I’m by no means an expert, but from my experience, traditional vampires tend to go in one of two directions. 

 

Option 1: Elevated humans. Suave, charismatic, beautiful, lethal - sometimes you see a physical monster in some sort of transformation, sometimes the beauty remains. They lean more on the human side in terms of rationality and logic, though they are still not human even if they appear to be. (Examples: Dracula, Lestat)

 

Option 2: Creatures. These vampires are much more beast than man, and you can see that both in how they look and in how they act. There’s usually more animal cunning than human thought-process. No one is going to think they aren’t monsters for long. (Examples: 30 Days of Night)

 

And of course there’s the ultimate combo, where they are option 1…until the bloodlust/extreme vampire-y-ness takes over they go until full option 2 creature mode. (In the book series Demon Days, Vampire Nights by K.F. Breene, the vampires go pretty feral and transform into swampy creatures when they gang out - book 9 in the series begins with this line: “A pasty-white swamp monster jumped out from behind a clown, its mouth open and saliva dripping from the wicked fangs in its black gums.” So that’s a choice. And yes, I enjoyed the series, even if I don’t understand how you get swamp creatures from vampires.)

 

Thinking about these categories leads me to think about the origins of the vampire mythos, and why humanity continues to be fascinated with it. Why have so many cultures across history had stories of vampires? If they aren’t real (and who am I to say?), how did different cultures come up with the concept (which, as far as I’m concerned, is a creature that drinks blood to survive)? According to Merriam-Webster, a vampire is “the reanimated body of a dead person believed to come from the grave at night and suck the blood of persons asleep.” Dictionary.com says a vampire is “a preternatural being, commonly believed to be a reanimated corpse, that is said to suck the blood of sleeping persons at night” OR “(in Eastern European folklore) a corpse, animated by an undeparted soul or demon, that periodically leaves the grave and disturbs the living, until it is exhumed and impaled or burned.” (And hey, did you know that dictionary.com’s word of the day for June 21, 2026 is whittle?) Much of the lore stays the same across different stories - but not always, of course. But some of the biggies are that vampires don’t have a reflection, they can’t go out in the sun, they have fangs and drink blood to survive, they needed an invite to enter, and garlic is a no-go. Things like silver, photographs, crosses/holy water, vulnerabilities, how they're made, and more vary.

 

That said, there are plenty of vampires that straddle the two categories, or don’t quite fit either of the boxes. I’d argue that most of the vampires in Romantasy books, for example, are option 1, even if they are the protagonist and much of the plot is about them learning that they aren’t really a monster. Then you have vampires like those in What We Do In the Shadows, which leans into intentional silliness and vampire stereotypes (maybe archetypes or tropes are better terms since it’s a fictional subject matter), vampires that shimmer or sparkle instead of turning to dust in the sun, and vampires that are regular, ordinary people…who just so happen to also need blood to survive. Some stay exactly as the way they were before they were turned (so their friends and family are still people that they love and wouldn’t want to hurt), whereas others remember their humanity, but the curse/vampire/monster/bloodlust is stronger, and they change in more ways than just drinking blood.

 

I think the type of vampire has to come along with the story - what are you trying to say? Why vampires? A lot of common thought is that vampires (like all folklore, magic, and misc. supernatural stuff) were a way to explain things phenomenon that we previously didn’t have the science to explain - medical mysteries, mostly, for vamps. There’s also the fear of death and the unknown - vampires combat the idea of death. 

​

​

This is a long intro to say that today, for week two of Vampire Boot Camp, I’m doing a bit of a stream of consciousness as I watch The Lost Boys for the first time.

 

It's billed as a comedic horror movie, and I don't know what type of vampires it features. Truthfully, I know very little about it - I know that it’s a 80s movie with Keifer Sutherland in eyeliner, Cory Feldman is in it, and it’s set in California? Maybe? I’m not sure how I’ve never seen it, but I’m going to see the musical on Broadway in early July as a part of the Broadway Teacher Workshop, so I thought it would be fun to see the movie first. 

 

I know that it’s not necessarily something we need to worry about spoiling because it’s a year older than I am (it came out in 1987), but I’m still going to steer clear of spoilers as much as possible - so we’ll say less stream of consciousness, and more reactions, and then I’ll do some takeaways and thoughts at the end. 

 

Very first reaction? Bill from Bill & Ted is also in this! (And I always have to look up who is who of Bill and Ted, because I can never remember, despite my love for Keanu Reeves.) I’ve never seen Alex Winters in anything else, and he has a very distinctive face.

 

Second reaction - if that pack of leather-jacket wearing hoodlums are the vampires, as I assume they are, I’m hoping they aren’t supposed to be teenagers, because they look older than teens - as does the older brother moving to California.

 

So far, all of my knowledge about this film is correct. Eyeliner, 80s, California, and I’ve already seen Keifer Sutherland! Points to me. 

 

And oooh, Santa Carla, our setting, is the murder capital of the world, apparently. Intriguing. 

 

“If he’s dead, can we go back to Phoenix?” Kid’s got his priorities in line. I wouldn't want to stay when the welcome wagon is my elderly, widowed grandfather's version of welcoming me into the so-called murder capital of the world is pretending to be a corpse. 

 

A gyrating sweaty man playing the saxophone. I don’t think he is a vampire, but one never knows. How fantastic!

​

General vibes - I love 80s movies. I know that all movies are products of their time, and maybe it’s because I think of myself as an 80s baby even though I don’t remember any of it, but this type of 80s movie always feels so very delightfully nostalgic for the time period it was made in. The music, the hair (THE HAIR), the fashion. This makes me want to watch The Goonies, Big Trouble in Little China, Die Hard, Ghostbusters, The Karate Kid, Stand by Me…

 

Hmm, adults in 80s “teen” movies are always an interesting breed, as well. If they are present at all, they’re either villains inexplicably having to fight with teenagers, they are mostly absent, or they are quirky oddballs. 

 

I am a little obsessed with these vampires. 

 

I don’t trust Edward Hermann. (To be fair, I think he’s just a square/stick in the mud, not evil.) I think this is the youngest I’ve seen him - he’s always Richie Rich’s dad to me, and that came out 7 years after The Lost Boys.

 

Aw young comic nerds. Bless their hearts. Oooh, they are trying to warn him via comic books!

 

Bill, I didn’t see your mullet before. Good for you! That’s luxurious. (Do vampires use hair products? They must, right? Does Keifer!vampire have to re-bleach his hair? Also I’m trying to remember if I’ve ever seen a vampire with facial hair before. I think they are usually clean shaven.)

 

Hmm vampires ripping off car roofs seems a bit unrealistic to me (not to say that they don’t have the strength, but size and angle-wise it seems off). (Yes, I meant what I said, unrealistic. One can only suspend disbelief so far.)

 

I dig the lair.

 

Hmm, ok, these vampires also eat food. And have some sort of psychic power, at least to plant some images in Michael’s head. …is a sip of blood all that it takes to become a vampire in this movie? 

 

WAIT DO THE VAMPIRES HAVE GLITTERY BLOOD??? Is that where Stephenie Meyer got the idea for the sparking vampires in Twilight?

​

I'm going to call it on the reactions here, because anything else gets into spoiler territory, I think.

​

​

Overall thoughts:

 

The Lost Boys was interesting to me. I enjoyed it, for the most part. I found Sam, arguably the protagonist, to be pretty annoying in the beginning, but once the movie found its groove, he was fine. You could also argue that Michael is the protagonist - ultimately, neither of them (or anyone else for that matter) had much character development, so the stakes weren't particularly high. (Pun not intended, but it should have been.)

 

I enjoyed the visuals - I do wish they had leaned in a little more to the creepiness of young monsters. When kids (be they little kids or teenagers) are bad and show no fear or remorse, and have none of the societal training to behave as human beings, there’s something deeply terrifying in that. I tend to think it’s scarier when they aren’t actually monsters - when you look at something like Lord of the Flies, and the lack of humanity - and how quickly it can go away - is what’s the most frightening. I think more scenes with the vampires on the boardwalk, menacing people who think they are just regular teenagers would have been powerful. I teach middle schoolers, and once in a blue moon we have a child who actively scares me - one who is dead behind the eyes, smart, and malicious, and there is something palpably frightening about them. Leaning into that a little more might have pushed the movie into more dread, with a little more on the line, and ultimately made it more interesting.

​

Also? I think the vampires should have been a little more gay. Listen, I don't think gender matters to vampires - sucking blood from someone’s neck is very intimate, and I think the best vampires are seductive to everyone. Let Keifer!vamp lick one of his bros on the neck, maybe. A little smooch here and there. In researching the film after watching it, I came across this quote from Alex Winters (hi, Bill!), talking about the homoeroticism of the the movie: “I do think that, for sure, our characters had that kind of undercurrent. I don't think it required, you know, sitting around a table read discussing it. I had spent my previous five years doing two long-running Broadway shows back to back — during the beginning of the AIDS crisis and at the height of the disco era. I started going to discos at, like, 13, 14, years old. I've been around the nightlife in New York a really long time. I came from a family of modern dancers, so I've been around trans and gender-fluid and gay people my whole life and it was really freaking obvious what he was up to and, and I thought it was great…that was what I took for Marko, I sort of pulled from these kids that I knew from Times Square, all of whom were totally gender-fluid. It wasn't exactly rocket science, but it didn't require being overt. Everybody dressed like that. Everyone wore balloon pants and had highlights.”

 

I felt like there were some inconsistencies - SPOILER (highlight to read!) they played into the “Edward Hermann might be a vampire” with him needing to be invited into the home, but I don’t think any of the actual vampires got an invite and could enter the house just fine. *OH SHIT they got me! That was a decent twist. I knew I was right not to trust Edward Hermann at the beginning! And since they invited him in, I guess the others fell under the same welcome? Well done in that regard! 

 

The gore in the bathroom, with blood bursting out of all the drains, was a little more Stephen King's IT than seemed to make sense - if SPOILER (highlight to read!) the vampire was killed by garlic broth in the tub, and the tub was plugged in…where did all the blood come from and why would it have come through the drains? (I’m sure it was more for the visual than anything else, but, I can’t make it make sense.)

 

Also, the vamps waiting their turn to attack one at a time? Sorry, not buying it.

 

I would have liked a little bit more of an explanation of the Frog Brothers. The argument can of course be made that they are more interesting because we didn’t learn anything about their background - we don’t know how they learned about vampires, why they behave like army men, or anything, really. 

 

RottenTomatoes declares it to be: “flawed but eminently watchable,” and I would have to agree with that. On the whole, it seemed more like a stylistic 80’s teen film that happens to use vampires as a plot point - not necessarily a vampire movie, if that makes sense. 

​

Verdict: Three out of five stakes!