I'm a graduate student studying the molecular and biochemical evolution of HIV within patients and within populations. I also study epigenetic control of ERVs.
Hi girls! **waves excitedly**
Its a big day, right? YAY!
I know you all are totally pepped up, and I dont want to be a Debbie Downer again... but well... see, when I was your alls age, 12-ish, I was in love with a family of vampires too. The main dude wasnt Edward, though. His name was Lestat. Tall, blonde, violet eyes (or as Meyer would describe them, amethyst). He wasnt nice like Edward, but he was a badass, and I loved him for it (common, he was a rock star, who could resist??).
There was this other vampire in his family, Louis? I loved him too. So angsty. He was so pre-emo emo. Gorgeous and a sweetheart. *swoon* Yeah, he didnt really like eating people either. Like Edward, he went through a phase of only eating 'bad' people-- murderers, villains and such. Ate animals for a while. Just sayin.
When I got a little older, we had this series called 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer'. The movie was beyond stupid, but the TV show was great. I think it was before your alls time, but basically it was kinda about this vampire Angel, who was in love with a human girl, Buffy. Oh, and one of the main characters is a werewolf. Im just sayin.
Yeah, and then theres this other vampire book/movie series about another guy, named 'Blade'? Yeah, hes half vampire, half human. And then theres 'Underworld'-- about a vampire whos in love with a werewolf, but their respective communities are sworn enemies. And this other one, Van Helsing? Um... yeah...
Im just sayin.
OH, and this other book series, by Christopher Golden... 'Of Saints and Shadows'? Um, those vampires dont, like, 'sparkle', like Edward... but they can walk in sunlight, no prob. Also has a vampire-heroine romance.
So, um, I know Twilight girls are, um, vociferous about their support of the Twilight series... but you guys... um... Im trying to say this nicely...
There is nothing in the Twilight books thats new. There is nothing that wasnt done better before, by someone else. So if you liked Twilight (which is fine! Like I said, I liked it enough to want to see the movie!) please, for the love of god, try 'Interview With the Vampire'? Try 'Of Saints and Shadows'? Watch 'Buffy' and 'Angel'? Theyre online for free at Hulu!!
You think youre in love with Edward?
There are better vampires out there ;)
Comments
Hey! I liked the original Buffy!
David Willis has been having fun with Twilight the last two days. The forum led me to an analysis of sorts.
It doesn't matter whether there are better vampires out there (Bram Stoker, anyone?). Twilight are the vampires of this (sub)generation. Plenty of people scoffed at Anne Rice back in the day - before she grew all all fundie and "MAIN! Y CAN'T HAS!" with respect to fanfic.
Posted by: Sili | November 21, 2008 2:20 PM
Vampires have changed a lot since Bram Stoker's days. No longer are they hideous monsters, now they're apparently sexy monsters whose lust can override their bloodlust.
Posted by: Eric | November 21, 2008 2:43 PM
I would humbly suggest a little-known indie flick project called Pray For Daylight. Check it out here -
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5520243947172601129
and here -
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3432819586728848049
The first video was shot as if it were an episode of a TV series, the second (effectively a sequel) is feature-length. With the second video you might be better off downloading than streaming, as it seems to be stretched vertically out of its intended widescreen format.
Posted by: Eric Saveau | November 21, 2008 2:59 PM
Not having read it, I can't comment, but most of what I've heard of Ann Rice is much the same as your reaction to Twilight.
*looks at previous posts*
Uhh, yeah, what #1 said.
Posted by: Confused | November 21, 2008 3:40 PM
Screw all of your vampires. Blacula reigns supreme.
Posted by: Jimmy | November 21, 2008 3:41 PM
And here I was thinking that the Twilight Girls was some kind of crappy new pop band (not like there's really any other type of pop band than "crappy").
In my opinion, Emo vampires are more annoying than fast zombies. When it comes to fiction these days, anything that's popular has been done better in the past at least twice.
Posted by: sinned34 | November 21, 2008 3:53 PM
Meh. Gimme the vamps from a Dresden Files book any day. Abilities varying on breed, some feeding on emotions, some on blood, all badass-but-still-can be-taken-down-by-our-hero.
Just don't bring Anita Blake into the equation. I loved the books when they were about monster hunting. I stopped when it was 300 pages of sex, two of plot.
Posted by: Ranson | November 21, 2008 4:00 PM
Hey, you forgot Barnabas Collins.
Posted by: Moopheus | November 21, 2008 4:02 PM
Moopheus @7 Hey, you forgot Barnabas Collins.
Yeah! Now you're talking. True old school TV vamps!
Is Shadows available anywhere? Never seems to show up on the DVR.....
Pdiff
Posted by: Pdiff | November 21, 2008 4:38 PM
Speaking of better vampires, I'm going to watch 'Let the Right One In' over the weekend, which I'm very excited about. It's a Swedish movie, so you'll have to torrent it or find some little art house theater to see it, but from what I hear it's well worth checking out. See it now before the inevitable American remake starring Dakota Fanning and one of the High School Musical alums bastardizes it.
Posted by: Darek | November 21, 2008 6:11 PM
Buffy/Spike 4evah!
Posted by: Josh | November 21, 2008 6:26 PM
Pray For Daylight. An indie project. Google it. See what you think.
Posted by: Eric Saveau | November 21, 2008 7:05 PM
You know, Christopher Lee was playing better vampires that these kids before any of us was ever born. There's an apocryphal story out there that Lee once got stopped in Hollywood by a traffic cop, who then asked Lee whether being out in broad daylight was a good idea.
And aren't vampires supposed to be scary? Roger Ebert maybe said it best about Dracula: He used to be scary a long, long time ago.
Posted by: Paul Lundgren | November 21, 2008 7:23 PM
Let's see, even if we're going for trashy vampire novels, Jean-Claude and Asher from the Anita Blake Vampire Hunter series (before it became trashy erotica) and even the recent HBO's adaptation of the Sookie Stackhouse series, the True Blood miniseries has Bill and Eric which totally beats up emo vampire trash.
The thing about it is that the vampires in these stories still retain that monstrosity despite trying to be human. The book still portrays them as monsters. Which if we look back at the original Bram Stoker's Dracula was exactly what it is. Dracula was a monster and a sexual being.
Posted by: Edrei | November 21, 2008 7:58 PM
You know, Christopher Lee was playing better vampires that these kids before any of us was ever born.
Ahem!
Surely you meant to say Max Shreck. Lee's last vampire film was in 1972, which would make him basically contemporary with Jonathan Frid.
Posted by: HP | November 21, 2008 8:03 PM
HP: I was born in 1970. Close enough.
Anyone seen the original Nosferatu lately?
Posted by: Paul Lundgren | November 21, 2008 8:09 PM
Ah, I forgot about the Sookie books, although I very much do prefer the books to the show. I am a fan of Eric, and wish they'd play him up more in the series. He seems greatly under-utilized.
Posted by: Ranson | November 21, 2008 8:18 PM
I agree - the movie Buffy rocked. Hilarious schlock, not overdone-cliche writing that dragged on for too many years (or was that only his science fiction and comic book writing?). Barbara Hambly wrote two (Those who Hunt the Night was one, IIRC - James Asher) excellent books, and, of course, the Comte de St-Germain. The "vampire" from Blackness Rising (CS Friedman), and the spooky hopping vampires of Tsui Hark's "Vampire Hunters" (ok, technically, Hopping Ghosts that might later turn into vampires), and even Eddie Murphy in "Vampire in Brookelynn". Even "Love at First Bite" was enjoyable.
Posted by: Badger3k | November 22, 2008 12:26 AM
Paul Lundgren- I am so badass I own Nosferatu on DVD!
Edrie wrote:
Bullpucky! Those two clowns are nothing but Kentucky fried emo vampire trash!
Bill spends annoying amounts of time fretting about Sookie's shocking hemlines and Eric spends like 3 books whining about not getting laid by her. To add insult to injury, HBO hasn't even made Eric the smart ass that he _started out to be_ in the books. They tried to make him "edgy" but he comes off like a lame-ass, vaguely Nordic bully whose head circumference is unnervingly smaller than that of his neck.
The whole series is like a Price-is-Right gala of supernatural beings that all seem to want the same thing: to fuck the living daylights (pun intended) out of the lovely Sookie Stackhouse.
But for those of us weened on the strange mix of black humor, silliness, and sweetness of Joss Whedon, it just sucks. I know Charlene, or whatever her name is, is trying to go there, but she's just not going to get there.
That said, there are things I really like about the True Blood series. The premise is a good idea with a lot of fun social commentary potential. I like the pro-gay aspects of it, and I like how she respectful she can be of the Sookie character. There isn't a lot of bullshit about the shamefulness of her sexuality, or about "hiding the forbidden love" from her family and friends and all that crap. She more or less wears it on her sleeve and expects that other people respect it, and I do really like that.
So I'll give the HBO series a chance even though I think the books are more or less an agonizing exercise of wasted potential.
I haven't read the Twilight series, and don't expect I will, but so far all I've heard is that the little bitch gets suicidal when her dream boy breaks up with her. Which makes me just want to smack the author in the face with a copy of her own book. Lame.
Posted by: Leni | November 22, 2008 2:27 AM
I just realised that your despair at girls reading trashy novels isn't much different from people bitching at you for your apostrophobia.
As for HP I think the important issue here is that they're reading. It may be crap, but they're reading and that, as we know, is a habit that's hard to kick. These kids have been started on a life of books. And that can't be bad.
And quite a few of them will try their hand at writing. It'll be crappy Mary-Sue fanfic, but many people start there (and some even get it published as we can see ...).
But they're writing and a exercising their imaginations, and that can't be bad.
But just to get back to the hatin'. From Willis' forum:
To which Sephiroth144 replied:
news report from the near future.
Posted by: Sili | November 22, 2008 5:58 AM
The problem with movie Buffy is that the vampires can fly, can't be hurt by a fall from a great height, aren't obviously stupid and yet don't ever try dive-bombing the slayer. Also no Willow.
Posted by: Matt Heath | November 22, 2008 7:19 AM
Paul Lundgren @15:
Not really, but I found E. Elias Merhige's Shadow of the Vampire absolutely delicious.
Posted by: Stagyar zil Doggo | November 22, 2008 8:54 AM
Badger3k, you might want to check out Kim Newman's Anno Dracula
Posted by: Kristjan Wager | November 22, 2008 4:13 PM
Im getting caught up on 'True Blood' this weekend... Because we have a micro test on Tuesday and I have a paper due on Wednesday...
Posted by: ERV | November 22, 2008 4:47 PM
Hmmm.
Replace Twilight in your article with Anne Rice, and then replace Buffy and Anne Rice with (say) Stoker and Hammer Horror films. Then imagine you reading such an article when you were 12, and what your reaction would have been (hint, you would have been pissed off at the condescension).
They are happily reading about their vampires, just like you were happily reading your vampires. Complaining that their vampires aren't as good as your vampires misses the point (your vampires aren't theirs).
As Sili says, just be happy they are reading (I can't read Harry Potter, I think it is poorly written and badly plotted, yet I'm ecstatic that people are reading it).
Posted by: Joe | November 22, 2008 5:47 PM
Oh, the Vampire Chronicles. Those were fantastic. I should read The Vampire Armand. Memnoch was the last one I read. And yeah, Lestat as a rockstar, that was fun.
I liked Twilight though. Let the Right One In (mentioned above) was very good too. I noticed one bit of speech that was nearly identical in them though. "How old are you, really?" "17/14" (depending on which movie) "How long have you been 17/14?" "A while."
Posted by: Mackenzie | November 22, 2008 7:11 PM
Sam "Grandpa Munster" Dracula. Yes, that Dracula. Now there was an original vampire. :sg:
Posted by: Alan Kellogg | November 22, 2008 10:20 PM
This is unquestionably the best vampire series ever filmed. For the Americans here, this was a British cult hit so you probably won't have seen it, and it's only six episodes long which will infuriate and befuddle you.
But it's awesome and has a lot of cool theatre actors in it. As well as one of the guys from the Wire. And Captain Norrington from Pirates of the Caribbean.
Posted by: Ed Yong | November 23, 2008 2:44 PM
The original Buffy was one of the best movies evah!!!
* Paul Reubens dying ... LMAO *
( Disagreeing w/Abbie make me sad. :-( )
Posted by: Stacy | November 23, 2008 7:33 PM
As a matter of fact ... Here it is. Tell me you are not laughing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0dwZyDjO7Vo
Posted by: Stacy S. | November 23, 2008 7:38 PM
Interesting how vampire storytelling changes as our culture changes.
Posted by: anevilmeme | November 24, 2008 6:30 AM
What no Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter here?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LRIypcaIX4
Now that's the ultimate vampire flick!
Posted by: nate | November 24, 2008 8:31 AM
Ah...comments #8 & 9....Barnabus Collins...Drool. I was madly in love with him. I loved Dark Shadows but only watched it in secret as my mother didn't approve. Haven't seen any DVDs of it. It was on one of the cable networks for a while. (but Victoria Winters, as gorgeous as she was, was an idiot...)
Posted by: Dawn | November 24, 2008 3:01 PM
Vampires?
Here's *the* cult British vampire show of all time!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VthsQVsXwEg
Posted by: Charlie Foxtrot | November 25, 2008 12:25 AM
Underworld was great, but the sequel ran it into the ground (and eviscerated it with helicopter rotors).
But they at least those vampires were equipped with some common sense - they're communal (and their stronghold is relatively well-defended), hierarchical, they do blood drives instead of just pouncing on some hobo, and they use guns. Vampires with guns = cool.
I must admit, I loved Lestat in Queen of the Damned. I treasure my copy of that movie (despite its abysmal metacritic score).
Posted by: Hydra | November 25, 2008 2:41 AM
Apparently the right-wing thinks the movie is really about abstinence education: http://www.efluxmedia.com/news_Twilight_The_Movie_A_Plea_For_Abstinence_29621.html
Posted by: Joshua Zelinsky | November 25, 2008 4:35 PM
@ Joshua
It's not just the right wing. I've read a number of other articles in far more liberal outlets that come to the same conclusion. From what little I know of the story and the author, I tend to agree. I'm not going to expose myself to this drivel on purpose to confirm or deny, though.
Posted by: Ranson | November 26, 2008 7:45 AM
LOL StacyS, I laughed.
Almost as funny:
Nicholas Cage having a Renfield moment in "The Vampire's Kiss"
And this is a little long, ok maybe a lot long. But the part at ~8:51 where he yells "Vampire, you idiot. Nosferatu. Christ! The tortures of the damned!" is hilarious.
Posted by: Leni | November 26, 2008 8:40 PM
Ranson, interesting that it is getting that spin on the left also. There are two serious problems with the claim as I understand it: 1) It isn't true in the original book that they stay chaste and 2) The plot explanation is that the vampire boyfriend won't be able to control himself if he tries to have sex with her (which is frankly a pretty cliched claimed. It was used in one of the Dresden books for example). I haven't seen the movie yet so I can't comment in any more detail.
Posted by: Joshua Zelinsky | November 26, 2008 10:41 PM
I was involved in a conversation last night on IRC where the snark about Twilight was quite a bit nastier than this -- essentially that a) Edward is basically a freaky stalker whose target happens to fall for him and b) the author's Mormonism renders the book harshly anti-feminist.
Personally, I was blindsided by Twilight's popularity and didn't even really pay any attention to it until the last book in the series pulled Potterian numbers on its debut. As for Harry Potter itself, no, it's not great literature, but it's a long way from schlock as well. It's certainly far more daring than an American author would write in this day and age.
Posted by: Brian X | November 27, 2008 1:28 PM
I spoke with one of my sis-in-laws this weekend who devours mystic fiction with gusto. She said she picked up the first Twilight book to see what the hype was about. She finsihed it, said, "Surely this has to get better. Nothing this bad could be that popular." She proceeded to say that about each of the subsequent books. Of course, she's been saying that about the last nine or ten books by Laurell K. Hamilton, too, so I think it's more a pattern of not learning from her mistakes.
Posted by: Ranson | December 1, 2008 10:48 AM
Lestat is my first and only love. Twilight makes me want to vomit. Anne Rice is a beautiful thing.
Posted by: gabrielle | January 4, 2009 10:26 PM
Speaking as a member of the Twilight generation: Buffy is amusing and takes the piss out of itself, despite having teenage angst. Even if it was as one-dimensional as Twilight it could get away with it for those reasons.Even most avid readers of Twilight agree that it's vapid.
I never really liked Lestat- Sheridan Le Fanu writes good vampires, and Stoker's short stories are good as well.
Posted by: simba | March 6, 2009 2:24 PM