I agree. Vampires have to have glaring weaknesses to balance their immortality and power.
However, I think it's okay if some rare vampires can ignore them. For example, in Angel (and Buffy?) there was that ring that let a vampire to walk in daylight and Warhammer has Abhoras, an ancient vampire knight who sated his bloodlust once and for all after drinking the blood of an elder dragon.
__________________
I know what you're thinking. "Did he prepare six Explosive Runes this morning or only five?" Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kind of lost track myself. But being as this is the 3rd level spell Explosive Runes, the most powerful Abjuration in the world, and would blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself one question: Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya, punk?
Dracula ran around at daylight. Yeah he wasn't as strong (IIRC the only explicit mention was that he wasn't able to shapeshift) and had other weaknesses but they are not so remotely as crippling as the whole burst into flames from the sun that hollywood made standard. Which is what you complained about specifically. Old Drac's weaknesses were more just ways to ward him off, because walls and weapons wouldn't.
The whole bursting in to flames thing is a notion I'd be happy to have staked in the heart then get its head chopped off by a kukri.
Quote:
I don't mind superpowerful vampires if there is a reason why they are that.
If they are meant to bring suffering to others I understand why they would need powers. If they are meant to suffer themselves then they should be cursed.
Vampires are not meant to suffer themselves. Or not like that anyways, yeah maybe a little around the edges because all their power comes at the costs of "what really matters" or whatever.
Its all a big metaphor really, vampires gain power but in the "material" sense but what really matters can't be measured by superpowers so no matter how much they have its all dust in the end because they cannot escape the wages of sin spiritually.
There's suffering, but the suffering is of a deeper nature then "I'm a poor boy that can't go to the beach no more" thing so they don't need crippling weaknesses.
I find it always rather funny when I read things like "vampires are..." "vampires can..." "vampires must/are meant"..
when it's quite clear that they aren't..they can't and they mustn't.. because..they don't actually exist. they only exist within the parameters estabilished by whoever is writing about them.
now we can call this person a moron if he's inconsistent with his own writing.. not if he gives the name vampire to something that doesn't resemble or adhere to the "rules" of vampires in any other named source.
we can hate how vampires with a pretence to have a resemblance to the "classic" vampire image (which is debatable in it's own right, if you want to nerd it out and you're particularily loyal to one source over others) are represented by one or two particular authors (I can't stand sparkly vampires)..but we can't NOT call them vampires in their own right.
the powers and weaknesses of vampires are purely subjected to the author's whim or plan.
provided the author is a decent writer..a vampire who is a descendant of the biblical Cain, one that has contracted it through a virus, one that was bitten by dracula or one who ingested something weird all have equal dignity
we should learn to accept this.
__________________
a triple cheer for Wojiz, for making me my very own Avatar...
I think the problem is, dehro, that there really isnt a rock solid foundation for vampires, but it feels like at least certain aspects should be, so when some author or movie director or whatever changes those basics, it offends people. Or its a matter of changing the general standards of what makes something a vampire too much, and then you might as well put horns on a swordfish and call it a moose.
__________________
"Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum"
Translation: "Sometimes I get this urge to conquer large parts of Europe."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nerd-o-rama
Traab is yelling everything that I'm thinking already.
"If you don't get those cameras out of my face, I'm gonna go 8.6 on the Richter scale with gastric emissions that'll clear this room."
you might as well put horns on a swordfish and call it a moose.
let's!
I see your point and I occasionally agree with the sentiment..each of us has their own pet peeves.. on the subject of vampires for example, I've already said it, I don't like the sparkly vapid ones...or the oversexed ones.
I have strong sentiments about what a dwarf or an elf should be and look like.
the one described by Eoin Colfer in the in the Artemis Fowl books just isn't a dwarf the way I see it.. I just have never bothered to make my case about it..because it's a bit pointless. it works in the fowl-iverse.
it's when people start quoting stuff as if it was a science book and speaking in absolutes that the whole debate kind of sticks in my throat.
but that's just me..I've been let down by enough authors who did stuff to things I love to picture one way and changed it completely..and gotten angry about it too...that I've kind of lost enthusiasm for the debate.
__________________
a triple cheer for Wojiz, for making me my very own Avatar...
Depends on the vampire in "Buffy the Vampire Slayer." They have very clear weaknesses (Sunlight, holy water, crosses, stakes, beheading) but they are fairly superhuman and can't be killed outside of those weaknesses. Most vamps don't care seeing as they essentially become demons, but the ones who are sane recognize it as a curse, but still may revel in it.
And apparently, all vamps inexplicably pick up kung-fu moves
Depends on the vampire in "Buffy the Vampire Slayer." They have very clear weaknesses (Sunlight, holy water, crosses, stakes, beheading) but they are fairly superhuman and can't be killed outside of those weaknesses. Most vamps don't care seeing as they essentially become demons, but the ones who are sane recognize it as a curse, but still may revel in it.
And apparently, all vamps inexplicably pick up kung-fu moves
No vamp ever cares, except the ones who get their souls back. :p As for kung fu, I think its less they all know martial arts, and more that was the best way they could show that vamps are way stronger and faster than normal humans. I think vamp face and dust used up all their special effects, so no bullet time from the pov of the vamps.
__________________
"Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum"
Translation: "Sometimes I get this urge to conquer large parts of Europe."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nerd-o-rama
Traab is yelling everything that I'm thinking already.
"If you don't get those cameras out of my face, I'm gonna go 8.6 on the Richter scale with gastric emissions that'll clear this room."
I see your point and I occasionally agree with the sentiment..each of us has their own pet peeves.. on the subject of vampires for example, I've already said it, I don't like the sparkly vapid ones...or the oversexed ones.
I have strong sentiments about what a dwarf or an elf should be and look like.
My reason is:
Why use Vampires?
And you know why?
Its BECAUSE their vampires. The reason people twist and turn them is BECAUSE of what they are.
Its like this:
A Person creates a fork. But he wants to sell it to people who likes spoons. So he turns the whole fork into a spoon with a few spikes at the top and sells it to people who like spoons as a fork.
And the people who likes spoons are amazed as they love forks now.
But they don't. The reason they are attracted to the forks is because its spoons dressed up like forks.
My point is that the reason people are attracted to vampires is BECAUSE thier dangerous.
If they where Angels then their not interesting.
But in order to pander to audiences, they make Vampires near angelic and just call them Vampires so that people can have the attraction of the vampire, without the actual point of the vampire.
No vamp ever cares, except the ones who get their souls back. :p As for kung fu, I think its less they all know martial arts, and more that was the best way they could show that vamps are way stronger and faster than normal humans. I think vamp face and dust used up all their special effects, so no bullet time from the pov of the vamps.
Probably, but the best in story explanation was that given a modicum of talent in throwing a punch, and superhuman abilities, even a rubbish fighter would look expert compared to a normal human.
Though there was that one Vampire in Angel, the one he sired after he got a soul, he did care and was bothered by what he was.
But if there is one aspect of vamps that annoys me is the common thing where the vampire who "atones" is considered put on and hard done by when they are untrusted by the common folk. Like how Vampires in True Blood are used as a metaphor for oppression, despite the majority being viscous murderers at best. IT just bugs me that years, or even centuries, of murder and bloodshed are swept aside cos they feel bad one day. Not that the atoning vamp story is bad. But at times casual killing is ignored and that bugs me.
__________________
If I cared about this, I would probably do something about it.
I would gather from your post its REALLY less about vampire weaknesses or power levels more about how they are portrayed in their stories then yes?
Well the two are related.
Its not as much about the power as much as they are used as a device.
Change the mythos, change the levels of the stuff, but retain true to the core of what we have made vampires as a culture.
Don't exploit them to sell them to kids (We don't need blood. It just makes us badassier) or repressed moms (We don't need blood. It just makes us sexier).
Or whatever. Just do it with dignity!
Quote:
But if there is one aspect of vamps that annoys me is the common thing where the vampire who "atones" is considered put on and hard done by when they are untrusted by the common folk. Like how Vampires in True Blood are used as a metaphor for oppression, despite the majority being viscous murderers at best. IT just bugs me that years, or even centuries, of murder and bloodshed are swept aside cos they feel bad one day. Not that the atoning vamp story is bad. But at times casual killing is ignored and that bugs me.
This stuff probably bugs me the most!
Last edited by Scowling Dragon : 10-01-2012 at 05:18 PM.
Dracula ran around at daylight. Yeah he wasn't as strong (IIRC the only explicit mention was that he wasn't able to shapeshift) and had other weaknesses but they are not so remotely as crippling as the whole burst into flames from the sun that hollywood made standard. Which is what you complained about specifically. Old Drac's weaknesses were more just ways to ward him off, because walls and weapons wouldn't.
The whole bursting in to flames thing is a notion I'd be happy to have staked in the heart then get its head chopped off by a kukri.
Vampires are not meant to suffer themselves. Or not like that anyways, yeah maybe a little around the edges because all their power comes at the costs of "what really matters" or whatever.
Its all a big metaphor really, vampires gain power but in the "material" sense but what really matters can't be measured by superpowers so no matter how much they have its all dust in the end because they cannot escape the wages of sin spiritually.
There's suffering, but the suffering is of a deeper nature then "I'm a poor boy that can't go to the beach no more" thing so they don't need crippling weaknesses.
"Vampire" can refer to any one of hundreds of various mythological monsters from around the world and books twice as thick as your arm have been written cataloging all the crazy variations that have popped up.
Claiming that you know the thoughts going consciously and unconsciously through the heads of everyone who's ever made up or added to these things going across about five continents and going back at least a few thousand years with perfect clarity is incredibly foolish. This isn't like DND where everything has it's own fantasy taxonomy and you can separate what comes from where easily so much as it's this giant muddied soup where the lines between vampires, lycanthropes, demons, and a hundred different more obscure things can become muddied beyond recognition.
Claiming they were always monsters without weakness or that they didn't suffer is ignorance of the highest caliber.
Most powerful vampires I can think of right now are in Hellsing. Alucard is ridiculously powerful in there. Indestructible, carries his personal army around in his body and tons of other goodies.
But the abridged series is hilarious! Can't wait for episode 3!
"Vampire" can refer to any one of hundreds of various mythological monsters from around the world and books twice as thick as your arm have been written cataloging all the crazy variations that have popped up.
I know all about them and its Bram Stoker that codified the modern vampire which was then taken by media from there. The combined weight of legend influence comes to barely mentionable.
Well, I mean if you wanna get technical and take the myth back to its roots, the concept of a Vampire comes down to a human who has undergone a transformation after their death that compells them to feed upon other, non-transformed humans, and ensures they cannot be destroyed by normal means. It's the same base concept as werewolves, zombies, ghouls, ghosts, and a hundred other things that go bump in the night, and they probably all connect back to cultural taboos about cannibalism and meddling with corpses and wandering about after dark by yourself, all of which result in horrible chompy consequences for you, and result in a cursed version of you returning to plague your home and loved ones.
So if we're being picky and saying that a Vampire must be a certain style of thing, what traits are we saying make a Vampire unique for modern culture? I think it comes down to them being specifically undead as opposed to being another species, or being humans infected with a virus. They do not age, and they wither and grow weak if they don't feed on blood. They do not go out in the sun, either because it kills them or greatly weakens them. And they are vulnerable to beheading, burning, or having their heart staked.
Then you've got the other magical powers that vary wildly from one story to the next. Transformation into a bat, wolf, or a mist. Mind control and hypnosis. Whether you need wood or silver to hurt them. Vulnerability to garlic. The inability to cross running water. The uncontrollable urge to count things. Weakness to holy symbols. Needing permission to enter a person's house. Lots of others, in all combinations of the above and more. And that's without even going into the concept of whether a Vampire is inherently evil and predatory, or whether they can be noble creatures that seek to help the helpless and fight alongside the Scooby Gang, or just show an introverted young girl how to love.
With all of that to consider, I think it's just as hard to pin down the best version of a vampire, let alone the worst. I guess Dracula and Nosferatu are the two most widely accepted, probably followed by Buffy the Vampire Slayer? But of course even those kind of jump around from one version of the mythology to the next.
I guess the worst by far has to be Twilight, by taking the "drinks blood" and "does not age" concepts and then discarding everything else before turning the predator into a lonely Romeo. But that's been said already.
Following that, I think it'd be Supernatural. I love the show, I do, but their Vampires are wildly different as humans infected with a virus that gives them retractable fangs and a thirst for blood, who can go out in the sun and are vulnerable to beheading or being poisoned with dead man's blood. If we're comparing those to traditional vampires, they're definitely a bizarre portrayal.
And I think another lousy one, again following the "vampire virus" concept, would be 30 Days Of Night. The vampires here are a weird blend of feral and intelligent, range from being impossible to kill to being slaughtered by driving over them with a tractor, and apparently being infected means that you turn into a vampire within an hour or two, which just seems... I don't know, wildly impossible to keep a secret? Every victim who wasn't killed outright would turn, the vampire population would explode.
Mind you, having said all that, I know one thing deep in my heart: I'll take Viral Vampires over Fast Zombies any day. Viral Vampires can at least be a clever spin on the mythology. Fast Zombies are just an awful concept.
__________________
...but of course that's just my opinion.
Its not as much about the power as much as they are used as a device.
Change the mythos, change the levels of the stuff, but retain true to the core of what we have made vampires as a culture.
Don't exploit them to sell them to kids (We don't need blood. It just makes us badassier) or repressed moms (We don't need blood. It just makes us sexier).
and why not?
the fact that you and I don't like it (don't get me wrong, I don't like it either) really doesn't cut it as a reason against doing these things.
simply put, there is no copyright to infringe or unified source of legend/history/tradition to refer back to. People are free to sex up their vampires as much as they want. The only way to avoid having your knickers twisted in a knot over this is not to read these "books" and sneer at them from a distance, like I do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soras Teva Gee
I know all about them and its Bram Stoker that codified the modern vampire which was then taken by media from there. The combined weight of legend influence comes to barely mentionable.
yeah.. no
Bram Stoker did his research and was well aware that there were plenty of "vampiric myths" and just chose the ones he liked best to suit his novel.. he didn't codify anything..he just wrote a highly successful novel which you are choosing to accept as only valid treatise/bible on the subject.
Your choice..but you can't expect everybody else to abide by it. (I prefer Polidori)
this sounds like those people who protest that Elves must be the way Tolkien described them or shouldn't be called Elves.. again, no.
elves pre-existed Tolkien in folklore and had as many different shapes, powers and sizes as there are populations the myth existed in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tergon
I guess Dracula and Nosferatu are the two most widely accepted, probably followed by Buffy the Vampire Slayer?
honestly, Buffy may be a huguelly successful show, but it's way down the list of sources I would think of as "most widely accepted" representation of a vampire.
maybe that depends on either me being of the wrong generation, or coming from the wrong country...
we tend to forget when we say things like "everybody knows"....that that what everybody knows varies wildly over the centuries and even more wildly according to where everybody is, or is from.
__________________
a triple cheer for Wojiz, for making me my very own Avatar...
Going back to the Dresden Files and derailing a bit, the White Court feeds on emotions, but why only those three emotions? Lust, fear, and despair? Why not anger, or happiness, or sadness, or jealousy? As best I can figure, them being motivated to "farm" only those three emotions seems to be solely designed as a way to enforce the "noir" genre.
yeah.. no
Bram Stoker did his research and was well aware that there were plenty of "vampiric myths" and just chose the ones he liked best to suit his novel.. he didn't codify anything..he just wrote a highly successful novel which you are choosing to accept as only valid treatise/bible on the subject.
Your choice..but you can't expect everybody else to abide by it. (I prefer Polidori)
Here's the thing all the other ones... they don't matter to vampires because they haven't had any kind of big effect on the completely modern vampire mythos.
If a Jiang Shi shows up at all its probably as a distinct type of creature. And you ask someone that doesn't know what a Jiang Shi is to identify say Hsien-ko then they will probably go with zombie. Which is arguably more accurate.
While major sources these days is the way the myth has evolved in pop-culture since Dracula (particularly Nosferatu) its the single biggest influence and why we even know the word vampire. There are others of course its the codifier not the Ur-example, but you don't see people endlessly bringing Varney to new media all that much do you?
Being older does not mean important. Leif Ericksson is an interesting footnote... but its Columbus that has the historical weight because its what got built on in the long run.
Quote:
this sounds like those people who protest that Elves must be the way Tolkien described them or shouldn't be called Elves.. again, no.
elves pre-existed Tolkien in folklore and had as many different shapes, powers and sizes as there are populations the myth existed in.
So help me elves either run as the fairy/fae type tradtions... or ARE much like Tolkien's elves.
They're basically separate creatures at this point, with one invented by Tolkien that people use to invoke Tolkien.
I'd say dwarves are similar... but dwarves are all the same.
Quote:
Originally Posted by willpell
Going back to the Dresden Files and derailing a bit, the White Court feeds on emotions, but why only those three emotions? Lust, fear, and despair? Why not anger, or happiness, or sadness, or jealousy? As best I can figure, them being motivated to "farm" only those three emotions seems to be solely designed as a way to enforce the "noir" genre.
Given Madrigal its seems that the bounds are more traditional and/or personal.
I suspect though they'd only feed on "dark" emotions since what they do is dark. Also point out that fear, despair, and lust do a lot to paralyze the prey. Arousing anger would probably get a White Court beat up. And doubtful the underlying philosophy of the Dresdenverse lets them cause happiness.
Which can be seen to enforce the noir end, but I think how Butcher clearly strives to play with greys but makes it clear black and whites are still out there is worth mentioning... and in the end more important.
Last edited by Soras Teva Gee : 10-02-2012 at 03:39 AM.
Here's the thing all the other ones... they don't matter to vampires because they haven't had any kind of big effect on the completely modern vampire mythos.
If a Jiang Shi shows up at all its probably as a distinct type of creature. And you ask someone that doesn't know what a Jiang Shi is to identify say Hsien-ko then they will probably go with zombie. Which is arguably more accurate.
While major sources these days is the way the myth has evolved in pop-culture since Dracula (particularly Nosferatu) its the single biggest influence and why we even know the word vampire. There are others of course its the codifier not the Ur-example, but you don't see people endlessly bringing Varney to new media all that much do you?
Being older does not mean important. Leif Ericksson is an interesting footnote... but its Columbus that has the historical weight because its what got built on in the long run.
You see, this is your problem, this has always been your problem in every argument, and it'll probably be your argument in every future argument because you never learn no matter how much you get called out on it but:
Nobody specified any damned time period or degree of importance anywhere. In fact, this thread was created with the idea of every source being important if it applies. You saying that thousands of examples don't count simply because they don't fit with your idea and a few other people's idea of a vampire is kind of galling.
I mean, Lief Ericson may not be as famous but he was damn well the first example of a westerner in the Americas that we know of. I mean evidence suggests that some Asian sources were aware of it beforehand but he's the earliest western source and I believe(though may be wrong) the first individual we know the name of to get there. Facts are not popularity contests and cited sources can't be disregarded because they don't fit your viewpoint.
Your entire argument right now is just "Every story running counter to what Scowling Dragon wants is the right way. Everything else doesn't count because it doesn't fit in my argument." and this is a terrible way to argue and would get you laughed out of any credible establishment. If I've misinterpreted you feel free to correct me but please, don't come in here and insult things we like with circular troll-logic and expect to be taken seriously.
So help me elves either run as the fairy/fae type tradtions... or ARE much like Tolkien's elves.
They're basically separate creatures at this point, with one invented by Tolkien that people use to invoke Tolkien.
yeah.. no.. again. I can think off the top of my head of a good 6-7 vastly different depictions of elves.. and you can't just lob them in two main groups the way you've tried to do...because that's totally ignoring the differences within those groups..differences that are not just flavour or regional naming, but concern the very nature of elves..
and no, dwarves are not all the same everywhere..again, don't assume the western/american/pop culture to be the only one out there or the only one people all across the globe know off and hold into esteem.
__________________
a triple cheer for Wojiz, for making me my very own Avatar...
yeah.. no.. again. I can think off the top of my head of a good 6-7 vastly different depictions of elves.. and you can't just lob them in two main groups the way you've tried to do...because that's totally ignoring the differences within those groups..differences that are not just flavour or regional naming, but concern the very nature of elves..
and no, dwarves are not all the same everywhere..again, don't assume the western/american/pop culture to be the only one out there or the only one people all across the globe know off and hold into esteem.
This. I mean look at Rowlings House-Elves. You can't claim those aren't elves because they have a strong enough folklore background, while also being similar to dozens of separate but incredibly similar mythological beings from the same rough archetype from across the entire planet. Saying they don't count would be foolish, as would saying they're exactly the same.
The thing is, we never really hear Soras give any real metric for what does or doesn't count for this or that. It'd be great if he could give us numbers or sources, so we could get an actual discussion going.
The thing is, we never really hear Soras give any real metric for what does or doesn't count for this or that. It'd be great if he could give us numbers or sources, so we could get an actual discussion going.
not me, thanksalot..lol.. if you have enough sources (and we have the interwebz) you can make 'em say anything you like..and it will all sound un-counterable in your head anyway.
__________________
a triple cheer for Wojiz, for making me my very own Avatar...
I like my vampires as immortal god-titans living in the twilight and sucking out the souls of any who come near, destroying life by their presence and requiring at least siege weapons to take them down.
EDIT:
Quote:
Originally Posted by dehro
yeah.. no.. again. I can think off the top of my head of a good 6-7 vastly different depictions of elves.. and you can't just lob them in two main groups the way you've tried to do...because that's totally ignoring the differences within those groups..differences that are not just flavour or regional naming, but concern the very nature of elves..
and no, dwarves are not all the same everywhere..again, don't assume the western/american/pop culture to be the only one out there or the only one people all across the globe know off and hold into esteem.
Just out of curiosity (even though this is rather off-topic), what 6-7 "vastly different depictions of elves" are you thinking of?
__________________
Strawberries is thanked for being an awesome avatarist.
not me, thanksalot..lol.. if you have enough sources (and we have the interwebz) you can make 'em say anything you like..and it will all sound un-counterable in your head anyway.
Yeah, which is why you use sources, so people can read them and argue to the point otherwise. That's how civil discussion generally gets done, or should anyway, since then you're arguing about facts, or at least a hard set check-able thing, instead of just lobbing opinions around.
I mean when something can be proven one way or the other, you have an argument one side can actually win. It doesn't need to be your side, but it's something that progress can be made on.
not me, thanksalot..lol.. if you have enough sources (and we have the interwebz) you can make 'em say anything you like..and it will all sound un-counterable in your head anyway.
While this is somehow true, a source (and the goodness of it) gives weight to your argument. And the vast number of sources at our disposal, is exactly the reason why you should use them to support your thesis.
Edit: for example, now I could cite ^Jayngfet's post, as proof of ninjas' existence.
__________________
Do I contradict myself?
Very well then I contradict myself. I am large, I contain multitudes. (W.Withman)
Things that increase my self esteem:
Spoiler
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaiyanwang
Great analysis KA. I second all things you said
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeYounger
Great analysis KA, I second everything you said here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryu_Bonkosi
If I have a player using Paladin in the future I will direct them to this. Good job.
Quote:
Originally Posted by grimbold
THIS is proof that KA is amazing
Quote:
Originally Posted by PairO'Dice Lost
Killer Angel, you have an excellent taste in books
Avatar removed, work in progress...
Last edited by Killer Angel : 10-02-2012 at 04:47 AM.
RSS Feeds: 
Re: Worst Instances of Vampirism in media
