Mythological/Legends/Religious Figures combo thread

JakeEkiss said:
Sort of an aside, I think your use of quote marks on "redeeming" is really appropriate because I find *actual* redemption stories pretty interesting. Not like, telling a monster's tale in such a way that they seem justified or misunderstood, but rather telling what happens when you want to stop being a monster.
Click to expand...
Absolutely yes.
Sort of the end of the last stave of A Christmas Carol, expanded.
 
fac said:
Also, there was another Kickstarter around the time D13 did theirs called Almighty Legends - https://almightylegends.com/ - it did fund, but the figures are still forthcoming - they unlocked a Gabriel and an Azrael. These seem to me to be more in the "gamer" style but wanted to mention them.
Click to expand...

Oh, I fucking hated those figures. Like.... so much. Just a bunch of edgelord 'angels' in halter tops. It looked stupid when Skeletor did it 40 years ago with his 'Terror Claws' and it looks stupid now, guys. I had heard that Almighty Legends had switched over and would be using Savage Crucible bodies, though. That could be interesting for fodder, which is not particularly relevant here.


Also, I feel like I owe you a small apology because this thread is off the rails and I'm 100% certain that's partly my fault.
 
I find characters like Vader/Anakin, The Grinch, or Scrooge far more interesting in their redemptions because of the moments they have where they realize THEY are wrong. No issues with that whatsoever. It's the things like Cruella or Dracula where they take the character, give them some backstory, and then try to soften up the evils they do (or even try to retcon out that they did anything wrong in the first place) that stick in my craw.
 
Damien said:
Also, I feel like I owe you a small apology because this thread is off the rails and I'm 100% certain that's partly my fault.
Click to expand...
You did summon me with Dracula stuff. And it is well-known that once I am summoned to Dracula stuff, things are gonna get Dracula-y all over the place.

REDIRECT!
Vampires in classical mythology!
Lilith!
Lamia!
Vetala!
Draugrs!
Jiangshi!
Dearg dul!
Vrykolakas!
Varcolac!
European revenants!
Abhartach!
 
docsilence said:
Modern society loves nothing more than a redeemable monster. Those stories can be fun but I kinda wonder if we're in some kind of cultural psychosis about it. I mean I get sexy vampires, but I also didn't need to know WHY Cruella DeVille kills puppies. The woman kills puppies. That should be sufficient reason to not like her.
Click to expand...
I think it's partially an outgrowth of folks forgetting how to write compelling heroes. The villains are always more fun (because they don't have to play by rules, duh) and the more heroic a character gets the more "boring" they are perceived as. So if you redeem a villain you get the added benefit of all their backstory making them feel more interesting.

Course, the moment the fun villain starts to be rewritten into someone more cuddly they start becoming less interesting because it's almost never done with any sincere exploration of the implications. It's a lazy device, and so it is inevitably executed in the most lazy way. And usually it's only deployed to wring a few more dollars out of a character that got a lot of heat but who can't, realistically, headline their own story because it would be utterly disgusting to watch otherwise.

"Actually Hannibal Lector eats people because of childhood trauma." No. Hannibal Lector might've had childhood trauma, but he systematically stalks, kills, and eats people because he's a fucking psychopath.
TheGillMan said:
I find characters like Vader/Anakin, The Grinch, or Scrooge far more interesting in their redemptions because of the moments they have where they realize THEY are wrong. No issues with that whatsoever. It's the things like Cruella or Dracula where they take the character, give them some backstory, and then try to soften up the evils they do (or even try to retcon out that they did anything wrong in the first place) that stick in my craw.
Click to expand...
Dracula I'll give just because his transition started earlier as "what if evil was just sexier"? I'm here for that angle. Still awful, but SEXY awful. Going further to him being a romantic figure takes that further, but at least there's a pathway to it. Cruella is just what I said above. It's a lazy device to wring some more life out of a character that has a good gimmick/look as a villain. See also Book of Boba Fett (which I'll just leave dangling because I could badmouth that show all day long).
 
My wife and I actually like Cruella, but only as a separate, distinct thing with no relation to the original character. Almost a 'What If' story where everything is completely different. Like, file off the serial numbers and change all the names and it doesn't impact anything, but is also still fun to watch. If that makes sense.

And to be fair, a complete re-write of the concept is how I took that movie. It was 'what if Cruella was the hero in The Devil Wears Prada and not an animal abusing psychopath?' It's own unique, distinct concept divorced entirely from the source material. As 'The' Cruella... that movie is insipid.
 
JakeEkiss said:
Dracula I'll give just because his transition started earlier as "what if evil was just sexier"?
Click to expand...
Interestingly, that’s not Dracula at all: it’s Lord Ruthven from The Vampyre by Polidori, who had a very major run as a stage/literary character before Stoker wrote his book. Ruthven was hella sexy and hella queer. Dracula *should* actually be “what if evil was LESS sexy” as compared to 19th century “famous” vampires (Ruthven, Carmilla, and their derivatives). “Sexy Dracula” was just grafting the Dracula content onto the previously-existing “hot Ruthven” content audiences were already familiar with.
 
Damien said:
Just a bunch of edgelord 'angels' in halter tops.
Click to expand...
Yeah, they did nothing for me either, but I was reminded they existed while I was trying to track down potential 4H Apocalypse figures.

Damien said:
Also, I feel like I owe you a small apology because this thread is off the rails and I'm 100% certain that's partly my fault.
Click to expand...
No worries, I did include Legends in the title and vampires fall under that. I personally don't care about Dracula much at all beyond the classic Universal Monsters takes - I did find the whole Anne Rice/Buffy+Angel or Spike/Twilight "oooh, vampires are all forbidden sexy creatures" a bad direction.
 
AceofKnaves said:
Interestingly, that’s not Dracula at all: it’s Lord Ruthven from The Vampyre by Polidori, who had a very major run as a stage/literary character before Stoker wrote his book. Ruthven was hella sexy and hella queer. Dracula *should* actually be “what if evil was LESS sexy” as compared to 19th century “famous” vampires (Ruthven, Carmilla, and their derivatives). “Sexy Dracula” was just grafting the Dracula content onto the previously-existing “hot Ruthven” content audiences were already familiar with.
Click to expand...
I was more meaning on film. Dracula has a gradual increase in his sexiness over time before you get to Coppola.
 
AceofKnaves said:
Everyone knows Jesus was a lich, not a vampire.
😉
Click to expand...
The blood of Christ was never symbolic. Truly drink, and live forever.

Resurrection is undeath.

Crosses repel him not because he fears them, but because they remind him of the betrayal.

Holy water is consecrated blood diluted with faith.

He respects invitations because free will is sacred.

I liked Dracula being Cain in White Wolf, and I think Lazarus was the first vampire in True Blood.
 
AceofKnaves said:
I didn’t realize that was a thing!
I thought Dracula was a Tzimisce elder and that the Tzimisce were basically the “Dracula clan”. That’s what the wiki says, just checked. I was under the impression that Cain was Cain, and the first vampire.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I am wrong. Misremembering my time with Bloodlines.

*Jumps out window*
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top