But hey it's nice to see you reciprocating communication with me in some way. Even if it is to try to pointlessly "call me out" for being excited for a movie that I've been hoping for since the 20th century. Nice to hear from Dracula9.
I'm sensing some unresolved grievance.
Regardless, you're absolutely correct. I am going to call you on generalizing an entire genre based on one specific style of it. A Symphony of Horror is frightening for a multitude of reasons - it's silent, the vampire's somewhat feral-looking, his powers are subtle but terribly dangerous, and he's much less composed than the vamp he was originally based on, to name a few.
What I'm saying is, there's more than one type of vampire movie, and more than one type of vampire, and I take issue with a generalization cutting off or ignoring aspects of vampires as characters and entities that are just as warranted as the creepy pale guy who can move his shadow. They're immortal, and immortality comes with its own price, and some vampires have contexts where they lose more than they're prepared to (Let the Right One In, Interview,). They have to watch as the world changes while they remain the same, and some go with this flow (Lestat), and others are broken by it (Armand). Some vampires are aristocratic, and some don't give a shit about formalities and just want blood. Some are feral and wild, others are feral but still retain unique kinds of social interactions (30 Days). Some have created myths and rumors which to this day remain unresolved (Shadow).
You know your vampire mythos. You know it well. As such, it's more than a little off-putting to see you more or less sweep anything that's not the castle-dweller in nice clothes off the table.
As for why I said not to get your hopes up just yet? That's because they more than likely
won't make it silent, and as such a lot of what made the original scary is going to be lost. So much of the original's charm and horror elements stemmed from the film being silent, as well as other little nuances that they will doubtlessly alter. I'll call it now that his shadow manipulation will be more action-y than the subtleties of the original, or that his death scene will be much more over-the-top and dramatic than his original going-up-in-smoke.
That's not blind pessimism, that's acknowledgement that the film industry's changed in 95 years and awareness that remaking a 95-year-old film is probably gonna come with a shitload of changes from its original incarnation, and as such the things that made the original so good would be lost.
Also, I've seen The Witch. A great film made once doesn't make all the potential problems and changes for a 95-year-old remake suddenly disappear.
I'm skeptical about horror films in general, this is nothing new.
Also,
Getting de-clawed after that Halloween was traumatizing.
Spirit Gum?