The Ultimate Vampire Resource and Directory

Vampires on film are usually shown as murderous, blood drinking, shape shifting, evil creatures of the night .... you know the sort of thing

In my opinion TV vampires can only confuse those people who are seeking guidance during their awakening - can only cause true vampires to be laughed at - can only side track people who are seeking the truth - and, when the time suits them, can cause the world press to descend on the vampire community anytime someone is murdered by a TV vampire wannabe

Do people feel that the 'TV vampire' has a good or bad effect on the true vampire cause?

How would you define the true vampire cause?

Sorry I should have been clearer.

I mean the path that each individual vampire follows according to their belief

I hope that makes sense

It's my opinion that the vampires you see portrayed in movies for the big screen and television confuse people. Its not so much that they are evil but that they are the vampires of myth and lore and when people see documentaries about real vampires today they find it harder to wrap their minds around the truth because of what they have seen in the movies.

Rowantears explains things very in a small amount of space.

I don't think that Hollywood really causes too much confusion especially if you are really studying and looking for the truth. Most people know that movies are special effects & use bits and pieces to create a money maker.

To each their own, but when looking for the truth in answers, follow what's in your gut & do your research and you should be able to find what you're looking for.

Also depends on how "real" vamipres define themselved.

I see a multitude of definitions here and I'm sure VR isn't all-inclusive.

Just be yourself and the hollywood factor probably won't effect your life at all.

The Vampires, like the humankind, are different kind of beings... The TV Vampires are like a fairytale, where they're the bad ones... its a merchandasing purpose, no less, no more...

EdVampire, I think you have stated it best.

It may cause some who have a problem delagating fiction to make-believe, and reality to true life, issues.

But that would be like saying would the Brady Bunch and The Cosby show, confuse people about what is consider a normal family life. Is there anyone who truly believe that families work in these manners or do you just understand that it is a concept that is used for entertainment?

If Hollywood vampires confuse them on their idenity then they need to be working on more than their awakening, reality would be my suggestion. There is almost nothing on television that is real including "reality tv". Not trying to be mean but you cannot base any truth on television or the movies it's called entertainment because it's make believe for the most part.

I think TV bosses need a bad guy. To them someone biting and drinking blood is against what they consider the 'norm' so they brand them with the 'evil stick'.

You'll find people will laugh at anything they either don't understand, or wish they could be but are afraid to admit to themselves. Like being gay, being a trekkie or being themselves, must be scary to some. Its easier being a sheep and following everyone else, so they laugh at those who dare to be different.

Movie and TV vamps haven't altered my way of thinking, my Vampire life or how those I care about perceive me. My family say I've always been a little odd. lol

i think that people should grow up and stop acting like theres only one way. vampiresm has been around for ages with hundreds of different kinds and traditions. there is no way to say whether the "tv" vampires arent just a more simple virsion of something factual. i mean look at all the other cultures of human/sub human races out there. all different but yet all the same. they dont confuse anyone cause people believe what they want to believe. if they want to see it as fact they do and they arent confused abou it. There are no true facts only researched ideas. thats what i say. lol great topic though.

Hollywood is designed for entertainment, whether factual or innacurate. Nothing more, and nothing less.

I totaly agree with you. to many people get sucked in to the world they are watching and for get while your living in an apartment they go home to ther bg mansions right after playing a brutal killer. its all just fro entertainemnt. live in hte now people.

People should be strong minded enough to be able to make their own opinions on these things.

I do think in some cases Hollywood sways beliefs especailly in the younger generation, for example, with films like Queen of the Damned. But it's no differant than modern day Vampire novels swaying opinions.

I think if people know what real vamps are then they are not compared what so ever to the TV vampires. But people can be ignorant and believe that real vamps go around biting and killing innocent people..

i dont beleive that vampires are any different than normal people they all have the same belifs

its like Pagans - they are always depicted as evil devil worshipers who want to sacrifice people. its annoying, but if everybody was nice and good to one another, the film / tv show wouldnt be very scary. there was once a Vampire soap called Dark Shadows - it was as boring as f**k. occasionally you will see "monsters" as heroes purely for novelty value, but for a horror to be scary, you have to have something outre that people can be scared of.

Drama people, as someone stated it's about ratings and wow. There have been some movies where the view of Vampires has not been all bad, but they are usually comedies.

There is a point where presenting a story you do put both sides in the equation. I think that is what created the mass popularity of the book, "Wicked". It presented the wicked witch of the Oz book's side of the occurrences in the Wizard of Oz.

Perhaps as Vampires create more mass appeal there will be more shown, but truthfully I think people like the "bad boy image" and often times I see people here specifically trying to mimic it.

I think find that phenomenon with anything that has mass appeal. Those who truly the lifestyle, probably find it either a massive joke or a massive insult.

There will always be those that will follow the trend. But I find it hard for anyone to be confused.

Why would they be confused? you know what you are and what you aren't, unless you are just confused and you were that before you ever got an inkling of what the media had to offer. That sound a bit mean. I don't mean it to be.

But it seems to me it is like saying do ppl get confused by watching Jerry Springer.
It is entertainment. it is "created" to entertain.

I don't believe that hollywood has ever created anything to be taken seriously. there is way to much "creative liscensing" going on to take even the that which is "based on a true story" seriously.

Not really sure what you mean..... Vamps are blood sucking creatures the EVIL is all in the perception..... so I'm not real sure how to respond or what you want

the vampires that are in the movies are done for just one thing. to draw in ppl to see the movies. i dont believe that there is any relationship between what is real and what is shown in movies. its all about money with them. the truth is a foreign word to them. just my opinion.

Most unfortunately believe only the mundain and widely excepted. THey are far to lazy to find the truths they should know before they pass their judgment on those who follow their beliefs. The narrow minded and lazy are why those of us get stereotyped. A true shame.

Yes I think that hollywood vampires def set a wrong impressions about "true" vampires in general. They are a fantasy, make-believe, mythical creature as shown on tv.

Hollywood = Entertainment

I agree with what was mentioned before...if one cannot differentiate between what is real and what is fantasy then we really have issues. Personally, I don't watch alot of tv or movies for that matter. I do have a small collection of Vampire Films solely to have something to laugh about.

the hollywood vampire is a smoke screen made by real vampires to hide the truth and keep humans in dark about what the world is really like.

I kinda like that most people have a set idea of what a Vampire is. Makes it much easier to fly under the radar so to speak.

Well, this debate might be important, if there were such things as real vampires.

Hehehe @ MrBlonde....

There are two truths here.

One truth is that vampires are fictional creatures, created at first as a blood-sucking, stinkish zombie to scare people. The vampire image has changed over time, to reflect each generation's values, fears, etc, etc.

The other truth is that there are people who call themselves vampires because they either like or need to drink blood or take chi from another person. "Need" has been debated, numerous times, before, so I'll keep that out of this.

The answer to the original poster's question is this; yes and no. People do not believe in supernatural beings who grow fangs, die if they don't drink blood, lift cars, and have the occasional gay sex, if you're an Ann Rice vampire. Since people do not believe in monsters, and what they view on television are monsters, people are not going to be confused.

What will make people confused is being told by a human being that they are a vampire. And then you have to run through the whole thing, explaining that you're not really all that supernatural, and blah blah blah...

Why can't Sang and Psys just call themselves lawyers? Wouldn't that be a hilarious start to the conversation? It would so much less....confusing.

Well hopefully it doesn't make people go out and randomly kill people for blood. They should realize there are safer ways to get blood and they don't have to kill for it.

Thank you Nelby, I wondered when someone would touch on my last part - that a person trying to be a 'TV vampire' and killing someone could bring unwanted attention.

Theres a lot of different thinking going on now - I liked the idea that TV vampires might be a welcome distraction - I hadn't even thought of that one

This is the first thread I have started that wasn't RIA'd in a few minutes :)

IndigoBizarre:

Very well said. I don't think anyone is understanding it, though.

Ok, I'm not trying to get a "rise" out of anyone here, but I just wanted to touch on the whole "truths" thing a little bit.

First of all,

What is truth? Truth is something that has been widely debated for quite some time. Scholars cannot agree to this piont that there is a definite/definition for the word truth. So to say that these are "truths" is null and void. But, I think that most people theoretically believe a truth to be something that is "true" or in fact A fact of truth.

So my question is:
How can we say that "supernatural" beings do not exist? It would be like saying that you don't believe in a god/gods, aliens, of course vampires, etc. There is no FACT that these "supernatural"s exist or do not exist. There is no truth in this at all. There has never been any kind of factual evidence to prove or disprove the existence of these "supernatural" beings. But especially vampires. There are myths, stories, theories yes, but no facts.

The other part is about why people call themselves Vampires. No one really has the right to say why other people they call themselves what they call themselves. It is an impossibility to call that a truth.

In addition to this, the definition of Vampirism is not the "like" to drink blood but the "practice" of drinking blood. It is done because it is in the nature of the beast to do so. Much like humans breath and eat and drink. We do this because we need to. One thing that IS truth is that there are vampire bats that do exist and drink blood. Usually not of humans, but of other animals.

The term vampirism is also used to refer to leeches, mosquitos, mistletoe, vampire bats, and other organisms that prey upon the bodily fluids of other creatures. This term also applies to legendary animals of the same nature, including the chupacabra.

I think that this word "vampire" could be used for human as well. The supernatural part is not certain and there is a good probability that it will never be certain. But never say never ;).

So, recap on the whole hollywood vampire idea. We do not know what is real or not. Most people believe that most or not all of what hollywood praytells in the movies is false and could not be true according to scientific proven facts of impossibility. I believe that most of what hollywood shows in the movies is in fact not "real". But, it is also just a belief. Science cannot prove everything.

Not trying to rain on anyone's parade here, but I am somewhat of a skeptic.

It is an unfortunately backlash of the media.

Hollywood vampire's they are over ratted and come anyware close to the real thing they feed you distorted information,bits and pices of the facts, they only show one side of vampires, that their cold, heartless, and they rather suck you dry then tlk you. This is just my little insight I've been around vampires almost my whole life and being part Vampire myself I can safly say that their just like people some are kind, and some can be real Dicks.

I feel that the way Hollywood protrays the images of Vampires to always have a negatrive affect in the puplics eyes and so society uses that to judge thoughs of us that are, wrongly.

I would say that Society doesn't need hollywood to make up its mind. it was made up long before moving pictures.

What the general census thinks is right is always right. Same with what the general census think is wrong. Hollywood wasn't around when people were being murdered in the name of whatever due to the practices of some that differed from what was considered correct by the general public.

I think that people who let themselves have a different opinion of a type of person because of how the media portrays them has a weak intestinal fortitude. I believe you should judge a person on what YOU the individual believes not what the "entertainment" industry portrays.

I say that knowing that there are all types of people regardless of what they are or where they come from . There are good & bad in all society. That would be like me saying "all white people live in trailers". "it's how they are shown on TV" it's a crock and that loose interpretation can be added to vampires or others who live in the subcultures.

Laugh at me all you want, Arumina, but that doesn't change anything.
I can run around in spandex outfits, a cowl and a cape saying that I am a superhero, and that there are two facts; there are the fictional kinds with the superpowers and abilities, and the other fact is what I do. This doesn't make it so.
People need blood?

Sorry, I slipped when doing spell check.
People need blood? Aside from what is in their veins, that isn't the case. If a person ingests any more then an ounce or so, they get sick from the amount of iron in the blood. That to me sounds like a bad thing, not a good one.
But think what you want.

yes people will confuse vampires with what is real but really, who doesn't confuse them already?? A lot of people who don't liik into them think that way because it is on TV or in a movie.

you can only be confused if you let yourself be.

Blonde - Arunima is very diplomatic.

This thread will pop up every so often so that folks who feel threatened by popular culture can lash out against the cruel fates that made 'abnormal' so that they suffer the harsh words and criticism for their lifestyle.

True they've decided to call themselves something whose name has a rich history and understanding based on mythology and fiction...The Vampire...but that makes no difference. It is the media's fault for continueing this gross misrepresentation now that the "truth" is known about what a 'real vampire' is. That "truth" of course being that a 'real vampire' is the human that has adopted the thousand year old vampire moniker as their own in the last 30 years even though the only (sometimes) common factor is a taste for blood and that in no way to modern vampires resemble their historical counterparts.

True that many 'real vampires' dress like the fictional ones, watch and read about the fictional ones, and even purchase fangs. One can only assume that this is done in order to clarify the already stark boundries between real and fictional vampires and not to further confuse.

It is shameful that the modern media continues to use the old definition for their movies, tv shows and books when the new meaning (the human that likes to drink blood but is neither immortal nor undead) holds so much more sway in the lives of everyday people. I'm glad that we've once again been able to shine some daylight on the terrible mis-use of popular culture and the horrible effects that it has on a subculture that decided to unilaterally adopt the vampires name and not it's definition. One can only hope that things change.

Its really great that so many people are putting so much thought and trouble in their responses, thank you all so much.

Some folk seem to be responding to the string of the posts which is fine and dandy.

For those folk who aren't reading the thread but simply answering my first post, I'm not really looking so much for a reaction to my beliefs (but its fine if you want to) but more for an answer to the question

Do people feel that the 'TV vampire' has a good or bad effect on the true vampire cause?

Evidently my wit is lost here.

i think the vampires in the movies are played out to be so fake, they should be more realistic about the true vampire

i think vampires on televition is shit. they are just made that way for the addiunce to look down on them. its all just for show, nothing more. its there to intertain, not to teach. people should know that by now.

My word! And are we to now assume that the 'true vampire' is now and forever more the human psy or san that adopted...ney stole the vampires name and identity from our most ancient folklore and fiction?

Are we to burn our novels and put to the torch our celluloid in an effort to make sure that no-one hereafter makes the mistake of confusing that false mythology (that was here first by hundreds if not thousands of years) with the arbitrary choice of self identity made by a group of blood fetishists and energy parasites?

in my thoughts well you are right that they have misled us they have even misled even me but in some little cases they are true and some they are not but as you said they have been called burtal killers when as myself a hollywood vampire i do live in hollywood but i am not a killer never have been never would be so in my thoughts i do think the media is wrong but also right......

IndigoBizarre - Thank you and as you've just seen, we once again learn why even approaching threads like this with the intent of genuine debate is a bit like trying to write a novel by banging your head against a sheaf of paper.

WoW! what a wonderful truth, FelixFelix. I think you have said it all in a nutshell, with a very good closing by IndigoBizarre.

One cannot say that the Hollywood Vampires seen on V and movies are the issue. Its the fact the people are so desperate to be something dark and evil, or dark and romantic that they are willing to fake themselves into believeing they are some sort of Undead creature of the night.

These types of people are then fueled by others who either A: Are the same thing, or B: Know better, but want to feel powerful so sell these people into a type of self imposed slavery.

One cannot say entertainment is the cause of this, what can be said though its the fact the people are willing to take something that is meant for fun, WAY out of purportion and bring none reality, into reality.

- Sin

I've been through this once before but since I'm a glutton for punishment...I'll try again.

If I decide that I'm going to call myself a dragon and that a dragon now means someone who hoards gold LIKE mythological dragons but without all that firebreathing and scales and flight and without being a giant lizard...

...is that the 'new truth' and the myths are all wrong then because I'm real and mythological dragons aren't?

...are people to blame if I tell them I'm a dragon and they think of the giant fire breathing lizards?

...are all the previous movies and every movie thereafter to blame for making movies on millenia old myths and not portraying the 'real dragon' i.e. me?

I take your point, I understand your point. the term vampire has two meanings - the ancient one of myth and the modern one - if the term 'true' is causing you so many problems perhaps we should say 'modern' vampires.

The TV vampire doesn't do much justice to the creature of myth and folklore, but that is for another thread.

To prevent the thread getting sidetracked would it help if I rephrased the question:

Do people feel that the 'TV vampire' (not the creatures of myth and folklore) has a good or bad effect on the modern/current vampire cause

Thank you...I'm not trying to be rude about this but the real trick is that the term 'vampire' was chosen and in that case, you must recieve all the baggage that comes with it.

In the case of your rephrased question:

yes...because the traditional fiction vampire archetype itself negatively affects the modern vampire cause...which is to redefine vampire...

...and no because modern fiction vampire characters have been given much more human traits and emotions and so appear less monstrous than the old vampires. There are hero vampires and protecting vampires in fiction, so that at least now, one can claim to be a vampire and you are not immediately written off as evil.

No Sir, I didn't take you as rude at all, I used a question that didn't nearrow down what I needed enough. I think I am getting there though :)

You have suggested something else that I had not thought about, that the TV vampire makes a 'vampire' more human and maybe more acceptable ... nice one

I think that "TV vamps" are a bad thing because they "lie" about vampire lore

Lie? How's that?

lol...

TV has the power to create a "person" or destroy it...

Old times : Vampires = evil creatures that "kill" without remorses.

Modern times : Vampires = More "human", with feelings, with mercy, with pitty, etc...

It sells better in these days...

The majority of the public dont want to see a ruthless vampire...they want to see a "loved" vampire...

I'm not sure about that. I rather see a ruthless vampire then that of the romantic sort any day.

Yet, then again I guess thats because I have to deal with the Romantic aspect of 'playing' a role playing setting known as Vampire the Requiem for the Camarilla and kind of tired of having to deal with the "Lets screw and drink blood" aspect of it.

- Sin

I believe that the Hollywood Vampire has blown the perspective of the true vampire race out of purportion to the point that people dont under stand them. So I believe that the movie and tv vamps have a back effect on the appearance and integrity of the true vampires

Felix, I think that your analogy is flawed. If you hoarded gold like a dragon, you would be considered greedy, not a mythological creature. The fact that you might decide to call yourself one brings into question your grasp on reality.
As for your previous response to my post, I have a pair of fangs t hat I wear in my apartment ( on occasion when watching vamp movies and such) and on Halloween. I dress regularly. Does that make me a vampire? No. Do I consider myself one? No. The term "true" vampire doesn't have a real meaning, since there are no vampires and what people consider to be vampires can't even be agreed upon. hehehe

MrBlonde - My analogy is exagerated but not flawed. The idea that someone could take one aspect of a mythological creature and thereby name themselves after it and claim the 'rights' to that name's definition is flawed. Modern day 'vampires' call themselves that because of the draining or 'feeding' on a host for energy or blood. That's where all similarities to mythological vampires cease. They could have just as easily called themselves mosquitos or fleas and we'd be having a debate about whether PBS science episodes on fleas portray 'true modern fleas' in a bad light.

My earlier post about wearing mythological vampire attire or fangs was only meant to highlight the fact that many of the modern day vampires that complain about the way vampires are portrayed in movies, adopt looks from the movies. It's not an admonishment of the attire or fangs in and of itself.

Felix thank you again.

I think MrBlonde has missed your point ... he still argues that vampires don't exist because no-one knows of a mythological vampire hanging around today.

There are thousands of modern people who (maybe not wisely) use the term vampire - which are the subject of my reworded question. They definitely do exist.

in my opinon, there really is not true vampires in hollywood. not in the true sense of the word. hollywood has distorted all that is really know, and made it into there own concept for money. the problem is that most of the public believe that this is how vampires really are and there is no outlet to relly explain the true meaning.

Werewolf666 said - the problem is that most of the public believe that this is how vampires really are and there is no outlet to relly explain the true meaning.

That incorrectly implies that most of the public believe that there are in fact real undead vampires walking around because of movie propaganda. The truth is that most people don't believe vampires 'really are' at all and so have little problem with watching a movie about a fictitious being.

The average person is not going to confuse you with a mythological vampire unless you tell them you are a vampire in which case, they still won't think that you're an undead immortal from fiction but merely that you've decided to call yourself a vampire and that you might be confused about what a vampire has always been.

Tv and Hollywood do, what they must do to earn money...

Public in general have their ideea of vampirism, because of what they see/hear...

Even if you explain them what a modern vampire or real vampire is...you will hear this:

- This guy is crazy...

Maybe, they are scared of what they could "see" in a real vampire...

i think the movies and stuff paint a negative image, but i dont think it would confuse anyone actually seeking to learn

anyone who confuses a walking corpse, albeit, a goodlooking one in most cases, with a person who has decided to live a lifestyle, is either very sheltered or very confused.

I do not think you can really say that it has an effect ,as the ideal that is painted on a movie is not real and very loosely based on fictional novels throughout the ages.

I have tried to understand this "true vampire" that is spoken of but it seems to come back to something out of fiction.

Felix-- what I am saying is that one can call oneself anything, really, but that doesn't make it so.
Also, as I said before, a human can not "feed" on blood. Due to the iron content of blood, a person can only take a couple ounces or so of blood without getting sick. That isn't enough to allow a person to live off of it. And there is no way a person can take energy off another person.
And I forget the person who said that I don't understand what you are saying, I forget the name, sorry, I do understand, I just don't believe that a person can be a vampire, and the idea of I am something since I say I am something is just erroneous. LIke I said, I can run around saying that I am a superhero, but that doesn't make me one.

I believe it gives vampires a bad name.

Thanks to Sam and Nikki for helping me with this answer

To take up MrBlonde point about the iron content of blood being so high that it would make you sick to drink it - a black pudding contains two litres of blood and an iron tablet tablet contains seven times the amount of iron in the blood than a pigs liver - you can eat black pudding and an iron tablet without getting sick

Cannibal tribes ate huge amounts of blood in the past and they seemed OK with it. I would think drinking blood could make some people sick, but it can't be the iron in it

The term vampire has changed over the centuries, evolved. If you don't accept the current meaning that is one thing, but to say that the people who use the term aren't real doesn't work

To follow that line of thought, the South American vampire bat (discovery 16th Century) isn't real because it it isn't the creature of folklore (first mention 1047)

The planet Mars isn't real because it isn't the Roman God of War, the chocolate bar isn't real because it isn't like either of them

and so on ....

The current popular meaning of vampire has to be what the people are using it for.

As Felix has argued so well - the term has now been redefined

I think people in general people know that hollywood is out to make money and that very thing they show is for entertainment value, but sayin that it does make vampires look bad as they alwyas make it this way to pull in more people.

Mr.Blonde - Exactly...so while the vampire chose to call themselves vampires for lack of a better term, it doesn't change the fact that they are not the original definition of an undead who feeds on the living. It doesn't matter if the 'feeding' is real or imagined. That alone doesn't make a vampire.

Yes I'm aware of the medical impossibilities around feeding or living off of blood. In addition to large quantities being physically bad for you (getting sick, or worse from ingesting too much) it doesn't digest like food. My point was not to call into question the existence of modern self labeled vampires but more to question whether they should have called themselves vampires. The word itself takes on too much baggage and causes these 'concerns' over whether THEY are being misrepresented by history and fiction when in fact they ARE the ones misrepresenting history and fiction by assuming an identity that doesn't match the definition and then complaining about it.

Artemka - Blonde is right about attempting to drink large quantities of liquid blood. The body rejects it. Cannibals still cooked their meat. Blood pudding is in a solid form mixed and is partially cooked.

When talking about redefinitions, Mars was named after the god of war and doesn't complain that Mars is still the god of war. We didn't name the planet and then say that Greco-Roman theology had it wrong and that Mars was always a planet. Modern vampires say that myth and the historical vampire is wrong...that's the difference. The vampire bat is not called a vampire. No one tries to claim that the vampire bat is the real vampire. It's acknowledged that it's name is one from inspiration not a claim on the definition.

If the current meaning of vampire is what people are using it for, then modern vampires still have it wrong because the majority of the world population still uses it to mean the myth and not the psy or sang. The term has been hijacked by a subculture and will at best be acknowledged in future as a such but will likely always be followed or preceded by "they believed they were".

Felix thank you, you are making very good points and I am understanding your side more each time.

I did agree that drinking blood may make some people ill, I was making the point that it wasn't the iron content that caused the sickness as MrBlonde was saying.

I'm not sure that all cannibals cooked their meat, I thought I had a site where they drank blood and brain fluids - I will look it out and get back to you on that point

I think it would have been a lot easier if the modern day vamps - had called themselves simply 'sangs', 'psis' or even 'vamps' - but they didn't.

Felix, thanks for the back up.
It seems that we agree to a point. The people who call themselves vampires aren't real vampires and that they should pick another term for use to describe what they are/claim to be.

I can't possibly believe that there is much relation between what someone in the 1700's was referring to and modern sangs or psys. Mythological vampires have indeed gone through many changes and let's not forget that vampires are also different from culture to culture, country to country and continent to continent. The hollywood vampire that we so often associate with the word vampire isn't even related to original european myths so much as to Bram Stokers work and later fictions.

But the groups of people and individuals that ARE calling themselves vampires, did choose to call themselves that. One is not required to call themselves something they disagree with.

To answer your question "what to call them"...If one truly disagreed with the origins or evolutions of that term - "Vampire", they could still call themselves "Energy Feeders" or "Energy Absorbers" or invent their own word and be done with it. Those who are calling themselves vampires should be aware that the past history of myth and fiction won't go away. More importantly, they should acknowledge that it was an interest in the mythological vampire or gothic fiction that led 99% of them to call themselves thusly and so to turn on that body of work and begin bad mouthing it for 'deceiving' the rest of us or 'lying' about the 'true vampire' is silly and rather selfish...if not delusional.

I don't care if someone calls themselves a vampire. I don't even care if they have reason to do so. I believe we're all entitled to our actions. But we should really learn to accept the results of those actions. To call oneself a vampire and then rail against the world for the negative image that vampires have based on the fiction that led them there...like I said...silly.

yup yup understand all that, so what do you call 'real' vampires ?

what do you call "real " vampires? Nothing. There is no such thing. That is what I have been trying to say. There are people who call themselves that. There are people who have taken Bram Stokers mixing of different cultures beliefs and putting it into Dracula and call themselves vampires. They disagree with the mass media portrayal of vampires, even though they are different then what Stoker set forth.
There are no such things as "real" vampires, so I won't call them anything.

Sorry I thought when you said

The people who call themselves vampires aren't real vampires

you were comparing them to something you had a view on.

My mistake

If you mean what do modern psys or sangs call themselves?

Anything they want...but then don't call yourself a frog and be mad that Hollywood continues to do movies where a frog is a small green amphibean.

Gotcha

so your answer to the question would be something like

"TV vampires may have a bad effect on those who chose to call themselves vampires now, but they have brought this bad effect on themselves for chosing that name"

I may have said that people who call themselves vampires aren't real vampires.. since real vampires don't exist, they can't be real vampires.

Correct. Match point and game.

Yup, better luck next time

only joking, you made your opinion very well Sir, thank you

Of course...

But lets not forget that since 'modern vampires' are trying to gain social acceptance in many circles, wherein TV vampires, with the more human traits and motivations seen lately, serve as a positive in many programs.

I'd also like to say that it's not the TV programs themselves that give 'modern vampires' a bad name. It's the 'modern vampires' who tell someone that they are a vampire. It's a bit like if I were to walk up to a stranger or new friend and say "I'm a Bondage Master". The chances that this would go over at all well, are slim to none. It's not even a question of whether or not the person has a real opinion on Bondage...it's just something that people don't expect to hear unless their about to become involved in it. So one could see where mentioning that they're a vampire might put some people off.

"Oh you're a vampire...why tell me unless you want something?"

So the effect is a bit like being propositioned. If you're interested, then no worries, but if you're not interested, it's at least a little ackward if not something that would downright put off.

Wow Felix - you actually had the patience to keep going with this, and all the "i diddnt reead teh rest but here is my opinon tht has alredy been proved wrong" actually stopped posting heh. 2nd half of this thread was a great read. 1st half was infuriating.

oh and...


I agree!

Sir, thank you but nothing here has been proved wrong Felix aired his opinion and argued it well - other people can have their opinions that are different, they aren't right or wrong - just different

Ok fine if you want the semantic route then - I am of the opinion that Felix is dead spot on. It isn't someone disagreeing that I have issue with. It is the people that don't read the thread, and have no clue what is really being discussed. Instead they pick out a few keywords and respond with some idiotic cliche or statement. It's the same all over the forum, and because of it I rarely even read the forums anymore because I get angry. Here is an example of what I was talking about:

"gothscorpian
Caitiff (5)
Posts: 7
Re: Hollywood Vampires
Posted: 18:04:00 - Sep 19 2006
Times viewed: 267

i think the vampires in the movies are played out to be so fake, they should be more realistic about the true vampire



Profile for kittykatmeow
kittykatmeow
Marplot (4)
Posts: 25
Re: Hollywood Vampires
Posted: 18:15:13 - Sep 19 2006
Times viewed: 261

i think vampires on televition is shit. they are just made that way for the addiunce to look down on them. its all just for show, nothing more. its there to intertain, not to teach. people should know that by now."

When right above these two brilliant responses you and felix are debating.

I'm not big on the "no opinion is wrong" mindset. Some opinions - when they are really stupid - are wrong.

Oh, and to the guy that went on a philisophical tangent about truth. You're entire argument was that we can't say supernatural undead vampirse don't exist because there is no truth they don't exist. What if I said I was raised by vampiric psychic pixies with machine guns on their foreheads, and BO that summoned a horse. You can't prove me wrong any different then I can prove that undead supernatural vampirse don't exist. Yet my statement is absurd.

you cant argue with a closed mind. well, you can try, but it's a bit pointless. somebody please put this thread out of its misery.

If you mean me - I am very open minded despite what it seems in this thread. I Just happen to know where to draw the line.

Aremka - I realize now that it may look like I'm attacking your opinion in this thread. I am not. It isn't quite the same as mine, but I appreciate the fact that you took the time to view both sides and help understand it. So I apologize if I came across that way. It is the statements like I quoted above that go through me, and ruin any attempt at real discussion on these forums. Obviously for a discussion we need differences of opinion so don't think I'm against that ;)

Ah now I understand what you were talking about

I looked at it two ways, some ppl were still answering my original question in their own way

Some ppl were following the thread about the use of the term 'vampire' by the modern day folk

One guy was (I think) arguing that no-one could ever use the term vampire for anything cos whatever it was used for wasn't real and was never real.

Vulash, sorry your reply went up before I got done with my reply.

I never take anything on the net personally - it was nice of you to take the trouble to give your opinion.

I'm not 100% what karnstein was talking about, but I think he has a point that the thread has served its purpose and then some .... I'll wait a little for some closing responses and then kill it

This thread has been automatically closed for length.