| Talk pages are no longer used.|
Please use the Forum for discussing article changes.
- I'd need to rewatch, but when does he actually bite and drink blood? I just remembered the clip had him fondling the fish, and my impression was that while vampirism might have been implied, he was mostly just a weirdo, thus contrasting with the censor's initial assumption. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 20:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- I rewatched the scene. Were you joking about the blood-drinking, or assuming based on the fangs? Certainly Don's designed to *resemble* a vampire, setting up both the semi-obscene pun of "blood-sucking bass kisser" and a reversal of expectations, that it's just a prop guy. I just feel that while the presence of fangs, along with the accent, sets up the *expectation* and matches the stereotypical view of a vampire (thus why I changed it to "vampire-like" rather than removing the line), there's absolutely nothing within that limited context to prove that this is a Muppet who actually kills people and sucks blood *in fact*. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 20:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- I watched yet again, I don't see an actual "bite" of the neck. It's not impossible, but just seems like a continuation of the kissing. Again, sorry to seem abnal about this, and I'm not denying the vampire comparison was intentional. I just feel very uncomfortable, based on such a brief appearance and evidence, on claiming that yes, Virginia, a Muppet has actually murdered and consumed blood. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 20:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Well, Dracula is a vampire, so he's presumably murdered and consumed blood if he's really supposed to be Dracula. Also, watch the very end of the scene just before Kermit "flips off" the camera. Don strikingly bites into his fish. It's pretty accentuated that he's supposed to be biting into his victim. —Scott (talk) 21:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- I watched the scene. I see no "striking bite." If you can make screengrabs, that might help, but I'm not buying it without seeing something more specific. And Dracula is a one-shot joke, and as you note, if "he's really supposed to be Dracula." I could make the same argument there, but since he's *called* Dracula, and the context of monster jokes, it's a safer assumption he's meant to be the real thing. Whereas for all we know Don is a weirdo who wears false fangs and a cape. I just don't see why "vampire-like" isn't enough to cover it without getting into trying to interpret if he bites things. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 21:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Aha! It seems like more of a leap onto the fish than a bite, but either way, it is pretty striking and predatory. Of course, fish are meant to be eaten either way. But it is better evidence, and if it means that much to you to state as absolute fact that he's a vampire, I guess I'm mostly sort of okay with it now (though the same evidence could suggest Don has a sexual fetish for fish, I don't want to go there either). -- Andrew Leal (talk) 02:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)