Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter (Video)

One day, on The History Channel as actual history? (This is my parallel-universe check for the day.)

16 Comments on "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter (Video)"

  1. When Twilight meets political history.

    • Calypso_1 | Feb 14, 2012 at 9:32 am |

      Of all the Orwellian dystopias I have ever envisioned, this truely could have never emereged from my darkest mindscape – yet I find it sickening to the center of my soul and thus take it as evidence that I am actually enjoying a suite at the Minstry of Love.

      • Am I the only one that found this even a little funny? Its obviously not supposed to be serious…

        • Calypso_1 | Feb 14, 2012 at 12:14 pm |

          I would take it that way if they weren’t actually teaching Twilight based ACT prep.  Or allowing kids (in my communities school system) to read things like Pride and Prejudice and Zombies instead of the actual literary work to ‘encourage them to read’. 

          • Jin The Ninja | Feb 14, 2012 at 12:34 pm |

            as a pretty slavish austenite, i do agree, but the reverse could always be true.

          • Misterfurious1 | Feb 14, 2012 at 1:21 pm |

            The first problem is that your definition of “literary” is purely subjective. The books you read are not objectively better than Twilight or Pride and Prejudice and Zombies. For all we know there are some people out there whose reading of Twilight has changed their lives in much the same manner as my life has been changed by reading Vonnegut or Carl Jung.

            The second problem is thus: When I was in high school they always force fed us that “literary” stuff and at the time I found it overwhelmingly boring and dense and wordy.  It only worked to make me more antagonistic to the thought of reading and as a result I never actually read a book until I was 19 years old (Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas and Cat’s Cradle). 

            Now, more or less a decade later, I’m a literary addict. Some of my favorite “western lit” writers are people like Joyce, Mellville, Kafka, Conrad and Blake. But you can’t just start a bunch of teenage kids, raised on Jersey Shore and bullshit vampire media to immediately grasp what makes such stuff so meaningful and wonderful.  

            What I’m saying is certain literature, even you don’t like it, is, many times, a “gateway” literature to stronger, more meaningful and dangerous (and fun) literature. 

          • Calypso_1 | Feb 14, 2012 at 10:00 pm |

            You underestimate my desire to begin the cleansing with those who watch Jersey Shore.

          • Jin The Ninja | Feb 14, 2012 at 10:06 pm |

            what is it with that show and the 6 or 7 british/irish spin offs!?!?!

          • Calypso_1 | Feb 14, 2012 at 10:35 pm |

            I was blissfully unaware of said spinoffs until this moment, damn you sir!  I shall now retreat to my ivory tower.

          • I don’t think that reading Twilight necessarily translates to reading Conrad later in life, any more than Jersey Shore is a “gateway” to watching art films. If you want students to learn to appreciate literature, you have to expose them to literature, and not just any bound print matter. 

            I think students should be given more freedom to explore the literature that appeals to them–realistically, what sense does it make to assign Jane Austen to a 16 year old boy, after all? The trouble is that schools only want to assign what is “safe” and “parent approved,” so they’re afraid to let their students wander into, say, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. 

            It would also do a lot of good if schools taught a lot more creative writing. When you’ve spent some time writing yourself and working through the problems that involves, it becomes a lot easier to judge the quality of what you read.   

          • Misterfurious1 | Feb 15, 2012 at 10:15 pm |

            Good post, Haystack. 

            I don’t have any rebuttal or anything, but I think good posts should get kudos just as terrible posts draw ire.

          • Calypso_1 | Feb 16, 2012 at 2:03 am |

            My only use of ‘literary work’ was referencing the original book in contrast to the derivative work and its largely borrowed contents.  This has nothing to do with a qualitative judgment, objective or subjective, and is a standard classification of the novel as literature which is upheld in any standard of interpretation of the work.

            As to whether literature in any definition is merely subjective I would say emphatically – no.  Subjective is one’s personal opinions and feelings but within the field of literary criticism,  theories such as structurism, formalism, etc. there are methods and devices for analyzing and quantifying motifs, techniques, languages structures, symbolism, relationships and so forth.  This is objective.  It is observable, countable, describable, reproducible by others, leads to understanding of underlying structures and patterns – hence data. Objects.

        • Liam_McGonagle | Feb 14, 2012 at 12:56 pm |

          I found it a little funny.  But only a little.

          I started but could not bring myself to finish the book.  It seemed to me like they blew their whole wad on the premise and everything thereafter was alike a freakin’ marathon just to see if they could pad it out to an entire book length.

  2. Wastelandindustrial | Feb 14, 2012 at 2:35 am |

    Most abusive extra work I ever did. Fuck this film!

  3. Wastelandindustrial | Feb 14, 2012 at 2:40 am |

    I have never been more abused as an extra then on this set. This craptastic pile of cinemamic shit can die in a fire for all I fucking care.

Comments are closed.