|
Twilight books / movies (pg. 8)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| chimera66 |
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
So your conclusion is that millions of teenage girls want to be Mormons?
Deep. |
no millions of teenage girls, women and gay men are in love with the idea that someone as "perfect" as edward loves a weak character like bella and he wants to protect her soul. they eat that up, edward even gets bonus points for refusing to have sex until marriage. the sappy love story most women can get into combined with the absence of decent young adult movies for this generation lead to twilight's success, or at least that's what i think. |
|
|
| Schadenfreude |
| quote: | Originally posted by chimera66
combined with the absence of decent young adult movies for this generation |
watchou talking bout w??
there is more teen porn now then there has ever been. |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by Marcus Summers
I'll never date another girl that reads or is interested in the twilight series. |
Reminds me of my brother's ex. She made him watch the two first films in a single week and then dumped him (I believe because she wanted a vampire rather than an actual person, and because he was catatonic for hours after that).
By the way, I've already posted this in another thread but I couldn't care less: Charlie Brooker is always right - and he didn't even bother to read the book/watch the film :D
| quote: |  Twilight's sulky vampires are less frightening than a knitted cushion
The campaign for real monsters starts now
Until this week the one thing I knew about the Twilight saga was that it had vampires in it, which was enough to put me off. I didn't realise it was a romantic fantasy aimed at teenage girls. Turns out it's possible to be put off something twice before you've actually seen it.
The central theme, apparently, is abstinence; the heroine, Bella, is contemplating whether she wants to lose her virginity to a vampire or a werewolf. She's not allowed to try them both out, or get to second base with one and third with the other. And she's certainly not allowed to take them both on at once, although that would clearly make for a far better film. Whichever one she picks is the one she's stuck with for ever. In some quarters the films and books are lauded for their wholesome message, which is weird considering Bella is essentially deciding whether she'd rather shag a bat or a wolf. She's got zero interest in honest-to-goodness human-on-human action. No. It's magic farmyard creatures or nothing for her. Oh, and apparently she chooses the bat in the end, which is the worst possible choice, because being a vampire, he's not just any old bat, but one that's hundreds of years old and isn't even properly alive. If the final film doesn't culminate in a 28-minute shot of her lying spread-eagled on the marital bed tearfully rubbing the leathery, disintegrating corpse of a 200-year-old bat against her marital sector, the entire saga has been a cop-out and a lie.
But even if you weren't boycotting the film on the basis of its disgraceful necro-bestiality theme, boycotting it on the basis of its vampires is reason enough. Vampires are the worst monsters ever created, as the following list of the worst monsters ever created, in ascending order of badness and culminating in vampires, will prove:
Mummies. Zombies – mindless human-hating reanimated corpses – are brilliant monsters because their motivation is brutally simple: they're very hungry thick people. Yet mummies – who are effectively zombies in medicinal giftwrap – are laughably non-threatening. Since their teeth are covered up, they're reduced to stumbling around with outstretched arms trying to hug you to death. If they had erections, they'd be scary. But so would Goofy.
Ghosts. At its most ambitious a ghost might appear in your bedroom in the guise of a glowing holographic figure, loudly complaining about the circumstances of its death, particularly if you killed it. But that's the worst a ghost will do: whine about its own misfortune, like someone writing to Watchdog to moan about their broadband provider. And they usually don't even manage that. Instead, they make intermittent knocking sounds or slam the odd door in a huff. I've had neighbours worse than that. In fact there's a guy a few doors down who's been loudly practising the drums every weekend for the past five years with no sign of improvement. I'd gladly swap him for a ghost. Even if it walked through the walls and tried to stop my heart with its gaze every couple of nights it'd still be an improvement.
Serial killers. Real serial killers are genuinely frightening. You wouldn't catch me on a log flume ride with John Reginald Christie. No siree. But fictional serial killers are usually more pretentious than frightening, perpetually quoting Milton or arranging their victims in poses designed to evoke the martyrdom of St Sebastian. What are you, a cold-blooded murderer or the controller of Radio 3? Proper maniacs are too disturbed to complete a Sudoku, let alone conduct an intellectual game of cat-and-mouse with an existentially minded detective. Put your cryptic crossword down and just strangle people. Or don't bother.
Vampires. See? Worst. Vampires are the only monster that's actually grown less brutal and frightening as time has passed. Early vampires were stiff and aloof, with a cold sexual intent which was, at the very least, slightly creepy. Now they've got bloody feelings. They're lonely and tortured and all messed up inside. They spend more time staring at their shoes than killing people. Proper monsters only stare at their shoes when they're stamping on a villager's windpipe.
There is one good film about a meditative, troubled post-modern vampire: Martin, directed by zombie supremo George Romero in 1977. The main character is a disturbed young man who roams Pittsburgh by night, chemically sedating his victims with a syringe before razorblading their wrists and drinking their blood. But that's far too nasty and unsettling to pass muster as a vampire movie in today's wussy world.
No. Contemporary vampires come in two flavours, if you'll forgive the expression. Sexless wimps (Twilight) or smouldering hedonists (True Blood). Morrissey or Michael Hutchence. Both troubled. Both dreamy-eyed frontmen with nice hair. Forgive my pants for remaining unten.
It's a humiliating climbdown for a monster originally inspired by Vlad the Impaler, a man who'd happily eat his lunch while watching a skewered peasant slide down an immense wooden spike, being slowly and agonisingly dragged toward the ground by their own kicking, flailing body mass. Vlad would sit among entire forests of screaming human kebabs, chuckling and munching his oxburger or whatever the hell they ate back then.
Confronted with that kind of visceral horror, Robert Pattinson wouldn't make it through his asparagus and shaved parmesan starter. Even if he was only watching it on a 4-inch LCD screen. The .
Twilight? Pisslight, more like. |
[source] |
|
|
| Lilith |
| We need to get John Hughes writing more young people's movies again. |
|
|
| The17sss |
Great quote from that article:
| quote: | | Bad art is just bad art, but what Stephanie Meyer (and her publisher, and Summit) are doing amounts to selling tainted water to an audience that's dying of thirst in the desert. |
|
|
|
| Omega_Blue |
i admit- i've seen all three. with my girlfriend. WITH MY GIRLFRIEND GODDAMMIT STFU
they're all terrible. the second one is so god damned infuriating though, the entire time we were watching that film i was cursing at that dumb **** and squirming with indignation. i've never seen a protagonist portrayed as such a dumb, two-faced, ignorant... fffffuuuuu-
if you're curious about the movies, just download them and watch them. they're not totally unbearable (save for the sequel). tbh they could be worse though. the 2010 will smith's kid version of "karate kid" upset me waaaaay more than all of the twilight movies combined. i felt like choking that 8-year-old-looking, skinny punk-ass whiney-bitch nigga throughout the entire movie. awful, awful actor. will smith should be ashamed of himself for trying to forcefeed the public with his bratty, spoiled kid. there was this other white blonde-haired kid in the movie that was an even worse actor, fortunately they gave him like 3 lines in the movie and made him disappear, lol. |
|
|
| GoSpeedGo! |
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
Another interesting subject is exactly why this has become so popular. With most male-oriented genre fiction it's pretty easy to decode the popularity. Whether it's comic book superheroes, animé, Jedi, the Matrix or Harry Potter's wizards, they all revolve around marginalised, usually geeky male figures being granted extraordinary powers that transcend their physical and social limitations to allow them to become heroic and powerful. Twilight is one of the few hugely popular teen-oriented fantasy narratives that doesn't fit the model, and it happens to be mainly consumed by girls. So what's the secret? |
I think it's the idea of 'taming the monster' that is so appealing. Consider that an important part of the vampire myth has always been [surprise] sex; helpless innocent maidens getting bitten (raped) and all that jazz. Then comes Twilight where the heroine, a painfully average girl, somehow possesses this crazy ability to mentally manipulate the vampire and protect herself from being raped. She keeps getting all the attention, gets treated like a princess, receives presents, and all for no apparent reason - Bella is a girl that is loved simply for who she is, however illogical it may be. |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
Sounds stupid put that bluntly, but I think something like that may be at work. From what I have heard, the book is quite "chaste" in its treatment of relationships, which may appeal to women in the current climate of backlash against "raunch" sex culture and its alleged cheapening of female sexuality.
Then again, I think that trend may be pretty specifically American, so I doubt it explains much of Twilight's popularity elsewhere. |
I can buy into that, actually. The best theory I've heard thus far is that Twilight is the first major "fantasy for girls" franchise so it's filling a market gap to the geekier girls out there. But you don't just hear Twilight fans going "Finally a fantasy aimed at me" - it strikes a specific chord. And because it's a story about a relationship, I think it's plausible to say it's popular because it provides an idealised version of relationship to its fanbase, just like comics/anime/Star Wars/etc. provide an idealised image for male geeks.
| quote: | Originally posted by GoSpeedGo!
She keeps getting all the attention, gets treated like a princess, receives presents, and all for no apparent reason - Bella is a girl that is loved simply for who she is, however illogical it may be. |
I think the "taming the monster" notion is a little ornate, but I also think you're onto something here. Again it's an idealised relationship: ordinary, not particularly popular girl ends up with incredibly attractive, interesting, mysterious guy who has the alternative vampire idealisation to stress his removal from conventional male sex symbols - the kind they can never attract in reality.
So the question now is: how feminist or anti-feminist is Twilight as a result? |
|
|
| GoSpeedGo! |
I've never really studied feminism, but if we're talking in terms of some kind of equality between men and women then, if I recall it correctly, Bella actually yaerns for having the same superpowers Edward has, and tries to manipulate him to pass it on to her. Then she would have dominance over him not only mentally, but physically as well; Bella would become independent of Edward and there would probably be no need for him to come and save her from various dangers and reinforce his superiority.
Now that I think of it, Bella may be the real monster in this story. Edward is just an awkward guy who considers his sparkling skin embarassing (God/light now apparently blesses vampyrism?!) and just fell in love with a girl who he somehow can't figure out. The vampire family is an equivalent of a socially dysfunctional one, the kids keep studying high school(s) over and over again, after all.
I will have to think about this, I don't remember all the details very well now.
I also think the nerd rage over this is funny; don't men realize that all the half-naked female elves that keep showing up in those B-grade fantasy flicks are pretty much the same ? |
|
|
| DancingMonkey |
| quote: | Originally posted by GoSpeedGo!
I've never really studied feminism, but if we're talking in terms of some kind of equality between men and women then, if I recall it correctly, Bella actually yaerns for having the same superpowers Edward has, and tries to manipulate him to pass it on to her. Then she would have dominance over him not only mentally, but physically as well; Bella would become independent of Edward and there would probably be no need for him to come and save her from various dangers and reinforce his superiority.
Now that I think of it, Bella may be the real monster in this story. Edward is just an awkward guy who considers his sparkling skin embarassing (God/light now apparently blesses vampyrism?!) and just fell in love with a girl who he somehow can't figure out. The vampire family is an equivalent of a socially dysfunctional one, the kids keep studying high school(s) over and over again, after all.
I will have to think about this, I don't remember all the details very well now.
I also think the nerd rage over this is funny; don't men realize that all the half-naked female elves that keep showing up in those B-grade fantasy flicks are pretty much the same ? |
YOUVE OPENED MY EYES |
|
|
| Banora |
Out of curiosity I downloaded the first one last year and watched it. I will never have that two hours of my life back; there were several times I tried to stop the movie when something hilariously awful happened, and I would pause, wonder if what I saw really did occur, then continue watching.
I felt dirty afterward, and not the good kind of dirty. :nervous: |
|
|
|
|
