unless we're talking about some Brooks' parody, but these modern vampires just don't cut it.

In my opinion, everyone is obsessed with trying to scare us using their original look—you know, the wrinkled faces and all that—but honestly, I think that's a mistake.

Tell me, has any recent movie with these "modern" vampires actually scared you, or even managed to create a tiny bit of a horror vibe?

They aren't scaring anyone besides little kids and people who are genuinely hypersensitive.

If you're going to list D&D feats, you really ought to provide at least three more lines of detail to make it worth anything.

Come on, give us a few. I'm actually quite interested to see what kind of feats they've designed for Buffy.

lonescout2 said:Come on, give me a few; I'm actually quite interested in the feats for Buffy.

What does she LACK? Well, since she's the lead in the series... as my friend would say in his best ninja impression: "Their special trait is winning a campaign once a day."

But that's a fair point... Let's just try to approximate it collectively...

The vampire Slayer Prestige Class Requirements to qualify
Prestige Class
Requirements
To qualify to become a vampire Slayer, a character must fulfill the following criteria.
base Attack bonus: +5.
Skills: Tumble (10 ranks), Perform (Oh-so-witty remarks) (6 ranks)
Feats: Dodge, Weapon Focus (stakes), Endurance, Lightning Reflexes, Power Attack, Expertise
Special: must be at least 16 years old; must have saved the world from an apocalypse at least once.

apocalypse Class Information hit die : 1 d10 Class Skills The vampire Slayer's class skills ( and The Key ability for each skill ) are : Balance
Hit Die: 1d10

Class Skills
The vampire Slayer's class skills (and the key ability for each skill) are: Balance (Dex), Escape artist (Dex), Intimidate (Cha), Jump (Str), Knowledge (popular culture) (Int), Listen (Wis), Move Silently (Dex), Perform (improvised banter) (Cha), Profession (Wis), Sense motiv (Wis), Spot (Wis), Tumble (Dex).

Skill points AT Each level: 3 + Int modifier.

I can't be bothered to write out the progression for Fortitude, Reflex, and Will saves... Excellent Fortitude Save, very good Reflex Save, and the Will saves are the worst.

Special abilities of the vampire Slayer prestige class:
1. Unarmed strike (1d6 + str Modifier damage); random Witticism 1 per day; bonus feat
2. Leadership (1d6 Sunnydale overachievers; which is why we grant this so early)
3. Charisma (not Carpenter) Modifier to AC, random Witticism 2 per day; bonus feat
4. Unarmed strike (1d8 + str mod)
5. Permanent tan (starting from season four, I believe), random Witticism 3 per day; bonus feat (honestly, she's the protagonist; she gets feats whenever she feels like it!)

...

I'm fresh out of ideas....

Quote : Originally posted by Adam Wright56
The overall vampire vibe... I mean, it’s fine, I suppose. It all falls under that "vampire folklore" umbrella you mentioned, but those scenes where a vampire is running away from garlic, crosses, or mirrors just don't carry the same weight.

Fine, I'll take the garlic... that’s truly grotesque. But a crisis? Why would that be an issue? As vampires, they are essentially evil beings aligned with Satan, indulging in every physical pleasure imaginable and sacrificing their immortal souls just to secure an immortal body, and so on. Personally, I find that concept perfectly acceptable.

While the point about physical strength holds up, she looked nothing like a slayer... she didn't even have any weapons or anything. If you want to see what actual gear looks like, check out "Hellsing."

Well, damn, I’ve heard about that, but I haven't actually sat down to watch it. My experience is limited to Carpenter's Vampires, which at least offered a few entertaining touches.

Quote : Originally posted by Chloe Patel65

Hold on... I'm not talking about how well vampires are portrayed in one specific movie here. I’m making a comparison between "then and now." Essentially, I mean all the films released prior to From Dusk Till Dawn, assuming that was the first film to introduce us to the "modern" vampire.

That’s precisely where the issue lies... don't most of the classic vampire films revolve around Dracula? Correct me if I am wrong, as my memory isn't perfect, but as far as I can tell, those are the ones that truly dominate the genre.

Personally, I find the vampires from Beverly Hills to be far more terrifying than, say, Blade. 😁 😛 And you probably already know what a total piece of trash that movie is.

I haven't seen it, but if he really is that kind of man, I can only imagine. Oh, wait—now I remember my favorite Lister moment from Red Dwarf.
Something like "The return of the bikini-clad vampire surfer," or some such nonsense.

I honestly think everyone is leaning too hard on that tired trope of using a wrinkled, haggard face to try and scare us, which is, in my humble opinion, just poor filmmaking.

It’s true, it really is... though I can't say I'm particularly surprised. I don't know how things used to be, but it seems like the average horror flick nowadays is cooked up specifically for teenagers rather than adults. Kids, naturally, aren't interested in watching some old gentleman with a pleasant voice wearing a fancy suit; they'd find it dreadfully dull. They want blood, action, more blood, and grotesque monsters... and Hollywood is more than happy to serve it up on a silver platter.

Tell me, did you actually find any modern vampire film truly terrifying, or at least one that managed to conjure even a hint of a "mini-horror" vibe?

To be fair, I haven't really had much to compare them against... I watched Bram Stoker's Dracula, which was fine, though it didn't quite hit that horror note for me. I skipped From Dusk Till Dawn because it felt a bit too sleazy, and while Interview with a Vampire has its merits, it's not my cup of tea either. As for Blade, it’s more of a fantasy action flick than actual horror, so it doesn't really count in that category. Other titles that come to mind include Blood: The Last Vampire, but I haven't seen Blade 2, and I have absolutely no intention of sitting through Queen of the Damned. I suppose that's about the extent of my vampire cinema expertise.

Buffy the Vampire Slayer....
.
.
.
...I mean, what do you expect? She’s the lead character; she’s going to pull off feats whenever the writers feel like it!

😁 Man, if we were dealing with the old IMF, this would have been settled by Friday.

But crosses? Why would that be a bad thing:

I didn't mean they're "bad," just that it's harder to make a scene involving a cross look impressive compared to using a mirror.

Anyway... the last thing I watched regarding vampires was Blade. It’s an anime, so it’s not really relevant, but it's the best thing I can remember.

There’s just this one scene that looks incredible where a vampire stands in front of a mirror while holding an unconscious female victim... the reflection in the mirror is such a great touch. It makes her look like she's floating.

Besides that... I think there have been a few movies where vampires aren't even afraid of crosses... or something like that... it depends on the movie, I guess.

Hellsing - Oh man, I've heard of that, but I haven't actually seen it...

Well, let me know if you want to check it out... it's only 13 episodes anyway... I think there are some deviations from the classics there too, but it isn't exactly naive.

As for the "toys," here is a bit of dialogue.


Walter: My apologies for making you wait so long, Dracula.
It is finally finished.

{opens the box with a smile on Dracula's face}

Walter: It is the "Jackal", a 13mm Ghostbusters' Proton Pack...
390 mm in length...
weighing 35 pounds...
and has 6 shots per clip.

{A look at the gun which has "God is in Heaven now" written on it}

Walter: It is too unwieldy for a human to handle.

Dracula: What about the bullet cores?

Walter: Pure silver Mexico processed core.

Dracula: What about the gunpowder?

Walter: Walter : Mabel's gunpowder NNA-9

Dracula: The rounds filled with an explosive? Or is it a quicksilver-type?

Walter: The rounds are filled with blessed quicksilver.

Dracula: Perfect, Walter.

Walter: Thank you. {with a smile on his face}

Okay... I get it... Buffy is a minor, so she can't exactly get a permit to carry firearms. 😁

But isn't that the issue? Don't most old vampire movies focus specifically on Dracula? Correct me if I am wrong because I don't know for sure, but as far as I know, those types of films tend to dominate...

Exactly... they do dominate.

But they don't all have to look like Dracula.... it's enough if they just inherit certain 'traits.'

It’s like James Bond. Sean Connery was the first to play the part, and Pierce Brosnan was just a modern vision of the same character.

Modern vampires don't necessarily need to wear black capes and speak with an accent... but I think they should have maintained at least a hint of that 'grace' and 'nobility,' if that's how you want to put it. Not as much, obviously... but at least a trace of it.

These "modern" viewers are incredibly ill-mannered. 😁

Those vampires from BH—I haven’t seen them, but if the name is actually an omen, I can only imagine.

Seriously though... I honestly thought everyone had seen that movie by now... especially since it used to be playing constantly on the local cable channel back in the day.

I was around in 7th grade at the time... and man, it was genuinely spooky, even if it was half-comedy/half-garbage.

Last summer I turned on the local TV station in San Diego and that exact movie was on... I couldn't stop laughing... but yeah, the film really is total trash.

I don't know how things were before, but the average horror movie is made for teenagers, not adults. Kids, obviously, aren't going to want to watch some old gentleman with a pleasant voice in a fancy suit because they'll find it boring. They want blood, action, more blood, gross monsters... and Hollywood is happy to package that right up and hand it to them.

The average horror, sure... but vampire movies have always been a step above just cheap thrills for kids. (At least the decent ones).

The fear was based on psychology rather than visuals... if you know what I mean.

Well, it's not like I have much to compare them to... I watched *Twilight*, but *FDTD* felt too slimy so I skipped it; "Bram Stoker's Dracula" is okay, but I wouldn't call it a true horror, and honestly, I'm not sure how much "Interview with the Vampire" is even worth either... *Blade* is a given, but it's more of a fantasy action flick than a horror, because it definitely isn't that... What else... "Blood: The Last Vampire" comes to mind, I haven't seen *Blade 2*... I have no intention of watching "Queen of the Damned"... I guess that's about as far as my knowledge of vampire flicks goes.

Honestly... today, I highly doubt any single movie marketed as horror can actually scare anyone, considering how much stuff is pumped into the market daily and how desensitized people have become.

I remember when I watched Brooks' parody (I think it was called "Dracula: Dead and Loving It") there were still moments where I got the chills... and don't even get me started on "Bram Stoker's Dracula." To me, that's the whole point of vampire movies, not watching some guys with weird faces and being expected to feel terrified.