Setting Twilight aside, what are your views, ou Critical Analysis ;) , on the other vampire shows such as Buffy, Angel, ou even the plus recent, the Vampire Diaries?

Well I'm a big vampire fan. Hence the reason I find the Twilight vampires so irritating (to put things lightly). Try lire Twilight and then lire Dracula. That's what I did and it made the Twilight series absolutely ridiculous to me. What I like most about vampires is their menace. They're predators. They're not human. Dracula, of course, is the original and the Awesome. He's one of my favourite vampires.

I was planning on watching VD when it started but it turns out it's on the same time as Good News Week which I actually find impossible to not watch. I've seen a bit of VD and it looks like it could be a good show. I remember being really happy when I realised the vampires are relatively traditional. That's my favourite kind. But it also looks a bit stereotypical. Ya know, hot vampire in l’amour with hot human girl but they can't be together... because he wants to eat her. But I can't really say too much about it because I haven't seen enough.

I'm really into the Southern Vampire Mysteries. They're a lot of fun and a guilty pleasure of mine. The fact that vampires are dangerous, menacing creatures is one aspect I really like that they've shown on True Blood (the montrer based on the Southern Vampire Mystery books). True Blood also has interesting rights issues. They're not humans, they're dangerous, they're usually killers but do they deserve rights? Why shouldn't they when humans have the potential to be just as evil?

I've also read Vampire Academy. Those livres interpret vampires in a very unique way. There's half vampires, there's vampires with elemental powers and there's the truly evil vampires just out for blood and destruction. I like that the auteur has her own interpretation of vampires.

I guess toi need to modify tradition to make a concept your own and I don't have a problem with it. It's one of the reasons vampires continue to be so popular.

I stumbled across this question and thought I MUST answer it because I'm a complete TVD fan. Well, the Vampire Diaries, give quite a different look at vampire fiction and tales of old. But they still have the base of the stereotypical "vampire." Damon and Stefan Salvatore, the two vampire brothers, have to wear a ring to protect them from the sun. Like in legend any light kills vampires. In TVD, feu ou natural light kills vampires. They will shrivel par the sun's rays, so many of the other vampires on the montrer have to only hunt at night. They have to feed on human blood, but as for some that comes easily, but as for others *cough* Stefan *cough* they find it plus difficult to drink human blood. Also, as in other stories, the vampires in TVD can be "staked." As in the episodes, that have been aired, Stefan has staked Vicki, Alaric staked Logan, Damon staked Lexi, etc. This is often a theme in others, except in may of the instances vampires "stake" eachother. However, another element that proves the "modified" vampires, may be the vervain. The vampires in TVD can control a human's mind. So, in order for protection vervain is used. For instance, Stefan gave Elena a vervain collier out of protection. Other aspects include when the vampire steps into a particular house, they have sort of "branded the house", and can return to the house without being let in after. Moral: Never let mysterious people into your house. Even the pizza guy...because that's where Jeremy made his mistake of letting the pizza guy step into the house. He ended up being a vampire, trying to stalk and then trying to kill Elena, but luckily he ended up being staked thanks to the Salvatore brothers...
So, I went off on some TVD, analysis, but it did have a point. This question reminded me of when Damon and Caroline were having the conversation about Twilight, and Damon says the book had it all wrong. (Line that made my day, Caroline: Why don't toi sparkle?) Why I brought that particular conversation in was because it portrayed the less traditional vampire, but the plus modified one Damon was and what he had to say about the Twilight vampires. So, basically, I feel that because the TVD vampires are not your typical every jour vampires, I enjoy lire (and watching) them. Another "modified" vampire story, which I also l’amour are the House of Night novels. As, I won't launch into an extremely long explanation, I will just say that I enjoy lire about vampires that don't fit what people think of immediately when someone says vampire. But in the end, it really depends on what the book is. It could be an amazing story on modified vampires, ou the traditional vampires, but as long as the story has me hooked...I'm okay!:)

I watched the pilot of vampire diaries, and wasn't impressed. I've read 1 of the books, but a long time il y a and I can't remember a thing about it. I have a vague memory of enjoying the story though. My issue with the pilot wasn't the vamps, I just found the dialogue very corny. I'll probably give the montrer another chance though, as pilot eps are usually a show's weakest, and I've seen many shows where I hated the pilot but loved the global, ensemble show. I'm told the show's good, and that I'll probably like it when I get past the pilot.

I l’amour Buffy, and it's my favourite version of vampires. That doesn't mean I'm closed off towards critiques of it though. I've read some fascinating critiques of Buffy, even though I disagreed they were interesting. I like that Buffyvamps are human enough to be likeable (well, as villains) interesting and deep, but demonic enough that they don't start seeming cuddly, and they pose a believable threat. I like that they're in many ways traditional vamps (burn in sun, death par stake etc) but they also have their own twists that make them original (like the ability to switch between human and demon faces. I l’amour that) I'm going to stop listing my Buffyvamp love, because I'd hate for this to turn into a lame fangirl thing, lol. Basically that's my favourite way I've seen the vampire myth handled, they're monster enough to be scary but human enough to have depth as characters, traditional enough to be vampy, unique enough to be original. I also l’amour it's other characters, and it's look at other monster myths, basically the montrer as a whole.

Other vamps I like are Dracula (because he's freakin' Dracula) interview with the vampire (Lestat's cool) I've liked some of true blood (they're ok, and it has some interesting ideas, like humans taking vamp blood as a recreational drug). Basically, my preference is stories that generally stick fairly close to the main idea of vampires, but have added enough twists to make it their own. Also, the most vital thing is, vamps ou not, the writer must be good at characters. Being a vampire is no excuse to not be a full, deep character, and plus than one writer seems to think 'but it's a vampire' is an excuse to not bother making a charcter three dimensional, and it's not (that isn't a crack at Stephanie Meyer, because she's certainly not the only writer I'd consider guilty of that.)

I'm a Buffy and Angel fan, of course. I got into an interesting discussion on one of my deviantART pieces with someone about the merits (or lack thereof) of Buffy and it was quite illuminating. She saw Buffy as actually being a victim of stereotyping, but that had plus to do with the representation of women than of vampires. If you're interested in our conversation, it can be found link.

Recently, I've gotten into Supernatural. They have vampires in that universe too, but they're depicted as near extinction. Also, apart from their bloodlust, retractable fans, and aversion to daylight, they seem fairly human. vampires can choose to dine on animal blood, for example, which happens in "Bloodlust" (in which Buffy's Amber Benson [Tara] plays a vampire, interestingly enough). But the vampires in "Bloodlust" didn't choose to eat animal blood out of the goodness of their hearts. They did it because a trail of bodies is a big tip off to hunters. They did it to survive - a sort of, "We're not hurting the humans, so toi have no reason to hurt us" kind of deal.

Another interesting thing is that Mercedes McNab, who plays a vampire on Buffy and Angel, plays a vampire again in Supernatural in the episode "Fresh Blood." McNab is a vampire named Lucy, who doesn't know she's a vampire. Another vampire fed her some blood telling her it was a new party drug, and now she's terrified because "she can't come down." This implies that, though it changes toi physically and somewhat mentally with the insane thirst for blood, otherwise the personality remains plus ou less intact, which makes them different from Buffy vamps, who lose their souls when they're turned.

(WARNING: Some Supernatural spoilers for season 3 follow) Although, being turned does tend to make one plus manic, I'd imagine, judging par the Charles Gunn-like character, Gordon Walker who is turned into a vampire in "Fresh Blood." This seems to intensify his resolve to kill the Winchesters, but it didn't create it. He was already pursuing our protagonists before he was turned into the thing he hated most.

It's corny, but I also really like Christopher Pike's "The Last Vampire" series. If the character of Sita wasn't so fascinating, she might fall victim to the perfect-vampire category. But what I like about Pike's interpretation is that he doesn't forget Sita's age. What I find happens a lot, even in Buffy, is that even though vampires are hundreds of years old, they act like the age of the actors that portray them. Angel, for example, only seems to have the illusion of wisdom when he first appears on Buffy. I also find it hard to believe - and this kind of goes for Twilight, too - that Buffy (or Bella) is the first person he's ever felt "true love" for, but that might also go with the fact that I don't believe in "one true love" stuff.

I know that a lot of people are big fans of the traditional vampire. And I could totally and completely understand why any other modified type of vampire would be completely annoying to someone who loves the traditional things that people usually think of (or at least used to) at the word 'vampire'. But, personally, I like any type of vampire. I like it when writers think up their own types, they take a creature and they change it slightly, give it different twists, which makes their vampires slighly plus unique. I read lots of vampire livres and they are all different in their own way... and I like them all.
I l’amour the Vampire Diaries livres and I've just started watching the montrer (which started airing here in UK this week). I'm quite passionate about livres and weirdly loyal to them, so I moan and groan about every single change that's made when a book turns TV ou movie (I've complained SO much about Vampire Diaries already, although I still liked it global, ensemble and will definitely keep watching).
Basically, I am happy with any vampire. I'm open to all changes and I like new ideas. I think it's great when an auteur comes up with their own take on Vampires. Maybe it's because I'm not loyal to the traditional. Any vampire is fine with me.

I think that Buffy is a good montrer on which a lot of analysis can be done. It's not perfect, sure, but it is notable how much of it was done par a guy to promote feminism as well as some other ideologies. Do I always agree with him? No, but it's always entertaining and interesting. Angel is much of the same, but with a focus on the nature of redemption.

I only saw the first Vampire Diaries episode and didn't like it. Now that I know so many people like it, I might rent the seasons when it comes out on DVD.

I thought Moonlight was a good show, if a bit cheesy at times. It had Jason Dohring (Logan from Veronica Mars) as a vampire, which was the main draw for me. It had some interesting stuff about vampire politics.

True Blood, I've only seen the first season via DVD, but I really enjoy it. I hate the overt sexuality, which being an HBO montrer there's a lot of, but I like the comparisons of vampires to minorities (something on which a lot of analysis can be done). When the vampire protagonist is a white male, the prejudice against him for being a vampire seems especially silly. I've started lire the book, but the montrer seems better on the minority front. I like that the montrer has the black character Tara to call out white characters on their racism in scenes that don't have anyone like that in the book.

Ok first let me get this out of the way. TWILIGHT SUX BALLS!!!!! thnk you. I l’amour the Vampire Diaries tv show. I can't decide for the life of me between Damon and Stefan. I like Elena. She doesn't take shit and is not PRUDE LIKE BELLA. And she was in a depression for only the first episode and not 550 FREAKIN PAGES OF A TERRIBLE BOOK!!! and her parents died, dont toi think thats a good enough reason to be depressed? I know that Stefan stalked Elena a little, but he didnt watch HER FRIGGING SLEEP!! and stalking is not the right term. He was making sure that she wasn't some raging chienne that died 165 years ago!!!!! that is yet another reason that is LOGICAL INSTEAD OF 'LOVE'. I liked Southern Vampire Mysteries. Sookie was pretty cool. I like this other vampire series called Vampire Kisses. Raven, the main character, was strong and not afraid to be herself. I like Mortal Instuments, which isnt a vampire book but has vampire in it along with fey, warlocks, and werewolves, and demons who are baaaadddd. I havent read the Vampire Diaries livres yet because i want to be suprised par the show, but i read one of her books, Dark Visions about psychic vampires, and thought it was awshum.

All of the modern vampire shows/books/movies montrer vampires the same way: they are seductive, pro-human, hot, romantics who do nothing but end up in l’amour triangles with human girls. It's pathetic and a disgrace to the name of vampire.

Basically, everthing up until Twilight, Vampire Diaries, House of Night, ect. is fine.

Honestly, read some REAL vampire books!

I haven't read any vampire livres besides Twilight, really (the reason being that the series ruined the poor things for me), so I can't really give my opinion on the shows and novels. But I l’amour vampires that are...just...traditional, I guess. No strings attached. I mean, if they don't sparkle I automatically accept them, but for me there's nothing better than a light-fearing, blood-drinking, killed-by-wooden-stakes vampire.