MovieChat Forums > Fright Night (1985) Discussion > PSA: Yes, Evil Ed IS a vampire

PSA: Yes, Evil Ed IS a vampire

posted 9 years ago by CountVladDracula
15 replies | jump to latest

I've had to explain this many times and I hope someone makes a traditional vampire film in the near future so people can remember that Dracula and his ilk used to be able to take wolf form. Yes, Evil Ed is a vampire.

1. He needed an invitation to enter Peter Vincent's apartment.

2. He was burned with a cross.

3. He was bitten by Jerry.

4. He was killed with a stake.

5. In traditional vampire fiction such as the original 1897 Dracula, the 1931 Dracula movie, and the 1979 Dracula movie, and the 1992 Bram Stoker's Dracula movie - Dracula could take the form of a wolf. Many people forget this was a thing in the 1931 Bela Lugosi movie because it was only said by the heroes when they saw him in wolf form running across the garden (but never actually shown on screen).

I am a little tired of people unfamiliar with the genre thinking that somehow Evil Ed was turned into an Underworld Lycan. No, he's a vampire. Not a werewolf. That is all.

[–] theblackestmagic 9 years ago

Very true. I think it's a pretty well-known fact in vampire lore that such creatures do possess the ability to transform into wolves, bats and even into mist. Interestingly enough though in one of the very best vampire films ever made, 1958's 'Horror of Dracula', it is stated that Dracula himself is incapable of transforming into either a bat or wolf. The debunking of the myth in that particular film though was said to have been attributed to the rather limited budget(s) that Hammer Film Studios had to work with in those times.

"Life IS pain highness. Anyone who says differently is selling something".

[–] CountVladDracula 9 years ago

I think it's a pretty well-known fact in vampire lore that such creatures do possess the ability to transform into wolves, bats and even into mist.

Sadly a lot of younger or more casual fans aren't familiar with these powers anymore. In fact that's why the powers were removed from the show Vampire Diaries (though they exist in the books). It was because they were afraid it would "confuse" the audience who are no longer used to vampires being able to do those sort of things. That's just sad to me. You'll notice they don't even have these powers in the Fright Night remake.

958's 'Horror of Dracula', it is stated that Dracula himself is incapable of transforming into either a bat or wolf. The debunking of the myth in that particular film though was said to have been attributed to the rather limited budget(s) that Hammer Film Studios had to work with in those times.

Ah, but that was retconned in Brides of Dracula (after Dracula Prince of Darkness). But sadly it never came up again after that except vaguely in Scars of Dracula where Dracula had bat helpers.

[–] woozle_wuzzle 8 years ago

Thanks Captain Obvious, I didn't know the guy in the vampire film, who was bitten by the main vampire, became a vampire.

Next you're going to tell us the guy in "An American Werewolf in London" doesn't turn into Frankenstein.

[–] CountVladDracula 8 years ago

Thanks Captain Obvious, I didn't know the guy in the vampire film, who was bitten by the main vampire, became a vampire.

Next you're going to tell us the guy in "An American Werewolf in London" doesn't turn into Frankenstein.

You would be surprised. Go backward on this board. There are loads of people who called him a werewolf. Hell, an article by Blastr / Formerly Scifi Wire put him on a top ten movie werewolf list. They somehow don't notice these vampires follow the rules from the Dracula novel or that he was bitten, burned by a cross, needed an invitation to enter Peter Vincent's home, had fangs and was killed with a stake.

People have depressingly forgotten that vampires can take wolf form besides bat. "Because vampires and wolves are natural enemies!"

[–] woozle_wuzzle 8 years ago

lmao ok, it's a shame vampires have been ruined as of late. Twilight, The Strain, and some other crap I saw previews of last month, the Blade movies didn't help either. Vampires used to be cool.

[–] marshalllancaster 9 years ago

Caught this at a drive in in 1985....a few days before going off to college...went in with low expectations but was blown away! It just captured the spirit of the times so well. The Peter Vincent subplot is well done too. I'm not a horror buff necessarily but this one and "Lost Boys" are awesome.

[–] stones78 9 years ago

Ed wasn't killed though, he lives, stupidly though, in the end. The moment he utters that stupid line at the end makes me cringe, as he should've been killed.

[–] CountVladDracula 9 years ago

That was because the original intention was to have Evil Ed be the villain in the sequel but the actor didn't want to do it, I heard it was the worst regret of his career.

[–] noods85 8 years ago

I thought the loads he took were the "biggest" regret of his career

[–] owlfy 9 years ago

Forgive me for being uneducated in vampire lore but I had no clue until now. I kept asking myself during the wolf scene 'How the hell did this vampire turn into a wolf' . Thanks for the information.

[–] CountVladDracula 9 years ago

I forgive you but you see what dumbing down pop culture vampires has done? No one even remembers the likes of Dracula used to be able to turn into wolves and any time anyone does remember it (i.e Vampire Diaries books) they leave it out of the TV and movie adaptations because they think it will "confuse" modern audiences who aren't used to it and it just perpetuates the ignorance.

Everyone talks about loving Dracula yet they ignore that his ability to become a wolf is mentioned in the 1931 version, seen in the 1979 version and the 1992 version.

[–] JamesMcFly 9 years ago

Kids today just don't know! So true.

[–] darkqueenoflove 9 years ago

Well I think bram stokers Dracula did a good job with vampire lore.

[–] CountVladDracula 8 years ago

Well I think bram stokers Dracula did a good job with vampire lore.

It did. But over on the Penny Dreadful board I have to explain again and again (even to those who saw that movie) why Dracula is able to go in the sun. They don't even realize that burning in the sun was invented by the movies. As well as other things about his powers and weaknesses.

Fright Night 2 is one of the only vampire stories that acknowledges that wild roses work just as well as garlic. The only other time I saw it come up (besides the Dracula novel) was in the 1990s Dracula TV series (not to be confused with the God-awful NBC series).

And the Fright Night remake removing the shapeshifting powers doesn't help matters.

[–] noods85 8 years ago

I'm sure you found by now it's a waste of your time to try and educate this poor misguided movie goers.
These are the types who want information handed to them and don't care to ask the good ole question of Why?