DARK SHADOWS FORUMS

General Discussions => Current Talk Archive => Current Talk '24 I => Current Talk '09 II => Topic started by: Roland on August 15, 2009, 12:33:24 AM

Title: The Vampire Paradox
Post by: Roland on August 15, 2009, 12:33:24 AM
If vampires can only be destroyed in two ways - either by exposure to the sunlight or by a stake or silver bullet through the heart - why do they need to drink blood?  It obviously doesn't serve the same function as food or water because Barnabas "lived" over 150 years in his coffin without receiving any sanguinary sustenance. 

Just curious.
Title: Re: The Vampire Paradox
Post by: Gerard on August 15, 2009, 12:46:38 AM
Here's my take.  Vampires, even though immortal, need blood to keep their "look" without aging.  Without blood, they will age and become decimated things.  I didn't see the 2004 pilot, but remember seeing a photo of Barnabas in the coffin when Willie opened it and he was a shriviled, dried-up corpse.  From just my observation of that photo, I took it as to explaining my hypothesis.  Barnabas was still "alive," but had taken on the looks of someone that was buried for 200 years.  With enough blood, he resumed the way he appeared at the time of his death and would retain it with a fresh supply.  I don't know if that's what they were saying in the 2004 pilot since I've never seen it, but that's just my take. 

Interview with a Vampire hinted at that.  One always looked the way he/she did when he/she died at the hands of a vampire and returned as one.  If one even so much as cut his/her hair, it quickly restored, for example.  Good thing Barnabas didn't die with a hair-do that looked like a powdered wig.  Imagine him trying to explain that in 1967.  It wouldn't even pass in Haight-Ashbury.

Gerard
Title: Re: The Vampire Paradox
Post by: Taeylor Collins on August 15, 2009, 01:30:58 AM
That is surely a fine answer Gerard and totally my take and so many others on vampire lore.  I still hope that we will get to see the pilot one day as an "extra feature!"

:)
Title: Re: The Vampire Paradox
Post by: MirandaD on August 15, 2009, 02:08:25 AM
My impression from having seen the '04 pilot is that the director was fond of gruesome special effects in general, and they were used for more than Barnabas.  I don't want to say anymore because I haven't yet figured out the spoiler feature  [ghost_embarrassed].

Gerard, that is a very well thought out hypothesis though.  In a different series I would have agreed with you.
Title: Re: The Vampire Paradox
Post by: MagnusTrask on August 15, 2009, 03:26:52 AM
There's the theory that they run out of energy without blood.   You could say they're near "death" in the coffin (completely there in daytime) but are conserving their energy by not moving and so can last indefinitely.   Perhaps an active vampire actually would die if he went without blood and didn't go back to the coffin permanently.
Title: Re: The Vampire Paradox
Post by: quentincollins on August 15, 2009, 03:14:01 PM
Also, even if they don't need blood to survive, they crave it. They seem to suffer if they go long without it.
Also, I agree that going without it makes them weak.
Title: Re: The Vampire Paradox
Post by: Roland on August 15, 2009, 06:22:12 PM
Gerard, that makes perfect sense.  Thanks for clearing that up for me.   [ghost_smiley]
Title: Re: The Vampire Paradox
Post by: Pansity on August 21, 2009, 04:30:07 AM
Coming in a bit late here, but I also love your theory, Gerard.  It's neat, not convoluted and seems to cover everything.

FYI I caught the pilot again this weekend at the fest. (Pure accident/serendipity.  I was up early, went into the ballroom for one of the earliest panels and got a prime front row seat from which I wasn't about to get up unless it was on a stretcher. So, I sat through ALL the programming that day up to the main event.)  Anyway, you did remember right about Barn in the coffin, and the way THEY handled it in that retelling fits your theory to a T.

Jeannie
Title: Re: The Vampire Paradox
Post by: Zahir on August 25, 2009, 06:19:47 AM
Rather than looking at other vampire films or depictions of vampires, let us look at these creatures as presented on Dark Shadows itself.

Barnabas as seen the original show and the re-imagining showed no physical ill effects from a lack of blood.  Rather, at certain times vampires feels an overwhelming bloodlust.  Trying to control it was, evidently, a huge struggle.  But Barnabas looked exactly the same after decades without feeding.

Thus I would submit that DS vampires don't need blood, but simply crave it with a all-consuming desire.  Interestingly, the actual desire itself seemed almost random.  Prior to the 1848 storyline, Barnabas seemed to go weeks and weeks without feeling the desire.  Yet at other times Barnabas, Angelique and others seemed driven at irregular but non uncommon intervals.
Title: Re: The Vampire Paradox
Post by: Sunny_Collins on August 27, 2009, 09:26:28 PM
Perhaps going without blood causes physical pain, and some kind of emotional distress, as Barnabas seems more proan to panicking and irrational behavior when he goes without it.
Title: Re: The Vampire Paradox
Post by: Gerard on August 27, 2009, 10:10:57 PM
You know, it's too bad Julia could not have just come up with like a medicated patch or gum or something for Barnabas. 

Gerard
Title: Re: The Vampire Paradox
Post by: alwaysdavid on August 29, 2009, 03:43:00 AM
It also seems that if the vampire on DS is attracted to someone or actually in love with the person, it makes them less able to resist taking blood.   Angelique seemed unable to resist her temptation for Barnabas even with threats from Nicholas.
Title: Re: The Vampire Paradox
Post by: Josette on August 29, 2009, 08:04:13 AM
I was never sure whether it was that she couldn't resist him, or if she just wanted to finally be able to control him.  It always seemed to be more of the latter to me.