Lauren Baccall(sp?) cracks me up
 

"Yes, I saw Twilight - my granddaughter made me watch it, she said it was the greatest vampire film ever. After the 'film' was over I wanted to smack her across her head with my shoe, but I do not want a (tell-all) book called Grannie Dearest written on me when I die. So instead I gave her a DVD of Murnau's 1922 masterpiece Nosferatu and told her, 'Now that's a vampire film!' And that goes for all of you! Watch Nosferatu instead!"

hahahah! That is funny. she should have smacked her grandkid.
I have to stand here at woprk and listen to 50+ year old ladies debating the merits of the twilight books. horrible horrible. infantilism needs to stop!

it's natural selection at work! the herd needs culling... let it happen... ;)

---

she has great genes though

I didnt watch Twilight, but I've heard it's a mix between Buffy and Dawson Creek (don't fuck before you get married!)
Still, Nosferatu is super boring.

I'll watch or rewatch movies with Lauren Bacall instead.

what movie from the 1920's is NOT super boring by our "sophisticated" standards?

Nosferatu rules man.

Nosferatu rules, man. So does that Malkovich movie a few years ago about the Nosferatu movie. What was that called?

that WAS good!

about the guy who played nosferatu, if he was actually a vampire right?

Yes. Malkovich played the director. That movie was actually a little spookier than the Nosferatu movie.

Most Chaplin's movie aren't.
That's visual humour, it doesn't need words.

yes it does!
metropolis is a bit more entertaining.

I like old movies, chaplin, marx bros, keaton, old silent classiscs
I was referring to the general attitude of today;'s movie going public, who never want to "read" subtitles, hate silent movies, and cannot take B+W movies.

i think the malkovich film was called shadow of the vampire

thats it. anyone else here seen herzog's remake of nosferatu?

love Lauren

Gotta love Lauren Bacall. I don't know shit about Twilight though. I actually have never really understood the full appeal of vampires. I've seen vampire films, of course, and they were fine. But some people just can't get enough. They're insatiable for vampires. I don't get it.

everyone's hyped up on vampires since ann rice decided to rewrite the mythos to a,llow vampires to get hard-ons.

vampires are by definition UNDEAD and posses no sexual urges nor any functional genitals. Their shit is shrivelled up and dried out.

I was actually thinking of Anne Rice when I wrote my post! :) I read Interview With A Vampire, and although it seemed like she was trying really hard to make vampires sexy, I never once got the least bit turned on.

But really the whole vampire/sexy thing has been around a while, at least since the 30s. Dracula was supposed to be seductive. Dracula's Daughter was actually about a lesbian vampire.

In both cases nobody actually screws, unless I'm totally blocking it out of my mind. So who knows if they can get hard-ons/wet?

the "seduction" was a victorian era holdover, sexual pleasure, but disguised as rape/assualt, biting the neck and such.

and that shit is the literature vampire, quite different from the ancient folkloric vampires who were more like zombies.

Well then you'll have to blame Bram Stoker then. Then there's the succubus, who raped men in the night and stole their energy. A vampire of a different sort.

you're making huge generalisations,that's not anne rice, some of the old vampire legends include them finding wives and having children, maybe anne rice made that concept popular in hollywood, but it's flat out wrong to talk about "the mythos" as some sort of established and universal legend,actually there was thousands of different vampire myths and the idea of them having partners is not just some hollywood trend

what literature you got?

I have read much folklore vampire tales, reasearch, and modern (last 100 years) vampire lit as well.

[quote=dirty bunny]Well then you'll have to blame Bram Stoker then. Then there's the succubus, who raped men in the night and stole their energy. A vampire of a different sort.[/quote

succubus is a GHOST

not a vampire.

Incubus is the male version

nothing vamp specific, lot's of slavic folk books that have vamp boners within,and of course these vampires have only one nostril, an idea which i don't think hit hollywood(probably cause it's kind of boring)

however i'm sure the sexually active vampires of the past weren't emo pussies, anne rice could very well be responsible for that phenomenon

haaaa haaa haa haaa

if i was going to live forever, i would allow myself an occaisonal lazy day where i just say "fuck it, i'm not gonna bother doing my eyeliner today i don't care what anyone thinks"

[quote=Rob Instigator]
Now maybe I'm completely wrong, but I always thought the main point about vampires was they suck your energy. What happens when you lose a lot of blood? You're weak. They're sucking your blood, taking your energy. What does a succubus/incubus do? They suck your energy.

That sounds an awful lot like a vampire to me.

But I just bet you've got to have the last word. Because you know better than anyone, because you've read folklore blah blah blah.

succubus and incubus do nothing like that
they have SEX WITH YOU while you are paralyzed. (historically)
while they may be referred to as stealing sexual energy, it is not like vampires at all.

they are a folklore created by people having "waking dreams." where they feel paralyzed yet awake, but in fact, they are still dreaming and their bodies are asleep. especially waking "wet" dreams, which, in much more cloistered and religious times, was a SIN.

ejaculation was a sin unless for procreation.


vampires are undead, who must feast on blood to stay "alive." they can kill their meal, and ussually do, but if they feel like it, they let their meal, after being nearly drained, eat of their own vampire "blood" thereby making them a vampire.

succubus and incubus are just "ghosts" fucking with ya.

yes, it's not herzog's best work but it's still very good

no last words in coversation
feel free to add or reply in any way you want!

Of course they're not the same. That's why a distinction is made between them. Supposedly vampires were corporeal than succubi, but that's the way I've always viewed vampires as being energy-stealers. You obviously don't see it that way, which is fine (I guess :P).

i thought traditionally vampires tales were used as a means to scare young girls out of having sex with handsome strangers, etc?
i think sex has always been the subtext with vampires, anne rice changed them from sexual predators to sensitive & misunderstood low-calory goths.

[quote=dirty bunny]


vampires feast on BLOOD , sexual energy is not blood, if you don't eat BLOOD you aren't a vamp.

in eastern europe(think transylvania,home of most western vamp. fiction) it's always been related to violent deaths, improper burials,a baby born on saturday dying before baptism and that type of thing, the eternal soul,unable to go to heaven or hell, returns to the body.

EXACTLY

^
^ yeah, the vampire myth comes from some noble guy named Vlad, who enjoyed to torture people, in Transylvania/Romania.

vlad "welcome to my lands" the impaler?

i think every culture has it's own vampire myths, they don't all come from vlad.

they want escapism, not art. sadly.

lauren bacall is fabulous. just her in the big sleep seals my love. she and bogey, oh my god.

nosferatu STILL gives me the creeps when i watch it

vlad the oimpaler is the source of Dracula, a fictional vampire. folkloric vampires have been arfound for far longer then that