SHP Forums

I'm sure by now you're all aware of various not-so-serious books such as Pride and Prejudice and Zombies and Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter. From what I've seen on Wikipedia and elsewhere, the AL:VH book is far superior to the movie.

However, I am curious. I've read one or two histories of the Civil War, as well as a few short books on Lincoln's personality and private life. From what I've gleaned on Wiki, it appears that in this book, Honest Abe becomes an abolitionist even before he considers running for parliament, because he witnesses a vampire buying slaves at an auction. In real life, Lincoln's character was much richer and more complex - but of course, I'm not expecting a fantasy book to be historically accurate.

Has anyone else read this book or seen the film? What did you think of it?

I've seen the movie and it's hilarious. Not always in a good way. Rarely in a good way: the characters are broad, the historical accuracy laughable, the special effects not entirely convincing (for example, there's an indescribably silly scene involving a horse used like a weapon). Still, it was an enjoyable romp for a scorching summer night, with a charming performance by Dominic Cooper.

BTW, in the US, the legislative body isn't called parliament. It's called Congress (which is made up both the Senate and the House of Representatives). It's a relatively minor correction, but it's an important one considering the US doesn't use a parliamentary form of government.

As for Lincoln... well, in the book and movie there are vampires. Once you acknowledge that, you might as well toss realism and accuracy out the door.

DeadPoolX wrote:As for Lincoln... well, in the book and movie there are vampires. Once you acknowledge that, you might as well toss realism and accuracy out the door.

Exactly. As much as love the Jane Jensen games, I am badly burned out on all of the monster/supernatural nonsense that dominates much of the entertainment media. It has even invaded other genres.

I liked some of the movie, but get couldn't get behind it 100%. I think it took itself way too seriously for a movie about Abraham Lincoln fighting vampires. You just can't take a scene where Honest Abe is playing hopscotch over a horse stampede and fill it with dramatic overtones.

AndreaDraco wrote:I've seen the movie and it's hilarious. Not always in a good way. Rarely in a good way: the characters are broad, the historical accuracy laughable, the special effects not entirely convincing (for example, there's an indescribably silly scene involving a horse used like a weapon). Still, it was an enjoyable romp for a scorching summer night, with a charming performance by Dominic Cooper.

Using a... horse... as a weapon?! Oh dear... now I'm curious. Can you elaborate?

DeadPoolX wrote:BTW, in the US, the legislative body isn't called parliament. It's called Congress (which is made up both the Senate and the House of Representatives). It's a relatively minor correction, but it's an important one considering the US doesn't use a parliamentary form of government.

As for Lincoln... well, in the book and movie there are vampires. Once you acknowledge that, you might as well toss realism and accuracy out the door.

Oops! Thanks, DPX - I'm well aware of Congress. My mistake - parliament in Australia is also made up of both a Senate and a House of Reps, so I guess I forgot about Congress. *blush* And yes, I don't expect the book or the movie (especially the movie) to be realistic. I just thought that it might touch on things that actually happened - the Stephen Douglas debates, Lincoln's career as a lawyer, the Civil War and the Emancipation Proclamation (obviously), etc.

Collector wrote:As much as love the Jane Jensen games, I am badly burned out on all of the monster/supernatural nonsense that dominates much of the entertainment media. It has even invaded other genres.

Err... which other genres? I haven't seen any other vampire movies recently (not since Van Helsing and the earlier Interview with a Vampire). I also don't pay much attention to other vampire stuff - especially *shudder* Twilight.

Datadog wrote:I liked some of the movie, but get couldn't get behind it 100%. I think it took itself way too seriously for a movie about Abraham Lincoln fighting vampires. You just can't take a scene where Honest Abe is playing hopscotch over a horse stampede and fill it with dramatic overtones.

! Hopscotch over a horse stampede... sounds way too silly for a serious scene, and yet I'm sure that Honest Abe would have played hopscotch a few times (though maybe not over a stampede).

I'm guessing the book may be better than the film, no?

Rath Darkblade wrote:Err... which other genres? I haven't seen any other vampire movies recently (not since Van Helsing and the earlier Interview with a Vampire). I also don't pay much attention to other vampire stuff - especially *shudder* Twilight.

Especially SF. While there have always been some SF movies with space monsters, at least they were somewhat SF related like extra terrestrial creatures that were so alien as to be monstrous. And yes, in the past few years there have been a bunch of vampire/ghost/zombie and mundane traditional monster SF shows and movies. Many kids today confuse fantasy, horror mythology, anything medieval, etc. with Science Fiction. In other words, anything that is not "boring" reality is SF.

Rath Darkblade wrote:Err... which other genres? I haven't seen any other vampire movies recently (not since Van Helsing and the earlier Interview with a Vampire). I also don't pay much attention to other vampire stuff - especially *shudder* Twilight.

Especially SF. While there have always been some SF movies with space monsters, at least they were somewhat SF related like extra terrestrial creatures that were so alien as to be monstrous. And yes, in the past few years there have been a bunch of vampire/ghost/zombie and mundane traditional monster SF shows and movies. Many kids today confuse fantasy, horror mythology, anything medieval, etc. with Science Fiction. In other words, anything that is not "boring" reality is SF.

Rath Darkblade wrote: Using a... horse... as a weapon?! Oh dear... now I'm curious. Can you elaborate?

Collector wrote:

Rath Darkblade wrote:Err... which other genres? I haven't seen any other vampire movies recently (not since Van Helsing and the earlier Interview with a Vampire). I also don't pay much attention to other vampire stuff - especially *shudder* Twilight.

Especially SF. While there have always been some SF movies with space monsters, at least they were somewhat SF related like extra terrestrial creatures that were so alien as to be monstrous. And yes, in the past few years there have been a bunch of vampire/ghost/zombie and mundane traditional monster SF shows and movies. Many kids today confuse fantasy, horror mythology, anything medieval, etc. with Science Fiction. In other words, anything that is not "boring" reality is SF.

Whoops, double-post there!

But yes, I agree with you. Strictly speaking (as far as I'm aware), SF should really only concern itself with fictional science - i.e. space travel, beings from outer space, new inventions that cause unforeseen problems, etc. The problem occurs when the genres intertwine - e.g. it's perfectly possible to write a murder mystery in space, but how would you classify it? Sci-fi or murder mystery? Also, "new inventions that cause unforeseen problems" could mean something revolutionary like a story about new way to track criminals in space, and its ethical and legal implications - or it could mean something like the "Frankenstein" story, because the technology (i.e. controlled electricity) was very new at the time, and definitely did cause lots of problems in the story! Nowadays, of course, a re-hash of "Frankenstein" would be banal.

How would you separate "fantasy" from "mythology" or "horror", though? Many fantasy stories have their roots in mythology and folklore. Almost any narrative that involves the dead coming back to life is as old as the hills, as old as time itself - just about every culture has its own myths about this. Eastern Europeans have myths about vampires, the Scandinavians talk about the draugr, and so on (although there seems to be no Egyptian myths about a mummified corpse coming to life - this seems to be restricted to myths about gods, like the story of Isis and Osiris!)

As for horror... this is not my forte. I don't particularly like the Freddy Krueger films or the Jason-and-hockey-mask films, and I think the Saw films are just disgusting. It's possible to have a horror film without blood or gore - I think that the best horror films are ones that only suggest violence, rather than show it implicitly. Hitchcock's Psycho is one; Fritz Lang's M is another. What do you think?

As for anything medieval... well, again, how can the kids of today tell? What does "medieval" even mean - early medieval (e.g. late Viking age, the Normans invade Britain, 1066 etc.)? Or high medieval (i.e. charging knights, tall castles, maidens in distress etc.)? Or baroque medieval (i.e. Chaucer and "The Canterbury Tales", Dante's "Inferno", the Black Death, the Wars of the Roses - basically anything pre-Renaissance)? And let's not even get into fake medieval (e.g. the whole "let's put witches/wizards in a medieval epic" thing). Don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with that - but if we've got wizards/witches who can do actual magic (fireballs etc. rather than "just" herbal healing, which is what supposed 'witches' were accused of), then it's obviously moved from a medieval story and into the realm of fantasy again.

Maybe if kids these days understood these distinctions, they wouldn't say that EVERYTHING is sci-fi...? *smile*

AndreaDraco wrote:

Rath Darkblade wrote: Using a... horse... as a weapon?! Oh dear... now I'm curious. Can you elaborate?

Thanks, but this is even more confusing... what on earth??? Oh dear... is that vampire picking up a horse by its hoof? Or am I just confused? *grin*

Rath Darkblade wrote:

AndreaDraco wrote:

Rath Darkblade wrote: Using a... horse... as a weapon?! Oh dear... now I'm curious. Can you elaborate?

Thanks, but this is even more confusing... what on earth??? Oh dear... is that vampire picking up a horse by its hoof? Or am I just confused? *grin*

I'd say both: that vampire (assuming it's not Lincoln himself) is swinging a horse by its hoof and you're confused.

I don't recall exactly who the horse-swinging guy is, but he's a vampire, that's for sure.

There are SO many supernatural-themed books now that it's ridiculous. There are a few authors I like that specialise in supernatural/action/mystery books, but the "genre" has become oversaturated with unoriginal knock-offs. I've also noticed that SF has become a catch all category for pretty much everything that isn't Romance, Mystery, or Fiction.

However, in all fairness, it can be hard to categorise many of these supernatural novels, since they have fantastical elements, but take place in a modern setting, and also have elements of mystery and romance. I've seen many of them categorised in other genres instead and seeming equally out-of-place there. I wouldn't categorise many of these books as horror, since they're not really scary. They often have more in common with the other genres.

Personally, I think they should just do away with genres entirely, since they just pidgeonhole the books. If a book has a good description and maybe some keywords, that is more helpful than being shoved in a single genre.

Sorry, I know it's a little off-topic, but this entire oversaturation of unoriginal supernatural media is something that has bothered me for a while as well (because it's a genre I like and I hate seeing it done poorly so often). Plus, the issue of genre has always bothered me with games, movies, and books. People will often close their minds to media of a given genre, regardless of how little they fit into it or how different they are.

I could not agree more. While it has never been my favorite genre, I have enjoyed many of its movies and books. However, this oversaturation of horror/supernatural stuff has certainly diminished my appetite for it.

Maiandra wrote:I wouldn't categorise many of these books as horror, since they're not really scary.

Perhaps a better take is that they aren't scary because they have failed?