Thread: Twilight

Originally Posted by MalReynolds

Then she shouldn't call the vampires. I'm going to write a book about zombies, only, the zombies talk, they don't need to eat human flesh, and they live in a monarchical society under the sea. In their spare time, they compete in couples Badminton in the olympics, own a tea company, and several prominent members of the zombie society have won the pulitzer.

It'll be great because it's about zombies.

Ok, so then no-one should call anything vampires. The original vampires could go out in the sun, so who cares? Just because they ruined vampires in other ways (I now know much more about this franchise) doesn't mean they're not vampires. They are vampires, they're just even gayer than most other vampires. It's a movie for the Hot Topic generation. Stuff like this doesn't piss me off anywhere near as much as the shit that people spout about it from their high horse. I make it a habit to ignore cunts I come across in day to day life as a matter of routine. If those cunts happen to thing sappy gay vampire films are the best thing since the bread knife then all the better for it.

Your reaction to awful trends in pop culture just makes them seem even worse and more prominent than they actually are. Although, to be fairness, this isn't quite the phenomenon in the UK as it is over there so perhaps I'd feel different if I was subjected to it more.

Originally Posted by Mr. E

Ok, let me rephrase.

Vampires done the best > Zombies done the best
Vampires done the worst < Zombies done the worst

I still don't know what vampires you're talking about. Night Of The Living Dead is far better than any vampire film I've ever seen. So is 28 Days Later probably. And that includes Nosferatu (which is amazing).

You'd better not be talking about Buffy....

Originally Posted by simonj

I still don't know what vampires you're talking about. Night Of The Living Dead is far better than any vampire film I've ever seen. So is 28 Days Later probably. And that includes Nosferatu (which is amazing).

You'd better not be talking about Buffy....

Bram Stoker's Dracula, Interview with the Vampire.
Vampires, at their very best, terrify us because they are so starkly similar to us and yet so profoundly sinister, lustful and cruel. Vampires are both more demonic in their passions and more cerebral in their conversation and thought than human beings. By contrast, zombies don't stick so deep to me. They're less human, more savage and animal; slower, stupider. Zombies need sheer numbers or inevitability to elicit a shiver, they're just braindead, senseless attackers. Vampires have a will. Vampires are the most scary thing I can think of, human beings, at their emotionally most volatile and intellectually and physically most capable.

Originally Posted by simonj

Oh but both of those movies were terrible. Ok, not terrible but barely more than mediocre. They were just self-indulgent pseudo-arthouse movies without any real content or substance, tension or atmosphere. Bram Stoker's Dracula is only worth watching for Gary Oldman's performance.

The former was a reference to the book, I really didn't like the film (I mean it was ok, but you know how films are always marred if you've read the book already; they're almost inevitably worse). I think that the latter is the best cinematic depiction of the vampire, but admittedly whilst the character development was good the film lacked a strong plot. You know, I think there is definitely a point to be made here about the success of vampire depictions most of the time, but I still prefer vampires. You'd have to admit, zombies are kinda easier to get right .