Todd (My BF) says the sunlight kills vampire thing sources from the Nosferatu movie. It's an interesting questions, though, when does something go from "shit I just made up for plot convenience" to "no, for reals, that's how [insert mythological character of choice] are!"

Also, chalky pallor easier to get by with at night, whereas during the day it may result in being accosted by Edgar Winter fans.

if they make a dracula movie about dracula, based on the book, I think it should be faithful to the book.

Agreed. And I'd like to point out that at no point in the novel does Jonathan Harker say "whoa!"

at no point in the novel does Jonathan Harker say "whoa!"

I haven't finished the novel yet, but I suspect that he'd only say that if he were talking to a horse.

Superman is different, I think, because he belongs to Siegel and Shuster. I just did a little searching and found that, prior to Stoker, most vampires were described as bloated and ruddy. I think if your creature goes back before written history, you've got free rein.

Again, I disagree. What happens with the great narratives is that they're retold, again and again, with a certain degree of interpretation and change over time -- Charles Perrault had Little Red Riding Hood eaten by the wolf; the Grimm Brothers had her survive. But at the root is the same story.

But what happens is that a version of the stopry becomes dominant -- Grimm for Little Red Riding Hood, Stoker for vampires, the mainstream comic book continuity for Superman -- and every iteration after that is both beholden and in competition with it. If it degenerates too far from the "master" narrative, and fails to transform into its own mythology, then it begins to ring untrue, and degenerate.

at no point in the novel does Jonathan Harker say "whoa!"

I haven't finished the novel yet, but I suspect that he'd only say that if he were talking to a horse.

In another universe, there is movie version of Dracula, in which Keanu Reeves plays Jonathan Harker, and they had to edit a lot of "whoa"s out.

Again, I disagree. [...] But at the root is the same story.

While I'm probably more of a hardliner than Laga is, she just has a different definition of what constitutes the same story. Your vampires need darkness (but Bram Stoker's didn't). Hers need bloodlust. Mine need evil, or a damned good excuse not to be. I know people think the souls and the chip were pussyfying, but they worked for me.

she just has a different definition of what constitutes the same story.

Oh, given. And apologies if I've seemed overly agressive. It's just a subject I've been putting a lot of thought into, recently, vis a vis my own writingm these sort of central mythologies to our culture, from the folkloric to the the contemporary, and how they spread, grow and take life of their own.

I know people think the souls and the chip were pussyfying, but they worked for me.

Honestly? They did for me, too, mostly because Angel and Spike were clearly the exceptions, not the rule. Whereas "Twilight" baffles me, it's so far afield.

I believe wholeheartedly that their are underlying mythologies that hold immense cultural sway with these things, and that a writer doesn't need to be enslaved to them, but needs to at least be mindful of them. Otherwise, the symbols in use lose their power.

Take, for example, this, fromt the AP's review of the movie "Daybreakers."

At least vampire tales such as TV’s “True Blood” or the movie thriller “Thirst” are playful and sexy, and stuff such as “Twilight” is fun to make fun of. But “Daybreakers” plays like a dirge, striking one long, monotonous note of gloom, a dramatic flatline that barely budges even during the movie’s uninspired action-and-gore sequences.

It seems to me that not just overexposure, but overexposure combined with degeneration from the underlying mythology, have begun to have a teetering effect, robbing any vampire story of its power. At least for a little while. These things always come back.

Daybreakers seems to me to be doing to the vampire mythos what recent zombies have become--taking out the magic and putting in inexplicable science. But I've only seen a couple trailers and brief reviews. I don't know what it sticks to and what it doesn't in terms of strengths and weaknesses.

What were the vampire weaknesses in the movie and also in the TV show Ultraviolet? It was a disease in the movie too, right?

For me, I generally prefer it when vampires come with a world of magic, and when they come with more limitations. Vampire Diaries throws out much of the limitations, but keeps magic (the rings, witches, amulets) and that bothers me more than a wholesale rejection of the magic and a translation to infection.

Do you think zombie stories suffer from their distance from the original?

What were the vampire weaknesses in the movie and also in the TV show Ultraviolet? It was a disease in the movie too, right?

The TV show and movie were unrelated. In the TV show, the weaknesses were your usual suspects: sunlight, garlic, silver and wood (if I recall). They used garlic bullets.

The TV show and movie were unrelated

I never meant to imply they were. It was just shorter to use one sentence.

Is wood a weakness or is a wooden stake to the heart a weakness?

How popular is silver as a weakness? Blade uses it too, right?