Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

When did Vampires become "in"?


charlotte49er

Recommended Posts

Was it when Cruise & Pitt did their movie?

Over the last several years, Vampires seem to be hot! I think every channel this Fall will have a Vampire TV show!

I don't get it. Used to be, you just wanted to kill them. Now women want to f*** them.

It's because they sparkle in the sun now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When fat and/or socially retarded girls attached their hopes and dreams to yet another fantasy.

It just seems strange that 3-4 years ago CBS tried 2 different Vampire TV shows and they both flopped. Forever Night was one of them, I think. One even had Rick Springfield in it.

Dracula would be proud. No more revolting peasants (In more ways than one! LOL) No more burned at the stake or Wesley Snipes trying to cut their heads off!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rice ruined the vampire. The vampire was a great villain until she decided an emo monster was just what the public needed. Lace and overblown dramatics, hands almost stitched to their angst-filled foreheads.

Talk about Dracula does the suburbs. What next from her? Hipster Werewolves? Granola Mummies?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our society's fascination with vampires comes and goes. I find it interesting to think about how our society views two very different forms of the undead: zombies and vampires.

Zombies and vampires are both undead creatures that (for the most part) transfer their undeadness through biting, so there are some similarities. But they are also incredibly different. I think people enjoy watching vampire movies because they represent everything they wish they could have -- money, power, respect, sex, life immemorial. By contrast, the zombie genre embodies everything we detest about humanity -- consumerism; the undead, soulless life; our animalistic nature.

Naturally, then, we glorify vampires and show zombies as the repulsive, decaying creatures they (and by extension we) are. Zombies are what we are, vampires are what we wish to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • In all honesty, he should probably get that checked out. It might be (Arnold Schwarzenegger voice) "a tuuumaaa" 
    • Ah yes, my bad. It's easy to forget those handful of games Frank coached. LOL 
    • I've seen the comp a few times, and I feel there is a lot to it. Our situation is a lot like Kansas City was pre-Mahomes (without the HOF HC) Whether you like them or not, D&D are building something here.  They had a strong draft.  The team is slowly coming together, developing some identity, and has some decent blue chip parts.  Brown, Horn, McMillan, and a good OL situation that we should keep fortifying every year.  It's not much yet, but growing.    Bryce is in that Alex Smith spot.  A top draft pick, has never been overly impressive, but you can win games when he's safe with the ball.  You're not winning because of him - maybe once in a blue moon.  From time to time he's shown the ability to orchestrate some plays and lead drives.  I just don't see anything that is like - "oh snap, yeah don't let him go, he's ours".  He'll make a solid/good throw every now and again, but man, it is a struggle a lot of the time to watch.  Some terrible performances to speak of, heck he's already been benched once during year 2.      He should in no way preclude you from flirting with what else is out there.  This is not a marriage.  If you're in position (or trade range) for a guy you REALLY like come draft day, you shoot your shot. If we are in the draft process, and suddenly realize QB3-4 is a guy we really like, that's when you make a modest jump from like 16 to 11 or something like that.  Just like the Bills did for Allen, like the Chiefs did for Mahomes.  This is nothing magical that plants this franchise savior title on them, this is not some stupid trade-- it's an easy trade up to get a guy you like w/a big ceiling.  It's all player dependent and coaching/development driven.  If we don't like a QB, by all means fortify the front-7, get an awesome OLB or ILB prospect.   But we're on year 3, you kind of know what you're getting at this point.  Mostly sub-200 yard performances, low YPA, bad technique, poor mechanics, some decent stuff sprinkled in, but some bad turnover heavy ones that kill the team's momentum.  Again, run with him if there's no complete disaster that happens the remainder of the season, but don't close the door on something better just because of the investment or debatable performances.     
×
×
  • Create New...