Interview with a vampire part II

If you're just catching up with our interview with vampire Stanley (last name withheld) the so-called Loneliest Vampire in NYC then please see the start of the interview below.
For those of you following the series we pick up where we left off, Stanley describing his life as one of the immortal undead over drinks at a local Vancouver watering hole.

Us: On a different note - what prompted you to tell your story to the world in the first place?

Stanley: Well like I said, I'm immortal so there's a lot of hours to fill, and I figured what the hell might as well set the record straight.

Us: Your record?

Stanley: Mine sure, but also the world of the undead that gets so misrepresented in the media today. I mean it's just like that book series you mentioned earlier where the vampires 'sparkle' in the sunlight. So kids read that and think - hey what the hell I could be a vampire, it's no big deal, so you 'sparkle from tie to time I can live with that. But you don't 'sparkle' you die painfully. Plus there's so many other things to watch out for; Christian fanatics trying to put a stake in your heart, witches (hey there's a reason it rhymes with bitches) and then there's other vampires...

Us: And that seems to be your biggest pet peeve - other vampires?

Stanley: You call it pet peeve, I call it protecting citizens from an unholy alliance of evil vampires bent on the destruction of the mortal world.

Us: Well yes, there is that, but you were already ostracized by the other vampires before you began battling them isn't that correct?

Stanley: Yes, but...

Us: And weren't you somewhat of an unwilling combatant as well?

Stanley: What is this you have an axe to grind or something?

Us: Not at all just trying to get at the truth of the matter.

Stanley: Alright, 'the truth of the matter' is that yeah I have always been something of an outcast amongst the vampires, but I take that as a source of pride considering what a bunch of freaks they are. As for being unwilling, any sane person is going to have second thoughts about jumping into some of the situations I have, but despite that I think I've always given a pretty good account of myself when push came to shove.

To be cont.

Has Dark Shadows already been done as True Blood, Vampire Diaries or Twilight?

The answer to the above is no, but sort of. Dark Shadows was the original vampires as soap opera show. In fact it was billed as a daytime soap and aired (the original 1960s show) against other soaps.
But the latest supernatural soap opera movies and TV shows are obviously aspiring to be something more. But are they?
Twilight is the classic love triangle between young girl and bad boy (who's really not so bad, he's just, you know, misunderstood) and a good boy (who's not really that good, he just seems that way because he acts sensitive.)
True Blood, produced by the brilliant Alan Ball, started off as a fairly original show and definitely a few cuts above most of the other vampire drams  being offered, but the show, now in its fourth season, seems to be running out of story lines and is in danger of Jumping the Shark.
Vampire Diaries is the watered down version of True Blood for the under 18 set, so there's not a whole lot to say about that.
So where does that leave Dark Shadows the movie?
Considering its being directed by Tim Burton and will star Johnny Depp, the team that brought us the now cult classic Ed Wood, I'd say there is a chance Burton & Depp can make Dark Shadows seem new and original and not just another warmed over soap opera with vampires.
I'm hoping Burton lays on the camp with Dark Shadows and I'd love it if they shot it in B&W but I won't hold my breath on that one.
I suppose I'm a little biased in that I applaud any artist who brings more humour to the vampire genre which is suffering from wayyyy too much melodrama these days. 

Celebrities who may or may not be vampires

Have you ever played the who's a vampire game? Come on admit, we've all played a variation of it. Basically you look around and guess who, if there were vampires, would be the likeliest candidate, or who would make the best vampire.
Most do this with famous people for the simple reason that guessing whether or not the bus driver could be or would make for a good vampire seems slightly lamer. Just the same it's completely lame to pick people who have already played vampires. And if you pick Robert Pattinson, well sorry but you're an idiot, since he was never a good vampire on screen and would very likely be even worse in real life.
Same goes for Kate Beckinsale, although she does get points for looking exceptionally hot in PVC. Plus she has made movies that were actually good.
But speaking of Underworld, I'm going to go ahead and break my own rule (feel free to call me lame) and say Bill Nighy would very likely make a very good vampire in real life. Tall lanky, of a broad moral compass (at least most of the characters he plays are) and looks good in black.
Okay getting back to the original thesis, who would make a good vampire? Lady Gaga, pale skin, freaky looking, only seen at night, hell she probably does drink human blood for all we know.
Arnold Schwarzenegger, yes I'm serious, think about, wild staring eyes, weird accent, power hungry, he's a perfect vampire. Demi Moore, doesn't age, when's the last time anyone saw her out during the day. Tom Cruise, see Demi Moore. Actually when I think of those last two it does sort of freak me out, I mean what are they living on that allows them to look the way they do anyway.
Jerry Seinfeld, sure Jerry Seinfeld, why? I tell you why, file it under the guy you would have least expected that's why. Plus he's kind of pale looking.
Henry Kissinger, powerful, can't be killed, has hypnotic like powers over world leaders, he could definitely be a vampire, if he's not already one.

Vampires versus werewolves

There's an ongoing debate in the world of geekdom about just who would come out on top in a mano e mano showdown between a vampire and a werewolf.
They debate undead strength versus lycan strength, hearing ability, visual acuity and fang and jaw strength.
The debates get heated and a lot of names get thrown around, which at the end of the day is sill, just plain silly. Why? I tell you why, there's really no contest, you can debate the strengths and weaknesses of either supernatural being until the cows come in, but it still comes down to one thing.
Vampires don't fetch. That's right, all any reasonably knowledgable vampire needs to protect him or herself from sudden werewolf attack is a small stick. Werewolves, like any other canine, cannot resist the urge to fetch. And while said werewolf is running after the stick the vampire attacks him from the back and there you have it game over.