The Ultimate Vampire Resource and Directory

What would you include in a Vamp"y"ire documentary?

How would you relate your convivtions, and/or practice to the general public?

What background would you include?

I wouldn't do a vampire documentary for one reason

We are private unless amongst our own kind and it would only become a whipping ground for *** **** skeptics who we don't really care that much about.

I reckon you can figure out the reason for yourself.



CuRsEdToDaRkNeSs Edit: There is really no need in use of such strong language in the forums. I have removed the strong curse words from this post.

There is no reason anyone should make a documentary. It always turns into a mockumentary

What?

Right out the gate you are so negative, and self defeated?

So you lack conviction, and you want people to remain "ignorant"?

How is that you profess to be private, only when it comes to the reasoning behind your convictions?

Why all the public announcemnts?

Why continue to call people ignorant, and "closed minded', when there is nothing to compel people to take intrest in your convictions?

as it is now, the ones who are out front get mocked by those who profess too be more credible then others who profess to be vampires.

So you Neon light your professed idenity, yet bring nothing to the table?

Thanks for taking the time to confirm my suspicion.

I would not base the documentary on the modern subculture, nor the classic entailments that manipulated society from the get go. Instead, I would base it on psychological aspects as to why those individuals believe themselves to be what they are, pysiological aspects regarding the ailments some of them go through, what makes them really think that they are vampire...

Then go into details regarding supposed Houses, but not Covens as these are not vampire related. I would go into some of the politics, perhaps for a whistle blower and ask some within the community, mainly the supposed elders of such and question them as to why it has taken so long for them to gain any kind of initiate to create a National or world wide list of Houses and if they were suspected vampires, then why so much fighting between themselves and why they claim to need protection when things such as "slayers" do not exist. Basically blowing the entire community wide open for what it really is. A bunch of showboating individuals that are in it because they feel as if they "don't belong" to anything else.

As well, I would ask why they crave the sensationalism by being on the documentary in the first place and what they expect to gain out of it.

But that would only cover a small segment. You asked...

Theres no point in creating a doctumentary on the Vampire Culture. You already seen what its done the past. Just teach those who are willing to truly listen and learn.

An investigative piece, I can picture that. It would also present a chance for those who are critical of what others claim makes them vampires, to have a counter interview (note I did not say debate).

I would include a history on Upir as well.

Laying out all the internal conflict, and exploring subcultural motives would make for a good segment as well.

Though anyone that takes the Medium to whine about how "persacuted" they are would natural be edited out,
Much like "victim" prostituites are edited out of Street Nights.

Thanks Souls

imhotep post:"Theres no point in creating a doctumentary on the Vampire Culture. You already seen what its done the past. Just teach those who are willing to truly listen and learn."

imhotep,

It is not cut, and dry. while one person may "teach' another others may scoff at what they were taught.

The most that is offered "teaching" wise, is testimony from "personal experiences".


So who would you deem credible to teach?

Such a person would be welcomed, and practical on a documentary, do not people who want to learn seek out documentaries?

What ~Imhotep~ has posted seems to reflect on what ails the subculture to begin with. Those who would take it upon themselves to "teach" others what they themselves do not understand is the very thing wrong with the community. One cannot teach without understanding in the first place.

Most that teach within the community seem to be defiantly toward teaching others roleplay technigues and manipulations rather then other facets. The politics astound me as to where they reach on the normal basis, when normal involves manipulating others for self gain.

But, politics aside and back to the thread in general, to ~Imhotep~... A documentary is there to give the audience a perspective and not to "teach" but to add a speculative viewpoint on an already broad spectrum of a subject. I wouldn't take it that seriously unless you were one of those followers of the "strigoii vii" ways or are a completely hardcore vamp"y"re junkie like the rest of those loons out there.

(Note: I did not call members here negative names, nor instigated such. It was a suggestive thought and not a flame post.)

A Documentary would be an interesting presentation indeed. Whether it would end up a punching bag for those who believe or disbelieve in the factorings of the culture(s) / subculture(s) is another documentary in itself.

What would be some things to include:

What country the source is taken from.
Approx. date such mention or record (if any) began.

I mean it has been mentioned all over in some form or another from as far back as stone carvings and paintings from long ago. Names where seldom given, but the actions where drawn for a reason and placed for memory. How about adding something like that kind of knowledge in a documentary?

I would have thought their would have been an greater intrest in this thread, I am now realizing that my suspicions are anchored in fact.

Yes, self defeated off the bat.

You are not representative of this community as a whole then I am.

So negative? Such the antagonist, enjoy what word games and semantics you choose to continually pick at people with. You should have been put down like some mongrel dog, however your amusing at moments.

There is no unity to this community, at the end of the day, everyone has their own opinions, own state of mind and reason for doing the thing they do.

1) A documentary will express all aspects of the community at the grass roots, all the way up to the elite sects and secret societies that people have formed to keep themselves sane in this world.

2) What is it going to do but show others a path exists out there, that is meant to be selective, that it is not something all are meant to be, but that it comes to the lucky few.

Christs salvation of rebirth, given to the dead flesh of the body that they may live eternally in this hell.

Well i say bring it on. But that is not something that the masses need concern themselves with.

There is something to be said about making public the works for those who seek them. But its not smart to give the secrets of a game one is playing, or has been set up for others to participate in.

However, going after tid bits and argumentative points like the dog after a bone, who is fit to speak to all of us, when we can barely speak to each other?

When we can barely be civil, when there is no proof any "vampire" or otherwise, will ever exist in one form or another, etc.

So yes, i say no documentary. There is no need for one, this community is far to fragmented by its own make up. The anarchy has yet to settle.

Thank you for expanding on your former post.

Your emphisis is duely noted.

Zeal is often a personal matter, thank you for being more concise.

I have always found your threads to be applicable to
presenting topics that explore the aspects of a practice that is striff with misrepresentation.

"So yes, i say no documentary. There is no need for one, this community is far to fragmented by its own make up. The anarchy has yet to settle."

For as much as I would love to agree with this paragraph ~Infernalmage~, there really should be a documentary to show the world just how fragmented the community is, but not "has become" since it really never started in the first place, just a bunch of folks claiming their heirarchy without other peoples consent on the matter.

Anarchy? I think not. There must first be an established community with laws before anarchy can take place. I see no such thing and never have.

Logically genuinly curious people who seek info on anything will go to available sources, so people who present something fill that curiousity.

When someone else declares that source "wrong', it implies that they have "right" information.

So it comes down to what when puts on the table.
Otherwise the whole concept will be disregarded as irrational.

"When someone else declares that source "wrong', it implies that they have "right" information."

~Dab~, this statement could be seen as a question.

They may not have the "right" information specifically, but have certain information that could refute the source as "wrong." Since most information would seem as logical vs illogical or irrelevant, then that certain piece of left out information could place an accuracy toward the "better way" to go about it.

If a person is genuinly intrested in something, then they will take presented information at face value, perhaps with a bit personal research.

If a person is presented with sufficiant background material that supports the concept that they are intrested in then they have something to begin with, or to draw a basic personal conclusion, or summary on.

When someone else comes along and scoffs at the source that was used, the logical response is to inquire. "what makes you more credible, then the people who presented this source?"

I would wager that, "you just have to believe me, they are not "right"." Would be received as contridiction.

To refute, without correction is a cope-out. It indicates that an individual (or collective) claims sole knowledge of a topic, which is not necesarily "bad", but if that collective or individual is persistant in declaring themselves publically, and wants to be acknowledged by society, then they are counter productive to their "secrecy".

Discloser opens anyone to scrutiny, not just from skeptics.

"To refute, without correction is a cope-out."

But to refute with valid corrective actions such as a precise methodic application with various resources not previously dictated could be seen as just and verifiable for both parties to come to an agreement.

Which is why I always summerize when I gain grounds for a rebuttle based on the refute itself.

Those within the community fail to do this far too many times, thus proving your point. The documentary should have a slight of hand when it comes to this type of discussion within the documentary as not to throw the lesser intelligent individauls off.

I would include a brief history/explanation of psy vampirism because I myself am a psy vamp. I would conduct research to find people who also follow the practice, try to get in contact with them, and see if they would be interested in conducting interviews with me for the documentary.

I find that interviews are the best way to approach a documentary (depending on what kind you are filming of course), and in regards to psy vampirism it could be a very personal thing for some individuals who practice it; therefore it could be a very intimate experience for the interviewer/-ee in the situation.

My own convictions? Well, I'd include both my experiences and slight skepticisms that I have simply because it's always a good idea to include both sides of any issue.

Along with the "psi" thing, I would gain evidence for both sides to either prove or disprove the "psi" connection to the vampire and why so many actually used that as an excuse to call themselves vampire.

I would seek some roots, nothing comes out of nowhere, everything has something that initiates an ideal.

In a documentary I would cover origins of the vampyre, the geneology of members of the vampyre family, religion of vampyres, types of witchcraft performed, types of ceremonies, and close with the comparasion with the moives version of a vampire and a real vampyre. However, it would only be used for viewing by members of the vampyre family.

With that, I would also discuss the reason(s) why witchcraft may be associated with vampirism and why either would be associeted with the other. As far as vampire family ties and geneologies, I have a feeling that the discussion within the documentary could turn at trifle arguementive and speculative since if there were any real proof throughout the documentary, then it may come to play that those who would be geneologically compared, could turn an elitist stance and tell the world that only those select few could ever belong. Thus proving that a distinguished heirarchy of misfits could only be summoned into the genre itself.

We do have this in the community, save for without proper proof and only an authoritive eye since the respect was forced and not earned. The know-it-alls took the throne of the miscreants and therefore only their word could be considered gold above all...

Yes, this documentary could be good for all.

Intresting that someone would restrict a Documentary to an identity group alone.

However professing to be a Vampire, is absolutely public.

I wouldn't call it restrictive, but there are those within that certain lot of whom really do need to be "called out" on their claims. A documentary would present an unofficial terms of such "calling out" in retrospect.

Perhaps there is a fear, that others will graft the pitch of others with more elaborate "docterine".

or a fear that someone will declare plagerism, on sources that were adopted by the identity group.

Both fears are applicable, I have pointed the first out already in my last post.

It just starts to appear that people who identify themselves as vampires, are more intrested in people
being mystified by their adopted identity, then they are about relating what they base their convictions on (aside from just personal experiences) As it is the common denominator of those who identify as vampires, is that they are all reluctant to do anything but declare that they are Vampires.. but they can't support their convictions.

Declaring that skeptics will bash anyone who comes forward is moot, when even other factions that identify are likely to do the same.

So bottom line, the whole idealism is personal opinion, and as such, it is just another belief.

the reaction to this thread, is all the evidence needed.

More education is needed if any identity group is to be
taken seriously.