best comment on this thread.-Zen- said:Harry Potter was actually pretty alright. Twilight is the toilet paper with which Bram Stoker wiped his ass.ironfist86 said:i love the backlash - where was this intensity when harry potter was the rage? (not referring to topic poster, just y'know, in general). i could care less about the movies because most hyped movies are dumb, but people who call "twilight" literature need to be lobotomized.
actually, come to think of it, we should be thankful for this sort of thing. it allows to view the superficiality of those that would cling to trends like herpes to a Bangkok whore.
well they use that to help their evil plans-Zen- said:I'm not so certain of that. Numerous vampyric mythologies describe vampires as unnaturally seductive and charming.Mr0llivand3r said:yeah. i'm a dude and even i would admit that the actor is handsome, i dont put it past him.xitel said:But... but... he twinkles in the sunlight! Seriously, the man's cheekbones look like they could cut glass.
but vampires arent supposed to be drop-dead gorgeous. they're supposed to scare us, not make us fall madly in love with them
EDIT: By the way, here's something funny for you all, fellow Escapists:
http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/473402
dude totally!Bunyip Andler said:Wow, that's probably one of the most stereotypically posts written by a female with bad taste in books.Radelaide said:I loved the books for TWO reasons.
One: They were written like bad fan fiction and were absolutely delicious.
And Two: Since Harry Potter, they were the best books I'd read.
I hated Lord of the Rings. I couldn't get past the first chapter because of the utter crap spluttered across the papers of that book.
No wonder there are no women on the internet. You idiots would make them feel terrible.
How could you call Lord of the Rings utter crap? It's a literary classic. The only reason you enjoyed the book is because of its sexuality. That doesn't make it the best book you've read. Like I said, I wouldn't say my favorite porno is "the best movie I've seen recently". That's just stupid.
you sir are logic incarnateBunyip Andler said:(For the sake of perspective, I'm a bisexual male who prefers females. Also, for the simplicity's sake, whenever I say "guys" or "girls" I mean straight ones.)
Out of all the things in Twilight, you're bagging on Edward?
Edward's designed to be a fantasy. He's gorgeous, sparkles and is a hopeless romantic who falls in a love with a plain jane book-reader. And he's undead. Being undead is always sexy. It's the epitome of badassery, which is something almost every girl looks for in her fantasies. (not in boyfriends, fantasies. Important distinction)
He is extremely dreamy. He has amazing beautiful eyes. That's the point. The reason why you (and I at first) get upset when girls fawn over him is jealousy. Just like you hated that really cute guy all the girls obsessed over in middle school.
When I try to explain this to guys, I use pornstars as an analogy. They're designed to be fantasies. Just like Edward, the idea of it is completely retarded. There are extremely few girls out there who geniunely enjoy sex with random strangers, moaning the whole time, trying their best to please the man while doing nothing more than rubbing themselves to pleasure themselves.
If guys talked about how hot Bobbi Starr is, or how big Brandy Talore's boobs are, girls would get jealous and start trashing them on forums too. But guys would still thing that they're hot.
Now, what bothers me is how people talk about what a great book it is. It isn't. It's smut. Nothing more. Following the pornstar analogy, is Cum Guzzlers 14* a cinematic masterpiece? Of course not. Do guys heartily enjoy it? Yes. Same thing with Twilight. But a lot of girls talk about what a great series it is. That pisses me off.
*That's probably a real movie, but it was simply an arbitrary porn title.