30 Days of Night Vampires are Scary Predators

[BleedBlack37]

They are some ugly fuckers. I saw the trailer movie that was 30 minutes long.That was good but im not sure about the movie.

[CyberTiger]

The movie sucked. It might just as well have been a low budget film.

[purple]

could someone plz tell me where I can post about dreams in here...I've been having really strange dreams lately..thxs

[LadyStardust]

Originally Posted by purple

could someone plz tell me where I can post about dreams in here...I've been having really strange dreams lately..thxs

I would suggest the General board. However, have you answered the questions in the introduction thread? If not, that should be your first priority.

[PastMidnight]

Producers completely ignored the stereotypings; vampires are suppose to be attractive, very smart, not die from a electrical light (that makes them weak against humans who own a lightbulb) and they weren't even able to open up doors. Wow, just close the door to your house and you'll be safe. What a joke!

[Malice In Wonderland]

Originally Posted by PastMidnight

Producers completely ignored the stereotypings; vampires are suppose to be attractive, very smart, not die from a electrical light (that makes them weak against humans who own a lightbulb) and they weren't even able to open up doors. Wow, just close the door to your house and you'll be safe. What a joke!

That was the point.

I guess you've never seen Bela Lugosi as Dracula.

[PastMidnight]

Wait, what do you mean that's the point? So the entire movie was suppose to be contradicting the general legends surrounding them? No, I haven't seen Bela Lugosi as Dracula.

[Cyntrox]

Originally Posted by PastMidnight

...not die from a electrical light (that makes them weak against humans who own a lightbulb)...

Actually, that was UV light.

On another note, I find this movie amusing, beucase where I live the sun doesn't go up for 2-3 months in the winter... =P

[Heretic]

Originally Posted by PastMidnight

Wait, what do you mean that's the point? So the entire movie was suppose to be contradicting the general legends surrounding them? No, I haven't seen Bela Lugosi as Dracula.

Oh, my goodness.

No offense, PastMidnight, but what we see of vampires these days is a tangent that began in the hypersexualized 70's and crystallized with the 1976 publication of the Anne Rice novel Interview with the Vampire. What we have seen since is a truly horrifying creature of legend reduced to the level of a cultural dildo.

What do I mean by this?

vampires are suppose to be attractive, very smart, not die from a electrical light (that makes them weak against humans who own a lightbulb) and they weren't even able to open up doors. Wow, just close the door to your house and you'll be safe. What a joke!

If you knew and understood what vampires have always been, what authors like Bram Stoker and movies like Nosferastu illustrated, you would never have posted something like that. Vampires, up until the 70's, had always been walking corpses, predators feeding on the living. They slept in graves and dressed in rags. They were not sparkling Abercrombie & Fitch models living the high life and f*cking the living at every opportunity.

As for the door thing, again we go back to the pre-dildo legends. The sanctity of the home held power over vampires. They had to be invited into a home in order to enter it.

*rubs temples*

Malice in Wonderland was simply trying to help you avoid looking silly. For a unique look at Bram Stoker's Dracula, thy this blogged version of the book. If a movie is more your speed, a recent Swedish import, Let The right One In, is a much better representation of what vampires have always been.


- Heretic

[Malice In Wonderland]

Wow I forgot about this.
I think she left but thanks Heretic.


Not seen Bela Lugosi as Dracula...
On a goth forum...
Think she knows about vampire films...
[/angry muttering]

[Heretic]

Originally Posted by Malice In Wonderland

Wow I forgot about this.
I think she left but thanks Heretic.

*bows*

Anything I can do to support interesting conversation and promote educating the younger members on the roots of the subculture.

Not seen Bela Lugosi as Dracula...
On a goth forum...
Think she knows about vampire films...
[/angry muttering]

Fortunately, ignorance is not the same as stupidity. It would be unfortunate if PastMidnight really has left the forum; I would love to have gotten her reaction to the films you and I have mentioned.

*looks at the topic of the thread*

Whoops; I suppose a comment about the topic at hand would be the proper thing to contribute.

I actually liked 30 Days of Night. I collected the graphic novel back when it was first published and was looking forward to the movie. Now, don't get me wrong; it wasn't great cinema. However, I thought they managed to capture much of the menace and inhuman characteristics of the vampires as they were presented in the comic. And, thankfully, they didn't sex them up. This is one of the very few movies I've seen in years in which the vampires were based on the creatures of legend, rather than trashy romance novels.

*glances over with disdain at several Laurell K. Hamilton novels still taking up valuable shelf space in my bookcases*

In my opinion, the biggest problem with the movie was the fact that the original story relied heavily on imagery to tell the tale. Without giving it the "300" or "Sin City" treatment, the producers of the movie were under pressure to beef up the story with dialog and cinematic atmosphere, something neither the writers not the director were apparently up to. In the end, the movie features plenty of visceral moments and genuine creepiness, but it never came together as a coherent whole.


- Heretic

[Fae-wolf]

I enjoyed the film very much. I loved how the vampires call human savages when they were the monsters

[Still Jack]

From Dusk 'til Dawn, best vampire movie ever.

[Tam Li Hua]

30 Days of Night could have been better...a LOT better. They had a good idea, but the carry-through just wasn't that great.

I've read Dracula [Yes, Bram Stoker's original novel], and it's intensely creepy and the -only- time I've felt that vampires were portrayed properly. I've seen a little of the Bela Lugosi movie, but have yet to watch the whole thing.

The newer Bram Stoker's Dracula was ridiculous; it was -really- hard for me to take it seriously. -_-;; [When Anthony Hopkins starts humping random objects, that pretty much ends a movie for me.]

[TechnicolorNightmare]

I'll post in this one because I'm a huge fan of movies, in particular the horror genre, and I saw this movie a while ago. All I can say is that I thought it was just terrible. Contrary to the user in this thread who called it "suspenseful", this is probably the most unsubtle movie I can remember seeing and easily one of the least scary films I have ever seen, and I've seen at least 600 horror movies to judge.

The supposed "scares" in the film revolve around never-ending scenes of vampires opening their mouths, showing their teeth, and making really annoying noises. I don't find that scary, and even if I did somehow find those lazy attempts at scares slightly frightening, there still needs to be more. These scenes are usually followed by, of course, some gratuitous violence as well which doesn't help things too much. There was not a single scene in the movie which managed to scare me on even one level and after only fifteen minutes I wanted to turn it off.

Vampire films admittedly aren't my favourite horror sub-genre, but they can be great; eg. "Nosferatu, eine Symphonie des Grauens" is a masterpiece and the more recent "Interview With the Vampire" was terrific.

[Pineapple_Juice]

I dunno. Maybe I'm uncultured. I thought Nosferatu sucked hardcore.

[Malice In Wonderland]

Originally Posted by TechnicolorNightmare

I'll post in this one because I'm a huge fan of movies, in particular the horror genre, and I saw this movie a while ago. All I can say is that I thought it was just terrible. Contrary to the user in this thread who called it "suspenseful", this is probably the most unsubtle movie I can remember seeing and easily one of the least scary films I have ever seen, and I've seen at least 600 horror movies to judge.

The supposed "scares" in the film revolve around never-ending scenes of vampires opening their mouths, showing their teeth, and making really annoying noises. I don't find that scary, and even if I did somehow find those lazy attempts at scares slightly frightening, there still needs to be more. These scenes are usually followed by, of course, some gratuitous violence as well which doesn't help things too much. There was not a single scene in the movie which managed to scare me on even one level and after only fifteen minutes I wanted to turn it off.

Vampire films admittedly aren't my favourite horror sub-genre, but they can be great; eg. "Nosferatu, eine Symphonie des Grauens" is a masterpiece and the more recent "Interview With the Vampire" was terrific.

Vampire films aren't necessarily horror...
It's kind of like complaining that Blade wasn't scary.

[SiouxsiePernova]

"Nosferatu" and "Interview with the Vampire" are most definitely not of the same calibre.

[Solumina]

Originally Posted by Pineapple_Juice

I dunno. Maybe I'm uncultured. I thought Nosferatu sucked hardcore.

A lot of people seem to agree with you but I think that is mostly due to how old it is, the style of acting is quite different than what we are used to today and the special effects are pretty basic so it is pretty hard to get into but it isn't so campy that it is funny so you don't get that joy that comes with watching really bad horror movies.

[Malice In Wonderland]

Originally Posted by SiouxsiePernova

"Nosferatu" and "Interview with the Vampire" are most definitely not of the same calibre.

Thank you.

[Pineapple_Juice]

Originally Posted by Solumina

A lot of people seem to agree with you but I think that is mostly due to how old it is, the style of acting is quite different than what we are used to today and the special effects are pretty basic so it is pretty hard to get into but it isn't so campy that it is funny so you don't get that joy that comes with watching really bad horror movies.

Quite right. I can laugh at Black Sheep type horror movies, but the thing about Nosferatu was that I had such high expectations and I was bored the whole way through, wishing it was over. Lame lame lame.
I admit that in its day I'm sure it was epic.

[zerademark]

Originally Posted by Pineapple_Juice

I dunno. Maybe I'm uncultured. I thought Nosferatu sucked hardcore.

If I am correct, then isnt Nosferatu the movie that ripped off Dracula?

[ShadowxMakerZ]

Originally Posted by Pineapple_Juice

I admit that in its day I'm sure it was epic.

Very true, compare the movies we watch this day coming in the 2000's to the 1950's+... to us it's like comparing an apple to a tomato that are two different things in an different category.

One thing would be that most this day would consider those films before 2,000 to be cheap acting, too fake and crap. Reminds me of when my dad used to tell me how he used to wait for an hour special of some cowboy show in Europe that was subbed once a week, black and white. Still loves them to this day.

[Ophelia's Snorkel]

Nosferatu is a beautiful example of art of its kind. Not as good as Caligari, but certainly as culturally valuable. Plus, I'll take primitive cinematography and unconvincing effects any day over the completely toothless vampires held up for us now.

30 Days of Night...well, at least they were monsters. Not the kind of vampires I really like, but better than the sparkly ones that take you to the prom.

[vindicatedxjin]

I absolutely adored the cabinet of dr. caligari!