January 27, 2009

A Meyer Whedon crossover I can get behind.
posted by polychrome 15 years ago
  • oh yes please.
  • I don't understand zombies, and I don't understand vampires. There are all sorts of variations of a regular human out there (ghosts, werewolves, esp-folk, etc), yet for some reason zombies and vampires are romanticized and fetishized to such a significant degree. I mean, zombies can't even talk or think. Why is it that that there are countless movies about them? How are they even remotely interesting? Vampires obviously have a bit going for them, but I still think it is strange to have so much in the way of film and literature about them. Why isn't this done with invisible people? Or Jedis?
  • hehe "glorified syringe" That said, I don't recall Twilight having a musical episode, so chalk one up for that.
  • The zombie attraction is about the relentlessness for me. Battle of Yonkers!
  • Zombies aren't attractive in and of themselves; it's more that they're an enemy free of the need for sympathy. When you take out your chainsaw or cricket bat against a bunch of zombies, you don't need to consider their culture of their humanity-- you don't even need to deal with the ethics of killing a living being. You can just let your mind relax and start whomping away. Also, they make a very satisfying splat when you destroy them.
  • Zombies are also good for a general we-have-met-the-enemy-and-he-is-us movie. The classic zombie film, whether the old-school voodoo zombie movies or the more modern Romero apocalypse pictures, have been used to discuss everything thematically from race fear to the evils of promiscuity to communism to the military-industrial complex to gender issues to consumerism to the media and on and on and on. The point isn't the zombies themselves. The point is watching what we do when they rise up. Basically, when shit gets bad, there's a resurgence of interest. Note that the three biggest runs of zombie movies were during the civil rights movement (when "Night of the Living Dead," which is basically just a film about that movement, was first made), during the '80s when many in the US thought we were on the verge of nuclear annihilation, and during the Bush administration.
  • Oh, and vampire movies are usually about sex. "Twilight" is only the most recent and fucked-up of them.
  • zombies and vampires are both "undead" and they strike very deep cross-cultural cords about human fears of death, mortification of their remains, spiritual concerns regarding procession to a peaceful afterlife etc., the idea of your dead body coming back in some monstrous way and feeding on others, perhaps even your own loved ones...is generally considered pretty...MONSTROUS thus the fascination.
  • What middleclasstool said, especially regarding Romero. 'Night...' was about civil rights, 'Dawn...' was about consumerism, 'Day...' was about science and the military, 'Land...' was about paying Dennis Hopper's mortgage, and 'Diary...' was about the sheer horror of student film projects.
  • I always liked South Park's take on zombies being caused by Worcestershire sauce.
  • 'Diary...' was about the sheer horror of student film projects. Jesus God, that movie was a slow road to hell.
  • mct - re sex in Twilight you might like this. quote I almost wanted to write the sex scenes myself. They would probably go a little something like this: I gasped as Edward unzipped his gorgeous, godlike pants, revealing his smooth.... aaaaand /quote
  • Here's a recent newspaper article regarding zombies and vampires == liberals and conservatives. I think they got it reversed, mostly. Zombies movies are usually about distrust the military, or distrust the corporations. very liberal. Zombies try to destroy your brain. Vampires go after your heart. When you take out your chainsaw or cricket bat against a bunch of zombies, you don't need to consider their culture of their humanity Ah, that's ironic, since zombies are humans. I had hoped this would've been explored more in Land OTD, the commercials made it seem likely. I mean, zombies can't even talk or think. Why is it that that there are countless movies about them? How are they even remotely interesting? Zombies are an enemy that can't be stopped. The conflict is against an enemy that WILL overwhelm you, and about keeping up the fight despite the hopeless of it. Yes, they are stupid, but they will just keep coming, and eventually, win. Seeing the protagonists keep up the struggle when both you and them know there's no chance of winning, well, that's something.
  • > A Meyer Whedon crossover I can get behind. :-( I thought it was going to be this Meyer. Zombies: the USSR, the out-of-control youth of our once-great Nation, the Islamic fundamentalists, the proletariat, the hordes of the Other. Vampires: exchange of bodily fluids, eternal youth, gothic couture, sleeping all day and partaying all night.
  • I wonder if the "humanized vampire" motif has reached its pinnacle in the tales of young Edward. Here's a vampire who a) isn't evil b)doesn't drink blood-- well, I guess he drinks animal blood, but so do I-- c) is only prevented from going out in the sun by his sparkly skin (suitable for licensed stickers!) and d), in the ultimate defanging of the archetype, has enough control over his passions to not even give his girlfriend a good shagging. So, vampires finally complete their Rician-transformation to emo-kids (with some low-key superpowers thrown in). They're not monsters anymore, that's for sure. What's left for the next writer? Could there be a popular call for a return to the slinking, bestial nosferatu of yore? Oh, please, yes.
  • I thought it was going to be this Meyer. That was my first thought too, but I didn't want to be the only perv. Faster, Buffy! Kill! Kill! So, vampires finally complete their Rician-transformation to emo-kids (with some low-key superpowers thrown in). I haven't read the books and have no interest in doing so, but the plot synopses I've seen all seem to indicate that it's decidedly anti-Rician. Rice seemed to revel in the eroticism of vampires, but with Meyer its more of a NO NO COVER YOUR SHAME YOU WHORE kind of thing. The descriptions I've read of Edward strike me as being a decidedly bland (if stalkerishly obsessive) and asexual guy, who's the romantic interest precisely because he is literally as unthreatening as a man can be (again, despite the creepy stalkerishness, which Meyer seems to think is dreamy).
  • You're right about the eroticism, of course. I meant "Rician" in the sense of a sympathetic and "human" vampire, which, as far as I know, is an idea that she at the very least popularized.