Buffyverse vampires vs other verses vampires

  • Thread starter Thread starter Vamp Jenny
  • Start date Start date
V

Vamp Jenny

Guest
I saw a few thread bashing other vampires show and that IS NOT THE POINT of this thread. I was just wondering what people in here think of the differences between the vampires in BTVS/Ats (which are pretty close to the most common vampire mythology, dating from the Dracula era) in comparison to other shows/movies/books. Like the Anne Rice's vampires or True Blood vampires or Twilight vampires... or even vampires from less known universes!

This is a thread for discussion and please if you have a negative opinion about a show try to stay objective AND PLEASE DON'T JUST POST TO SAY YOU HATE THIS OR THAT VAMPIRE STUFF. I don't want this thread to be closed because I genuinely want to know what differences/resemblances people found out within universes that basically all revolve around the same idea.

And if some of you want to include mythology and the basics of vampirism in the discussion, I'd be happy to discuss it too, since I love history!!

P.S.: Mods, if you think this is in the wrong place, excuse my newcomer self, I just didn't see any other thread to put it 😉
 
I love that you asked this!

I've noticed that in supernatural, you have to ingest vamp blood to become one just like in Buffy, but stakes don't work and light only hurts their eyes. They have to have their heads cut off, and interestingly some of them look like Amber Benson and Mercedes Mcnab (lol). The biggest difference for me though with the vamps in this verse, is their teeth. They are positioned like this:
spn-amber-benson-thumb-315xauto-22394.jpg


Which to me look like they would be more efficient for a creature that lives on human blood.
 
I
InsaneMystic
Mercedes guest starred on SN?? I never knew! (only seen a handful of eps, never got me hooked, really)
I like the vamps with their two faces. There had been some cool shocking scenes because of them! But I think that there are some cooler vamps out there in the filmuniverse! I wished, if they could have these blue eyes as the vamps had in underworld before they turn into the "ugly"face, just as a step between human and vampire face, that would have been cool!
I have to add that I think the faces are oldfashion today anyway I like them because they are part of Buffy!
 
The fact that Supernatural vamps are so different and stakes or sunlight don't work was the thing that drew me away the first time I watched (like 5 years ago). But now that I know there are different kinds of vampires depending on which universe you are in, I like it. Sunlight still hurts them like a sunburn (according to John Winchester, anyways), but they are able to get out in the day, which makes them even more dangerous. Also, their teeth being like they are, you don't want to get in their way! A "classic" vampire bite is described as hurting but also very sensual in many documents (books or TV shows), but the SPN vampires kind of bite must hurt like hell!!! That really puts them in a category of predators that you don't want to be friends with (except for Amber Benson's character, but there's always an exception).

I agree that the Buffy vampires are more classical and the two faces was a real reflection of the "demon inside". And in Angel, this feature was enhanced(sp??) when they were in Pylea and Angel turned into his vamp/demon form. I don't know if it was intentional in the beginning (but I guess it was, considering the genius of Joss), but the vamp face made them real creatures of the night and gave them this predator look, but keeping a human side (or giving the illusion that they had one) with the human face.

Now onto the Vampire Diaries vamps. The Lapis Lazuli rings have a very important part in the vampires life (especially the Salvatores). I don't know if the stone itself has a history of protection or something, but I like the idea of something external giving them the power to walk in the sunlight. And it was wisely used in some episodes, like in the season 2 finale, when Damon took of his ring when he was dying. It gave it that much power that only taking of this small thing could kill him within seconds.

The Twilight vampires are harder to talk about in friendly words because Stephenie Meyer denatured(sp??) the entire usual concept of vampire to fit "a dream" she had. I won't get into the explanation of glittering in the sunlight because I really don't get it... If someone can explain that to me, please do... As of the powers each vampire has being some part of their human life that was amplified by them turning, I get it a little bit more. Some other vampires stories do relate the ability to read mind or control emotions (even Bram Stocker's own Dracula had those on a certain level). As of the amber-colored eyes with the animal blood, I don't exactly get that either. I get that vampire that feed of humans have red eyes. But why amber for vegetarian vampires when they drink animal blood. It's blood too. That too, if someone can explain if there is a reason, please do 😉

I wish I could go on with underworld, but it's been a while since I watched any of the movies, so I'll skip and get involved with that one later on.

The thing that doesn't change about vampire though, and I am very glad Stephenie Meyer didn't change that in Twilight, is the fact that all vampires are drinking blood. And that is something very important that no one can change without changing the basic idea of vampires in common folklore. I will conclude with something Spike said in the S5 finale: "Blood is life, lack-brain. Why do you think we eat it? It's what keeps you going. Makes you warm. Makes you hard. Makes you other than dead."

😀
 
The vampires in the short lived show, "Moonlight" could go out in the sun, but they were highly sensitive to it. They couldn't morph into bats, wolves, or any such, but they did have a "game face," though the change wasn't as drastic as the Buffyverse vampires. Also, they weren't affected by wooden stakes or holy artifacts. Silver would immobilize and/or kill them, depending on how it was used (silver bullets or a silver spike to the heart could kill, and just coming in contact with silver, no skin penetration required, would sap all of their strength) They could move faster than the eye could follow, but only for short periods (I think) They could neither taste nor digest normal food, and only human blood could sustain them, Animal blood wouldn't work. And, for some unexplained reason, they had to sleep in subfreezing temperature, like a big freezer. And, they had human groupers/donors, called "freshies" who actually wanted vampires to feed off of them for the sexual rush.

And here, according to Wikipedia, is a comparative chart of vampire powers throughout the "vampire multiverse."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_vampire_traits_in_folklore_and_fiction
 
I like the Buffy vamps a lot, but there are a lot of inconsistencies with them as well. One thing I really like about the Buffy vampires is their transformation. A lot of times vampires just appear in human form, with elongated fangs. This was probably just due to the fact that in the past it was too expensive for make-up or CGI to make the vamps look more evil or different. Now it's more common to see vampires in a very beastly, monster-like form. Just straight up scary. I don't agree with this depiction of them, because they are supposed to be a beautiful seductive creature.

I like the vampires from true blood. They never quite change form but their fangs are retractable. What I really like about those vamps is their hierarchical system. The older the vampire, the stronger. Also every vamp is pretty much a slave to their maker, who will teach them how to behave and cope with life as a vampire.

Another thing I liked about the Buffy vampires is that they could not transform into bats and all that jazz. Only Dracula could, and that was explained by just being some magic tricks. Not actual supernatural power that every vampire possessed.
One thing I DON'T like, is the fact that vampires can eat and drink human food for pleasure. I really don't like this at all. One of the extreme downsides to being a vampire (besides having your soul ripped out) is that you can not enjoy earthly pleasures anymore (aside from sex). They cannot taste food, and (like in Let Me In) food even makes them sick much like the effects of silver.

One more point - I liked how vampires were depicted in Interview With A Vampire (great movie for those who haven't seen it!) Specifically the fact that whenever you are turned, you never mature physically from that point. I know that that's a very common trait among vamps and is used in Buffy as well, but it really showed the possible downsides to that as when Kirsten Dunst's character grew older, her child body remained the same and it became very frustrating for her.
 
Something that is common with pretty much every vampire shows/books/movies is that children are rarely turned. Or if they are, it becomes a real problem. Like [MENTION=11495]WWGD[/MENTION] said about Kirsten Dunst in Interview with a Vampire. Or in Twilight, when they mentionned that children vampires used to be turned during the South America vamps wars and it was worse than a blood bath. Children vampires always lead to problems (or they do in everything I saw & read).

Also, vampires are generally turned between the age of 16 and 30, with a few exception (I think Bill in True Blood is like 40-something...) I don't know if it is because the targeted audience is usually in that slice of ages or if it is just because it's an easier range to play with.
 
I love different takes on vampires, I always think it's interesting to see what people chose to do with the lore

Dracula - my favorite vampire book, yes, but I am eternally grateful that very few authors seem to have the need to replicated the "breath of a corpse", "turns in to a bat/wolf/mist/king of rats" thing. It works specifically to the legend of Dracula and the Nosferatu films for me because it's a completely different take on vampires, when it was more of a metaphor for the resented 'other' rather than the exotic/desirable 'other'.

Anne Rice - I do love the Vampire Chronicles and Rice's take on vampires, the first three books are brilliant and have a great vampire lore that makes sense for her particular verse. Sadly, as the books go on Rice kind of spins out of control in my opinion, it's okay to love your characters but she takes it to a fan-fiction level and I cringe when reading her later books as it's mainly a lot of fawning of e.g Lestat. But to start her vampires are very well thought out and rich in their mythology, they might actually be my favorites because of the richness of their vampire/human sides.

Buffy - I do like the changing faces. I think it works great on the show and I love the whole idea of the 'monster' coming out when they are to feed. It's not that different from the popping fangs in True Blood (even if that is more subtle). These are my second favorite kind of vampires, because it adds more mysticism and magic to the lore I feel and it makes it so devilish that they look normal until they attack.

True Blood - I'll admit, I hated the pop-out fangs at first. Then I listened to the commentary of one of the episodes and suddenly, thinking of it as a venomous snake, it made a world of sense and now I rather love it as it seems like they're more a 'human/real world' type of vampire, one that more realistically might have been around since the dawn of man while hiding in the shadows in a much more discreet manner than e.g Anne Rice or Buffy vamps. I still find the noise in season1 slightly irritating though

Twilight - while I did the whole, no sleeping thing, makes sense to me, I (like a lot of other people) don't care for the sparkling aspect of the vampires. The rest of her lore works fine for me in her verse (not that I see how a human/vampire relationship would work if he's hard as granite and really really cold...) But the vampires in and off themselves (minus sparkles) are well thought out and makes sense to me.

Lost Boys, The Hunger, various vamp movies these tend to be a bit of a cheesy take on vampires for me, not too well thought out just mainly planned for it to 'look' a certain way for the sake of the movie. That said I can find them entertaining but I always take them with a grain of salt and roll my eyes a little at times at some of their takes on vampire lore.

The blackdagger brotherhood et various vamp books; I haven't read that many, I've tried, but I mainly have to stop because I think their vampires turn cheesy. If it's from actual cheese or a lack of writing skill I'm unsure. It's probably the latter.

I'm sure there's others I've forgotten but now I've rambled on for a while... 🙂 (I left out, didn't forget, The Vampire Diaries because I don't feel I've seen enough or read enough of that series to speak about their kind of vampires. I probably will once I've familiarized myself more with their lore)
 
I've started to read a new series of vampire books recently (well, around Christmas last year, so not so recently). It's the Love at Stake serie, by Kerrelyn Sparks. Her vampires are "typical", meaning they sleep in the day, drink human blood and have the usual 2 fangs. They can also teleport, which was abandoned in lots of the newer vampire stories. Of course you have the good and bad vampires, but the difference with most good vampires from other universes is that thos drink synthetic human blood. Roman Draganesti is a vampire and one heck of a chemist(sp??) who has found a formula to use human blood and mix it with all kind of ingredients like chocolate, champane(sp??), whisky, etc. And his office is also a place where human workers are preparing blood for human transfusions.

Mostly, Kerrelyn created this world for love stories (because every book is a new love story, starting with Roman and then with every vampire of shapeshifter he knows), but the vampire aspect is never neglected and it is one of the rare worlds where the good vampires are many more than the bad vampires at the beginning (and they still barely win every big fight, don't ask me why...)

Like Twilight, it is all centered around love, but on the level of mythology and creativeness, I think Kerrelyn did an awesome job for that kind of book. I recommend 😉
 
One thing that people haven't mentioned (unless I missed it) was that in the Anne Rice world, the vampires don't have sex (from what I can recall), and aren't able to. They can form long-lasting love bonds with other vampires, but sex isn't possible. Correct me if I'm wrong on that.

Also in the Anne Rice world, I seem to recall that besides the person not maturing physically after they are turned, they also don't really grow as a person - their mentality sort of gets stuck. I seem to remember that being a big theme - eg. Lestat was turned in the midst of the Enlightenment, so he's all about taking risks, learning things, being on the cutting edge (no pun intended) of what's new and exciting. As compared to Louis, who was always very responsible, serious, remorseful... and continued to feel that way forever, since he was that way when he was turned.

Do you folks agree on the above?

The interesting thing about the "no sex" in the Anne Rice books is how most of the books and other media since have made them VERY sexual. They were always sexY (capital Y), but not necessarily sexual - all the old Hammer vampire films and older books had Dracula and friends conveying a mystical kind of sexual/sensual appeal, but they didn't usually have them having actual sex with anyone (even Dracula with his "brides").

I wonder if it was Hollywood's reaction to it - you know, "We need to add some real SEX to this, damnit!" or if there had been enough fanfic style novels (or other less-known works) where vampires DID have sex, so that it finally reached critical mass, such that now every vampire mythology has them having sex, and it's like Super Sex or something. 🙂

- Tim
 
I didn't like the first Anne Rice book so I never went on with it. I watched Queen of the Damned twice when I was younger (where sex is... well... omnipresent at a certain point) but I can't state anything about Anna Rice's verse.

As for the sexual pattern, I agree. it is present in Buffy in a certain way, but they didn't abused of it. Yes, some vampires were sexy (Angel, Spike, I'm talking about both of you!!) and there was sex, but except for season 6 there was never too much. And even in S6, there was a reason for it.

In True Blood, they overused the sexual aspect... My mom was literaly disgusted in the first season because there was way too many sex scenes for her. It gets better with the seasons but sex is omnipresent there.

In the Love at Stake series, there is sex in every book, but the sensual aspect is better used and frequently nicer to read than the actual sex scenes.

In Twilight (the book), anything remotely sensual is almost wiped out... All sex scenes are passed through (remember Bella and Edward's first time? They kiss in the ocean and then it skips to the morning after...) without any details, which can be kinda frustrating. In the movies, they did put a bit of sensual interaction, like when bella and Edward kiss for the first time in her bedroom. It is not the greatest kiss scene ever, but there's a tiny bit of sensuality (for the characters, anyways).

In Vampire Diaries, the sensuality was there in the first season. As much as I hate this scene, Stefan and Elena having sex had enough details to make us believe it was very romantic and all... (I can't believe I just wrote that... I'm going to be sick... okay, the feeling has passed...) Damon and Caroline had the most sensual sex scene of the first season. With the time, they neglected the sensual/sexual aspect (the second season lacked of it...), but they are coming back to it in the third season with Damon kinda playing man-whore..............

Maybe Hollywood decided sex(y) was much needed in all of the above. Or maybe it's just where the society is going. Because let's face it. Especially for the americans, it was almost blasphemy to see a nipple on screen 20 and 30 years ago. Today, to see boobs is normal on many shows/channels. I think the sexiness factor has a lot to do with it. As for Twilight and Vampire Diaries, since those series are primarely destined to pre-teens and teens, I think this is the main reason they are trying to keep it kinda low. (Not to forget TVD is on the CW channel, which is almost promoting for teens to not have sex...)
 
I like the different vampire lores, I've watched Moonlight, Buffy/Angel, Vampire Diaries, True Blood etc. I've also read a few vampire books, not Anne Rice but other series, and two that stuck out for me were the Carpathian series by Christine Feehan and The Midnight Breed by Lara Adrian. Both have a similar lore that ''vampires'' only turn evil when they give into their bloodlust, by drinking too much blood and/or killing a human they become soulless.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom