Vampires: BTVS Influence

[lemst6]

Whenever I watch a movie or a TV show that involves vampires I always hold it to btvs standards. I usually think that if they don't apply the same rules to vampires as btvs does then they don't know anything about vampires.

Take for instance The Lost Boys, while some of the things in that movie follow the vamp rules I always expect them to burst into dust whenever they're killed. Not sizzle or whatever they do in that movie.

Has anyone else ever watched a movie or tv show and thought that something was missing?

[palabravampiress]

Not really. I sort of expect each author to have a different take on the vampire myth.

I do like some vamps better than others, though. For example, I like the BtVS concept of vampires better than I like the John Carpenter version or the Blade version.

[lemst6]

yeah, Lost Boys was before btvs, but I still hold it to btvs standards, I just can't help it, but I do love The Lost Boys, can't wait for the new one to come out. And I definitely do prefer btvs vamp standards over Blade standards, Blade confuses me with their rules

[Rowan Hawthorn]

Most modern vampire films have gone so far over-the-top with the special effects, it's ridiculous. BtVS' "dusting" effect was done, at least in part, to avoid having to come up with a way of dealing with bodies lying around, but at least it has a basis in literary and Hollywood tradition. There's no real excuse for the spectacular fireworks effects so many films use now, except "Because we can."

[vampireczarina]

I don't necessarily hold other vamp shows/movies/etc. up to Buffy standards. Like Palabravampiress said, I expect every author/producer to somehow make it there own. I do consider Whedon's interpretation to be one of the best though, especially when compared to other modern takes on the vampire. I agree that many vamp shows can be a little cheesy and over the top. Basically when I see another vampire film of tv show I just look for an interpretation that tips its hat off to older established vampire mythology, but also brings something new and fresh to an otherwise dead subject. (haha) ;)

[Dlou444]

I have to admit that I do that too.
Although, it's hard to say which came first. I thought Buffy took my favorite of the vampire myths and went with them and tossed the ones I didn't like so much aside. The whole sleeping with the sacred dirt thing irked me.
So, it's really hard to say whether I hold them to Buffy's standards or I just happened to be tickled with how it was written.

I will say that Moonlight has me totally befuddled most of the time with all the walking in sunlight, staking them not killing them and the sleeping in the freezers.
I REALLY don't get the sleeping in a freezer...do they decompose? Are they decomposing all the time they're NOT in the freezer? And if so, how do they live so long? It seems like they'd eventually just fall apart...unless the freezer somehow "restores" them, in which case I think we could have found something that made more sense than a freezer...like perhaps, rubbing eggplant onto their scalp. ANYTHING but the freezer, because my brain just keeps saying, "That only helps stop the decomposing WHILE they're in there! The rest of the time they're just rotting."
(Although, I DO think Moonlight does it just because they're TRYING to be different, I give them LOTS of credit for trying, but sadly, with the freezer and sometimes the staking they also have to take credit for giving me a headache. I do okay with the sunlight thing though.)

But, yeah, I have to say when I start into something "vampy" my assumption is that it should be "The Buffy Way" and when it's not, instead of paying attention to figure out how it is, my brain jumps straight to, "That's not right".
That's the ADD talking though. Everyone shocked I have ADD?

HEY! There's a CHICKEN! :Bolt:

[Cangel]

Well, that's the thing about myths, there's no definite way of interpreting something. Of course I'm so used to the Buffy way of vampire life and death that on some level I also expect this way from other shows/movies/books, but I also keep in mind that Buffy was just one show among many, and every of those has the right to think up their own way of vampire-destruction etc.
Btw. has anyone seen the vampire episode on Charmed? That was kinda lame in my opinion, when the queen died all the other vampires just burned up.

[littlewilly]

Im glad the BTVS vamps dont die when their 'master' is killed, also glad they cant fly.
And i love the way Buffy vamps act more like humans than some white face ghoulish creature.

[lemst6]

Btw. has anyone seen the vampire episode on Charmed? That was kinda lame in my opinion, when the queen died all the other vampires just burned up.

That seems to be a common vamp trend in other storylines. The same thing happens in The Lost Boys also. I'm glad that btvs vamps don't die that way.

The flying thing is also a common trend, they fly in Underworld and in Lost Boys, and I can't remember if they do in Queen of the Damned or not, but I don't like them flying. Having superhuman strength and being able to jump higher than humans is good enough for me, although, Dracula, can fly can't he? Or well, he turns into a bat and then flies, sorry i don't know my Dracula story very well, but I think that maybe I don't hold to btvs standards, but what I do do is in movies and tv shows I do say things like "that can't happen," or "they could kill them this way." I just think that Joss's version of vamp rules are the best, they aren't too confusing and they make things more believable in my opinion.

[Buffy obsessed fan]

I do that all the time. If there are vampires in something, I'm like 'They're not like the vamps in Buffy!'. When I first read Twilight I was really upset that the vamps weren't like vampires in Buffy, but after a while I adjusted and came to like the series. With a lot of other things (Movies mostly) I can't do that, 'cause I'm used to the vamps in Buffy and Angel.

[Kemy]

Actually I'm the opposite, I watched a lot of other Vampire related stuff before I watched Buffy, but then again I watched, read or researched so many different Vampire depictions there is no "core" Vampiric condition I judge others by. Well maybe Underworld to an aesthetic/biological extent.

[Crazy Flakes]

I don't usually compare other vampires with Buffy vampires, because I, too, feel that each author is entitled to their own opinion. But I felt that Buffy definitely had the best way of explaining why vampires don't have much trouble going around killing humans; the whole "demon takes over" concept was just brilliant, in my opinion. In other vampire shows/series such as Moonlight and Twilight, they say, "Oh, it's their nature," but they don't give a good reason why some vampires just choose to be good. Also, Buffy did a good job of explaining why vampires are super strong; there are other demons in the Buffy world, so we can just assume that the vampire demon just has super strength. Moonlight and Twilight never really explain why a living corpse is super strong. Oh, and just so you know, I'm gonna use Moonlight and Twilight comparisons for the rest of this post.

Buffy does need some explanations for their vampires, though. Why do they sleep if they don't have to? Wouldn't they never be tired, and not able to sleep? Twilight did do the best job of explaining this; their vampires can't sleep, even if they try. But the Moonlight freezer thing? Uh, I agree with Dlou. They get props for the originality and all, but it doesn't make any sense.

And Buffy vampires just bursting into flames in the sunlight has always bugged me. It's really just a huge inconvenience for both the vampires and the writers. Twilight vampires are worse, though; I mean, sure, the whole "they sparkle in the sun" thing is very original and cute and all, but it makes even less sense than the Moonlight freezers! I do like the Moonlight "they feel sick in the sun" thing, though, since it's both convenient and probable.

[Lindsey McDonald]

^Heh, probable! Of course queasy undead corpses who drink blood and are pretty much immortal are probable! Meh, its all relative I suppose!:hihi:

Anyway, I know I shouldn't, but I do tend to fall back on the Buffyverse rules as definitive, so it throws me a little when I see a vamp breaking them. I know that it's my own fault, but hey. Its worse when the contradiction isn't actually properly established. If I know its coming its ok, but I do tend to fill in the blanks with Buffyverse canon!

[JCC]

I hate vampire mythology. I think it's absolutely dire. The only vampire related fiction I can stand is the original Romanian folklore and Buffy/Angel.

[Dlou444]

Yes, I think Buffy's explanation (or Joss's) is the easiest to believe in the sense that I can actually imagine this whole world going on and we'd never know.
Even Moonlight's "Wonder Woman" jumping kind of irks me a bit. I don't mind super powers, but being able to leap tall buildings in a single bound leads me to believe we'd have NOTICED this at somepoint. Especially in LA where there are video cameras and stuff.

I do wish they'd have worked a bit harder on the sunlight angle. I think Moonlight's theory is better than Spike running around with a blanket on his head while smoldering.

Over all, I like Joss's best. And in my head it's because it makes the most sense and leads me to believe this could really happen. I have a VERY gullible brain, but it has to make some sort of sense. If I can rationalize it, it could be. And it makes the characters 100 times more fun when I can believe it.

Until you have kids anyway. Then you have to tell the truth about not only the vampires being real but the Muppets and Indiana Jones too. These kids can really be a downer for my brain. (Actually in BOTH cases, I spit out, "YES THEY'RE REAL" for both the Muppets and Indiana Jones before I could catch myself and had to back track.)

[Cangel]

Now that everyone is mentioning Twilight, the vampire descriptions in that book have bothered me (well to be fair I hate most things about the book...some might call it romantic, I call it corny), especially the 'sparkling in the sunlight' part, I have no idea how that' supposed to work.
Also, I'd like to say that I like vampire mythology very much. I don't know exactly if Buffy started it though, I started watching when I was 13, so that's pretty young, I don't think I would've been open to anything vampiric before that, so it's hard to judge.
Btw., I just started reading 'Carmilla' online (thanks so much Kemy, I love it) and I also kinda like the concept of lesbian vampirism, whch reminds me very much of vamp Willow, lol.

[JCC]

Twilight is one of the worst things to ever happen to literature.

[Buffanator]

I don't hold other vampire shows/movies/books to the BtVS standard - and I very much enjoy the Blade triology & The Lost Boys, & Interview with a Vampire, etc. but I do like the BtVS above all. I like the way the vamps dust, the way their whole face changes when they vamp-out (as opposed to just "teeth") and I like that they can't turn into bats (except for Dracula) & they don't really have to "sleep" during the day, etc. I liked how certain vamps were total bad asses (Spike, and Angelus), & some were wimpy (the glasses-wearing dude that was helping with "The Judge") & some were dumb as a rock (Harmony) - they weren't all "the same", they took their human aspects with them when they were sired. Well.... some. ;)

[slayerpower]

I just shake my head whenever a vampire tv show/movie doesn't have the same vampire rules as Buffy. The vampires in Twilight fly and sunlight doesn't hurt them. Totally wrong. When Claudia dies in Interview with the Vampire, she doesn't dust, just become a dusty statue. Totally wrong. Dracula sleeps in a coffin. Totally wrong. The Buffy vampire rules are final. All vampire tv show/movies must adhere to them!

[The Kinslayer]

I really don´t watch or read much vampire related stuff. But still it happens. Just saw Blade 3 today and I didn´t have much problem on how they died. And I guess Blade is something special (hybrid?) since he could walk in the sun and was surprised that Dracula could do that too. And as you could have guessed, I haven´t watched the other two ones.

Except for the sun thing I don´t think I would have much trouble with other ideas regarding vampires but I surely would compare it to how it´s shown on Buffy and Angel.

[Lindsey McDonald]

I suppose it depends on whether Buffy was your introduction to Vampire mythology; I mean, after seven (or 14, I suppose) seasons of Joss' rules, anything different would be a little greating. If you were familiar with other less substantial bodies of work first though it would probably be easier to accept.

[palabravampiress]

^ Good point. I got my intro to vamps via Dracula and then Interview, so maybe that's why I don't see Buffy as definitive. I like that every interpretation is just a little bit different.

[Dlou444]

I suppose it depends on whether Buffy was your introduction to Vampire mythology; I mean, after seven (or 14, I suppose) seasons of Joss' rules, anything different would be a little greating. If you were familiar with other less substantial bodies of work first though it would probably be easier to accept.


I would tend to agree with that. Although, I saw lots of vampire stuff before Buffy.
I think the difference for ME is that they all kind of plopped into the same category as all other movies...Star Wars, Harry Potter, Lady and the Tramp....nice stories, but all just stories.
Buffy was the first one (or Angel really, since I watched it first) that honestly had me believing that Vampires could really "blend" with my world. It kind of leaves you questioning, "Do I REALLY know there is no such thing?"

Interview With A Vampire kind of did that, but still they kind of kept to their own. It was more believable than Lost Boys or even the Buffy Movie, but still not quite enough to make me think that my world and "that" world could blend. Does that make sense?

I still watch Bones and honestly expect Booth to go "bumpy" at any given moment. It's a good thing most of it is shot at night or inside (and that Angel was able to drive those WR&H cars) because it's really hard to draw the line and remind myself he's not REALLY a vampire. I watched Scream 2 last night with SMG in it and was REALLY TICKED that she was acting like such a wimp and let herself get killed.
I think the shows, as a whole, did a GREAT job of making people believe this could REALLY be going on. And, at least for me, going from that "real" thing back to "stories" is really hard.

[Lindsey McDonald]

Heh, I kept getting that when watching Bones too! I was like, "Watch out! It's Angelus!! Can't you tell???" I seem to remember one line that he said in the middle of Season 1 that seemed to be directly referencing the Buffyverse...but I can't quite pin it down!

It was even worse watching Tru Calling. I kept forgetting that she didn't have Slayer strength! She would get into a dangerous situation and anyone else watching would be all on edge, but I was just sitting thinking, "She could take him easy..."!

I totally agree about the reality thing though. The Buffyverse really could slot in nicely to our own. Although I do sometimes think that the residents of LA must be ridiculously dense, especially in Season 4....at least in Sunnydale they have the old "Hellmouth made me forget" excuse! I like that in Buffy the Vamps aren't partcularly extravigant too. I mean, you get the occasional Angelus and Darla, but most of them could pass you on the street without you thinking twice. They blend well, I suppose. And how do we know we don't have a Mayor Wilkins covering it all up....



I think I'll be sleeping with a crucifix near my bed tonight.....

[palabravampiress]

^ Well... we residents of HelL. A. may not be the brightest bears in the woods. Consider: we sit in two hours of traffic both ways, yet make only a minimal effort (for a metro area of our size) to maintain and promote fast, cheap, and reliable public transportation; we endure earthquakes, flash floods, mud slides, and wild fires; we pay out the nose for everything, especially housing; we think a temperature of 60 degrees constitutes use of the word "cold;" and we pretty much accept as commonplace people of every possible description (who's to say some of them aren't demons?). For all of this, we get in return... um... the appeal of excellent weather? I mean, with some part of the city always on fire and strange-looking folks like rock stars and Hollywood types being part of the daily scenery, who's to say the demony stuff would really stand out?



That said, I always thought the Interview with the Vampire vampires had a high reality quotient, too. They are a lot like the Buffyverse vamps... human/monster hybrids instead of just monsters. I tend to like any vamp mythology in which the vamps have a lot of blendability, you know? Of course, I do maintain that right before he eats the 18th century fop, Lestat's face is one of the scariest things I've ever seen. No WAY he blended into the rest of society. I'd take one look at that guy and get a major case of the run-in-the-opposite-direction wiggins. Maybe they just thought he had TB or something (which, you know, still should have prompted the "Danger! Danger Will Robinson! vibe).

[JCC]

I can't stand Interview With The Vampire.

Though that may be because it's an Anne Rice creation. If the film had been ABSOLUTELY NOTHING like the book, and had been written and directed by Joss, and had Joss' rules, and been interesting and stuff, I probably would've liked it.

[Lindsey McDonald]

I can't stand Interview With The Vampire.

Though that may be because it's an Anne Rice creation. If the film had been ABSOLUTELY NOTHING like the book, and had been written and directed by Joss, and had Joss' rules, and been interesting and stuff, I probably would've liked it.

I think I've seen that! It was a TV show...Buffy the something or other. Can't quite remember....

Social Suicide agrees: how do you get to 14?

Well, 7 of Buffy plus season 8, added to 5 of Angel plus After the Fall.

[vampireczarina]

Dracula sleeps in a coffin. Totally wrong.

Umm, the Dracula of Buffy has coffin time too. Remember he first made his presence known with a burst of wood splinters and potting soil . :: vampire

As for those who can't watch a vamp show that doesn't follow Buffy rules, remember Joss did not invent this genre he just put a fresh spin on it. You can't expect everyone to follow his lead. I agree that Whedon did a bang up job giving "life" to the vampire myth, but his way is not the only way. I know some of you were obviously introduced to vampire/ demon mythology through this show, but there is a lot that came before.

Whedon was inventive and original with his interpretation, but its been building process to get to that point as far as the concept of the modern vampire is concerned. Its the old/ ancient myths (the Greeks, the Slavs, etc.)+ The Romantics+ Stoker+ Freud+ finally the Post- Modern/ Modern vamp of today. The writers of each era took something old and "re-vamped" it for their purposes and also fused something of their own times into it.

The oldest incarnations of the vampire were ancient myths and legends that explored death and the unexplainable. The Romantics looked to the vampire as vehicle to convey the macabre and to explore sensuality and other emotions. Stoker brought back the vampire, but wrote in an age that valued objectivity and Victorian ideals. In some ways he did explore some themes that defied literary convention at the time, but mostly his contribution was the creation of a template that provided the main base modern writers have built upon since. Then Freud revolutionized how we look at our selves and fictional characters. His exploration of the human psyche, moved writers to create characters with psychological depth.

Today we look for a vampire that is more than a bloodthirsty corpse, but rather has complexity and even struggles at times with that inner demon. Anne Rice was one the first modern writers to truly craft a vampire character with more complexity- to elevate the vampire from just some ravenous stiff. Joss Whedon took that further. He took a demon and fused it with something more human and relatable. In many ways the vampires of the Buffyverse serve as the pinnacle of vampire mythology, but to get to this peak Joss had to stand upon the shoulders of others. He may outshine them wth his interpretation, but in no way does he diminish their efforts. Rather he is simply this generations father the of contemporary vampire myth- putting a spin to it that is modern and relevant to the times and to our ideas of characterization.

[Rowan Hawthorn]

Today we look for a vampire that is more than a bloodthirsty corpse, but rather has complexity and even struggles at times with that inner demon. Anne Rice was one the first modern writers to truly craft a vampire character with more complexity- to elevate the vampire from just some ravenous stiff.

Not even close. Writers have been working with the concept of the "conflicted" vampire for generations - even in film as far back as the 1930s (see "Dracula's Daughter", 1936, with Gloria Holden.) Barnabas Collins and "Dark Shadows" pre-dated "Interview" by seven or eight years.

[Kemy]

The beginning of the Vampire as this more complex Human like character began in the 1800's with "The Vampyre" and continued in the Victorian era with "Varney the Vampire", "Carmilla" and of course "Dracula". All of these were written and popular before 1900. (I own three, still can't find The Vampyre).

The Univeral Horror films of the 1930's brought these characters to the screen, putting a face to them for the first time and entertained audiences who now saw Vampires with a Humanity to them, not just corpses, not just monsters. Charismatic people in their own right.

Then Hammer Horror in the 1960's brought another legion of fans to the Vampire genre with Christopher Lee's performance of a nobleman to which the Demon was an aspect of a much larger personality.

Anne Rice was simply another author in a long line of people who had brought Vampires to the public, her take on it was probably the least entertaining and most embarrassing of any. Reducing them to less than Human things that toiled endlessly trying to end their miserable existence and seemingly completely emotional crippled despite having an existence others would kill for. The world, the future opened up to them and they shy away and cry for centuries.

Look at Spike, he enjoyed being a Vampire, convincingly so and it made him a character that endured for years and won the hearts of millions of fans. What appeals to Anne Rice readers is not the character, but the angst and depression. I will never understand the appeal of her work or her characters, but to claim that her work and her Vampires are somehow ground breaking or better than all before them is flawed at best and highly offensive at worst.

[Rowan Hawthorn]

The beginning of the Vampire as this more complex Human like character began in the 1800's with "The Vampyre" and continued in the Victorian era with "Varney the Vampire", "Carmilla" and of course "Dracula". All of these were written and popular before 1900. (I own three, still can't find The Vampyre).

By John Polidori? Go here:

http://www.sff.net/people/DoyleMacdonald/l_vampyr.htm