What do you think of Twilight?
- Thread starter Queen Michael
- Start date
Recommended Videos
That's because locked threads have an auto-purge after a while.Queen Michael said:
I must take issue with this. I will first confess to have not done a close study of the books. I scan-read one and then went back to more worthwhile ventures. However, I found nothing appealing in Edward. He's not romantic, he's disconcerting, even stalker-like. He's not dark and brooding he's self-hating and priggish. And shallow, self-righteous, domineering.A-Heart-Of-Gold said:
I'm a feminist and these things really bother me, from whichever part of a relationship they come.
Bella is totally unempathetic, but more than that, her behaviour sets a very poor example for teens in regards to what makes a relationship. No to mention they're a shitty female stereotype. She manipulates Edward whilst being totally emotionally dependant on him. Neither of those things make for healthy relationships and the fact that she eventually gets her 'happy ending' leaves a sour taste behind.
If you want some very worthwhile fiction targeted at teenage/young adult females read Tamora Pierce. They're fantasy, and they're spectacular. They address all kinds of issues relevant to the audience and present far more honest, human characters in infinitely superior writing.
I've seen the films, and find the characters and story quite dull. I'm not a big romance fan, but there isn't even much actual romance beyond Bella's obsession (then again I haven't read the other books so I don't know how it turns out).
On the other hand the Rifftrax are hilarious, and working at a cinema Twilight makes me money.
But to be honest
<img height=200>http://theinfosphere.org/images/thumb/9/9c/Neutral_President.jpg/353px-Neutral_President.jpg
I have no strong feelings one way or the other!
On the other hand the Rifftrax are hilarious, and working at a cinema Twilight makes me money.
But to be honest
<img height=200>http://theinfosphere.org/images/thumb/9/9c/Neutral_President.jpg/353px-Neutral_President.jpg
I have no strong feelings one way or the other!
It's not... it's with the vampires.TankTop said:
OT: Never seen them, never wanted to see them. I read the last page of the last book because I stole it off my sister. The writing was dreadful, I would've written the book better. The films? Don't care to see them. I've heard they were worse than the books.
I personally find the books to be written with all the flair and skill of an angsty 14 year old and the movies to have some of the worst acting I've seen in my life. The ideas don't really upset me, every writer has had a different take on old ideas.
And even though I don't like it, it has got a lot of young girls reading, which is a good thing.
And even though I don't like it, it has got a lot of young girls reading, which is a good thing.
I have a rule of actually watching a movie before I pass judgement and I am yet to watch Twilight or New Moon.
Well, you did ask . . .
Let me preface this with a disclaimer. I would not have come by Stephanie Meyer on purpose. You could have probably safely stuck me in with the Twilight haters. I hadn't thought much about it. Another Harry Potter, I would have berated you gently. However, I do have a tenancy to pick up new books at random, and that was how I ended up with The Host, without really making the connection. In fact, I had finished The Host, before discovering that Meyer was behind Twilight. I was intrigued at that point, thinking there might be more than another yet another pop culture phenomena going on here.
I can't make the same claim on the subject of Vampires. I have been there, up to and including LARPing, so my credibility as an unbiased source can be enthusiastically discarded before proceeding. Anne Rice up to Memnoc was my childhood adoration and I do mean adoration. There really isn't a comparison between the two authors. Rice's Vampires are philosopher/historians, Meyer takes a very different approach. To put it mildly.
The Vampire as a literary symbol has had a quite interesting journey. It's humble origins as a patriarchal warning concerning the precious virginity of certain porcelain dolls, seems a perfect fit for the metaphor. At First. This meandering construction left us with such tidbits as having to invite the vampire to cross the threshold, the mesmerizing effect of vampire on the female, and one bite leading to eternal damnation. This passed quite easily into the medium of film, as the censors felt much better about vampires and dark cloaks, than actual rape scenes.
I love a metaphor that's come full circle, and Meyer has sternly turned this one around and given it a firm shove. Twilight's Vampires have gone from being patriarchal warnings, right to being female fantasies. Without passing go. And no, I'm not talking about a mere sexual fantasy here, I'm talking full bore ideal man territory here. In the beginning I was having trouble reconciling Edward as a character, until this vital point occurred. He's not a character. He's Stephanie's fantasy. Viewed in this light, Twilight becomes a brave and personal journey of the author. I'd wager that it's actually quite difficult to come clean on a fantasy of this kind of intricate impossibility. I also love Stephanie's little hints she leaves for me, from when Bella playfully refers to herself as a thirty-year-old teenager, to when she openly admits to not knowing quite what to do with her Paris character. Hanging a lantern, indeed.
Let's pause a moment here and talk about some of the origins here. There is clearly a Shakespeare influence here, plus a bit of Stephanie's one-uping. To merely have an single level of unrequited love, would be child's play for Meyer. Her leads both have two initial layers of attraction and repulsion. Edward has his love, conflicting directly with his desire to kill, but both attractive forces. Bella, has her love, conflicting directly with her attraction to Edward based on his predator's magnetism, both attractive forces. This is by know no means an easy reconciliation. You wouldn't want your relationship based on a predator/prey bond. On the repulsive side we have Edward's abstinence from human blood, plus his motivation to protect Bella from her desire to become a Vampire, loosing her immortal soul. On Bella's side, she's repulsed by two constructions, the first being her belief that Edward cannot possibly love her, and the second being her platonic loves for Jacob and her father, and desire to protect them from the world of the Vampires. So, at the center of the story, we have not the single misunderstanding that Romeo and Juliet had, but four. Nice. Of course, we had to reach quite into the realm of impossibility to get there, but hey, this is fantasy.
Stephanie's puts us squarely in the middle of Bella's mind with her tight first person perspective. Nothing else would have worked. This is why the movie fails miserably. Without Bella's commentary, Edward is just some abusive asshole. The conflict of self vs self is where the story happens. The question of will she or won't she has never been more fully explored. So here's me, excitedly looking forward to whatever concoction Stephanie comes up with next.
Let me preface this with a disclaimer. I would not have come by Stephanie Meyer on purpose. You could have probably safely stuck me in with the Twilight haters. I hadn't thought much about it. Another Harry Potter, I would have berated you gently. However, I do have a tenancy to pick up new books at random, and that was how I ended up with The Host, without really making the connection. In fact, I had finished The Host, before discovering that Meyer was behind Twilight. I was intrigued at that point, thinking there might be more than another yet another pop culture phenomena going on here.
I can't make the same claim on the subject of Vampires. I have been there, up to and including LARPing, so my credibility as an unbiased source can be enthusiastically discarded before proceeding. Anne Rice up to Memnoc was my childhood adoration and I do mean adoration. There really isn't a comparison between the two authors. Rice's Vampires are philosopher/historians, Meyer takes a very different approach. To put it mildly.
The Vampire as a literary symbol has had a quite interesting journey. It's humble origins as a patriarchal warning concerning the precious virginity of certain porcelain dolls, seems a perfect fit for the metaphor. At First. This meandering construction left us with such tidbits as having to invite the vampire to cross the threshold, the mesmerizing effect of vampire on the female, and one bite leading to eternal damnation. This passed quite easily into the medium of film, as the censors felt much better about vampires and dark cloaks, than actual rape scenes.
I love a metaphor that's come full circle, and Meyer has sternly turned this one around and given it a firm shove. Twilight's Vampires have gone from being patriarchal warnings, right to being female fantasies. Without passing go. And no, I'm not talking about a mere sexual fantasy here, I'm talking full bore ideal man territory here. In the beginning I was having trouble reconciling Edward as a character, until this vital point occurred. He's not a character. He's Stephanie's fantasy. Viewed in this light, Twilight becomes a brave and personal journey of the author. I'd wager that it's actually quite difficult to come clean on a fantasy of this kind of intricate impossibility. I also love Stephanie's little hints she leaves for me, from when Bella playfully refers to herself as a thirty-year-old teenager, to when she openly admits to not knowing quite what to do with her Paris character. Hanging a lantern, indeed.
Let's pause a moment here and talk about some of the origins here. There is clearly a Shakespeare influence here, plus a bit of Stephanie's one-uping. To merely have an single level of unrequited love, would be child's play for Meyer. Her leads both have two initial layers of attraction and repulsion. Edward has his love, conflicting directly with his desire to kill, but both attractive forces. Bella, has her love, conflicting directly with her attraction to Edward based on his predator's magnetism, both attractive forces. This is by know no means an easy reconciliation. You wouldn't want your relationship based on a predator/prey bond. On the repulsive side we have Edward's abstinence from human blood, plus his motivation to protect Bella from her desire to become a Vampire, loosing her immortal soul. On Bella's side, she's repulsed by two constructions, the first being her belief that Edward cannot possibly love her, and the second being her platonic loves for Jacob and her father, and desire to protect them from the world of the Vampires. So, at the center of the story, we have not the single misunderstanding that Romeo and Juliet had, but four. Nice. Of course, we had to reach quite into the realm of impossibility to get there, but hey, this is fantasy.
Stephanie's puts us squarely in the middle of Bella's mind with her tight first person perspective. Nothing else would have worked. This is why the movie fails miserably. Without Bella's commentary, Edward is just some abusive asshole. The conflict of self vs self is where the story happens. The question of will she or won't she has never been more fully explored. So here's me, excitedly looking forward to whatever concoction Stephanie comes up with next.
The plot's are quite poor and very anti-climatic (all of them), the writing is lacking in most areas and the characters are for the most part soulless and lacking any real depth.
That said the idea behind it all is actually quite good (The Vampires and Shape Shifters and whatnot, as well as the Volturi), it's like Harry Potter really where the author took a good idea but failed to bring it across in a decent way.
It is also very much aimed at teenage females and I can easily see why it appeals to them. The main character is a typical self conscious teenager who doesn't fit in or like where she lives or her family. The hottest guy in school falls madly in love with her (as well as every other guy she meets) and so on.
Overall they are an okay series, could have been better but could have been a hell of a lot worse than people make them out to be.
That said the idea behind it all is actually quite good (The Vampires and Shape Shifters and whatnot, as well as the Volturi), it's like Harry Potter really where the author took a good idea but failed to bring it across in a decent way.
It is also very much aimed at teenage females and I can easily see why it appeals to them. The main character is a typical self conscious teenager who doesn't fit in or like where she lives or her family. The hottest guy in school falls madly in love with her (as well as every other guy she meets) and so on.
Overall they are an okay series, could have been better but could have been a hell of a lot worse than people make them out to be.
God bless Mike, Bill and Kevin.Metal Brother said:
I don't hate Twilight because of the stupid vampires and unimaginative werewolves, I hate it because the poorly written books, flat characters and the fans going completely ape-s**t everytime you critise them or the books.
Plus I hate girls aged between 8 and 60, so the demographics aren't that good.
In the mildest terms possible, Twilight can take a long walk off of a short pier. Miss Meyer has done to vampires what the never-to-be-sufficiently-damned Mr. Bay did to Transformers: did her best to ignore anything and everything that has come before so that she could "move the genre into a new frontier," and more readily cater to her target audience- an audience apparently consisting of underage teenagers (which, while equally disturbing, is a seperate matter completely). Personally I think the whole idea of a vampire/human love story has been beaten to death. In fact, I challenge someone to name a single vampire story, short of the original Dracula, that did not involve a long, drawn out love affair between a mortal human and an undead bloodsucking horror that has been made out to be, in no uncertain terms, the ideal mate/lover who requires SPF 10,000,000 sunscreen. Hell, I've actually started to write my own vampire story, just so I could drop the whole "I'm-a-vampire-but-I-love-a-human-time-to-diet" plot down a well with a millstone tied around its neck (Yes, yes, I know that everyone else is still writing it, but I still feel better, strangely). I'm not saying the idea itself is without merit, or inherently bad. I just feel that people have lost sight of what a vampire truely is. A vampire is not some angsty goth kid who suffers from hemophillia and an intolerance to sunlight. A vampire is the corpse of a human being animated by powers dark and terrible to complete a purpose both gruesome and horrifying- to sustain and prolong its unliving existance by parasitically attacking the living for their own life's blood. Not my idea of prime significant other material in the least.
Complete with simple spelling errors, run-on sentences, gratuitous use of exclaimation points, and no meaningful content or actual argument. It's like they are under the impression that I, or anyone else on this forum, do not personally possess a spine. Following that logic they believe that I will capitulate to the first person who throws enough buzzwords and punctuation at me. That is most distressing to me.Simriel said:
