Printable View
that's silly man, some fundamental rules should be made constant.Quote:
Originally posted by MagicNakor@30 September 2003 - 13:10
There's a large set of "rules" to choose from, given the history of vampires, so they just pick and choose what suits their stories. ;)
like it just seems silly that a vampire can move into sunlight...the whole point is that they are dark beings lurking in the shadows.
rules r rules and dont watch underworld its silly. saloms lot and peter cushon there r da real vampier moves and they follow da rules
in blade the woman cured here self when she was bitten its a joke.
Blade 3 is gonna be POO
yeah that was silly. the movie was good but that was silly. and the hilarious part is she gets bitten twice and nothing happens. maybe cause it was blade and that don't count...lolQuote:
Originally posted by foot loose@30 September 2003 - 13:20
in blade the woman cured here self when she was bitten its a joke.
yeh and in these so called ation vampier films underworld/blade queen of da damed, da vampires don't turn in 2 bat any more <_<
I may well be wrong here..I know vampires are just fictional,but i always though only dracula or head vampire could transform into a bat.But like i said i could be wrong and anthing goes in action/movies to look good on the screen.
im abig vamp film fan & would hate for them to stop making them due to afew crap ones. your always get crap films weather they have vampires in or american teen girls... youve just gotta sift through all the shit. ;)
Near Dark totally rocks... anyone who hasnt seen it, well worth a watch..... its so good its nearly even worth buying..... nearly. :DQuote:
u could give near dark a watch..A superb vampire movie imo..
They r sum of the worst vampire movies ever, hollywood r trying 2 make Vampires into sum sort of cool hip figure... in my opinion that just spoils things...Quote:
yeh and in these so called ation vampier films underworld/blade queen of da damed, da vampires don't turn in 2 bat any more
The best type of Dracula is the, guy that lives on his own in a creepy castle, that type of Vampire...
That just my opinion tho :lol:
The worst dracula movie so far has 2 b Dracula 200, Wes Cravens version, wot a load of shit... http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0219653/
They never make Dracula movies like this anymore...
Nosferatu :: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0013442/
Count Yorga, Vampire :: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0066952/
Dracula (1931 :: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0021814/
Dracula (1958) :: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0051554/
Dracula (1992) :: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0103874/
Foot Loose, you're a complete dumbass, you know that? <_<
Vampire movies have always reflected the fears of society at the time, the old Dracula movies represented the inhibitied sexuality of the Victorians for example. :rolleyes:
As for newer vampire movies, vampirism is a virus. It represents exactly that, HIV. I won't even bother getting into the racial and gang-related sides of modern vampire films.
The reason vampires in older movies had no reflection was the Victorian avoidance of vanity. What good would that do now? Our society thrives on vanity, and we constantly see this in the way movie stars are constantly on our TVs and in our magazines.
Simply put, movie vampires today are exactly how they should be. A reflection of the fears of society. Who knows, in ten years, vampires might not even drink blood. <_<
Well put.Quote:
Originally posted by Embracer Of Darkness@30 September 2003 - 17:33
Foot Loose, you're a complete dumbass, you know that? <_<
Vampire movies have always reflected the fears of society at the time, the old Dracula movies represented the inhibitied sexuality of the Victorians for example. :rolleyes:
As for newer vampire movies, vampirism is a virus. It represents exactly that, HIV. I won't even bother getting into the racial and gang-related sides of modern vampire films.
The reason vampires in older movies had no reflection was the Victorian avoidance of vanity. What good would that do now? Our society thrives on vanity, and we constantly see this in the way movie stars are constantly on our TVs and in our magazines.
Simply put, movie vampires today are exactly how they should be. A reflection of the fears of society. Who knows, in ten years, vampires might not even drink blood. <_<
The vampire disease is actually somewhat real. It's called Porphyria.
Person's with this cannot synthesize heme.
Their gums recede and the teeth darken.
Garlic worsens the symptoms.
There's extreme light sensitivity.
Lesions develop on the skin.
Back in the old days some folks with this disorder drank blood because their own couldn't synthesize heme.
footloose you crack me up.
Any vampire movie that's not in your "rulebook" is shitty.
Please.
Underworld was a good movie. That's why there talking of making a sequel and prequel. There was hardly ANY Matrix effects (no bullet time at all actually).
Thank you my good man. :) I completely agree with your points also. People need to fucking buy a clue, they can write their own movie if they think they can do better.Quote:
Originally posted by Busyman@30 September 2003 - 18:28
Well put.
(snip)
footloose you crack me up.
Any vampire movie that's not in your "rulebook" is shitty.
Please.
Underworld was a good movie. That's why there talking of making a sequel and prequel. There was hardly ANY Matrix effects (no bullet time at all actually).