this post was submitted on 08 Jul 2025
39 points (100.0% liked)

Vampires

332 readers
11 users here now

"Few creatures of the night have captured our imagination like vampires.
What explains our enduring fascination with vampires? Is it the overtones of sexual lust, power, control? Or is it a fascination with the immortality of the undead?"

Feel free to post any vampire-related content here. I'll be posting various vampire media I enjoy just as a way of kickstarting this community but don't let that stop you from posting something else. I just wanted a place to discuss vampire movies, books, games, etc.
๐Ÿง›

founded 6 months ago
MODERATORS
 

I was originally going to ask: Which vampire movie is more historically inaccurate, Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter or... And then I realized I couldn't think of any other vampire movie that actually tries to pretend it's taking place in the "real world" like Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter. I mean, any inclusion of vampires immediately makes a movie a fantasy, but are there any other vampire movies that attempt to include actual historical events? I know there are vampire movies set in "The West" or in "World War II" but I can't think of any that actually point to exact dates/events like this one.

Anyway, Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter isn't that bad of a movie. For the most part, it's a fun movie about hunting vampires in the 1800s. The only real problems arise when it tries to shoe-horn aspects of Abraham Lincoln's real life into the narrative. It drags the movie to a halt. I know that's the whole gimmick behind this movie, but it's the weakest part. If this movie was just "fun vampire hunting in the 1800s" it would've been better. Instead, the movie tells a fun story about someone dedicating his life to getting revenge on vampires... and he also happens to become president. The "real life" aspects don't even intersect with the story they're trying to tell. It's weird.

Here's a trailer. You can watch it on Hulu if you haven't seen it.

top 4 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[โ€“] shrewdcat@lemmy.zip 4 points 3 weeks ago

Oh very much historically inaccurate. They took a lot of liberties, but I viewed it like a DC comic or movie that has 'elseworld' takes on the main character. I will say this about the movie, it is hella fun for entertainment, and not a bad story, liberties taken aside.

I recently watched Shadow of the Vampire, which asked the question "What if Max Shreck was a real vampire during the filming of Nosferatu (1922)?"

An interesting premise, but it really bothered me that Shadow of the Vampire pretended that all of Shreck's scenes were filmed at night. When you watch Nosferatu's "nighttime" scenes with Count Orlock, you can clearly see him casting a daylight shadow. Afterwards, they tinted the scenes blue to simulate moonlight.

[โ€“] TammyTobacco@sh.itjust.works 3 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

This was originally a book, written in a journal style. It was alright.

[โ€“] Hammerjack@lemmy.zip 4 points 3 weeks ago

I think Pride & Prejudice & Zombies worked better. Also, from what I remember, I feel like that movie did a better job of integrating zombies into the story than this movie did with vampires. So I think this movie was also "alright", much like its source material.