Analyze how the vampire evolved from the fear inspiring Dracula to the bedazzled Edward and all those in between. What are the pros and cons to different eras of vampirism.
Nice topic. Consider talking about how the publication of vampire stories has evolved as well (a few years ago they were everywhere; now you pretty much can't pay an agent or editor to read another one). – Stephanie M.7 years ago
I agree a good topic and if you narrow it to the presentations in film that will be a doable article, otherwise might go a little too big. This becomes especially interesting when you reach the last 20 years and the timeline branches into multiple interpretations. – SaraiMW7 years ago
Great topic, I used to obsess over teen fiction and vampiric based novels when I was younger and now I can see the trend basically vanishing in youth fiction these days - or at least the obsession with the vampire genre has faded. – NickyHoward7 years ago
This is such a great topic!! I remember when Vampire were all the rage and I grew up in the generation that adored the Twilight novels.... However, I also have taken classes in University that have shown me the importance of the changing vampire narrative in literature as well as television and movies. I think of the first Dracula and Nosferatu movie and novel and how both were considered terrifying in their day however now they would seem quite tame. The vampire genre has changed and evolved over time because the interests and intrigues of their audience has also changed we went from Nosferatu vampires to vampire like the Cullens in Twilight --> a huge shift! Then there are also the vampires in novels like Vampire Academy and Vampire Diaries. Then there is the romanced version of the vampire in TV shows like True Blood and the sci-fi vampires in movies like Underworld. Vampires are becoming a thing of the past because there is always a new monster craze with the changing of the decades and what is deemed scary --> today it is the Zombie craze. There are so many ways you can go with this topic! :D – ChaosMistress58177 years ago
It may seem as though the Vampire genre is waning but to me, many of their most loved (or feared) qualities still live on in human characters. I was reading an article about the Byronic hero in modern media and began thinking about all the characters who could fit that today: the outcast, fighter, on his own side, sexually mesmerizing and somehow possessed of antiquated fashion sense that works. As I looked at the BBC's Sherlock, he seemed to fit all the criteria, especially the anti-social and sartorial style. That coat! And the hair! He actually co-opted many of the things we used to associate only with vampires. He's also pale and super-intelligent, yet lacking in the social graces of most humans. Then, as I wandered back in time to Spike the Bloody, from Buffy, I had to laugh. There was Sherlock's coat, but in leather. He even has a scarf! Spike to Sherlock: You stole my coat, you toff!" Like Spike, Sherlock was "resurrected" from a Victorian version of morality and the life of a gentleman scholar. Ann Rice's anti-heroes, Lestat and Louis seem now to have metamorphosed into sulking, eternal teens like Edward Cullen or sadistic guys who "can't love", like Christian Gray, who bugs me even more than Angel always did! We also have moody, long-coated heroes like Ross Poldark, who are on the side of good but keep screwing up...and seem unable to be faithful to the women they love. Would it be implausible that, as writers began to use the popular traits of vampires in their portrayal of human males (both hero and anti-hero), the vampires simply lie in wait for...something to bring them back? After all, the one thing they have that human heroes don't is immortality! – SharonGenet7 years ago
I recently re-watched Tod Brownings 1931 adaptation of Dracula, along with the Spanish language reshoot made the same year. Later, I watched an analysis of both films that was arguing the english language version was superior due to the technical proficiency of the camera operator. They compared the number of tracking shots, pushes, and dolly shots, then judged the quality of the film based off those numbers.
Personally, I find this to be somewhat of a silly way of judging a film's quality, but I couldn't help that agree with the author of the video that the English version looks much better than the Spanish one. Should the technical execution of a film, especially classic film, play a role in our subjective judgement of it?
