Is Buffy passe' now in light of more current vampire movies & series?

POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Tuesday, February 3, 2009 19:32
VIEWED: 8371
PAGE 2 of 5

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT PAGE

BIGRICHARD

Friday, January 16, 2009 12:29 AM

...tuo siht tros I ecno ylper lll'i...ko..zeej....sdrawkcab gnipyt si draobyek ym

KAREL

Friday, January 16, 2009 12:42 AM

Everything since Buffy is passe', at least in a "been there, done that, got many tee-shirts" sort of way.

"Whatever is wrong with you is so right for me." -- Marillion.

BIGRICHARD

Friday, January 16, 2009 12:49 AM

Yeah, I kind of agree. But it's not really just Buffy. All TV that isn't Whedon TV just isn't as good.

And as I was going to say before, before my keyboard started typing everything backwards, True Blood isn't as good as Buffy, I'm not saying that, but it does actually have some interesting characters and ideas and such, and I think it's worth watching. Although it is more graphic than Buffy and not meant to be particularly funny. But yes, for vampires, I really liked Let The Right One In.

Did anyone here actually read and like Twilight though? Because I'll probably end up reading it eventually, my sister is loving it, unfortunately and she always uses the "you liked BUFFY!" excuse, and says "can't judge a book by it's cover!" and all that, so I'll have to read it to shut her up I think.

BYTEMITE

Friday, January 16, 2009 1:01 AM

Maybe I stopped watching True Blood before it got better then, or something. Well, and it's probably just not for me. Thanks for not taking it personally, I came on a little strong there in my anti True Blood rant. :)

Have not read Twilight... Not sure it's intended for folks out of high-school. <_< *shrug* I don't really relate to that crowd, and didn't really IN high-school either. Go go outcast clique!

And romance, blargh. There isn't much romance I can take. >_>

CYBERSNARK

Friday, January 16, 2009 1:42 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
At least it sounds like Buffy had other flavours beyond the vampires, and there was probably a significant amount of parody involved in the vampire depiction itself.

Yeah. Vampires are hard to do well.

There's an instinct to do them seriously, but the human-like vampire as a literary archetype (i.e., Dracula) is rooted in Victorian cultural mores. Vampires are the transgressors, who are terrifying in their intelligence (as opposed to being savages, who were easy for the Victorians to look down on --they were less civilized, so it's understandable that they'd be "monstrous"). Vampires choose to be terrible and inhuman. Without that context, they inevitably seem to go all melodramatic and angsty/poetical (which, of course, is exactly how the Victorians wanted them. We however, are not Victorians).

Trying to correct this tendency just results in slavering flesh-devouring monsters without any human personality --the very thing the Stoker-esque vampire was crafted to stand as a counterpoint to.

Joss' strength was that he saw the inherent absurdity of the vampire; the only times he played them straight were when he was going to poke fun at them, or have them suddenly break character. Hell, even Dracula himself was sneered at by Spike (and Buffy, and eventually Angel too [in the comics]), precisely because he was an overly melodramatic dandy.

-----
We applied the cortical electrodes but were unable to get a neural reaction from either patient.

BIGRICHARD

Friday, January 16, 2009 1:46 AM

no problem, I know you weren't being personal. It quite possibly isn't for you, I'm often quite easily pleased, and True Blood isn't one of those things I'm crazy about (like Firefly, Buffy, etc.), I just enjoyed watching it. That said, I'm not sure I'd miss it if it were cancelled, which says something.

Yeah I don't like any of those things either (aside from Harry Potter), I was just interested in seeing whether ANYONE outside the young teen girl age bracket actually liked the Twilight books. Guess not.

Unfortunately most vampire movies/books ARE romance tales, the only one I can really think of that isn't is 30 Days of Night, which I enjoyed, both movie and graphic novel. And possibly Interview with a Vampire, but I haven't seen that in ages, so I could be wrong.

BYTEMITE

Friday, January 16, 2009 3:11 AM

So smart, thinking to put a VAMPIRE STORY in ALASKA in WINTER. Just awesome premise.

Ahh, Stoker's Dracula. Now there's a real look into the darkness of people, without a whole lot of vampire fluff, and without going overboard too. Of course, I still find Stoker's Dracula a bit too romanticized and sensual for my tastes, but that's more a sign of those times, so I can't really fault that. Though it DID give rise to every future bad vampire representation in the future. Outside that context though... Good stuff.

And you know, it's weird. Just before Dracula claims each new "bride" so to speak, you might almost think the bastard cares. Hates the women after he turns them, though. Classic example of ruining what you touch and blaming the victim, I guess.

CHRISISALL

Friday, January 16, 2009 3:20 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Cybersnark:
Yeah. Vampires are hard to do well.

CS, your whole post was EXCELLENT!!!

Btw, I find Christopher Lee's Dracula flicks strangely alluring....

The dripping Chrisisall

CHRISISALL

Friday, January 16, 2009 6:17 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
a VAMPIRE STORY in ALASKA in WINTER.

Intriguing.

The Sol-challenged Chrisisall

BIGRICHARD

Friday, January 16, 2009 11:48 AM

have you not read/seen 30 Days of Night Chrisisall?

Both (the film and the graphic novel) have things I'd change about them, but it's an absolutely brilliant idea, and executed much better than most other vampire stories.

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT PAGE