Watched "Let the Right One In" last night. Watching "Dark Shadows" (I'm up to May 1967 just after Barnabas is introduced). Need your help sorting it all out. My cockatiel seems to be developing a taste for blood.

OK I've got the "no sunlight" part but then it gets a bit vague.

Making vampires:

Does it require exchanging blood?

In "Dark Shadows," Barnabas has been snacking on Maggie for a week, and she's not turning into a vamp (killer PMS perhaps).

In "Right One," Eli was interrupted while slurping on one of the neighbors. The neighbor was immediately vamped.

Inviting vampires into your home:

"Right One." Strict rule. No invitation is, shall we say, uncomfortable for vamps.

"Dark Shadows." Not clear. invitations may be implicit, but Barnabas seems to enter uninvited.

Victim Control:

Barnabas seems to have partial control of people he's snacked on. It's not clear how much control: Willie Loomis positively grovels, while Maggie just seems "interested."

In "Right One" this didn't seem to be an issue, but I'm not sure.

Conventional wisdom sez there has to be an exchange for a turning, but there are as many vamp lores as there are bats in the sky

Ironically, the one thing that seems to have fallen out of favor was vamps actually turning into bats..."flashy Gypsy tricks, nothing more"- Spike, BTVS

Invites still required, but can be revoked and can only be granted by the owners of the house. For example, I can't invite you into a friend's house.

Public buildings- invite not needed.

Crosses still a hazard, but more fuzzy on Star of David/other symbols. So it's still a question of whether it's spirituality or Christianity that has the effect on Vamps.

Control over mortals has been all over the place from the hypnotizing that Dracula practiced to out and out bodily control. seems these days it's more limited to mental suggestion. kinda like Jedi Mind tricks

Thanks. Is there anything else? What about vampire animals? I seem to recall vampire cows.

I read all of Anne Rice's books before she turned. It seems the older (stronger?) vampires aren't limited by daylight.

Let us not forget the vampires of Charlaine Harris' novels and the series "True Blood".

Crosses seem to have no ill effects on the vamps.

Turning requires only the vamp feeding on the victim, but it doesn't seem to happen to all of them. The vampire has to want to turn the victim.

Sunlight burns them up real crispy, but they can move in sunlight til they are burned too badly (kinda like we would if on fire).

They like to sleep in coffins, but it isn't required.

They can drink synthetic blood called "True Blood" which is served in bottles and is packaged according to blood types. These vampires have to choose the blood type that they enjoy, just like we have to determine the foods we like while growing up.

These vampires are not bothered by mirrors or cameras. Some of them like to be on television. There is even a television show in the show about teen vampire angst, ala "Dawson's Creek".

Why all these questions Steve? Are you harboring one or more of them in our fair township?

Tell'em to give me a ringy-dingy, I can use them starting next month at Halloween Express.

these days, its whatever the individual screen writer says it is. the canon that once existed is pretty much ignored anymore.

OK I've got the "no sunlight" part but then it gets a bit vague.

In "Varney the Vampyre" (1845) the main character has no problem with sunlight except that he does not have full powers then. (Also, he can be hurt by gun shots and the like but is revived if left in the moonlight for a while. In addition, I think he's the first vampire to "glamour" or hypnotically control his victims.)

Dracula was the same pretty much, IIRC, as far as sunlight.

Making vampires:

Does it require exchanging blood?

In "Dark Shadows," Barnabas has been snacking on Maggie for a week, and she's not turning into a vamp (killer PMS perhaps).

Generally speaking, making vampires depends on their dying as victims of having their blood drained. DS was the first I seem to recall that suggested a viral causative agent involved in their creation which I thought was a very clever rationalization.

I liked the idea of a physical vampire but even Barnabas had the spiritual shape-shifting thing going on every once in a while when he turned into a bat. In legend, it's never very clear if the vampire is a hungry corpse or an evil spirit. Most of the legends and stories seem to split the difference allowing the vampire to dematerialize at will.

In "Right One," Eli was interrupted while slurping on one of the neighbors. The neighbor was immediately vamped.

Plot line contrivance--as are many of the so-called vampire traits in movies.


Inviting vampires into your home:

"Right One." Strict rule. No invitation is, shall we say, uncomfortable for vamps.

"Dark Shadows." Not clear. invitations may be implicit, but Barnabas seems to enter uninvited.

That's a very old part of the legend. It's also connected to the idea of leaving a pile of sand or rice or some such at the door that vampires, who are apparently all OCD, must stop and count each grain before entering. There is also the idea that they can't cross running water. It's almost as if there are as many cooked up protections against vampires as there are powers possessed by vampires.

Victim Control:

Barnabas seems to have partial control of people he's snacked on. It's not clear how much control: Willie Loomis positively grovels, while Maggie just seems "interested."

"Spells" have been an idea associated with the supernatural for a long time. The glamour process is just an update of the idea rationalizing it from a witchy sort of thing to a more scientifically categorized power.

TB, premature burials, and the great plagues of Europe helped to create and regulate the vampire legend. With the long periods of time possible between outbreaks of TB in families when one family member died from it and a while later--weeks, months, even years perhaps--another family member died coughing blood it was thought by the superstitious that the previous family member had come back as a spirit and fed on the blood of the victim since there'd be blood on the victim's bedclothes.

The plagues of Europe resulted in many premature burials or disposals in mass graves. Every once in a while, an "undead" plague victim would climb out of the pit and come home. Premature burials and their aftermaths--when discovered--would also lend credence to the vampire myth. Montague Summers goes into this in some detail in his classic work.

There were no vampire bats associated with vampires until the novel Dracula. In general, Clive Barker had it right with his Night Breed characters in that vampires and werewolves and such were all under the general category of mythical shape-shifters. The vampire and werewolf are close relations and, in some countries, a dead werewolf becomes a vampire so there is a shape-shifting aspect to vampires from the early days of the legend.

The idea of a wooden stake hurting a vampire is a funny transmogrification of the original idea of using a stake--metal or whatever--to pin the vampire inside the coffin so it couldn't come out and hurt anyone. Some movies have had pencils causing pain to a vampire--funny, but not based on historical fact--not that it matters a whole lot as long as the story is good.

Staking the vampire was sometimes accompanied by the cutting off of the head and putting it between the legs and often the body was turned facing down as a further precaution so it wouldn't realize that it wasn't digging up as it escaped.

I think modern day acknowledgement of "Vampires" would have to give original credit to Bram Stoker and his interpretation.
Regardless of every twist and rewrite that has come since, the original facts would be:

A Vampyre rises at dusk, must return to "bed" before the sun rise.
(Sun rays will evaporate the Vampyre)

Must sleep in (or on) "native" soil.
(Hence the need for a wooden box to carry the soil. The coffin you are buried in works just as well)

[No mention of how you get out of the ground if buried...higher class families had Crypts in the 18th and 19th century.]

Garlic is strongly offensive to Vampires and they will avoid it.
As is the same with Holy Crosses (blessed).

Vampires (or at least Count Dracula) had the strength of 4 men.

When a suspected Vampyre is buried, their head must be severed from the body to stop the immortal Vampire from being able to function if wakened.

A wooden stake through the chest and heart was the only way to physically kill a Vampire...and the stake had to stay in place.

Vampires make no reflection (as in mirrors, shiny objects, etc).

The Vampire was capable of transforming into a Wolf and a Bat if necessary.
Vampires could also travel as "fog" or "mist".

Vampire "Brides" had to be suckled until enough Vampire toxin had invaded the bloodstream...then they would die to be reborn as a Vampire.

No mention of males being turned.
[Renfrew was driven mad with obsession for the Count, not turned to a Vampire]

Let us not forget the vampires of Charlaine Harris' novels and the series "True Blood".

Crosses seem to have no ill effects on the vamps.

Turning requires only the vamp feeding on the victim, but it doesn't seem to happen to all of them. The vampire has to want to turn the victim.
From what I've seen on the show, it appears that the victim to be Turned must have nearly all of it's blood drained, to the point of near death, then the Vampire gives the victim their blood. That's how it all appeared when Bill's backstory was shown on how he was Turned all those years ago. That's also the impression I was left with when Bill Turned Jessica.

Interestingly, that's how I seem to recall Ann Rice's Vampire's creating a new vampire, as well as in several Role-Playing Games of which I've partaken over the years.

Also, in "True Blood", Silver does some major damage to a Vampire and can be used to bind them. They've not gone too far in to any mystical defense from Religious Artifacts, the use of Faith by someone who Believes strongly in their religion, how Holy Water might effect them or much of anything else. Apparently, tho, a cross thru the heart has pretty devastating effects on them, ala "The Lost Boys".

Some Vampire lore says that the Vamp has to simply sup from the victim three times to Turn them. Some says they have to only be bitten once.

The Bloodsuckers in the "30 Days of Night" 'verse appear to have to simply bite and/or drain blood from the victim. It's not really clear if the victim must die and then they're Turned, making it sound almost like an infection. Unless of course the victim just takes some blood directly from a Vampire and injects it in their system.

This is also similar to how Vampires are Turned in "The Forsaken", via some sort of infection in the blood which can be staved off for some period of time with a "drug cocktail" designed for HIV patients. In the case of "The Forsaken", if you've not yet Turned and kill The Master Vampire before you do Turn, then the "infection" disappears, indicating a mystical link.

There's all kinds of Vampire Lore out there that contradicts other Lore. Only the Vampire Hunters likely know what's true and what's not. ;)

these days, its whatever the individual screen writer says it is. the canon that once existed is pretty much ignored anymore.

I don't have a problem with that.
As long as any given show or movie sticks with the cannon that they establish.

I've been reading vampire stories long before things like Buffy and such that made them so popular on TV. And all writers have their own style and mythology.
That is one of the things that keeps things interesting.

You want to see a REAL vampire, watch the anime HELLSING. ALUCARD put all of them to shame!

I get sort of tired of the spectacular effects that certain things have on vampires in the movies. The bursting into flames when sunlight hits or melting from holy water or exploding from wooden stakes may make for a fun action flick but are not seriously scary to me.

I'd rather see a vampire that is real--closer to zombie than spirit:

1. Cannot change into other creatures.

2. Is only de-energized--not destroyed--by sunlight.

3. Can be mentally resisted by one's faith but not burned by holy water or crosses or garlic or such.

4. Does not need invitations.

5. Is capable of charming, hypnotizing, and otherwise mentally controlling the weak-minded but not to any extreme.

6. Must drink human blood and eat human flesh to survive.

7. Stronger than normal humans and longer lived to the tune of hundreds of years.

8. Can be killed by normal means if hit hard enough all at once--but has extra quick recovery abilities so that it is necessary to pump him full of bullets or hack him to pieces, etc. Very hard to kill but not impossible to kill by normal means. Stake through the heart is effective but not only thing necessary.

9. May or may not live in coffin--usually in a crypt or some such dismal place just to escape scrutiny.

10. Turns victims with viral infection in blood similar to that suggested on DS and other shows.

Not that I'm seeking a "boring" vampire but one that is more believable and therefore scarier in that it could more likely exist in one's imagination. His power of seduction and attack, accumulated wealth and power, could still be very frightening and some of the silliness and nonsensical aspects of the creature could be gotten rid of in favor of psychological terror of a foe that one just can't shake off. No easy way to get rid of him, no "magical" solution is at hand.

In THE FEARLESS VAMPIRE KILLERS one of the nubile young things ttried to fend off her vampirized Jewish father with a crucifix, who laughed and said in a thick Yiddish accent, "Oy...you got the wrong vampire!" ... :lol:

Why all these questions Steve? Are you harboring one or more of them in our fair township?

Tell'em to give me a ringy-dingy, I can use them starting next month at Halloween Express.

Wife has these massive hickey like things on her neck and claims, "The bird did it."

thats not a vampire













its that young guy who bags groceries down at the grocery-mart!

whew, what a relief! :freak:

The perfesser has obviously spent some time studying the subject.

So what's the most "accurate" vampire movie/show?

Only the Vampire Hunters likely know what's true and what's not. ;)

Why yes, yes we do.

I like Coppola's Dracula for being more accurate to the Stoker Novel.
But then again "Nosferatu" is probably the best version.

Ever seen Willem Dafoe in "Shadow of the Vampire"?
Now thats an interesting take on the Nosferatu/Vampire story.


Since you are talking about a totally fantastical concept with no basis of fact in reality, other than literary reference...there would be no one "set of rules" or definative answer.
Its cool to see each new "take" or retelling of a Vampire story.

The Hammer films (and Christopher Lee) will always be my personal choice for the look, the story, the character, the "rules" of Vampirism.

I like Coppola's Dracula for being more accurate to the Stoker Novel.


Look for the 1977 BBC adaptation starring Louis Jourdan and Frank Finlay.

Personally, I enjoy seeing the many different ways that the Stoker novel has been adapted and played with over the years. There have been at least 18 or 19 versions (a Canadian tv version featuring Blair Brown hasn't shown up anywhere yet and probably can't be found). Did you know that Denhom Elliot once played the Count? A very good job he did, too. And would you believe that Jamie Gillis once played Dracula? Naw, I don't believe that one either - and it's on my shelf.

The perfesser has obviously spent some time studying the subject.

He is not called Perfesser for nothing!:thumbsup:

In THE FEARLESS VAMPIRE KILLERS one of the nubile young things ttried to fend off her vampirized Jewish father with a crucifix, who laughed and said in a thick Yiddish accent, "Oy...you got the wrong vampire!" ... :lol:There's a similar joke in the 1979 comedy Love at First Bite, when Richard Benjamin pulls out a silver Star of David and says to Dracula (George Hamilton), "Well, Count, what do you say to that?"

To which the Count replies: "I would say, leave Cindy alone and find yourself a nice Jewish girl."

"S---! It's the other one, isn't it?"

:lol::lol::lol:

A few others;

John Carpenter's Vampires. [Two sequels direct to video followed: Vampires: Los Muertos in 2002 and Vampires: The Turning in 2005. Never saw them.]

Interview With A Vampire. [12 year old Kirsten Dunst. Tom Cruise plays himself]

The first Blade. [before it got stupid.]

Well Barnabas seems to have worked his way with Maggie. She followed him home last night and he played his music box for her. I suspect she manages to get away before going full vamp, but that's on the next DVD...

Don't forget: Near Dark. No fangs, but plenty of blood drinking and gore. Super-powered, and long-lived, daylight burnt them to the point where it killed them almost instantly.

Along with 30 Days Of Night, Let The Right One In and Coppola's Dracula, Near Dark is one of my favorite vampire flicks.

Sean

The perfesser has obviously spent some time studying the subject.

So what's the most "accurate" vampire movie/show?

Well, forgetting my "wish list" of traits, there are plenty of vampires on screen and in books that do the legend justice though none are "perfect" in that regard. They all tend to invent contrivances or misinterpret certain aspects of the legend.

I think Nosferatu is probably one of the closest to the legends. He's a good mix between spirit creature and physical being and certainly looks the part.

I agree with the poster above that the Hammer vampires overall were very good and mostly respectful of the legendary creature.

One of the best has got to be the one Kolchak fought in The Night Stalker (first movie). It was a good update as to how the creature would survive in the modern world though it mostly eviscerates the spiritual aspects making him a physical being vs. spirit.:wave:

One of the best has got to be the one Kolchak fought in The Night Stalker (first movie). It was a good update as to how the creature would survive in the modern world though it mostly eviscerates the spiritual aspects making him a physical being vs. spirit.:wave:

oh wow! I forgot all about that one!
That very first Kolchak was fantastic!!
man, that was many many years ago! lol

and that reminded me of another good 70s flick..."Count Yorga Vampire"
(not sure if it was a Hammer or not, but it was in the same style as I remember)

oh wow! I forgot all about that one!
That very first Kolchak was fantastic!!
man, that was many many years ago! lol

Those Kolchak movies aired when I was around 10 and 11 and scared me to death.

It kind of irks me that most folks seem to think only of the TV series in connection with Kolchak when the first two movies were, especially for made-for-TV flicks, INCREDIBLY scary, great movies. In contrast to much of the series, the movies had real budgets and the difference definitely shows.

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janos_Skorzeny

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janos_Skorzeny
The Night Stalker aired on the ABC network on January 11, 1972 and garnered the highest ratings of any TV movie at that time (33.2 rating - 54 share). Matheson received a 1973 Edgar Award from the Mystery Writers of America for Best TV Feature or Miniseries Teleplay.

BTW: if you haven't read the Jeff Rice novel (that the first screenplay by Richard Matheson is based on) and the second novel by Jeff Rice (based on Richard Matheson's screenplay :freak: )you're missing some good reads.

and that reminded me of another good 70s flick..."Count Yorga Vampire" (not sure if it was a Hammer or not, but it was in the same style as I remember)

The Fearless Vampire Killers was an incredibly good and funny flick.:thumbsup: I don't think I've ever seen a bad Hammer vampire movie--all most excellent. The European settings lend an air of authenticity you don't have in most Hollywood productions.

I've seen the sequel to Count Yorga which was pretty lame. I'm really not sure I've seen the original yet. If so, it's been many years. I'll keep an eye out for it.

Well Barnabas seems to have worked his way with Maggie. She followed him home last night and he played his music box for her. I suspect she manages to get away before going full vamp, but that's on the next DVD...

I'd be interested to find out your reaction to the Barnabas character as played in the series vs. his character in House of Dark Shadows.

BTW: House of Dark Shadows played on one of the on-demand channels a few months back for a couple of dollars. It was great to see it in digital clarity vs. the old VHS copy I've watched for years. I can't wait for it to come out on DVD whenever that will be :confused:

It's also on Amazon Video on Demand (http://www.amazon.com/House-of-Dark-Shadows/dp/B0012DP6L2/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=digital-video&qid=1247149384&sr=1-2) for a few bucks (or buy a digital copy for $10).

We watched this (Roku connects to Amazon now too) before Barnabas was introduced on the TV series. I don't recall being at all sympathetic to his character in the movie House of Dark Shadows. Now, on the TV show I'm rootin' for him! It helps that the rest of the townsfolk and the Collins are such dullards. Well except maybe Maggie. Did you know her day-job was a bunny in the Manhattan Playboy Club during the early days of the TV show?

We watched this (Roku connects to Amazon now too) before Barnabas was introduced on the TV series. I don't recall being at all sympathetic to his character in the movie House of Dark Shadows. Now, on the TV show I'm rootin' for him!

That seems to be how a lot of folks react. At the time of the movie, there was a huge fan reaction to turning him into a villain which he was originally intended to be on the soap opera. I was only 8 when I saw the movie for the first time and didn't like him as a villain but accepted it as an alternate universe version (which the soap opera had already educated me on).

As with other an reactions to changes in characters in the movie versions, the incredible success of the movie overrode the objections.

It helps that the rest of the townsfolk and the Collins are such dullards. Well except maybe Maggie. Did you know her day-job was a bunny in the Manhattan Playboy Club during the early days of the TV show?

I believe it! She's got one sweet face on her and otherwise fits the bill as well.

The years have been kind to her... (http://www.kathrynleighscott.com/)

ooo ooo I may have to go to New Jersey next month. (http://www.darkshadowsfestival.com/page02.htm)

The years have been kind to her... (http://www.kathrynleighscott.com/)

Her husband is a VERY lucky man! What a woman!:thumbsup:

I just discovered tonight that the vampires of "True Blood" have something else to fear......Wooden Bullets!

Aparently, if you shoot a vamp in the chest with a wooden bullet, it acts just like a wooden stake through their heart. Kills them all nice and squishy.

I just discovered tonight that the vampires of "True Blood" have something else to fear......Wooden Bullets!

Aparently, if you shoot a vamp in the chest with a wooden bullet, it acts just like a wooden stake through their heart. Kills them all nice and squishy.

:roll:

Please, have mercy!:drunk:

Well, seriously, they're hardly pushing the envelope of ridiculousness regarding vampire legends' recent treatments in the movies. It will be a while before anyone catches up to "The Lost Boys" and "From Dusk 'til Dawn."

Don't get me wrong, I watch and mostly enjoy "True Blood." You have to admit that some of the stuff is not only satirical but out-loud hilarious!

On the other hand, I'm really hoping that Johnny Depp's Barnabas Collins will be a more serious treatment. We'll see.

Depp did a fairly respectable Sweeney Todd, and his Willie Wonka was terrifying. He should be an OK Barnabas.

We're up to November 1967 now. Dark Shadows is in color (except for the few episodes they've lost the original video tape that are in B/W kinescopes).

Victoria (Alexandra Moltke: did you know she was Claus Von Bulow's mistress and the possible motive for his poisoning his wife, Sunny?) has slipped back in time during a seance. Didn't know that was technically possible. Anyway she's chumming around with Barnabas, pre-vamp, in 1795.

We get to see the making of a vampire! I think it has something to do with Angelique, the witch from Martinique and her voodoohoodoo. She and Barnabas were carrying on at one time and he dumped her for Josette.

Now I know where my older sister and her friends got their fascination with seances and such in the 60s.

Now I know where my older sister and her friends got their fascination with seances and such in the 60s.

Yeah, I had to go through that stuff with a young aunt and cousins. Kind of silly though I liked that scary stuff on the show and in various movies through the years.

The best I've seen so far, however, has been the seance in "The Others." That was a nice look at one from the "other" side.

In THE FEARLESS VAMPIRE KILLERS one of the nubile young things ttried to fend off her vampirized Jewish father with a crucifix, who laughed and said in a thick Yiddish accent, "Oy...you got the wrong vampire!" ... :lol:
there was an interesting episode of doctor who in the late 80's that featured "hemovores", which could be held at bay by faith of any kind. at one point 4 people are trapped, and each had his own totem which worked just as well as a crucifix. the vicar had his bible, a russian soldier had his red star insignia, the doctors companion had the doctor, and the doctor had his own alien willpower.

also in jekyll & hyde together again, there was a cute scene where a priest fends off hyde with a crucifix, and then a rabbi fends him off with a star of david.

the first time i remember reading that faith was the thing that repelled the vampire (as opposed to the totem) was of course salem's lot, and i thought it was a brilliant explanation of the whole vamp/cross thing.

Nice bringing that up! I used to play "World of Darkness" (WoD), a Role-Playing Game (RPG) system, which had an offshoot called "Vampire: The Masquerade". The WoD system used Faith as a way of doing a lot of stuff to Vampires, as well as other Undead or Supernatural critters. At the lower levels, you were repuslive to a Vampire, but until you got ot about 5 out of 10, you didn't do much more than make them cringe when you were around. Starting about 5, you could actually Repel them, possibly cause them damage.

I've often wondered if they didn't get that special ability for Humans from 'Salems Lot, y'know? As you said, excellent explanation that came from SK.

.

That Doctor Who serial was The Curse of Fenric. Good call.