I don't have enough on this topic to make it a Rant in A Minor or Readers' Rites article, but I am curious what my fellow Corner Creatures think of this issue.
Being a stickler for rules, it pisses me off to varying degrees (depending on how blatantly it's done, and the skill of execution of the remainder) when a novelist or filmmaker breaks the rules with respect to a legend/myth/superstition concering a monster. The most frequent example is of course the vampire. I can't stand when vampires walk abroad in daylight, with a puny pair of shades as their only protection. Or when crucifixes or wooden stakes don't work on them. It also irks me (but admittedly to a lesser degree) when werewolves can change at will and don't need the full moon.
Now there ARE exceptions, of course. In Matheson's classic "I Am Legend", for instance, crucifixes didn't work on the vamps. But that was such a skillfully executed novel (and they did have to avoid sunlight & stakes still killed them, so Matheson didn't totally throw out the rulebook) that I could overlook it there. And say what you will about it, but I kinda liked the "Vampire: The Masquerade" series. It was nowhere near the classic "I Am Legend" is, but for some reason I just dug it, and was willing to overlook (although I still grumbled about it) the fact that the vampires could walk in sunlight.
And "Underworld" would have been pretty dull if they had to wait for the full moon to have the lycans wolf out, so I can see why they took a little license there. Silver still worked, so they'll get a bye in the rules department.
Perhaps the worst offender is Anne Rice. I admit I enjoyed the first couple "Vampire" novels, but except for the night walking thing, no legends applied. Maybe she was just trying to make vampies even more glamourous and sexy than they already were (and mission accomplished, I'd say, judging by the droves of goth vamp fans she inspired). I wasn't as able to suspend my disbelief as easily here.
Some feel the same way about fast moving zombies, a la "28 Days/Weeks Later" or the 04 remake of DOTD. To these folks, fast moving zombies are sacrilege against the Cult of Saint George (I've seen T-shirts to that effect). I don't feel quite as strongly about this issue, but the fact that headshots didn't dispatch the Returning Living Dead stuck in my craw a bit. But again, the first "Return of the Living Dead" was such a fun movie, I was willing to stomach it w/o (much) complaint.
I'm not sure why I feel this way. I think it's maybe for the same reason I'm not generally a big fan of blank verse poetry (again, there are of course exceptions; e e cummings writes some great stuff, and a lot of it is blank verse; and "Death of the Ball Turret Gunner" is one of my favorite poems, and nary a rhyme's to be found therein). While I'm not a fan of HIS work, I read a quote from Robert Frost, dating from the 60's or 70's, I think, when blank verse poetry was becoming all the rage, and he was asked, as poet laureate of the United States, what he thought of the trend. He replied: "I don't like it. It's like playing baseball without the baselines." Or words to that effect. It's obviously harder for a poet to write in meter and rhyme and still get a coherent point across than to write in blank verse, I submit. Consequently, I have more respect for a poet that can write a good rhyming and metered poem. In much the same manner, I have a lot more respect for a writer or filmmaker that can work within the established framework of the legends he's writing about (the "rules", in other words) and produce an interesting, stirring, fresh story than one who throws convention out the window and reinvents the mythology (generally speaking).
Does this phenomenon bother any of you, or are you all basicaly OK with it? Why does it bother or not bother you, do you think? Any films or books/stories in particular you'd like to rant about?
Being a stickler for rules, it pisses me off to varying degrees (depending on how blatantly it's done, and the skill of execution of the remainder) when a novelist or filmmaker breaks the rules with respect to a legend/myth/superstition concering a monster. The most frequent example is of course the vampire. I can't stand when vampires walk abroad in daylight, with a puny pair of shades as their only protection. Or when crucifixes or wooden stakes don't work on them. It also irks me (but admittedly to a lesser degree) when werewolves can change at will and don't need the full moon.
Now there ARE exceptions, of course. In Matheson's classic "I Am Legend", for instance, crucifixes didn't work on the vamps. But that was such a skillfully executed novel (and they did have to avoid sunlight & stakes still killed them, so Matheson didn't totally throw out the rulebook) that I could overlook it there. And say what you will about it, but I kinda liked the "Vampire: The Masquerade" series. It was nowhere near the classic "I Am Legend" is, but for some reason I just dug it, and was willing to overlook (although I still grumbled about it) the fact that the vampires could walk in sunlight.
And "Underworld" would have been pretty dull if they had to wait for the full moon to have the lycans wolf out, so I can see why they took a little license there. Silver still worked, so they'll get a bye in the rules department.
Perhaps the worst offender is Anne Rice. I admit I enjoyed the first couple "Vampire" novels, but except for the night walking thing, no legends applied. Maybe she was just trying to make vampies even more glamourous and sexy than they already were (and mission accomplished, I'd say, judging by the droves of goth vamp fans she inspired). I wasn't as able to suspend my disbelief as easily here.
Some feel the same way about fast moving zombies, a la "28 Days/Weeks Later" or the 04 remake of DOTD. To these folks, fast moving zombies are sacrilege against the Cult of Saint George (I've seen T-shirts to that effect). I don't feel quite as strongly about this issue, but the fact that headshots didn't dispatch the Returning Living Dead stuck in my craw a bit. But again, the first "Return of the Living Dead" was such a fun movie, I was willing to stomach it w/o (much) complaint.
I'm not sure why I feel this way. I think it's maybe for the same reason I'm not generally a big fan of blank verse poetry (again, there are of course exceptions; e e cummings writes some great stuff, and a lot of it is blank verse; and "Death of the Ball Turret Gunner" is one of my favorite poems, and nary a rhyme's to be found therein). While I'm not a fan of HIS work, I read a quote from Robert Frost, dating from the 60's or 70's, I think, when blank verse poetry was becoming all the rage, and he was asked, as poet laureate of the United States, what he thought of the trend. He replied: "I don't like it. It's like playing baseball without the baselines." Or words to that effect. It's obviously harder for a poet to write in meter and rhyme and still get a coherent point across than to write in blank verse, I submit. Consequently, I have more respect for a poet that can write a good rhyming and metered poem. In much the same manner, I have a lot more respect for a writer or filmmaker that can work within the established framework of the legends he's writing about (the "rules", in other words) and produce an interesting, stirring, fresh story than one who throws convention out the window and reinvents the mythology (generally speaking).
Does this phenomenon bother any of you, or are you all basicaly OK with it? Why does it bother or not bother you, do you think? Any films or books/stories in particular you'd like to rant about?
