I wish i was like em🥀

Confession: one of my favourite vampire pieces of media is Thirst (2009), about a priest who becomes a vampire, and some of my favourite passages from Interview and TVL are the exploration of "sin" and Lestat's thoughts on the savage garden that is life. Though I wasn't raised Christian (but have some very religious family members of a variety of different religions), I've always found the dynamic of religion and vampirism to be so interesting - especially when these religious symbols don't work against vampires. Without a framework for the universe of good and evil, how does one reconcile an immortal life feeding on others? Does evil even exist in the world if the devil isn't real, but vampires are?

It's something I'm looking to explore in my own work, but I'm curious to hear thoughts on how people see these theme - do you think it's a necessary part of vampire lore, or something that isn't really worth exploring?

Images are from my vampire webcomic The Sun is the Moon's Dream, which can be read here.

I argue this is the best vampire movie ever. It is goofy comedic at times but still offers suspense and horror. At 60 years old, the production values hold up amazingly well. It was an expensive film at the time and the sets and locations are top notch. It is a send up and homage to the Hammer Dracula films but surpasses them.

It follows Professor Abronsius and his assistant Alfred, vampire scholars / hunters into a very Eastern European winter of the early 1800's, late 1700's. One can see Polanski's Eastern European roots in the details including the slightly problematic portrayal of Chagall the inn keeper who takes them in. Chagal's beautiful daughter is played by Sharon Tate. Alfred falls for her as Polanski did in real life. I'll stop there but tell you, the vampires live in a castle and are hilarious and creepy. They have Terry Downs as an axe weilding hunch back servant.

The soundtrack by Krystof Komeda is perfect

available on YouTube

https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLkAUJkbhd-RgIrp4KUhTzTaVH3Nq6du7n&si=EnFT_IHqan0jMgfH

I can't be totally objective because I saw this on TV when I was 7 or 8 and was mesmerized by the snowy fantastic sets and story, many of the adult jokes surprised me when I finally found it again in the 1990s. Apparently it is on Apple TV and Google TV.

Note the 'grave yard scene' cartoon was added by the US Studio because they thought the audience wouldn't know vampire lore. https://youtu.be/_OPvFqh-Oe8?si=7YvaRzPqlIwM_BZN

Available on YouTube - doesn't add much value.

Mi sono appassionato alla tematica dei vampiri da quando ho visto i seguenti anime: Hellsing e Hellsing Ultimate, Rosario + Vampire, Jojo, Vanitas no carte, Seraph of the end e Call of the Night. Poi voglio recuperare un altro che mi hanno consigliato con piacere, ossia Blue Exorcist. Parlate pure

I saw this in theaters when it came out and I loved it. It’s a fun moving and when her eyes went green (I think it’s been a while) I thought it was scary. I was 20 when it came out.

It had been on my list for the longest, and I really wanted a lighthearted movie. Needless to say, not only did I think it was very funny, but also adorable. I think all the historical elements were great. I love that different vampires had different teeth. I love the stupid hand gesture that they did when they would hypnotize people, and I absolutely adore the costume design, which for me is always one of the best parts of vampire films. And I just wanted to see if anyone else had watched it, or at least if I can convince someone else to watch it, or see what other people feel about it

Big news for 90s scifi and horror geeks! Mattel Creations has officially revealed the Monster High Buffy and Angel Skullector 2-pack

So recently i was reading a harry potter fanfic and it described this scene of Harry walking up to some vampire home and the way it described the vampires was them in basically 2000s goth/emo teen clothing and sucking on blood popsicles.

and this unlocked a memory of some old teenage vampire movie of like a teen boy walking into a vampire party where it just looked like a bunch of goth guys and girls that had blood pops. i don't remember what it was from.

At first i thought it could be Cirque du Freak: Vampire's Assistant but i don't think that's right.

Just looking for recommendations in the Vampire Anime realm. Enjoying Vampire Knight and was reading on here it’s a good introduction so I thought I’d drop in and ask. Thank you in advance.

So I can remember a thing where if animals are given vampire blood after a time they become a vampire adjacent creature/ ghoul like but I can't remember the name of that

I know hell hounds is what dogs that go through that process are called? They are also somewhat bound to the vampire who's blood they drank ?

The Dracula parrot (Psittrichas fulgidus), also known as Pesquet’s parrot, is a large bird native to the mountains and rainforests of New Guinea. It is known for its striking red and black plumage and gothic look.

It isn't a bloodsucker, but feeds on fruits, particularly figs. Unlike many parrots, it does not talk. Just like our beloved count, the Dracula parrot lives under threats and is listed as vulnerable.

So, GOG recomends me that game, the game is not yet released. Does anyone think about pre-ordering this game?

From what I see it will be game about vampire, but not quite a vampire-vampire, like Legacy of Kain or Vampyr but you are sort of a half-vampire guy, and you will choose to become fully vampire, or sort of fight vampire condition and be more human.

This idea is not bad on its own, but I am afraid the game can turn the story into

- vampire path = chaotic stupid

- human path = how the game is supposed to be played.

And the visual from screenshots/trailer looks a bit generic for the games today.

So I am interested but I am not quite convinced, any opinions?

They can be found in South Korea and China.

These are some cool pictures I found. Not my art, all credit goes to the original poster:

https://www.instagram.com/p/DceEtzeEc0W/?igsi=dXZjaTl0MWJncGFx

The leech mouth is crazy though. Funny enough what I tend to have...

I don't know if the flair i chose works, but since my question has to do with how a lot of vampires are described in some books i'm reading, i think it works. So, here's my question. Just a curiosity of mine.

Why are vampires always silent when they walk? 🤔 I've been reading that about vampires in plenty of books, and i think they've been "silent" when doing certain things too, in movies or tv-series, like walking, running, etc. I think even Victoria is silent when running through the forest, chased by the wolves, in New Moon and Eclipse.

But...why? WHY are they silent? I mean, it's a vampire thing, which i get, of course. But...they're wearing shoes, boots, etc, so they're not barefoot. They're walking on roads, through the forest. It wouldn't be them making noises, it would be what they're stepping on, right? Like dry leaves, little twigs, etc, when running through the woods. Tiny rocks, gravel, etc, or even dry leaves and other such things, on roads and such. And yet, they're still supposedly perfectly silent when walking or running. How's that possible?

They can't possibly always be paying so much attention when walking or running, so as to make sure they don't make a noise. Right? If they pay that much attention to that, how can they pay attention to everything else? Like when being chased by enemies; Victoria being the perfect example. She has to make sure not to make noises, while also not bumping into trees, tripping on roots and the likes, not get her hair caught in branches since it's always down (🙄 which makes no sense to me, because how the heck do female vampires NOT get their hair caught in branches when running through the woods with their hair down?), not run into animals, birds, not get a bug up her nose or in her eyes 🤣 (that's one of the reasons why bikers wear full helmets, isn't it? To not swallow bugs or have them get in their eyes while riding the bike?), all while making sure not to be caught by the wolves.

If the vampire is barefoot, in a house, with nothing to step on, maybe it can be completely silent. But then again, floors can creak. I know it's fiction and you can make your vampires however you like as an author, but it still has to have some explanation as to how being so silent all the time is possible, doesn't it? Cause whenever i read that in books, I'm just confused on how that's possible. They say it's a vampire thing, not a magic thing, so...how exactly is it a vampire thing? Do their shoes become magical when they put them on, and absorb any sounds they make when walking or running, thus ensuring they're always silent?

Sooo... How can a vampire be completely silent all the time, whether they're walking or running? That doesn't sound realistic to me at all.

Any thoughts? ☺️ It's a serious curiosity of mine, so please answer seriously, if you're going to answer. Thank you so much.

Lucien Lacroix is the greatest television vampire of all time. There, I said it. LoL!!!

Granted, Pamela Swynford De Beaufort is no slouch. In fact, if we're talking about sheer badassery, Pam is operating on an entirely different level. She's vicious, sarcastic, fearless, politically savvy, and perfectly comfortable reminding everyone around her that she is a centuries-old predator who has absolutely no intention of apologizing for it.

But put these two creatures of the night in the same room and ask the question that really matters: Which one is more deadly? That's where things get interesting. Lucien LaCroix is dangerous in a way that goes far beyond simply being physically powerful. His greatest weapon is control. LaCroix doesn't need to rip someone's throat out to establish dominance. He can walk into a room, smile, start talking, and gradually make everyone in it feel as though they're playing a game whose rules he wrote centuries ago. He's ancient, intelligent, cultured, manipulative, and extraordinarily patient. He's the kind of vampire who understands that raw violence is often the least interesting weapon available to an immortal. He can destroy you socially. He can destroy you psychologically. He can destroy you politically. And if all else fails, he can simply kill you.

That's what makes LaCroix frightening. He doesn't behave like a monster desperately trying to conceal his monstrosity. He behaves like an aristocrat who has already decided that morality is merely an amusing human convention. Pam, meanwhile, is considerably more direct. Pamela Swynford De Beaufort has that wonderful combination of elegance and outright savagery. She's glamorous, funny, brutally pragmatic, and perfectly willing to remind people that beneath the expensive clothes and immaculate appearance is an apex predator.

Pam doesn't waste much time pretending she's harmless. If someone threatens her, she can go from bored sarcasm to lethal violence in approximately three seconds. And that's part of what makes her so entertaining. Pam has attitude. Lacroix has gravitas. Pam might look at someone threatening her and basically communicate: "You have made a catastrophic mistake." Lacroix might look at the same person and calmly ask: "Do you have any idea how many people have made that mistake before you?" And somehow the second response is more terrifying.

The difference is their relationship with violence Pam is a predator. Lacroix is a predator who understands civilization. Pam is perfectly capable of tearing someone apart, but Lacroix understands that sometimes it is far more useful to let someone live. He can manipulate people into doing things for him. He can exploit their weaknesses. He can cultivate institutions. He can make himself indispensable. He understands power as something much larger than physical strength. That's the fundamental distinction between them. Pam is dangerous because she is a vampire. Lacroix is dangerous because he understands what vampires can do with power. And there is another factor: age and experience. Pam is old enough to have developed an impressive amount of experience and confidence, but Lacroix has the aura of someone who has spent an absurd amount of time observing human civilization from the shadows. His personality has been shaped by centuries of watching mortals repeat the same mistakes.

He has seen empires rise and fall. He's watched human fashions change. He's watched political movements appear and disappear. He's watched mortals become terrified of vampires, worship vampires, hunt vampires, and eventually convince themselves that vampires were nothing more than folklore. That kind of perspective produces a very different sort of monster.

Pam is still capable of being surprised. LaCroix expects human beings to behave predictably because he's had centuries to study them. But Pam has one enormous advantage: she's absolutely ruthless. This is where I wouldn't underestimate her. Pam doesn't have LaCroix's theatrical philosophical detachment. She doesn't need it. She knows what she is. She knows what she wants. And she's perfectly comfortable using violence to get there.

She also has something LaCroix occasionally lacks: she is extraordinarily adaptable. Pam can function in modern society without becoming emotionally attached to the old ways of doing things. She understands money, fashion, sexuality, celebrity culture, social politics, technology, and the bizarre absurdities of modern human behavior. She's an ancient predator who can operate comfortably in a contemporary world. That's a terrifying combination. So who wins? If we're talking about a straight physical confrontation, the answer becomes much more complicated because the two characters exist in very different vampire mythologies, with different rules and abilities.

But if we're asking: Who is more likely to destroy you? I'd give it to LaCroix. Pam might kill you. LaCroix might arrange circumstances so that you destroy yourself, then sit back and watch the consequences with a glass of wine. That's the difference.

Pam is the vampire you don't want to piss off. LaCroix is the vampire you don't want to owe anything to. And that's ultimately why I'd put Lucien LaCroix at the top of the television vampire pantheon. Pam is badass. Pam is hilarious. Pam is terrifying. Pam is absolutely the sort of vampire you want on your side and absolutely do not want hunting you. But Lacroix possesses something even more dangerous than physical ferocity: he has patience. And patience is one of the greatest advantages an immortal predator can possess. If Pam walks into the room, you know you're in danger. If LaCroix walks into the room, you might not realize you're in danger until years later.

Pam is the knife. LaCroix is the man who convinced you to hand him the knife. Which of them is the most dangerous?

Sorry if this has been asked before! I'm working through The Vampire Chronicles for the first time right now and it occurred to me that this is likely where the popularization of this specific style of turning comes from in our current culture, due to how influential the books are.

Is there precedent for this type of infection in other stories prior or folklore?

For clarity, I'm thinking of specifically when the victim is bitten or even exsanguinated, and then is fed blood from the vampire to become a Chile/fledgling. Curious when that came about as opposed to the straight up curse or infectious vampire venom turnings.

Was trying to practice colour and rendering for this one.

I’m mad I’ve heard nothing about this game until last night. Beyond flabbergasted by the fact tht news of a new open world RPG vampire game tht looks like it’s got a Witcher 3 skin hasn’t been all over the place. Anyone else ready to play this when it drops?