Has Twilight ruined any future hope for vampires and werewolves?

Honestly, in my opinion, yes. Hollywood is eating this whole twilight thing up. If they ever come out with another good (gory, bloodsucking, burn in sunlight) vampire movie, I will be surprised. I don't care much for the series, I don't really hate it. It's another version of vampires. I do hate how it changed peoples views of vampires. It's like being viewed as a scary, threatening person, then having a video of you saving puppies from a burning building being leaked onto the internet. No one would think you were scary anymore. As for werewolves, the only thing that was weird was the jean shorts. Hollywood loves making stuff that appeals to the younger crowds . . . time's have changed.

 

Oh gaud. Oh gaud, this thread. All right, I'll answer the actual question, then it's time to school some peeps. *cracks knuckles*

Vampires are not ruined. You know why? Because I'm going to un-ruin them. Keep an eye out for my books, kids. *ahem* Seriously though, just because they get a bad rep from an unsightly misrepresentation doesn't mean there won't be someone to come along and reverse that misfortune with a genuinely good read. It's a trend, and like every trend, it ebbs and flows with time.

And hey, at least it singles out all the people who don't know what a real goddamn vampire looks like. :L

It's not about right, but effectiveness. The creatures she portrays bear no resemblance to the vampire as represented historically, and only a passing resemblance to their more modern, romantic-side-of-gothic depictions. The title is purely and simply a shallow appeal to the culture, and as such it doesn't work. She could've made them all superheroes or aliens and there'd barely be any change. It's like Flannery O'Connor said: You can write whatever you can get away with, but people haven't gotten away with much.

To put it another way, a creative license is like a driver's license: Just because you passed the exam doesn't mean you get to crash your car into a tree.

Actually, that only started with Bram Stoker. Vampires in the old days were not even weakened in the sunlight; rather, they were simply nocturnal. The classic vampire weakness has always been apotropaics, mundane items which may or may not have spiritual or religious significance: European vampires were weakened by crosses, holy water, garlic, etc., while many far-eastern traditions held that they had O.C.D. and you could stave them off by leaving a sack of rice grains in front of your house, which they would be forced to count grain-by-grain.

False. The folklore from which they derive forms the fundamental core of the creature, and writers who do not honor that core should simply create another creature. It shows more originality and has a better chance of standing out.

Vampires have traditionally been gothic creatures; their original depictions were entirely on the side of horror, while nowadays they have evolved to become at times sympathetic. But the dark, mysterious side of them should always remain. Some writers mistake "dark and mysterious" for "brooding and stoic" or "look at me I'm shirtless and have fangs." In practice, those traits tend not to be dark or mysterious at all.

For contrast, see Alucard from Hellsing: He's a bit of a talker, and he can woo the finest of ladies at his prime, but he's also downright horrifying. He loves a bloodbath and yearns for the day when someone finally kills him. He scares other vampires, for chrissake. It makes you wonder what kind of history he's got behind him to make him so twisted. He's captivating and frightening all at once; that's how it's supposed to work.

 

Yeah, I' m amazed people bothered to reply instead of just posting :



However now there are quite a few things I' d like to say. ^^
Beforehand I' d better say I didn' t read any Twilight book, I merely watched the movie.

That is only true if you look at the Cullen' side of things, all the other vampires seem closer to their "core" origin.
The werewolves on the other hand seem funkier.

It all comes from Christianity. Vampires were cold-blooded serial killers with superpowers so of course they had to be demons. Given the highly religious mind-frame most people had at that time vampires just couldn' t be thought to be anything else. So naturally any means to repel or identify them were objects believed to be imbued with holy properties. You already mentioned the cross and the holy water, there' s also the fact that they couldn' t reflect in mirrors. At that time mirrors were made with polished silver (silver was considered holy, silver bullet anyone ?). I suppose garlic and stakes were also considered to be holy but to be honest I' m not sure.

As far as I know the European vampire myth originates from twisted real-life aristocrats whose cruel acts fueled folk tales. We have found graves from that era with decapitated and staked bodies.

The European werewolf myth comes from a French historic fact that gave birth to a legend : "la bête du Gévaudan".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beast_of_G%C3%A9vaudan

The movie "Brotherhood of the wolf" is loosely based on that real story.

Spoiler

[video=youtube;D7DTv2uBA7I]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7DTv2uBA7I[/video]

Alternatively there' s also the more common clinical lycanthropy or "very hairy man" (I forgot the clinical term) origin.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinical_lycanthropy

The core itself has many variations, you' d be hard pressed to find one version that can be claimed to be "truer" than any other.
Most authors just pick the characteristics that suit their metaphor needs, using them as simple monster-of-the-week empty creeps has been done to death and it would be hard to entertain anyone that way nowadays. Religion isn' t as popular as it was before so we tend to explore the human side of the beast. In a way even the pure devil versions were metaphors of human traits. Typically the stalker-blood sucker vampire is a metaphor for humans' urges and the lengths we' d go to to satisfy them, may it be food or sexual urges. Werewolves are usually used as a metaphor for humans' animal instincts and bestiality, they' re teenagers confused by their sudden growth into adults.

Twilight vampires aren' t that different from, say, Anne Rice vampires. Although their specifics differ they open the same kind of metaphors. What Meyers chose to do with them is ... kinda pathetic imo, but I think it has more to do with the story she went for than with the characteristics she picked for her vampires. I can' t really say what I think of her werewolves though, they aren' t really explained in the movies and elude me.

 

Ok, not sure about the Christianity thing, although it makes sense. I can tell you, for a fact, that the most well-known vampire of them all, Dracula, was based on Vlad the Impaler. Throughout the 20th century all of the movies made got grander and grander, but that's what happens with movies. I, personally, am a big fan of the Touhou Vampires who can go outside during the day. (Although one should never be let out.) The idea of a werewolf, likely, originated from a heavily bearded man who probably brutally killed at night. People likely thought he was a wolf man because of his features. However it came about, the idea is kinda cool, and I again refer you to Touhou's own Keine. Read up on them. Its a Japanese take on it.

 

Yes, one of the real life twisted aristocrats I mentioned. Elizabeth Bathory also comes to mind.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_B%C3%A1thory

 

Not sure I'd call Vlad an aristocrat, but anyways...As to the weakness to sunlight, the disease Lupus helped to propagate that one, though to what degree I'm not sure. People with Lupus get very worn out very fast if they stay in the sun too long and tend to prefer nightlife. (I know, I have it.)

 

Couple issues with this:

- Vampires and vampiric creatures existed in tons of non-Christian cultures under different names. The Mesopotamians, Hebrews, Greeks, and so on all had creatures that could be considered prototypes; the modern American vampire comes from 18th-century European lore, but this is hardly the only source.
- Not all of the vampire's weaknesses were regarded as objects of religious significance, nor were they said to have super-powers. In fact, some cultures held that they were bloated and ugly and simply had fangs and a taste for blood.
- There are a handful of origin stories for folkloric vampires, of which twisted aristocracy is only one, and not exactly a prominent one. The only examples of that one which come to mind are Vlad Tepes and... some lady whose name I forgot. Vampires are otherwise believed to be born from those who practiced witchcraft, committed suicide, or rebelled against the church while alive. Others were said to be born from an animal like a dog jumping over a fresh grave. There are a lot of different origin stories.

Yes but I'm pretty sure there's no version that sparkles in the daylight and can stop a truck with his bare shoulder. And I don't even know what's all that mess about imprinting or whatever? Sounds dumb as hell.

You're absolutely right, there are so many variations that it's hard to keep track of them at times. So why couldn't she have used one, instead of inventing one of her own that hardly carried the spirit of the old legends at all? Why couldn't she have made up her own creature? Hell, she could've beaten James Cameron to the punch!

Someone seems to be misunderstanding the meaning of "dark and mysterious." A two-bit monster the vampire is not; there are certainly vampires who serve the role, but their potential is far greater.

The werewolf, on the other hand... Its role has been significantly inflated as of late. They used to be servants of vampires, along with a handful of other vicious animals; in fact, this role persists in fiction today. See: the Castlevania series, where the werewolf or wolfman is at best a powerful boss (where Dracula is almost always the final boss) and at worst a common enemy.

Not that I'm calling for them to get kicked down a notch, but hey, where's the story about sexy Gorgon-people living among humans and trying not to turn anyone to stone? Where's the tale of a young teenage goblin with a taste for trouble and a deep, dark secret? Why's it always werewolves vs vampires? Let's have some class representation in the gothic fantasy animal kingdom at large!

The problem is that contemporary fiction has a tendency to tone down the negative or brutal aspects of the creatures. Their origins are decidedly dark, and taking them out of that element leads them to become superfluous. I get design choices, but what we're talking about is deliberately starting out with a severely limited archetype. It can be done, but is it worth it when the alternative has more potential anyway? Comedy has it much easier in that regard, but then, most comedy writers have a respect for their creatures' dark origins--even if they play it for laughs now and then. Again, if you want to write Beauty and the Beast, you can use another beast.

Also there's an adjective in there that you might want to replace

Oh I'm with you there, the story itself would suck either way. But I've never seen a depiction that matches hers. It trivializes the vampiric traits in play and utilizes them to backward ends. I've yet to read Anne Rice but I suspect she hardly levied the same treatment on her vampires.

 

On request;
+\LOCKED/+