|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 07, 2009 11:05 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 07, 2009 2:40 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 07, 2009 3:54 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 07, 2009 5:45 pm
|
|
|
|
Lolicat von Doom RedWhiteBlack I didn't think either of them was all that great, though it has been some time since I've seen Queen of the Damned and Interview with the Vampire. Vampires aren't really my thing; I much prefer the tortured soul that is Frankenstein's monster. In any case, I suppose Lestat would be a better vampire, merely because he actually has weaknesses, unlike Edward who is practically God-like. I've always enjoyed the interplay of sexuality and physical weakness within the vampire; Edward kind of destroys that. Frankenstein's monster pushes too many conservative ideas for my liking. Really? I always found Frankenstein to be much more of a centrist type of story as opposed to conservative or liberal. I think it rejects the notions of neo-classicalism in favor of the romantic; but even then, it doesn't commit itself entirely to the romantic ideal, so I'd be more willing to argue a centrist view.
But in any case, this is a thread about vampires, and not Frankenstein's monster. Let's try and stay on topic!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 08, 2009 8:00 am
|
|
|
|
RedWhiteBlack Lolicat von Doom RedWhiteBlack I didn't think either of them was all that great, though it has been some time since I've seen Queen of the Damned and Interview with the Vampire. Vampires aren't really my thing; I much prefer the tortured soul that is Frankenstein's monster. In any case, I suppose Lestat would be a better vampire, merely because he actually has weaknesses, unlike Edward who is practically God-like. I've always enjoyed the interplay of sexuality and physical weakness within the vampire; Edward kind of destroys that. Frankenstein's monster pushes too many conservative ideas for my liking. Really? I always found Frankenstein to be much more of a centrist type of story as opposed to conservative or liberal. I think it rejects the notions of neo-classicalism in favor of the romantic; but even then, it doesn't commit itself entirely to the romantic ideal, so I'd be more willing to argue a centrist view. But in any case, this is a thread about vampires, and not Frankenstein's monster. Let's try and stay on topic!
I love reading your guys post. I admire your intellectual prose on film. And I thought me and my Friend were movie nuts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 08, 2009 8:04 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 08, 2009 4:07 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 08, 2009 6:25 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 08, 2009 7:31 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 09, 2009 6:58 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 09, 2009 7:20 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 09, 2009 7:25 am
|
|
|
|
Saint Kimo Lolicat von Doom I'm not sure what you'd call the 'classic' vampire, although I will say that the near-bestial creature in Nosferatu is my favourite representation of the vampire. and probably more accurate considering in most cultures vampires are monsters and rarely human looking.
My thoughts exactly, although most people seem to have gone for the modern interpretation though Dracula, Vampyr, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 09, 2009 10:23 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:00 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|