Blame Anne Rice - that bitch!

I'm going to explain my statement without even being prompted :P

I think that people's view of vampires changed after Anne Rice's excellent books that humanized a classic villain. Her tragic heroes caused people to view vampires as 'misunderstood' rather than the evil Count Dracula or beasts of legend.

This idea was furthered by other writers in the genre within Buffy the Vampire Slayer/Angel, which portrayed them as without a soul. There are two exceptions throughout the series but they occasionally 'regress' into their souless identity. This really paved the way for the 'good-guy' vampire.

Then you have the Blade series with a 'half-vampire' that retains all of the super-human attributes of vampires but none of the less than desirable ones. A literary fatwa should be put on the writer's head for that despicable act.

Finally you have this 'Twilight' thing. The manifestation of all the above into a new and mind-numbing view of vampires, misunderstood super-humans...

Well throughout history cultures have turned mythological beings from good to evil, or the other way around as long as it suits a purpose or simply to tell an entertaining story. Zeus was both a good guy and a bad guy, as was the various sections of heroes and badasses in history or even the comics.
Wasn't Nightcrawler in the comics of the last century both a vampire and a good guy?

I personally don't have a problem with vampires being good guys. I loved watching the Buffy/Angel thing. I also love Anne Rice's vampires and the way that they transcend time. I enjoyed reading her "The Mummy" as well. Its when they lose the weakness which make them vampires and when the 'good vampire' becomes a cliche which annoys me.

remember that cartoon, 'my pet monster'?

My debate wasn't the fact that monster's constantly switch from bad to good and vice versa, i know that happens frequently. My arguement was that their entire beings and what they are famous for is changing, like vampires being safe during the day. In fact modern-day zombie movies make zombies seem more like the classic version of a vampire.

Twilight popularized a preexisting niche. The goth girl scene has traditionally associated romance with vampires, for reasons that seem obvious on the one hand and melodramatically mysterious on the other. So when Twilight came out, it was intended for that niche, but accidentally found its way into the mainstream. The point is that the vampire phenomenon isn't new at all.

And the goth subculture, where vampires feature so prominently, has changed and changed again the features that vampires have, leaving us with what Twilight shows the mainstream.

Two words. Elves. Tolkien.

That is all I need to say.

I know, but these features have firmly held and been respected for decades. I suppose that the change in zombies has been for the better (such as in 28 days later) but the vampire's were scary enough in their own right, and popular culture sees fit to make them more 'lovable'. The last times i can recall vampire traits still alive and well was in 30 days of night and the blade series

Dusk til Dawn had traditional vampires, and that movie ain't too old... Dresden Files has proper elves too, if anyone's interested.

"proper" ?
these are creatures of the imagination. religious characters/creatures from history might remain static due to a ruling orthodoxy and a central authority. but elves, vampires etc are not owned/copyrighted by religion or Disney(no matter how hard they try, the bastards) and are free to change as we see fit.

I was referring to actual European mythology when I said 'proper' elves as they have folklore that dates back thousands of years to back up the depictions of them. While Tolkien's elves are based on the mythology, they have several major differences that set them apart and thus aren't quite what most people would have considered 'proper' elves back when the books were written.

Perhaps I should have used the word traditional in its place, but my point still stands. Tolkien's elves are more results of his imagination than adherence to the original portrayal of them.

Of course if you look at it the way you have I would contend that religious figures of today are results of the imagination of people throughout the ages. While they may have a basis in fact, their actions and personalities will have undoubtedly been exaggerated over time due to the way we tell our stories (anyone who has read Homer's Iliad will agree that ancient writers were fond of their flowery writing styles).

As long as they keep the Woodwose fierce I can stand it.

How about the I Am Legend portrayal of vampires...? Not the theatrical ending but the original planned ending and the overall theme of the book upon which it was based.

Basically, the protagonist ends up wondering if it's ethical for him to search for a "cure" to the vampires when it seems they have formed their own societies and that to them he appeared to be the monster. He ponders if perhaps this is humanity's direction and he shouldn't meddle.

In the theater ending, did you notice how clean their car was as they drove up to the compound? I mean, they just drove from New York to Vermont over roads that must obviously fallen into severe disrepair, and it looks like it just came out of the wash.

What you describe is a more interesting ending. Probably not the best for a blockbuster like that, but very cerebral. I'll need to read the story. I assume it's a short story.

The alternate ending is on youtube somewhere and I reckon it fits the film much better than the one they used. I've never read the novel so I can't judge it by that, but I've heard that the Omega Man film was based on it as well. Was that a more accurate portrayal of the themes of the book?

Oh, one more comment, because I just can't resist.

At least the commonly accepted version of vampires nowadays don't sparkle in the sunlight >_>.

I must admit, I haven't seen the Omega Man and I haven't read the novel. A friend of mine has and I watched I Am Legend with him so he gave me the run down.

But I do like the "alternate" ending more.

I've seen Soylen Green. They both have Charlton Heston in them, so that must count for something.

Soylent Green.

I think its worth pointing out that Tolkien's elves were actually more like mythology's elves. The idea of elves as tiny people with magic powers was actually created by Shakespeare.

But I do agree that nobody 'owns' the creatures. Anyone's free to do as they will with their characters. That doesn't mean that I'm not going to be disenfranchised by something like Twilight though.

Archonix... JK Rowlings house elves are closer to mythology's elves than Shakespeare was. I'm not talking about them, I'm talking about the Medieval nature spirits and the likes. Sprites and trickster Fae and brownies. Those are what I'm referring to.

Sprites, trickster Fae and Brownies weren't elves though. They only became 'elves' in that sense after Shakespeare used it as such. They wouldn't have been referred to as elves before his works.

JK Rowling's work has no real relevance here though as her creation didn't profoundly change the view of elves. She built on previous conceptions.

*no real relevance towards my point rather than 'here'.