MovieChat Forums > Priest (2011) Discussion > Serious movie vampire question.

Serious movie vampire question.

posted 14 years ago by Bingedrinker
9 replies | jump to latest

Hey guys and gals,

Just wondering:

Why are all the 'vampire concepts' different from each other throughout movie and television land. I find a little confusing to have all those different kinds of mutually exclusive types of monsters throughout the world.

(I like vampires, so it's not about that)

For instance:

Blade - vampires are: people with enhanced capabilities that need blood.
Interview With... - vampires are: Magical creatures with a whole myth surrounding them.
Priest - vampires are: Doom (game) type monsters and the classical vampire is some sort of "familiar".
LXG - vampires are: ruthless murderers for a "good" cause.
Dracula - vampires are: semi-medieval / semi-1900's backdrop with the actual myth surrounding count Vlad from Transylvanian Romania with some anti-christian tones to it.
Twilight Saga - vampires are: Romantic beings similar to "Interview..."
Daybreakers - vampires are: the dominant species on earth.
Van Helsing (extremely bad movie, btw) - vampires are: strange bird like predators living in some kind of harem.
Queen Of the Damned - vampires are: here, ancient creatures dating to before the Egyptians.
Underworld - vampires are: in battle with the Lycans, it has this medieval surreal feel to it, vampirism isn't even that an important factor, it's all about the battle.

True Blood - vampires are: this whole separate society living in some kind of harmony with humans, although they are immortal and can heal people.

Look I'm fine with the different worlds and such, but it seems to me that there isn't one true definition of "the Vampire", thus making it a different creature with different principles and purpose throughout all movies and series.

I am just saying I find it confusing;
Is there anyone who can explain to me...
...1 why this is?
...2 what do you think about this thing?

"Hey, I'll be a part of this world."

[–] TwoMushrooms 14 years ago

My simple guess would be that vampires are, amongst all those "classical" monsters (zombies, werewolves, mummies, dragons, etc) the ones that closest resemble humans, and therefore probably the only monster type which you can use in various settings in stories.

I mean, a zombie is a zombie. Can you imagine zombies being "in battle with the Lycans, it has this medieval surreal feel to it, zombieism isn't even that an important factor, it's all about the battle" or maybe zombies being "Romantic beings" or even "strange bird like predators living in some kind of harem".

Vampires are the monster type which allows for more liberties in regards to storytelling. Hence probably why vampires have many different incarnations in various plots.

"I want a frisbee made of Mexico."

[–] Bingedrinker 14 years ago

Thank you for the reply.

Yes, I guess you are right. But would it be just for the sake of different story telling? It still puzzles me.

I guess I like them more in a superhero format or even in a medieval setting. But the more libertine versions as in Priest, I do not like. But there are even actor cross-overs, like the star from True Blood having a cameo in Priest.

Don't they find it odd themselves? From a kind of mythical superhero type thing as in True Blood going fro into the ugly monsters from Priest?

I like it when they would do ancient stories, romantic stories, thrillers, westerns with them. Im fine with all that. But constantly changing even the definition of vampirism (yes/no daylight, yes/no blood thirst, yes/no good persons, yes/no Vlad myth, yes/no silver, yes/no self control, yes/no undead) it is kind of hard to keep track.

"Hey, I'll be a part of this world."

[–] weiza 14 years ago

TwoMushrooms... I have to disagree with you on one of the points that you made: You claim that "a zombie is a zombie", and this is what I have to draw issue with. I think that zombies, like vampires, have had several different representations in film. While I agree that most film zombies behave in the same fashion, i.e: slow, uncoordinated, 'brain-dead' and only concerned with their next meal, this stereotype draws entirely from Romero's "Night of the Living Dead". Contrast this with more recent offerings within the genre such as "28 Days Later" - which I will admit were not zombies per se in the classical sense, but rather infected with 'Rage' which made them behave as zombies, albeit much, much faster. Similarly, we can look at Snyder's remake of "Dawn of the Dead" which saw the zombies responding much faster and in a far more coordinated fashion than previously portrayed (though still interested primarily in feeding).

That said, I do agree with you in that Zombies vs Vampires/Lycans/etc would not make for very good storytelling.

[–] prawncrackyourballs 14 years ago

add buffy-type vampire: able to morph face into vamp/human form

[–] BouncyX 14 years ago

well thats been done in movies way before Buffy. most movies have them change their face when they "vamp out", that show just had the technological advantage to show the actual change take place. while the movies and shows before would simply have a quick edit or something.

even the look of vampires on Buffy takes some cues from Lost Boys (the original movie) with the pronounced brow and things.

[–] Zerose 14 years ago

Why are all the 'vampire concepts' different from each other throughout movie and television land. I find a little confusing to have all those different kinds of mutually exclusive types of monsters throughout the world.

In fantasy, a mythology is a mythology. There is no fixed mythology about any fictional species, breed or 'race'. You can create a mythology of your own; an universe where you apply certain rules that you believe would or should work. You can decide what vampirism represents.

There is only one rule for each mythology: consistency. If you say a vampire can't be killed by the sun, then all vampires in your mythology/universe cannot be killed by the sun. Consistency aside, anything goes. That's why there are so many different mythologies of vampirism.

It's a mistake to believe there should be one fixed mythology because it doesn't exist. Never has. Most people believe 'the sun can kill vampires' come from Bram Stoker's novel DRACULA (1897), but the 'the sun kills' concept actually came from this film NOSFERATU (1922), a loose adaptation of DRACULA.

Bram Stoker didn't come up with 'a vampire as an aristocrat' either. The credit goes to John Polidori with his short story, THE VAMPYRE (1819). Stoker and Polidori have their own vampire mythologies. Stoker's Dracula can shape-shift and walk about in the sun. Polidori's aristocrat vampire Riven is rarely seen in the day and he seduces both men and women while holding them in contempt. Other authors of their times have their interpretations of vampirism, too. Sheridan le Fanu's novella CARMILLA (1872) portrays lesbianism as something evil.

it seems to me that there isn't one true definition of "the Vampire"

Throughout history in forklore and literature, vampirism so far represented or appeared as guilt, foreigners, sex, non-white people, gypsies, tyrants, wealthy people, sexual desire, rogues, health, life after death, religion, diseases (cancer or AIDS for example), non-believers, politicians, demons, aliens, lesbianism, homosexuality, evil, Satan, rich businesspeople and many more. All represented 'fear' or 'danger'. That, I suppose, was one true definition of "the Vampire". This no longer applies, now that there are many sympathetic vampires. :D

You get to decide what defines "the vampire". A mythology that resonates with you the most or the one that makes best sense is usually the best definition.

Hope all that makes sense!

[–] cyril_grey 13 years ago

Unfortunately, vampires have become a sort of tonic for lazy writers. Because the ever-shifting image of the vampire, writers will often use it as a catch all. It makes sense, kind of, because just by saying the word "vampire", you already assign this entire backstory to that character(s). Then, to give it that little stamp of "originality", writers change one or two things. This one can fly, this one can shape shift, these... sparkle... in the sun(!?!wtf). In my eyes it has always been a sign of laziness and ever since the vampire craze kicked in, we've seen nothing but. What i find interesting is the whole vampire/lycan war that seems to have become standard issue with all these vampire stories-- especially once you get into sequels and they've run out of ideas or whatever made the series unique in the first place. Which series/story was the first to put forth the vampire/lycan fued? I'd be curious to find that out.

[–] red_phenix 13 years ago

Because there is no one "original" vampire, it's something that has developed over time, from folklore hundreds of years ago to films and books today. Example; the notion of the vampiric fear of sunlight developed in the 19th century I believe. Consequently vampires can be interpreted differently. This is why they vary so much in film, there's no rules to follow. Personally I like it as it allows more flexibility.

[–] PoppyTransfusion 13 years ago

Vampires are a strong sexual image and I suspect that where this is most at play vampires seem most human/attractive/charismatic.

In the film commentary on the DVD both director and Paul Bettany make the point about vampires being more primeval and scary hence they have no eyes and are less easy to relate by the human audience.

Vampires, like any supernatural monster, reflect the psyche of the person/film maker/society at the time. The vampires in this reminded me most of those from 30 Days of Night. Separate beings whose destiny is tied to humans but whose creation is not of humans, i.e. corrupted people such as Anne Rice's vampires, Near Dark etc. In Priest corrupted humans become vampire slaves, nothing more. Any other human is just food. Like 30 Days of Night.

I'm a fountain of blood
In the shape of a girl