The Trouble with Covers

I just saw an advertisement for this new movie, Fright Night. It looks less than fully compelling, but I am gladdened any time I see a trailer in which the Vampire is not a glittered-down version of his former glory. And the trailer does have a cute line about ways to get around a lack of an invitation into a home.

But my gripe with the film is not that the trailer is lacking non-screaming females. It is not that I am never very excited about remakes that were great the first time (I haven't seen it, but Prince Humperdinck plays the vampire, so it's gotta be good.)

No, my gripe of the day is the movie poster.
It's kind of cool. The lettering is cute and looks like vampire fangs. The red eyes are a nice calm color. I have no idea who's holding the axe. (Tangent: Because it's a guy in a checkered shirt holding a tool reminiscent of a shovel, it is giving me flashbacks to this excellent Cracked video.)

Anyway, as I stared at this cover, I was struck a certain way by the gaze, the fadeout, the color gradation, and the low light source. I began to feel that the film must be worthy of four Oscars. That it must be gritty, convoluted, sad, psychopathic, greed-filled, all with a southwestern flavor.

But Fright Night is not No Country for Old Men. The blurb, the trailer, and the actors involved all suggest a wildly different tone. Violence is the sole connection. And Fright looks cartoonized. Why then make the decision to channel No Country for Old Men? Fright Night may be no country for nosy teenagers, or no country for vampires, but the Fright cover mainly makes me want to watch something Coen brothers. Success in advertising? I think not. The only perk I see is cranky people like me writing cranky blog posts and increasing word of mouth.

The Importance of Spectacle

Lady Gaga, queen of spectacle.

Genius of our generation, Lady Gaga, is truly the Queen of Spectacle.

Say what you will about her music, she is a master of Spectacle. Writers could learn a thing or two about the incorporation of fashion and ridiculosity in her rise to fame. She is a provides great cues for entertainment: be crazy, be awesome, be shiny, and you will grow fans.

While I still consider Bad Romance, (which is the second most viewed video on YouTube), to be her video with the best aesthetic achievement, she hasn't released a boring one. And due to the transitive property of actors' historicity, she's essentially vampire hunter in Paparazzi, in which she kills Eric Northman.

Disambiguation: Why True Blood is Better than Twilight

Twilight is weirdly popular, but the sparkling offends a lot of vampire fans. True Blood is full of sex and violence, but the vampires scare off some potential viewers because they are getting the show confused with Twilight. 

A disambiguation is necessary. 

How they are alike: 

• Vampires. Sorta.
• Prominant love triangle between two supernatural beings and one mostly human main character.
• There is a character who is in love partly because they cannot hear the thoughts of the object of affection. In the case of Bella, they may just be lacking.

What makes Twilight (almost) fun to watch: 

• It is unintentionally hilarious. Mostly due to Pattinson's faces. 
• It really brings the text to life. I avidly devoured the Twilight books through the Reasoning with Vampires blog. 
• Shirts are against werewolf law.
• A beautifully awkward scene in which Edward rejects Bella, modestly buttons up his shirt, and insists on abstinence until marriage. 
• The Cullens possess the vampire superpowers that allow them to pose for half the movie.
• Watching these reminds you how much better True Blood is. 

What makes True Blood fun to watch: 

• Vampires retain a sense of ferocity, and they do horrifying and immoral things from time to time, as vampires ought to do. You can't be sure that they won't flip out and drain a character.
• There is a discussion of the socio-cultural implications of vampires. 
• In this love triangle, Eric and Bill have a whole lot more chemistry and interpersonal feelings than Edward/Jacob. 
• Sookie has some sass and mopes less than Bella. Downside: her name is Sookie.
• The series is focused on the town, which gives it a much richer cast and story tapestry, whereas Twilight is a claustrophobic teen romance with some random Foreign interlopers. 
• True Blood is Intentionally Hilarious, and incorporates more witticism.

What could be better for both: 

• They both suffer from overpowered male characters in love with a less interesting girl. 
• Vampires are one thing, but these both use the PR technique of throwing in everything paranormal but the kitchen sink, which multiplies the difficulty of suspension of disbelief. 
• Overall paucity of badass female characters.