I accidentally sparked a little mini-argument earlier when responding to the new Outcast teaser by saying that I'm usually not very interested in exorcism themed stuff and Kirkman would have to go a long way to distinguish himself from a genre which I find boring and repetitive. I followed it up by saying I'm not a huge fan of zombie stuff either, but that he;s still got my attention with Walking Dead, so who know how this one'll go. This sparked a whole argument about whether things like zombies, werewolves, vampires, were "overdone" or very generic in nature.
My take is that they are usually very generic, there are some standouts (Blade was mentioned originally) but for the most part, vampires are more or less the same all over the place, as are werewolves and zombies. This compared to something like "superhero" which I think is a lot broader a term, as there's a whole lot more room for variation. Which is not to say all vampire movies are the same, but if someone says "vampire" we're pretty much all thinking the same thing vs if someone said "superhero" there's a lot more room for variation.
What do you think? Are things like vampires, zombies, werewolves, etc pretty generic or do you think there's a good amount of variation between vampire titles, zombie titles, etc?