Which franchise did Hollywood ruin more? Twilight or Eragon?
- Thread starter HardRockSamurai
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Edward's character was described in the book as being Adonis-like in his beauty. THAT is the reason that they chose a pretty boy. IT WAS WRITTEN INTO THE BOOK. He was written that way to appeal to the readers, he wasn't cast that way to appeal to the viewers.la-le-lu-li-lo said:
I can't speak for why everyone else hates Twilight, but I hate it for the way it raped the vampire mythos and then its fans touted it as THE definitive vampire novel, while simultaneously holding it up as a paragon for compelling narrative.
As for saying that the series isn't that bad... I have to disagree with you. I know I probably won't sway your opinion, but Meyer basically broke every rule of cliched writing. Her characters are painfully one dimensional and the entire series as a whole is basically an erotic self-insertion fantasy written by a sexually repressed Mormon. I'm not saying other writers haven't written worse material, but they never received international acclaim and outrageous wealth. That kind of ass-backward, inverse relationship between talent and fame ought to be reserved for mainstream rappers...
[/rant]
I don't know, its a hard choice...mainly because I've seen Twilight (good comedy, btw) but haven't read the book, and I've read Eragon but haven't seen the movie.
I can't make a choice. Twilight was obviously not made to be a comedy...but Eragon was actually a very good book series, and I enjoyed reading them. In the end however, my pick is Twilight - so many people are a fan of the books, but the movie makes them puke bricks.
I can't make a choice. Twilight was obviously not made to be a comedy...but Eragon was actually a very good book series, and I enjoyed reading them. In the end however, my pick is Twilight - so many people are a fan of the books, but the movie makes them puke bricks.
1. i agree, it was written into the book that he was perfect, beautiful, etc. but they still casted someone that would appeal to the audience. i still hold by my opinion, though i also agree with yours.Riding on Thermals said:
2. i don't understand why people say it's the definitive vampire novel, but it is a new-ish adaptation of the classic vampire. many say that anne rice started the idea of a vampire with emotions, who was beautiful, etc but i'm pretty there's an older movie that really started it... can't remember the name at the moment. but the concept of vampires has drastically changed since it's origin. once, they were hideous, fearful creatures. and now they've become sex-icons. so it's not terribly strange that now vampires are in highschool, young, 'pretty boys'.
3. i agree with you. i didn't say she was a great or even good writer, but she wasn't going for overly complex characters or plot, it was simpler for a younger audience. [though there are older people who also enjoy the books.] i'm a writer myself, and though i don't like to float my own boat, i think i write far better than she ever did. but that doesn't mean i'll get famous. something with her books obviously clicked with people. we can't deny that people loved her work [for who knows what reason], and became obsessed. you can't become successful like that if there's nothing worthwhile to your work. though obviously, smarties like us can't see it. XD
1. We agree. Lack of conflict is boring. Moving on.la-le-lu-li-lo said:
2. They're making it out to be the best one simply because the vast majority of its readers haven't read any other stories about vampires. Obviously, to anyone who has actually read any before it is far different. Now, I'm all for creative license, and without it we wouldn't have the vampire archetype as we do now (i.e. -- having vampires express emotion) however, when one takes creative license with a topic you need to give a nod to the source material. My biggest problem is that Meyer not only rewrote every rule about vampires without giving that aforementioned nod (or admittedly even studying vampires before writing her series) but she then stamped "official vampire rules" on the cover as if she were the originator. One of the major characterizations of the "emotional vampire" is that they are creatures of evil, darkness, and hunger and lived only at night. The instant her vampires could exist in daylight, they lost that forlorn quality that is tied to never seeing the sun. But I digress....
3. Unfortunately, she does consider herself a good writer and that her characters are analogous to, and developed as well as, Romeo and Juliet. And actually, she claims that Bella's decision to want to be turned and hang around Edward as symbolic of the primary choice of feminists to take control of their destiny (if you will). Which is a little higher-brow than her target audience is capable of comprehending, IMO. She also has an uncanny habit to criticize other authors in a very conceited way. Seriously, google it. as one final point, I'll appeal to the writer in you: She has openly criticized Westley and Buttercup's relationship in The Princess Bride as "shallow and trite," now if you've read that I assume you understand my point.
This is wayyyyyyy off topic. Sorry guys.
Twilight didn't just ruin Hollywood....it spat into its face and started laughing as it came inside the theatres(figuartively speaking), and for one final Ha Ha Ha....he told Hollywood he would come back in about a year to do it all again!....and it will!The Inquisitive Mug said:
Hollywood ruins all book conversions to movies.
Books can tell the inner thoughts of characters while movies have a difficult time with while keeping the pace moving. But books can do it without losing their pace. It's like when movies are made form games or games from movies. To takes something from one genre and try to protray it with the same excitement you acquire from that genre is pretty hard to downright impossible.
Books can tell the inner thoughts of characters while movies have a difficult time with while keeping the pace moving. But books can do it without losing their pace. It's like when movies are made form games or games from movies. To takes something from one genre and try to protray it with the same excitement you acquire from that genre is pretty hard to downright impossible.
No. No, no, no No, NO, no no.
Neither was 'charming' or 'well written.'
They were both shitty books with shitty ideas written by shitty authors. Shitty.
Neither was 'charming' or 'well written.'
They were both shitty books with shitty ideas written by shitty authors. Shitty.
Eragon already sucked, so accusing Hollywood of ruining it is a bit harsh.
And I never read Twilight or saw the movie, so I wouldn't know about that.
And I never read Twilight or saw the movie, so I wouldn't know about that.
1. tsk, it happens.Riding on Thermals said:
2. and again, i agree. the basis of vampires, as creatures of the night, was completely demolished by her brilliant idea to make them sparkle. ridiculous. i don't think anyone but her thought that was a good idea. though you don't think she studied them? i would have to assume she's read some vampire literature for her to have any knowledge of them, and rather than stick to the general principle of the vampire, she decided to change it. why? who knows.
3. ugh, feminists. *gags* i think that perhaps her fame has gotten to her head? i suppose she thinks since she's made millions she had the right to criticize real writers, who've managed to develop fully dimensional relationships / romance, whatever. and yes, i do understand your point, mon ami.
and it's not really that off topic, we're simply discussing the finer points of the subject at hand.
though i will apologize to the fellow escapists who might be rolling their eyes at this discussion.
You said it, sir.HardRockSamurai said:
I don't know, the books weren't ideal to begin with... Eragon was somewhat like Star Wars set in a fantasy world with a confused plot, and Twilight was like reading a fanfic, plus none of the supporting characters got any development at all.
That said, I appreciate the author's intent in Eragon more (and he was, what, 17 when he wrote it?), so I'd say Eragon was ruined far more than Twilight (you could argue, "What was there to ruin?")
