GregCentauro
Banned
You can't escape the zombie threads.
Dick Cheney has given vampires a bad rep.
Dick Cheney has given vampires a bad rep.
Has the vampire/zombie thing run its course?
- Thread starter DJCowboy
- Start date
Edward trying to get with Bella's great-great-great Granddaughter because she just so happens to look like Bella. Oh! I'm getting wet just thinking about it!
I really wish someone would either go back to the Hammer horror style vampire or try something really innovative with them, rather than the emo/troubled teen shit, I blame Buffy & all that rubbish.
As for zombies, after the fuckawful Zombieland, yes they have run their course. But all it really takes is someone to bring a fresh approach I guess rather than churn out the same old shit.
As for zombies, after the fuckawful Zombieland, yes they have run their course. But all it really takes is someone to bring a fresh approach I guess rather than churn out the same old shit.
Spleen
Banned?
Clearly you haven't seen Twilight.
The new breed of Vampires taking over TV/movies are fucking pathetic. Bring back the ones from 30 Days Of Night, they kicked ass.
They were quite good in that. We do need to see a more barbaric animalistic approach to vampires rather than this shitty romantic tragic lost soul approach.
They were quite good in that. We do need to see a more barbaric animalistic approach to vampires rather than this shitty romantic tragic lost soul approach.
I disagree on this one. Even though I agree with you on the tragic lost soul approach part, I do not believe we need to see more animalistic vampires.
with fictional characters like vampires and zombies I usually apply the system formerly used in the AD&D games.
Lawful good ... Neutral good ... Chaotic good
Lawful neutral ... True neutral .. Chaotic neutral
Lawful evil ... Neutral evil ... Chaotic evil
IMHO vampires belong & should belong to the lawful evil category. They have a strict hierarchy & will publicly obey the laws of the land they live in, to get better of it themselves. Everyone knows they drink blood & often kill their victims, but there's no proof. Siring would happen because the 'victim' wanted it, but he/she would be the eternal servant of the one who sired him (unless he could get that vampire killed by framing him/her), even though the former 'victim' might be stronger.
If vampires became more animalistic you'd be putting them in the chaotic evil category (which is where zombies belong). The strongest would simply rule by force and even try to kill his/her underlings. They'd have no regard for the law and they'd have no reason to sire their victims. They'd stand out in any society and since their numbers wouldn't grow, they'd soon all be dead.
Zombies do fit into the chaotic evil category, since they're essentially reanimated corpses. They have no society or hierarchy to speak of and the only reason they can survive is because they have a thinking leader who forces his will upon the zombies & because they overwhelm the area they live in, so that a defense against the zombies becomes impossible. They'd gain rank simply by killing their victims (the mastermind could then reanimate that corpse) and they could thrive under such circumstances.
I like vampire and zombies films and computer games. I watching Tru Blood every wednesday a good programme. Though I perfer werewolves to zombies and vampires.
Excuse me but. . .wtf?!? They're not real!! What on earth are all these AD&D catagories?!? Lawful evil?!? wtf?!?
:eek:
All will not be bleak at the multiplex soon for both zombie and vampire films....You have Daybreakers which is a vampire film, and it looks decent. Pretty much the plot is that a majority of the worlds population have become vampires, and they are running out of a blood supply. Plus it has Willam DeFoe and Sam Neil in it and they are alright actors
Then for a zombie film you have World War Z, which is based on Max Brooks novel...kind of like Children of Men meets (orignal) Dawn of the Dead. And the zombies do not run in this one, thank christ.
Then for a zombie film you have World War Z, which is based on Max Brooks novel...kind of like Children of Men meets (orignal) Dawn of the Dead. And the zombies do not run in this one, thank christ.
PlasmaTwa2
The Second-Hottest Man in my Mother's Basement
That's depressing. Its impossible to find any vampire book or movie nowadays that don't have a vampire who is sympathetic or the good-guy. Let the Right One In is IMO the best vampire novel in a long time, and even it can't escape the idea of having a sympathetic vampire as a character.
Excuse me but. . .wtf?!? They're not real!! What on earth are all these AD&D catagories?!? Lawful evil?!? wtf?!?
:eek:
Simply put, what you want would be an entirely new creature & for the fantasy to be believable you'd have to create an entirely new background.
It's like saying "I'm tired of mummies wearing wrappings. I believe they should wear medieval armor". You'd be changing an essential part of what a mummy is & thus the creature would no longer be a mummy.
Without any further explanation, it would also be a very illogical creature. How did it acquire it's armor? Why is it in Egypt or an Egyptian museum? Why is there still a body in the armor (Europeans usually buried their dead without their armors)? Why did it suddenly become alive?
If you created a background which stated that these men were European knights of a certain order that got into an argument with the catholic church & were denied the right to be buried & that the put their armors on when they died as an alternative for not being able to be buried in a Christian way & that they would become alive again after 1000 years, it would become much more believable, but they still wouldn't be mummies.
A vampire, if it wants to be believable, has to be able to fit in society and has to be able to show a certain amount of sophistication, something an animalistic vampire would not be able to.
Er no. Its nothing at all like your mummy in armour ramblings. I don't want an entirely new creature, I haven't said vampires should stop drinking blood for example. & anyway, in the Boris Karloff film The Mummy, the titular creature does shed his bandages pretty early on. Oh & there have also been other types of mummy such as Tibetan mummies which don't have wrappings.
Anyway, vampires do not have to fit into society. They could be living on the fringes, unknown by humans like in 30 Days of Night actually.
Secondly, have you heard of Jekyll & Hyde? This portrayed a character that had a sophisticated side & a baser aspect when transformed into Hyde. Its not a stretch to use this example for a more brutal bloodsucking creature rather than the bland angst ridden teenagers we are subjected to. Basically the vampire is, like a lot of mythological creatures, one that can be reinterpreted to suit different themes/concerns as long as you stick to the basics of them needing to drink blood to survive. Cronos for example is an interesting take on the vampire myth.
Oh & I still have no idea what all that AD&D stuff was you was going on about?!?
I voted for vampires yes and zombies no because they really need to scrap these Twilight ideas and make vampires evil again. I think the last vampire movie I liked was 30 Days of Night....and thats been a while. I'll never get sick of zombies , though. There seems to always be a good one getting ready to come out. I can't wait for 28 Months Later.
Here is the thing, i LOVE zombies. They can never get tiresome. Vampires, when done right, are great (True Blood!), but when done poorly suck ass (Twilight). Please, end the gay, emo vampire thing, NOW!!!!!!!!!!!
Similar threads
