I love vampires. Vampires are one of my favorite subjects in the world, and I've spawned many a vampire character; most of which aren't particularly pretty, and all of which would laugh in Deadward's face upon hearing the, "This is the skin of a killer" line. No, the destruction of vampires wasn't single-handed, but that show Vampire Diaries doesn't exactly have many viewers, much less an equivalent to the "Twi-Moms" screeching and messing their Twilight Brand Panties every time Deadward walks on screen.

Vampire myths and legends develope differently over time. I wonder some days where every little rumor about them became some "fact" (a sort of fiction fact since they don't exist) and who came up with each one. It seems to me that over the years people just keep adding ideas to the original idea of the vampire and now these creatures have become a great many different things.

What I'm concerned about is however many years in the future, where this whole glittery vampire bit gets stored into the vault of being part of the fictional fact. People of the future will be laughing at the beings we once saw as dangerous, elegant and cool. I don't like the idea of passing on such misconceptions.

i don't know about vampires in general, but edward cullen kind of scared me a bit.

he and was just too... perfect, maybe?


P.S.all of you have terrific avis.

i dunno ...

I've read the books and also seen both movies New Moon and Twilight ...
for me I think it's great ...

although yes, it did kinda ruin the image of the vampires but not entirely ...
but i still think it's great ..

Originally Posted by -GuiltyInk-

Alot of people thinks that Twilight ruined the image of vampires. I'm one of thsoe people that thinks it did too-well, the sparkling vampire part threw me off. And the movie did not help with that case. Like at all.
What do you think?

In a way yes, I think that the image of vampires is ruined. I enjoyed the books, but i have read other vampire books that are much better. They give more depth to the vampires.

Anne Rice said that vampires are actually allowed to have sex. So them having a baby pissed me off so much.

I remember when saying you like vampires meant that you were a weirdo.
Now you're a weirdo if you don't like them. :P

I don't think it would be humanly possible for a book to ruin the image of vampires, not even if the book was about pink fluffy vampiric bunnies.
I used to like twilight, a long time ago, but I don't like it so much anymore, because it's gotten crazy, and when she became more popular, her writing style changed to impress the fans. So I don't really like it so much anymore, but i did my freshman year of high school. lol im in college now.

I like vampire romance novels with lots of rough..well yeh, i like the books you can get off the walmart shelf lol.

I wouldn't say that the books ruined the image of vampires, but it has made them too mainstream. I was noticing that everything kind of has a "vampire chic" bent to it. Even the costume jewelry that you can buy at Wal-Mart now. Lots of chunky metal chains, and dark metal charms. Those were things you could only get at places that Hot Topic for years... or order them from specialty shops. Its fascinating that something so goth and dark as vampire culture is so readily accepted these days. I mean you can see it on shows like CSI... Castle... etc as well as the new vampire shows that keep popping up. Not to mention the overwhelming amount of vampire literature available now. There was a time when you had to hunt down books by everyone except Anne Rice... now some libraries have nooks that are specifically for vamp novels. I've been reading vamp lit since I was nine... my teachers thought that I was the weirdo goth kid... now those same teachers are suggesting that their students read the crappy Twilight novels.... Mainstreaming vamps won't ruin their image, but it might dull it for awhile. Hopefully authors like Karen Chance, Charlaine Harris, and Laurell K. Hamilton can keep vampires as the dark, sexy, creatures that they are meant to be.

Originally Posted by Xxbl00dyxangelxX

I don't think it would be humanly possible for a book to ruin the image of vampires, not even if the book was about pink fluffy vampiric bunnies.

Hey, this just reminded me, anyone else read Bunnicula?

Anywho, nah, Twilight didn't ruin the image of vampires. It's made it popular to turn vampires into lil emo angst buckets, but it hasn't ruined them.

I think that it didn't 'ruin' the vampire persay as much as just took a part of the vampire lore and found creative ways to explain them. It is honestly no different than other authors picking, choosing, and mixing about different parts of vampire lore to make their vampire mold to the world they created for it. If you really stop to think about it the whole idea of the vampire as an attractive being or capable of compassionate thought is relatively recent history as well. I'm sure that there were people who scoffed at Anne Rice's idea of the overly sexualized, stunningly beautiful vampire that thought that the Nosferatu style was the traditional vampire and 'How dare she!'.

It really just boils down to finding a different way to tell an old story in a new way. No one whines and complains about the way that many modern shape shifting stories like to ignore the whole 'losing ones mind when one transforms' lore. There are dozens of different ways to spin a ghost story. So why not a dozen different ways to spin a vampire story? I personally appreciate any time the lore can be refreshed with a new perspective. I feel the same way about Twilight that I feel about certain parts of the Vampire Chronicles... and that is that it is meant to be a story about characters that just happen to be vampires and not vampires that just happen to do things. The personality of the character comes first and that the character just happens to be a supernatural being comes second.


LadyKnightSkye: Yes Bunnicula is an adorable book.

I was forced into watching the movie. >:-( In my opinion, yes, it damaged vampires.

Originally Posted by JennyVonDoom

I think that it didn't 'ruin' the vampire persay as much as just took a part of the vampire lore and found creative ways to explain them. It is honestly no different than other authors picking, choosing, and mixing about different parts of vampire lore to make their vampire mold to the world they created for it. If you really stop to think about it the whole idea of the vampire as an attractive being or capable of compassionate thought is relatively recent history as well. I'm sure that there were people who scoffed at Anne Rice's idea of the overly sexualized, stunningly beautiful vampire that thought that the Nosferatu style was the traditional vampire and 'How dare she!'.

It really just boils down to finding a different way to tell an old story in a new way. No one whines and complains about the way that many modern shape shifting stories like to ignore the whole 'losing ones mind when one transforms' lore. There are dozens of different ways to spin a ghost story. So why not a dozen different ways to spin a vampire story? I personally appreciate any time the lore can be refreshed with a new perspective. I feel the same way about Twilight that I feel about certain parts of the Vampire Chronicles... and that is that it is meant to be a story about characters that just happen to be vampires and not vampires that just happen to do things. The personality of the character comes first and that the character just happens to be a supernatural being comes second.

I don't think this point could be made any more eloquently, and I completely agree. :yes: Nobody gets all huffy when someone has a different or unusual take on something like ghosts or other supernatural things, but when it comes to vampires it's suddenly a capital offence to wander from the traditional image!

I think it's just because vampires are more popular, not just now and not because of Twilight, I think vampires have always been popular. Although a lot of people seem like they want to think it's something that was sort of underground and obscure prior to recent trends, which I find a tad irksome. :lol:

Originally Posted by Huffie

I don't think this point could be made any more eloquently, and I completely agree. :yes: Nobody gets all huffy when someone has a different or unusual take on something like ghosts or other supernatural things, but when it comes to vampires it's suddenly a capital offence to wander from the traditional image!

I think it's just because vampires are more popular, not just now and not because of Twilight, I think vampires have always been popular. Although a lot of people seem like they want to think it's something that was sort of underground and obscure prior to recent trends, which I find a tad irksome. :lol:

Vampires have always been popular, but I don't know that they've always been mainstream. Twilight changed that, sure. But as to the main question, no, Twilight did not ruin vampires. That's giving Twilight WAY more credit than people should. Twilight, in my opinion, created an original take on vampires, one that no one had thought of before, and while I know that a lot of people simply shudder at the sparkling issue, I thought it was fairly cool, explaining the myth as simply a myth (a myth about a myth, ahah).

However, sparkling vampires will never be able to be used again, at least, not for a very, very VERY long time. Anyone that tries to write about sparkling vampires will immediately be labeled as simply ripping Meyers off. So really, Twilight probably solidified the original view of vampires if anything. :)

Originally Posted by SugarRos

However, sparkling vampires will never be able to be used again, at least, not for a very, very VERY long time. Anyone that tries to write about sparkling vampires will immediately be labeled as simply ripping Meyers off. So really, Twilight probably solidified the original view of vampires if anything. :)

That's very true! :) And I do agree Twilight has quite an original take on the whole thing, you definitely have to give Ms. Meyer credit for that! :yes:

I don't think twilight ruined the reputation of vampires, but making them sparkle? Are you sure they're vampires? I wonder if the author couldn't decide to use vampires of pixies. Blend them together, and you get the Cullens.

Everyone has their own takes on what a Vampire is. Twilight was just horrid in it's explanation of vampires. House of Night by PC Cast & Kristin Cast, Vampire Earth by EEKnight, Vampire Acadamy by Richelle Mead, and even Cirqu Du Freak by Darran Shan all had better takes on what a vampire is. It really boils down to what you want to believe a vampire is. And most people only like Twilight because of Edward... Only book I liked in the series was New Moon and that was because it was blessedly Edward free. And quite frankly if people keep making a big deal about Twilight I'm gonna stop reading Vampire novels all together. and I haven't finished Vampire Acadamy, House of Night, Vampire Earth, or even Chibi Vampire yet. Twilight was horrid, get over it already.

Originally Posted by Broken-Destiny

Twilight was horrid, get over it already.

Ummm...and who exactly are you addressing with that? :lol:

Everyone, the people that worship the series and the people who continualy rip on it. Move on people

Originally Posted by Broken-Destiny

Everyone, the people that worship the series and the people who continualy rip on it. Move on people

Oh, yes, I think I can quite agree with that sentiment! :lol: I think fanaticism does tend to make things rather boring. :yes:

Yeah, and both haters and lovers ofthe series obsess over it.

Originally Posted by Huffie

Oh, yes, I think I can quite agree with that sentiment! :lol: I think fanaticism does tend to make things rather boring. :yes:

To be honest this is the exact reason I refuse to go see Avatar (the one about the blue ronso people not the one about the little kid with the arrow)... so many people like it that it must actually be terrible. I held out on seeing Kill Bill for the same reason until a few months ago. I think that for me the logic is that something must be terrible if tons of people like it because a large group is only as smart as its least intelligent member.

My co-workers and I read the first Twilight novels before it blew up and became a huge thing. We were legitimately surprised when we started getting merchandise in at work for it and it blew up. Typically we picked things that no one had ever heard of to read let alone like. To be totally honest... I don't like Edward either. Edward annoys me in the same way that Squall from the game Final Fanatsy VIII annoys me with his brooding moodiness. If I had to pick a favorite character I think it would probably be Alice or maybe even Rosalie.

Originally Posted by Broken-Destiny

Yeah, and both haters and lovers ofthe series obsess over it.

Ahh, not always true! ;) I happen to be good friends with what you might call a 'Twilight-lover', it's her favourite book series, but I wouldn't call her obsessed at all, she's quite understated about it really! :)

Most of my friends worship it, even my co-workers and I'm only older than 2 of them, the rest are like 30 and above

Originally Posted by Broken-Destiny

Everyone has their own takes on what a Vampire is. Twilight was just horrid in it's explanation of vampires. House of Night by PC Cast & Kristin Cast, Vampire Earth by EEKnight, Vampire Acadamy by Richelle Mead, and even Cirqu Du Freak by Darran Shan all had better takes on what a vampire is. It really boils down to what you want to believe a vampire is. And most people only like Twilight because of Edward... Only book I liked in the series was New Moon and that was because it was blessedly Edward free. And quite frankly if people keep making a big deal about Twilight I'm gonna stop reading Vampire novels all together. and I haven't finished Vampire Acadamy, House of Night, Vampire Earth, or even Chibi Vampire yet. Twilight was horrid, get over it already.

...That doesn't make much sense. You're going to stop reading all vampire novels that you're currently reading? Oh yeah, that'll show them!

...Show who? No one is going to care that you stopped reading vampire books and the only one you're hurting is yourself, especially if you enjoy the books you'll stop reading.

This is the kind of over-reacting that I find to be ridiculous from Twilight bashers. Why would you stop doing something you love because of something you hate? It makes no sense whatsoever.

Hmm... yes, it did. Not exactly, but I'm just mad at Stephanie Meyer for deciding new things about vampires, things that we made up about vampires for a long time. I mean, we said that vampires drink human blood, and not animal blood! I just find it annoying... though it is her book and her choice of what she does...