Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 4 of 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 10 11
Joined: Oct 2020
enthusiast
OP Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by fylimar
Originally Posted by Lady Avyna
Originally Posted by fylimar
Originally Posted by Lady Avyna
[quote=Innateagle][quote=Dexai]

Midnight Mass made the vampire look more dark, giving it the bat/demon look. Whereas, Astarion has more of appealing vampire look. Dracula didn't look hideous when romancing Mina or even vampires from Anne Rice' s Vampire Chronicles, they have an attractive, seductive look. Also, why do you view Astarion as a "murder hobo" ? Is it because he attacks you when you first meet when he assumed that you were responsible for what happened in the ship? That doesn't make him a murder hobo, that was a one time deal. As for him trying to drink your blood, he does tell you that he never intended to hurt you. I can understand that for him being a vampire, it's a must for him.

Sorry, I have to pitch in again. Astarion is a murder hobo, because he likes to murder people, simple as that. He says it multiple times. And you get disapproval, if you try to choose a solution, that avoids bloodshed. I would say, that he is at leas a wannabe murder hobo (wannabe, because you will mostly block him, when you play a good character).

And about Dracula (a pet peeve of mine, since I like the book so much) and generally 'traditional vampires':
Dracula doesn't have a romance with Mina - she is food for him. I'm referring to the original novel by Bram Stoker, there is no romance other than between Jonathan and Mina and Lucy and her suitors (I don't remember atm, if she decides on one of them). Dracula is actually really hideous and looks only slightly better, when he drank enough blood - again original Bram Stoker not Coppola (I'm actually mostly ok with the movie apart from the fact of the stupid romance plot that doesn't make sense) and he stinks of death (that one never changes).
The real vampire stories mostly aren't about some sexy tropes, but about often hideous creatures. I blame Bela Lugosi, who forever made Dracula a gentleman, I don't think, there was ever a book faithful adaption of the count afterwards - if you know Friedrich Murnaus Nosferatu - that is one of the more faithful adaptions. And I think, they did a decent job in portraying Dracula in Penny Dreadful (and vampires in general).

I'm mostly ok with how vampires are portrayed in games like Vampire the Masquerade, because they tried to fit every kind in and it is up to the people playing it, to decide, if it will become a horror story or a romance.

Midnight Mass is one of the few newer examples of vampires btw, I can get behind again. Another one is the book and movie 'Let the right one in'.

I'd say since Bela Lugosi played Dracula as an elegant gentleman, the sexy vampire trope was born, but it is a relative new development.

The first real vampire story is Dracula and Dracula lore does not come from Bram Stoker but from Romania. The book Dracula was inspired by the Romanian stories of Vlad the Impaler whose real name was Vlad Tempes. One of the stories that made him a vampire, is said that he would dip his bread in a cup of blood of his impaled enemies. In Romania where some do believe he is a vampire and a protector, they don't depict him in a hideous form but his regular human form.


Nope, that is not even remotely the first vampire story, but one of the later ones. And Vlad the Impaler was a romanian noble, fighting the turks. Stoker made him a vampire, there were no legends of that kind beforehand Vlad the Impaler

Vampire stories exists since old Greek, old China and old India and probably even sooner (I'm pretty sure, I've read a Mesopotamian vampire legend somewhere)

You seem to be making this bigger than what it is. You're giving me the impression that you don't like Astarion's vampirism because he's not depicting in the way YOU like. I, on the otherhand, don't mind how he looks based on the more popular vampire looks. The reason why I mentioned Dracula as being the first vampire story is because it is the first vampire story to be made popular. You seem to have misunderstood what I meant by Vlad the Impaler being a vampire. The "stories" I mentioned are oral stories. He is in fact revered in Romania and considered a protector. There are a few legends regarding him as a vampire but once again they are oral stories. These are things that I have heard historians say in regards to Vlad the Impaler.

Joined: Nov 2020
Banned
Offline
Banned
Joined: Nov 2020
Originally Posted by fylimar
Originally Posted by Lady Avyna
Originally Posted by fylimar
Originally Posted by Lady Avyna
[quote=Innateagle][quote=Dexai]

Midnight Mass made the vampire look more dark, giving it the bat/demon look. Whereas, Astarion has more of appealing vampire look. Dracula didn't look hideous when romancing Mina or even vampires from Anne Rice' s Vampire Chronicles, they have an attractive, seductive look. Also, why do you view Astarion as a "murder hobo" ? Is it because he attacks you when you first meet when he assumed that you were responsible for what happened in the ship? That doesn't make him a murder hobo, that was a one time deal. As for him trying to drink your blood, he does tell you that he never intended to hurt you. I can understand that for him being a vampire, it's a must for him.

Sorry, I have to pitch in again. Astarion is a murder hobo, because he likes to murder people, simple as that. He says it multiple times. And you get disapproval, if you try to choose a solution, that avoids bloodshed. I would say, that he is at leas a wannabe murder hobo (wannabe, because you will mostly block him, when you play a good character).

And about Dracula (a pet peeve of mine, since I like the book so much) and generally 'traditional vampires':
Dracula doesn't have a romance with Mina - she is food for him. I'm referring to the original novel by Bram Stoker, there is no romance other than between Jonathan and Mina and Lucy and her suitors (I don't remember atm, if she decides on one of them). Dracula is actually really hideous and looks only slightly better, when he drank enough blood - again original Bram Stoker not Coppola (I'm actually mostly ok with the movie apart from the fact of the stupid romance plot that doesn't make sense) and he stinks of death (that one never changes).
The real vampire stories mostly aren't about some sexy tropes, but about often hideous creatures. I blame Bela Lugosi, who forever made Dracula a gentleman, I don't think, there was ever a book faithful adaption of the count afterwards - if you know Friedrich Murnaus Nosferatu - that is one of the more faithful adaptions. And I think, they did a decent job in portraying Dracula in Penny Dreadful (and vampires in general).

I'm mostly ok with how vampires are portrayed in games like Vampire the Masquerade, because they tried to fit every kind in and it is up to the people playing it, to decide, if it will become a horror story or a romance.

Midnight Mass is one of the few newer examples of vampires btw, I can get behind again. Another one is the book and movie 'Let the right one in'.

I'd say since Bela Lugosi played Dracula as an elegant gentleman, the sexy vampire trope was born, but it is a relative new development.

The first real vampire story is Dracula and Dracula lore does not come from Bram Stoker but from Romania. The book Dracula was inspired by the Romanian stories of Vlad the Impaler whose real name was Vlad Tempes. One of the stories that made him a vampire, is said that he would dip his bread in a cup of blood of his impaled enemies. In Romania where some do believe he is a vampire and a protector, they don't depict him in a hideous form but his regular human form.


Nope, that is not even remotely the first vampire story, but one of the later ones. And Vlad the Impaler was a romanian noble, fighting the turks. Stoker made him a vampire, there were no legends of that kind beforehand Vlad the Impaler

Vampire stories exists since old Greek, old China and old India and probably even sooner (I'm pretty sure, I've read a Mesopotamian vampire legend somewhere)

And to add to that, Tepes actually means 'the Impaler'. Same for Dracula, it actually means Son of the Dragon (after his father, Vlad Dracul - the Dragon). That's what the legends were about, and that's why he 'became' a vampire. Some rad nicknames.

Joined: Dec 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Dec 2020
Originally Posted by Lady Avyna
You seem to be making this bigger than what it is. You're giving me the impression that you don't like Astarion's vampirism because he's not depicting in the way YOU like. I, on the otherhand, don't mind how he looks based on the more popular vampire looks. The reason why I mentioned Dracula as being the first vampire story is because it is the first vampire story to be made popular. You seem to have misunderstood what I meant by Vlad the Impaler being a vampire. The "stories" I mentioned are oral stories. He is in fact revered in Romania and considered a protector. There are a few legends regarding him as a vampire but once again they are oral stories. These are things that I have heard historians say in regards to Vlad the Impaler.

No, you lay words in my mouth, please don't do that. I don't like Astarion, because he isn't a very original character and basically a cliche in my opinion, as I said before. And that hasn't even to do with him being a vampire (otehr that he feeds a certain trope), but with him being evil stupid (as someone so fittingly put it). ANd I thought, I did express that plainly enough ... obviously not.

I only corrected some of the things you wrote about vampires, because they are simply not true - is the good looking vampire the most popular today? Why, certainly yes. But that is a new phenomena. And the good looking vampires can still be interesting - but not in Twilight-like stories, that are more romances, than anything (I recommend Poppy Z. Brite, Lost Souls). And there wasn't a legend about Vlad being a vampire, before Stoker decided to make him one. That one is made up by Francis Ford Coppola and his Dracula movie.
I only try to deliver facts here, as I said, I have no problem with Dracula being a gentleman vampire today or vampires mostly look good, but read quite a bit of vampire mythology and lore and just thought, I'll bring in my 2 cents of knowledge, that's all.


"We are all stories in the end. Just make it a good one."

Doctor Who
Joined: Oct 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
A lot of "Vampire" folklore get's lumped in together with the most popular depiction even if they only bear vague similarities. Also Dragons are common stand-ins for Satan, so there's a cursed by God angle baked in. On Coppola's film, I forget where I got this from, but it was apparently the originator for a romance between Mina and Dracula, which influenced the direction Vampire fiction went after, at least on film.

Last edited by Sozz; 02/11/21 07:13 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
enthusiast
OP Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by GM4Him
Astarion is actually my second favorite. I didn't like him at first, but he grew on me quickly. I also think he's underestimated. I think he does it on purpose, and everyone just thinks he's some flamboyant idiot. I'm fairly certain he either IS Cazador, or he's much more than he tells you that he is; perhaps a rival of Cazador's or something. What I think is someone made a deal with devils in regards to him, and it is written all over his back in his scars. The mind flayers chose him for a reason, so I'm thinking that he is lying through his teeth a LOT during EA. He's playing a weak jokester who is subservient and is desperately in need of your help to escape his former master and just wants to be your friend and for you to trust him, but whether he actually is enslaved by Cazador or not, he's using you all the way. You trust him, he'll literally bite you in the end. No doubts. He's evil to the core underneath it all. Is he savable? Maybe. Either way, I think he's totally underestimated.

Besides, he makes me laugh. I love the "How would you like to die," conversation. "Strangulation. Poisoning." smile


Originally Posted by GM4Him
Gale and Wyll, I want to like them more, but maybe I just don't know enough about them. Of all the characters in the game, I trust Gale the least. I'm fairly certain he's a Netherese mage who is just looking to gain as much power as he can for some totally diabolical scheme he's got concocted, and I'm fairly sure he's a two-faced liar manipulator. But then, every time you do something bad, he disapproves. So, is he good? Hard to say. I just don't trust him in the slightest.

And did anyone else notice that Gale is the ONLY origin character that you do NOT immediately connect with in terms of the tadpole? You connect with each and every one of the others, but not Gale. What's up with that? Is his maelstrom of anti-magic preventing you? Is he even infected? He seems to be. He acts like he is, but is he really? What if he is actually not infected, and he's just using his tadpole to get close to you to find a way to control you and manipulate you. But then, he can also gain tadpole powers... so...

I agree with you on Astarion being underestimated and also a big +1 on the mystery behind his back scar. Like I said in a previous response, there is more to Astarion than meets the eye. I think Astarion purposely acts the way he does as there are moments where he acts more serious.

As for Gale, you surprised me about the tadpole connection. You are right, I forget we don't get that instant connection with him. He's the only one. I also believe we don't get the option to use ilithid powers on him like we can with the other companions. As for netherese magic, I think he knows more than he is letting on.

Joined: Oct 2020
enthusiast
OP Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by fylimar
Originally Posted by Lady Avyna
You seem to be making this bigger than what it is. You're giving me the impression that you don't like Astarion's vampirism because he's not depicting in the way YOU like. I, on the otherhand, don't mind how he looks based on the more popular vampire looks. The reason why I mentioned Dracula as being the first vampire story is because it is the first vampire story to be made popular. You seem to have misunderstood what I meant by Vlad the Impaler being a vampire. The "stories" I mentioned are oral stories. He is in fact revered in Romania and considered a protector. There are a few legends regarding him as a vampire but once again they are oral stories. These are things that I have heard historians say in regards to Vlad the Impaler.

No, you lay words in my mouth, please don't do that. I don't like Astarion, because he isn't a very original character and basically a cliche in my opinion, as I said before. And that hasn't even to do with him being a vampire (otehr that he feeds a certain trope), but with him being evil stupid (as someone so fittingly put it). ANd I thought, I did express that plainly enough ... obviously not.

I only corrected some of the things you wrote about vampires, because they are simply not true - is the good looking vampire the most popular today? Why, certainly yes. But that is a new phenomena. And the good looking vampires can still be interesting - but not in Twilight-like stories, that are more romances, than anything (I recommend Poppy Z. Brite, Lost Souls). And there wasn't a legend about Vlad being a vampire, before Stoker decided to make him one. That one is made up by Francis Ford Coppola and his Dracula movie.
I only try to deliver facts here, as I said, I have no problem with Dracula being a gentleman vampire today or vampires mostly look good, but read quite a bit of vampire mythology and lore and just thought, I'll bring in my 2 cents of knowledge, that's all.

Again you are misunderstanding what I wrote. When I mentioned stories, I said oral stories. You are not going to find them in writing. As I said these are things I have heard historians say. Just like you, I have also read plenty of vampire lore but what you and I have read could be different. That's why you and I keep contradicting each other. I also want to remind you the I did not intend this thread to be a debate but to discuss why we like or do not like each companion, although you seem to have responded to my comments in a very argumentative way. You are also the person that responded to me previously by saying not to ask you why you don't like Astarion before you edited that part out of your response.

Joined: Dec 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Dec 2020
Originally Posted by Lady Avyna
Again you are misunderstanding what I wrote. When I mentioned stories, I said oral stories. You are not going to find them in writing. As I said these are things I have heard historians say. Just like you, I have also read plenty of vampire lore but what you and I have read could be different. That's why you and I keep contradicting each other. I also want to remind you the I did not intend this thread to be a debate but to discuss why we like or do not like each companion, although you seem to have responded to my comments in a very argumentative way. You are also the person that responded to me previously by saying not to ask you why you don't like Astarion before you edited that part out of your response.

Nope, I understand perfectly, I just don't agree - two different things. ANd you were the one, wanting discussions here (see your answer to me on page 1). But I'm done here, this isn't leading anywhere.


"We are all stories in the end. Just make it a good one."

Doctor Who
Joined: Oct 2020
enthusiast
OP Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by fylimar
Originally Posted by Lady Avyna
Again you are misunderstanding what I wrote. When I mentioned stories, I said oral stories. You are not going to find them in writing. As I said these are things I have heard historians say. Just like you, I have also read plenty of vampire lore but what you and I have read could be different. That's why you and I keep contradicting each other. I also want to remind you the I did not intend this thread to be a debate but to discuss why we like or do not like each companion, although you seem to have responded to my comments in a very argumentative way. You are also the person that responded to me previously by saying not to ask you why you don't like Astarion before you edited that part out of your response.

Nope, I understand perfectly, I just don't agree - two different things. ANd you were the one, wanting discussions here (see your answer to me on page 1). But I'm done here, this isn't leading anywhere.

The issue I see here is you don’t like my responses and are extremely dismissive which is why I see it as you being argumentative. Yes, this is a discussion but your response to me when I asked you about not seeing something or someone that is important as interesting was defensive where you accused me of insisting you like Astarion and before you edited it, you wrote “do not ask me again”. It stops being a discussion when the tone in your writing sounds defensive and argumentative.

Joined: Jul 2009
I
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
I
Joined: Jul 2009
Originally Posted by Sozz
A lot of "Vampire" folklore get's lumped in together with the most popular depiction even if they only bear vague similarities. Also Dragons are common stand-ins for Satan, so there's a cursed by God angle baked in. On Coppola's film, I forget where I got this from, but it was apparently the originator for a romance between Mina and Dracula, which influenced the direction Vampire fiction went after, at least on film.

Except that the nickname Dracul came from his membership of the Order of the Dragon, a knighly order dedicated to St. George which focused on opposing the Ottoman Empire (= the dragon they wanted to slay).

Joined: Dec 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Dec 2020
Originally Posted by Lady Avyna
Originally Posted by fylimar
Originally Posted by Lady Avyna
Again you are misunderstanding what I wrote. When I mentioned stories, I said oral stories. You are not going to find them in writing. As I said these are things I have heard historians say. Just like you, I have also read plenty of vampire lore but what you and I have read could be different. That's why you and I keep contradicting each other. I also want to remind you the I did not intend this thread to be a debate but to discuss why we like or do not like each companion, although you seem to have responded to my comments in a very argumentative way. You are also the person that responded to me previously by saying not to ask you why you don't like Astarion before you edited that part out of your response.

Nope, I understand perfectly, I just don't agree - two different things. ANd you were the one, wanting discussions here (see your answer to me on page 1). But I'm done here, this isn't leading anywhere.

The issue I see here is you don’t like my responses and are extremely dismissive which is why I see it as you being argumentative. Yes, this is a discussion but your response to me when I asked you about not seeing something or someone that is important as interesting was defensive where you accused me of insisting you like Astarion and before you edited it, you wrote “do not ask me again”. It stops being a discussion when the tone in your writing sounds defensive and argumentative.


As I said, we have different opinions and I don't think, I was argumentative. I have a different opinion from yours and we clearly don't see eye to eye. If you feel offended by that, sorry. I was just trying to have a discussion.
But anyway, that's it for me, I really don't want to go on and on about who said what in which tone.
Let's jus tagree to disagree and leave it at that, ok?

Last edited by fylimar; 02/11/21 07:49 PM. Reason: typo

"We are all stories in the end. Just make it a good one."

Doctor Who
Joined: Oct 2020
enthusiast
OP Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by fylimar
Originally Posted by Lady Avyna
Originally Posted by fylimar
Originally Posted by Lady Avyna
Again you are misunderstanding what I wrote. When I mentioned stories, I said oral stories. You are not going to find them in writing. As I said these are things I have heard historians say. Just like you, I have also read plenty of vampire lore but what you and I have read could be different. That's why you and I keep contradicting each other. I also want to remind you the I did not intend this thread to be a debate but to discuss why we like or do not like each companion, although you seem to have responded to my comments in a very argumentative way. You are also the person that responded to me previously by saying not to ask you why you don't like Astarion before you edited that part out of your response.

Nope, I understand perfectly, I just don't agree - two different things. ANd you were the one, wanting discussions here (see your answer to me on page 1). But I'm done here, this isn't leading anywhere.

The issue I see here is you don’t like my responses and are extremely dismissive which is why I see it as you being argumentative. Yes, this is a discussion but your response to me when I asked you about not seeing something or someone that is important as interesting was defensive where you accused me of insisting you like Astarion and before you edited it, you wrote “do not ask me again”. It stops being a discussion when the tone in your writing sounds defensive and argumentative.


As I said, we have different opinions and I don't think, I was argumentative. I have a different opinion from yours and we clearly don't see eye to eye. If you feel offended by that, sorry. I was just trying to have a discussion.
But anyway, that's it for me, I really don't want to go on and on about who said what in which tone.
Let's jus tagree to disagree and leave it at that, ok?

Yes, we can agree to disagree but once again, please, watch how you write online. There is no reason for “ok?” at the end of that sentence. It comes off as being forceful like giving someone an attitude.

Joined: Oct 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
They took blasphemy a bit more seriously back then, I wasn't saying he was openly proclaiming himself a Anti-Christ. But your point is well taken.

Joined: Dec 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Dec 2020
Originally Posted by Lady Avyna
Yes, we can agree to disagree but once again, please, watch how you write online. There is no reason for “ok?” at the end of that sentence. It comes off as being forceful like giving someone an attitude.

And that is patronising, so please watch yourself, how you write online. It comes off as ...well... patronising and condescending.


"We are all stories in the end. Just make it a good one."

Doctor Who
Joined: Oct 2020
enthusiast
OP Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by fylimar
Originally Posted by Lady Avyna
Yes, we can agree to disagree but once again, please, watch how you write online. There is no reason for “ok?” at the end of that sentence. It comes off as being forceful like giving someone an attitude.

And that is patronising, so please watch yourself, how you write online. It comes off as ...well... patronising and condescending.

I apologize if you think me saying that is condescending. Although you have been giving me an attitude ever since I asked your opinion on important and interesting characters.

Last edited by Lady Avyna; 02/11/21 08:14 PM.
Joined: Oct 2021
S
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
S
Joined: Oct 2021
Lady Avyna - this thread is getting exhausting to read. You did a great job of starting this interesting thread and getting the discussion going. But you personally making a response to every single post seems like you are trying to make this entire thread about you. It would have been much more interesting to read if you had launched it and then let it cook and marinate with a bunch of diverse opinions before jumping back in a half day or full day later. No need for one person to comment on every single post. I respect and enjoy reading your opinions and ideas, but I want to see a bunch of opinions and ideas without one person taking over the thread.

Joined: Oct 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by fylimar
I'd say since Bela Lugosi played Dracula as an elegant gentleman, the sexy vampire trope was born, but it is a relative new development.

Hehe since this is now also The Vampyre thread - worth noting that Lord Ruthven predates Stoker's Dracula by 3 generations, and Bela's 'gentleman Dracula' performance by more than a century. The suggestion has long been that Lord Ruthven was modelled on Lord Byron as the ultimate predatory gentleman chasing skirts, since Polidori was Byron's travelling companion and saw how dude operated when shades were drawn.

The legend of Vampyre's drafting is quite famous - as a parlour game challenge. The other celebrated story to come out of it was Mary Shelly's Frankenstien. So they are forever linked, well before cinema was invented. Also sexualized, pretty thoroughly in both camps before the screen was made silver. Le Fanu's Carmilla, the lesbian vampire archetype, is earlier than Stoker's Dracula too. Max Schreck's Nosferatu painted Count Orlok as a vamp ghoul in his knockoff rendition, but the gentleman version is the earlier incarnation. It was already well established in theater by the time Bram Stoker came along, and used the baked-in theme for his own gothic romance riff.

Coppola's film adaptation is pretty brilliant. Almost all the special effects were shot in-camera, which is what makes it such a masterpiece of traditional filmaking (along with the score! Obviously hehe) but also because he treated the source material with a fairly deft hand, understanding pretty well what Stoker was ripping off and updating, and the general milleau that he was borrowing from. He definitely didn't invent it though, and it wasn't exactly novel at the time it debuted. But the cinema eclipsed everything as soon as it arrived, and so Bela did pretty much conquer the world with his performance and seared it into the collective conciousness forevermore. Anne Rice did something rather similar, which is why she's so beloved. Even the tween vampires hit pretty close to the mark there, though I generally dislike that aesthetic.

Schreck still deserves some serious love though as the dominant counterbalancing visual archetype. His shadowplay performance was so memorable and iconic that it remains a hallmark of the genre, even if the general public hasn't watched silent films in nearly 100 years. Like Lang's Metropolis, clips from Nosferatu endure as legendary. Even if we've never seen it, we'd still know it, cause the reach is just that long- with those creepy fingers! Genius, always!

Where exactly Astarion fits in that legacy, a little bit harder for me to parse heheh

Last edited by Black_Elk; 02/11/21 09:07 PM.
Joined: Dec 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Dec 2020
Originally Posted by Black_Elk
Originally Posted by fylimar
I'd say since Bela Lugosi played Dracula as an elegant gentleman, the sexy vampire trope was born, but it is a relative new development.

Hehe since this is now also The Vampyre thread - worth noting that Lord Ruthven predates Stoker's Dracula by 3 generations, and Bela's 'gentleman Dracula' performance by more than a century. The suggestion has long been that Lord Ruthven was modelled on Lord Byron as the ultimate predatory gentleman chasing skirts, since Polidori was Byron's travelling companion and saw how dude operated when shades were drawn.

The legend of Vampyre's drafting is quite famous - as a parlour game challenge. The other celebrated story to come out of it was Mary Shelly's Frankenstien. So they are forever linked, well before cinema was invented. Also sexualized, pretty thoroughly in both camps before the screen was made silver. Le Fanu's Carmilla, the lesbian vampire archetype, is earlier than Stoker's Dracula too. Max Schreck's Nosferatu painted Count Orlok as a vamp ghoul in his knockoff rendition, but the gentleman version is the earlier incarnation. It was already well established in theater by the time Bram Stoker came along, and used the baked-in theme for his own gothic romance riff.

Coppola's film adaptation is pretty brilliant. Almost all the special effects were shot in-camera, which is what makes it such a masterpiece of traditional filmaking (along with the score! Obviously hehe) but also because he treated the source material with a fairly deft hand, understanding pretty well what Stoker was ripping off and updating, and the general milleau that he was borrowing from. He definitely didn't invent it though, and it wasn't exactly novel at the time it debuted. But the cinema eclipsed everything as soon as it arrived, and so Bela did pretty much conquer the world with his performance and seared it into the collective conciousness forevermore. Anne Rice did something rather similar, which is why she's so beloved. Even the tween vampires hit pretty close to the mark there, though I generally dislike that aesthetic.

Schreck still deserves some serious love though as the dominant counterbalancing visual archetype. His shadowplay performance was so memorable and iconic that it remains a hallmark of the genre, even if the general public hasn't watched silent films in nearly 100 years. Like Lang's Metropolis, clips from Nosferatu endure as legendary. Even if we've never seen it, we'd still know it, cause the reach is just that long- with those creepy fingers! Genius, always!

Where exactly Astarion fits in that legacy, a little bit harder for me to parse heheh
You are right about Ruthven and Carmilla, they were (and still to some extent are) popular.
I was mostly referring to Stokers original book as the today most well known classical vampire story and how Dracula wasn't really sexy there, he was quite hideous.
In most legends, vampire were frightening too.
But you are right, the gentleman archetype is a bit older than Lugosi. Still they are different from the vampires in stories today, where they often are just sex symbols. I, too, am not fond of the teen vampire stories including Twilight, Vampire Diaries and True Blood.
Nosferatu is a great movie btw. Did you see Shadow of the Vampire? It's a hommage to Nosferatu.


"We are all stories in the end. Just make it a good one."

Doctor Who
Joined: Mar 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Mar 2020
Originally Posted by fylimar
[
You are right about Ruthven and Carmilla, they were (and still to some extent are) popular.
I was mostly referring to Stokers original book as the today most well known classical vampire story and how Dracula wasn't really sexy there, he was quite hideous.

Yes and no. Dracula was everything that was wrong about the aristocracy, true. A vestigial cancer that just refuses to die even as it leaches the life from the body politic . . .

The erotic aspect comes out in Lucy. There are very dark undertones of a woman liberated by an act of violence in her story. Lucy goes from an easily ignored mouse to a terrifying force to reckoned with. If you read erotica from the time period -- and even up to the early 70s -- the woman whose sexuality is freed by an act of violence was common theme.

Joined: Dec 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Dec 2020
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit
Originally Posted by fylimar
[
You are right about Ruthven and Carmilla, they were (and still to some extent are) popular.
I was mostly referring to Stokers original book as the today most well known classical vampire story and how Dracula wasn't really sexy there, he was quite hideous.

Yes and no. Dracula was everything that was wrong about the aristocracy, true. A vestigial cancer that just refuses to die even as it leaches the life from the body politic . . .

The erotic aspect comes out in Lucy. There are very dark undertones of a woman liberated by an act of violence in her story. Lucy goes from an easily ignored mouse to a terrifying force to reckoned with. If you read erotica from the time period -- and even up to the early 70s -- the woman whose sexuality is freed by an act of violence was common theme.
I'm not very versed with erotica from this time, but I trust your word on that. It does sound awful though, being liberated through violence.
You are right about Lucy, but I also found her terrifying as a vampire. That scene was creepy as far as I remember.

Last edited by fylimar; 02/11/21 10:09 PM.

"We are all stories in the end. Just make it a good one."

Doctor Who
Joined: Oct 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
I was hoping you'd chime in KillerRabbit. Trauma as liberating force, is not uncommon today, I was surprised (in a good way) at how subversive the "interrogation" scene between Kylo Ren and Rey was in The Force Awakens. Sexual politics in stories are always interesting to me, I think because it's such a veiled subject in the public square, I think this is also one of the reasons why vampire fiction is so compelling to people.

It's kind of interesting to compare modern vampires and werewolves this way, vampires are allegories for decadence, while werewolves are about uncontrolled animalistic passions, but they're allegories have been twisted together. I'm not totally sure why. Possibly because vampires are more popular they subsume the aspects of other stories.

Page 4 of 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 10 11

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5