16
May
Esquire Theme by Matthew Buchanan
Social icons by Tim van Damme
16
May
joasakura said: or a young Dave Vanian bringing you chocolates and iced coffee?
YES, THAT WOULD BE PERFECT, THANK YOU. 
15
May
Oh my god this sex scene is so funny it’s the tho silhouettes of Lucy and Dracula backlit by bright red light with all these bats flickering about while they’re making out and yes if you were wondering this is what two goths having sex looks like.
The thing that’s really hilarious to me? I knew what version of Dracula she was watching before I looked at her tags.
Via thelittlestmouse: Club 33 put on a special event where members could pay to have dinner in the Haunted Mansion with various Disney imagineers. As I was looking through the blog post, the part that stuck out the most (aside from Bob Gurr standing by the gravedigger) was the dessert!
“The crystal ball that you see is a clear sugar “orb” that we had to crack with our fork to get to the dark chocolate mousse-like cake inside. Madam Leota’s face was screened on a piece of chocolate, while her purple hair was created from spun colored sugar that tasted very much like cotton candy. Each plate had a battery powered color changing disc on it that caused Madam Leota to glow. I can not even put into words how amazing it was to see all of these glowing at the table before we sat down to dig in. After cracking open my “crystal” ball, I dug right in to the rich chocolate ganache style dessert. It was definitely a chocolate lovers dream come true. The quote that went with this one?
‘It’s to die for…’ HAHA! A perfect fit wouldn’t you say?”
Always take advice from the Cookie Monster. Always.
Click here to find a delicious chocolate chip cookie recipe perfect for your own noms.
One of Auntie Jilli’s Rules of Tumblr: Always reblog Bela Lugosi’s Dead.
Bauhaus - Bela Lugosi’s Dead
(Source: chrisxlafferty)
What rubbish. What propoganda. What fuckery.
Being young was pretty much bullshit for me. I like being old better.
I would not relive my teens and twenties for any amount of money. Am I nostalgic about them? Sure. But my life is SO MUCH better now.
14
May
rogueofstorms asked me:
No love for Queen of the Damned? :(
I adore huge parts of QotD. The opening section with Marius at the vampire bar, Daniel and Armand, the Talamasca and Jesse, the sections set at the concert with Lestat’s band … all of those are delightful. I just find that my attention wanders when Akasha starts expounding at length about her philosophy.
Because I’m sure you all want to know, my reading preferences of the Vampire Chronicles go: The Vampire Lestat is always my favorite, and my favor shifts between Queen of the Damned and Interview depending on how much brooding soul-searching I’m in the mood for. (And honestly, the manga adaptation from Claudia’s point of view may eventually become my preferred version of Interview.)
To sum up: Vaaaaaampires. Snarky, hedonistic vampires. Also, I need a gray velvet frock coat. (I may wear my red velvet one tomorrow, just because.)
(I also may start yet another re-read of Lestat during bathtime tonight. Because why not?)
And to continue on from that massive text post about Dracula and how he’s not a romantic figure: I prefer Lestat from the Interview With The Vampire & The Vampire Lestat eras. Lestat is supposed to be the Brat Prince, rejoicing in his vampiric nature and causing havoc because it sounds it sounds like a good time to him. Lestat from The Body Thief, Memnoch The Devil, and so on? I find disappointing. Which is one of the reasons that The Vampire Lestat is a comfort read book for me, but later stories in the Vampire Chronicles are not.
(Source: hanniballecters)
What it seems to me is just a ploy to cash into the current obsession with romantic vampires (then again every romantic Dracula plot has been).
Now, I’m not going to claim Stokerist purity. I try incredibly hard to be open minded when it comes to Dracula. I can still watch an enjoy many interpretations of the character and the plot, even sometimes the romantic ones. I’ve often defended movies that get a lot of hate from the elitists who refuse to acknowledge anything related to Dracula other than Stoker’s novel 100%, though I too can understand their frustration.
I love Stoker’s novel. I have since I first read it when I was 8. I’ve devoted a good portion of my life to studying the impact and evolution Stoker made to vampires and horror.
But as I’ve gotten older I’ve become increasingly agitated at the fact literally no one has made a film or TV series based 100% on the book. For a story praised so highly why does Hollywood meddle with it making it nearly unrecognisable to Stoker’s intention? Dracula in film has never been portrayed as Bram wrote him. There’s always something changed or something added or something disregarded.
And quite frankly I’m tired of the fact there has never been anything in film that has ever been true to the book.
Which comes into the title of this rant: Dracula is not a romantic figure.
Very good points! I think it’s fine to have crushes on characters you’d cross the street to avoid in real life, but that doesn’t mean we should excuse what they do or pretend it didn’t happen. And frankly, I’m a little selfish in my desires for Stoker-purity: I like Dracula being evil. I find a ruthless and manipulative warlord more interesting than “Barnabas Collins but not as cool.”
While I have a fondness for romantic vampires (Hi Lestat, I see you over there), I have LONGED for there to be a film version of Dracula that is true to the book. Dracula was not a brooding, Byronic anti-hero. He was a monster: ruthless, manipulative, and not romantic. While I enjoy (most of) the various versions of Dracula found in movies, and I’m sure that the upcoming NBC series will be full of eye candy that delights me, I still want to see the Count portrayed as he was written: evil and terrifying.