Twilight and Vampires

Well, really Meyer wasn’t the first to allow vampires a soul. Angel and Spike from Buffy both had souls, which they had to work very hard to get.
I’m sure the people who hate Twilight so much, also Hate Buffy the Vampire Slayer, the movie/tv show/comic book.
Maybe the Cullens are like Angel and Spike and are working very hard to get a soul back. They don’t know whether they have a soul or not, so they still choose to be good just in case, which is very painful for them. Angel had a soul, then it was taken, and then he got it back. Spike wanted to be good, so buffy would love him, so he went and got his soul back from the beyond.

Stephenie is not the only writer to put souls into vampires, Joss Whedon did it also. She’s also not the only one who said that vampires and humans could create babies, that is a very old legend.

Ah, yes, Buffy. Love Joss Whedon’s Firefly/Serenity but never tried Buffy. I should put that on my Blockbuster rental list this summer. I never have been into vampire type stories, though I did buy Bram Stroker’s Dracula with Keanu and Tom. I liked the costumes and cinematography of that even though the story was rather dark.

I didn’t figure Meyer was the first, or the only, writer to take the soul turn. I was addressing the OPs complaint about Twilight in particular changing the tradition. You brought out some rather valid points about that complaint as well.

GAHere : Yeah, I was trying to agree with you :slight_smile: I quoted you, so I had a reason for my post. :wink:

Thanks. So, about Buffy and Angel…really that good, eh? I never looked into what the series was about because I dismissed it right away on the vampire thing and the fact they were teens, but it was highly acclaimed all the way through. From what you described I guess it’s because of the soul issue. How many seasons am I going to have to prepare myself for?

Okay, Spike is no where near as “good” as the Cullens, especially at the beginning. In the beginning he is quite evil! The end of the series though, he gets better.

There are 7 seasons of Buffy the TV show. Season 8 is in comic form and I don’t think I like it as much.

Buffy is not as pure as Bella by no means. shakes head If people are worried about what their kids watch, then I wouldn’t suggest Buffy. There are loads of things in Buffy that is inappropirate, that you do NOT find in Twilight.
I enjoyed Buffy, but I was an older teen and adult when the series was going on.

I’m getting tired of everybody bashing Twilight but people seem to forget all the other “cultish” things out there, like Buffy. Buffy does fight the bad vampires, but she also has sex with a vampire and they aren’t married. Then they break up and you’ve got her sleeping around with guys. Then her best friend turns into a witch, and then a lesbian, and the relationship is shown on screen.
If I had to choose which was better in purity, I’d say Twilight. I still enjoy Buffy, but you can’t go watch Buffy expecting it to be as pure as the Twilight saga.

Yikes! Well, you certainly made a good point. I had no idea those are the twists that were in Buffy. Maybe I’ll stick to Twilight and New Moon.

I don’t remember anything graphic. I own all the seasons and loved it when it was on the air because the characters were the same age as me and I was always into vampire lore as a kid. As to the lesbian relationship, that was weakly built, at best, and I don’t remember seeing much other than hand-holding, the occasional dance and the occasional kiss. There was an implied scene in the musical episode, but it wasn’t really shocking. I recommend the series. Certainly don’t base your own values on a TV character, but overall it was a great show, especially if you already enjoy Joss Whedon’s work!

Sally - Don’t hate me, I enjoy the show and also related to the characters. BUT honestly, you don’t see things wrong with Buffy having “relations”, even implied, with someone she isn’t married to? That’s my argument, here. I love Twilight and I also love Buffy, BUT if I had to choose which one to let an unformed mind to see…I’d choose Twilight :slight_smile:

It turns out Hulu carries Buffy from season 1. I’m giving it a shot tonight while I clean house.

Hey! The ‘friend’ who gives her the cross is the guy from Bones! I like him in that series. This may be fun to follow just to see what some of todays’ TV guys were doing back then. So many faces I’m recognizing…

I like both shows, Buffy and Angel. I think Angel is better though and wish it wasn’t canceled after its 5th season.

Got any theologically valid quotes (like from the Catechism or something) that backs up your view that vampires are supposed to be portrayed as such? Most people’s view of what a ‘traditional’ vampire is actually heavily influenced by Stoker and even his famous novel of the infamous Count Dracula is actually a mishmash of smaller, separate legends and Eastern European folklore. You do know that dragons were pretty much considered evil in medieval times as well yet you get a lot of noble dragons nowadays in modern fiction?

Again show me anywhere in the Catechism or similar authoritative sources that says that? And what is wrong with a devil wanting to redeem himself? Remember, it’s not so much what a character is but more of a concern of who he/she is. Furthermore, I would also like to argue that devils and vampires have varying depictions in fiction.

You just shot yourself in the foot when you said there’s no problem with a devil being redeemed. It is impossible for any demon to be redeemed, ever, and to depict them as being redeemable in any work is a mockery of God’s Love and Mercy. But go ahead and tell me otherwise, heretic. You believe some magic is good, and you want magic, and now you say there’s nothing wrong with devils being redeemed. Those are quite some heresies under your belt. Read the Catechism and learn!

Wow you really like labeling people don’t you? Not only have I learned that your mind was devoid of the word “presupposition” (a term that has a fair amount of use in formal debates) you apparently forget that we are discussing FICTION. I’ve read the Catechism you dolt. I haven’t found anything in it with regards to how I should write fiction. Just what is so wrong about using devices such as neutral magic and good demons and vampires (like those in Hellboy and Twilight respectively)? It doesn’t change any reality about our world any more than writing about talking animals makes real animals speak.


If memory serves me right, weren’t you banned once? At least suspended? I believe I’m starting to see why.

You mean fiction? That’s not what he’s calling it. He’s calling it ‘evil’ because said fiction is not conforming to the Natural Order of the real world.

Yeah that makes sense. :rolleyes:

I guess you would also prefer the traditional dragons of fairy tales were they were depicted as damsel-devouring monsters and knight fodder? How about the traditional depiction of witches being unsightly hags with carrot noses and ate children? Further still, would you also prefer the retro, comic-book idea of Martians being green-skinned, big-headed alien invaders (with flying saucers and tiny laser guns)?

I could go on. :rolleyes:

Exactly. The keyword to all this is fiction. It’s. Not. Even. Real. Why people react so sensationally to deviations from old literary traditions is beyond me.

5 seasons is a good run, though. My, I’ve got lots to pass the time with while waiting for the New Moon release then.

From what I saw last night, though, these elements are much darker than the Twilight bunch. So far I agree with Amber, since both are targeted toward teens, I opt for Meyer’s depiction over Whedon’s. The witching thing creeped me out, I suppose because there really are people here who think that way. Don’t know if their spells work, and I doubt they work anywhere near the way they did in Buffy’s world, but that one’s a little too close to reality for me. If a story is going to be about what could be here on earth I really do prefer to be taken to that other world completely. I was able to do that with Meyers, even though the story takes place in Forks. The whole Quileute thing pretty much cinched the fantasy part for me. After that, I no longer read the pages as if that world was here.

Really? What’s that based on?

I know that Satan can never redeem himself because he is an angel first and foremost. According to Catholicism, his angelic nature was granted full knowledge of events and consequences which is why, when he chose to go against the grand plan, his choice led to this permanent state of separation.

Satan is real because angels are real. Because he is real, the possibiity of his redemption has been determined and cannot be reversed.

I haven’t read anything in Catholicism to discuss other demons. Perhaps that’s because demons, in and of themselves, aren’t real? Since they aren’t real, then who knows whether or not they can be redeemed?

+1 on that. What really bugs me is the zombie stuff. Zombies do NOT eat people. Ghouls eat people. Zombies are SLOW MOVING dead people. They can hurt. They can kill but they do not eat. Hollywood took the concept of Ghouls and zombies and merged them together for some reason.

I refer you to the words of the Son of God as recorded in Matthew 25:41“Then he shall say to them also that shall be on his left hand: Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels.”

These “angels” of the devil are “fallen angels” commonly referred to as demons with the chief fallen angel referred to as the devil.

The problem is… who’s to say what creatures are supposed to be? Where is God’s divine command that such creatures are to be depicted as such? I’ve read a manga that depicted demons being soul-powered machinery! Here’s another example, ever seen the difference between the barbaric orcs of Tolkien and the shamanic tribal ones in World of Warcraft?

If a creature actually exists, then it should demonstrate the characteristics that it actually has … as in the case of a demon. If a creature does not actually exist and it is a fictional creature, then it should demonstrate the characteristics that have been historically attributed to it. Ghouls, vampires, etc.; have been around in folklore for hundreds of years. If somebody wants to give them characteristics that they traditionally do not have attributed to them, they should invent another fictional character instead of trying to change something that has already been established.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit