This is NOT a sequel to John Carpenter's Vampires

Since the vamire mythos is just that, myth and legend, there is no one definitive set of rules concerning them. The Romanian vampires didnt revert to human if thier sires were killed. Most of the Vamps in that area of folk lore were no more then mindless beast that hunted at night like wild animals. They became vampires if they were bitten and infected with the virus that made them thrist for blood. The whole thing about killing the king vampire and saving all the sired Vamps under them is just romantisized BS that they used in the books and movies to give the stories plots and a reason to seek out the lead vamps and not kill the ones who have been turned.

Vampirism is an infection. Look at underworld. They might have a modern look to them, but they do follow some of the old rules alot more closely.

Righto. It IS Vampires 3. It may be a horrible sequel that defies series continuity, but it is a sequel nonetheless.

For more films that go against continuity within their franchises, look no further than the entire Highlander film franchise. Each sequel only follows the original film and ignores the ones that came before it, with the exception of the latest (and incredibly wretched) installment.

Just because Carpenter didn't produce the film or have his name attached to it anywhere does not mean that it isn't a sequel. And as far as writing credits go, then don't need to give any to the writers of the previous films as long as they don't refer to the events or characters that take place within them. Remember, the studio owns the franchise rights, not John. This IS a sequel, for better or worse, and I'm glad it has ended (hopefully) with this installment. Both sequels were awful. Los Muertos was nothing but a bad rehash of the original and this one is even worse.