Twilight Series

[luckystar]

I havent watched it or read the book yet but from clips i have seen and the actors who appear in it and what i have read about her complete change of the vampire mythology all i can say is this series belongs in the ground with the characters she created, give me dracula anyday.

 

[Edmund Blackadder]

I haven't read the books, nor seen the film, so I can't say too much about it. What annoys me about the whole Twilight thing is, like already has been mentioned, the fact that Meyer didn't even bother wikipedia-ing the Vampire lore. I mean, it is such an old myth, that appears throughout ages and pops up in places all over the world. If you want to write about them, at least a quick google search for the basics shouldn't be too much of an effort? Vampires can't survive in sunlight. Even in China they can't. If you want to make sparkly, highly attractive and brooding creatures, than don't call them vampires, because, hell, they aren't. It's like very small giants, unicorns without a horn, wizards that aren't into magic or mermaids with legs.

Erm, heres what bothers me.
You've not read the books nor seen the film yet you have an opinion on it.

Fact of the matter is that Vampires are not real so Meyers can, if she chooses, make up anything she likes in her fictional world.

I'm not a fan but you never know, you might like it if you give it a go.

There are many stories involving Vampires that have taken elements previously seen and changed it or expanded on them.

I think what she has chosen is silly, but I don't hold it against her that she tried to be different.

---------- Post added at 04:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:57 PM ----------

Ohh and Itsexy, I dislike you a little bit for making me even come close to defending that drivel!

 

[Crazy Flakes]

Here's what bothers me about the "BUT VAMPIRES AREN'T REAL BAWWW" argument. If I made a movie or book about zombies who were inhumanly beautiful and fell in love with humans and shot rainbows out of their asses, no one would even remotely consider it a "zombie movie." They would laugh and say, "Pssh, that's not a zombie!" Why should Twilight doing something very similar to that be any different?

I don't see why she couldn't have just created a new type of blood-drinking "monster" instead of twisting vampire lore to virtually unrecognizable levels.

 

[Mumrik]

There are many stories involving Vampires that have taken elements previously seen and changed it or expanded on them.

I think what she has chosen is silly, but I don't hold it against her that she tried to be different.

But Meyer didn't even bother to have a look at other vampire lore. If she'd read a few novels, watched a few movies or hell, even looked it up on Wikipedia for three seconds, and decided, "Nope, I don't like that. I WANT SPARKLES!" that'd be fine.

Of course, vampires are entirely fictional and everybody can do what they want to with them, but you still have to do your research.

 

[Airam]

See, I take slight issue with everyone dumping on Twilight and Stephenie for daring to be a little different when creating HER fictional world. Its fiction, like EB said she is fully in her right to make up whatever rules for her vampires that she damn well pleases. Vampires are hurt by sunlight, thats a constant in most all vampire things right? Well Twilightverse vampires are hurt by sunlight, the Cullens' #1 priority is blending in, to appear human to those around them. Hanging out in the sunlight for all to see their pretty sparkeling skin would be like suicide to them. So they are forced to choose overcast places to live in and have to stay in when its sunny and clear out. Spike and Angel are constantly walking around in the shadows. I really don't get all the slack for switching up the mythology a little bit. There are a basis of rules for vampires but most things put their own spin on it... True Blood's got some crazy rules, Moonlight had even crazier ones. Its all subjective and I feel the author or creator should be free to create their fiction without so much scrutiny.

 

[xaphania]

I kind of agree with what people are saying about SMeyer changing vampire lore to suit her own purposes.

Say you know nothing about Twilight, not what it's about nor that it's a vampire novel, and you read a description of Edward, you'd be forgiven for wondering what the heck kind of creature she'd created:

A pale creature that looks like a human, is exceptionally strong, has cold, stone like skin, amber eyes, lives off animal blood and sparkles in the sunlight.

Whereas if you described Spike to someone who'd never heard of, seen or knew anything about Buffy -

A creature that looks human, that is very strong, has fangs, can't go out in the sunlight, lives off human or animal blood and lives in a crypt.

-you'd probably guess straight away that he's a vampire. So yeah, I don't know why she didn't just create a whole new species considering the only thing her vampires have in common with traditional vamps is the drinking of blood.

On the other hand, perhaps she really was trying to inject some new life into vampire mythology.

That video that someone posted a page or so back was funny 😀 I showed it to my friend (HUGE Twilight fan), and she got snarky at me and told me never to send her stupid links again. Heh.

 

[SpikedBuffy]

I was just thinking about this, though. There are a lot of people who are absolutely convinced the book sucks because the vampire mythology was changed. Yet that's exactly what Joss Whedon did with his vampire world. How many vampires drink pigs blood they get from the butcher and have souls? He changed it too. (Yes, I do agree that he changed it very convincingly and wonderfully, so don't start that he was a flipping genuis and we should all bow down to him).

Some people were able to accept his changed vampire mythology, and others are able to accept this change vampire mythology as well.

 

[xaphania]

For me, the changed vampire mythology is near the bottom of the reasons why I don't like it.

It's strange though, I did used to like the series a lot - then I read Breaking Dawn, re-read the other books and just felt very "meh" about the whole thing.

I guess my tastes just changed.

 

[Perny]

It's just......they sparkle!!!!!!!!!!!

(sw)

 

[Kean]

She does sound like she is constantly on the verge of an EPIC orgasm in that movie in every scene!

Persoanlly I think she cosntantly looks like she is smelling a truly horrible fart in every scene. But that's just me.

 

[Perny]

Persoanlly I think she cosntantly looks like she is smelling a truly horrible fart in every scene. But that's just me.

Vampire fartsies...Yum....

 

[Mommatis]

I don't know why she didn't just create a whole new species considering the only thing her vampires have in common with traditional vamps is the drinking of blood.

Because then she couldn't tap in to the fairly huge Vamp-Fan-Base and make lots of monies... Srsly it probably wouldn't have even gotten published.

 

[Perny]

I am thinking that Twilight might be more about fairly emotional(not to mention big) fairies with bad temper. Fairies sparkle.....


I wonder what's next...OOH, I'd love to see a sparkly Werewolf in the moonlight...It'd be like a trip to the 70's disco nights

 

[Joan the Vampire Slayer]

I was just thinking about this, though. There are a lot of people who are absolutely convinced the book sucks because the vampire mythology was changed. Yet that's exactly what Joss Whedon did with his vampire world. How many vampires drink pigs blood they get from the butcher and have souls? He changed it too. (Yes, I do agree that he changed it very convincingly and wonderfully, so don't start that he was a flipping genuis and we should all bow down to him).

Some people were able to accept his changed vampire mythology, and others are able to accept this change vampire mythology as well.

I agree, Spikedbuffy. SM "changing" the vampire mythology is certainly not the reason I dislike her books. Everyone has the right to write whatever they please (unfortunately, case in point, not all of it is worth reading).

So, she desided to put a new spin on the over-used vampire/human romance idea. Whatever. She's certainly not the first author to capitalize on the newest tween vampire craze. I applaud her in this aspect - I bet she's totally loaded off her series.

I simply dislike her books based on the fact that they're poorly written, completely mediocre, and well - boring. Plus, Edward is a total creeper. There is some great vampire fiction out there - but in opinion, SM will never be a part of that club. I can see the allure of reading the books, they are a great form of escapism. I just don't agree with her thinly-veiled Mormon "lessons" embedded in the story and of course, you all know I think the books are anti-feminist.

I am interested. though, in the vast popularity of the novels. I have always been interested in popular culture and how it reflects a certain generation's trends and beliefs and what not. if anyone cares what else I think about the books, check out the closed Twilight thread. I was quite vocal in there 🙂

 

[SpikedBuffy]

Oh yes, I agree that a lot of people don't like them because they are what they consider mediocre and poorly written. Never once have I ever had the thought that SM is a great writer. In fact, I think that she is very mediocre. And I cannot stand her other novel "The Host".

I think the reason that I like the books so much is because I like the characters. I have never found them to be anti-feminist. But then again I think that women can rely on their husbands to take care of them and still be powerful. I also think women should be allowed to stay home and raise their children and keep their home without being criticized by women who prefer to fulfill their lives by working. So, that has never bothered me, because I love how Bella relies on Edward to protect her.

I have never jumped on the 'creeper' phase either. Maybe because I don't fully understand the term, but I'm guessing it has to do with Edward staying in her bedroom while Bella sleeps. I don't take that as a creeper, I take that as an aspect of their relationship. Some couples will tell you that spending time together while sleeping, even though you're sleeping, is extremely comforting and romantic. That's how I always thought of that. Edward and Bella want to be together every moment they can, so he stays with her. He doesn't sleep, so he just does whatever while she's sleeping. But they have the extreme experience of waking up together, happy and in love.

 

[Joan the Vampire Slayer]

But then again I think that women can rely on their husbands to take care of them and still be powerful. I also think women should be allowed to stay home and raise their children and keep their home without being criticized by women who prefer to fulfill their lives by working. So, that has never bothered me, because I love how Bella relies on Edward to protect her.

Well, I respect your opinion, but I have to disagree. I don't think that Bella should be consitered a good role model for young girls. She is willing to give up everything; her family, her personality and soul to be with Edward, arguably as an extension of him. I think our girls should be raised with strong women role models who are independant and don't need to rely on men to be happy. Again, just my opinion. Twilight gives girls an unrealistic depiction of love. Sure, argue it's fictional and they know that - but do they? Children (or "tweens as they're called) often cannot associate the difference between fantasy and reality. I am scared by how massively popular the series in for this reason.

Although, I agree with you about women who want to raise children and keep house being critisized unfairly. That is certainly a valid life choice. My criticism of Bella's character is not regarding the fact that she fell in love with Edward - it is in her incapacity to be happy without him that disturbs me. Bell gives up her life to be with him. That is not love on his part. That is selfishness.

 

[Edmund Blackadder]

Here's what bothers me about the "BUT VAMPIRES AREN'T REAL BAWWW" argument. If I made a movie or book about zombies who were inhumanly beautiful and fell in love with humans and shot rainbows out of their asses, no one would even remotely consider it a "zombie movie." They would laugh and say, "Pssh, that's not a zombie!" Why should Twilight doing something very similar to that be any different?

I don't see why she couldn't have just created a new type of blood-drinking "monster" instead of twisting vampire lore to virtually unrecognizable levels.

Ohhh Zombies, lets take Zombies.
Initially Zombies were automated feeding 'demons' that were required to move extremely slowly because of the decompositiono of their dead bodies and moving fast would tear them apart.
Now look at the faithful Zombie portrayed in movies movie alot quicker and even have a small amount of sentience to chase after their 'food'.
Things are changed and adapted because we would get bored if we never saw the beasties in new dimensions.

But Meyer didn't even bother to have a look at other vampire lore. If she'd read a few novels, watched a few movies or hell, even looked it up on Wikipedia for three seconds, and decided, "Nope, I don't like that. I WANT SPARKLES!" that'd be fine.

Of course, vampires are entirely fictional and everybody can do what they want to with them, but you still have to do your research.

I am pretty sure that there is a basic understanding of what Vampires are and how they can be defeated.
She decided to tackle the vampires her own way.
I have no issue with that because she isn't the first and won't be the last.

For me, the changed vampire mythology is near the bottom of the reasons why I don't like it.

It's strange though, I did used to like the series a lot - then I read Breaking Dawn, re-read the other books and just felt very "meh" about the whole thing.

I guess my tastes just changed.

BUT the point is there are people judging the book just on that - we have someone here who hasn't read the books but has judged it on that - so kudos on you being adult enough to make an informed decision (FYI - I did the same) but the problem is others that don't.

Persoanlly I think she cosntantly looks like she is smelling a truly horrible fart in every scene. But that's just me.

Maybe thats her 'special times' face!



FYI - I hate you all for making me defend this tripe!

 

[Blondie Bear]

I haven't read the books, but I've read enough ABOUT them, talked to people who have read them, and seen enough excerpts of her crappy writing to know I wouldn't like them. I'm aware of the anti-feminist message, the way-too-many adjectives, and the creepy storylines; I don't need to read them to know I would hate every second I spent trying to.

 

[Perny]

I've only read the first book, but it was enough for me. The plot is as I said before, stupid, and the writing is horrible. OK so Joss changed a few things with Buffy too, but the way he turned the vampire myth was done smoothly. Everything had an explenation! Not just suddenly "And then he got a soul." but also the background story. It means a lot!

---------- Post added at 02:14 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:27 AM ----------

XD

 

[Edmund Blackadder]

I haven't read the books, but I've read enough ABOUT them, talked to people who have read them, and seen enough excerpts of her crappy writing to know I wouldn't like them. I'm aware of the anti-feminist message, the way-too-many adjectives, and the creepy storylines; I don't need to read them to know I would hate every second I spent trying to.

John Humphreys, a british journalist and and a very respected man went on a TV show called 'I've never watched Star Wars', a show where people do 5 things they've never done before, and he was given The Da Vinci Code.
"He'd read enough ABOUT them, talked to people who have read them, and seen enough excerpts of his crappy writing to know I wouldn't like it."
BUT when he actually sat down and read it, while he still said that the writing was appalling, the story was fun and he enjoyed it - a sentiment I don't agree with BUT the fact is, even though he was sure he would hate it, he was surprised to find he didn't.

Point is don't judge a book until you've read it...or something similar.

I've only read the first book, but it was enough for me. The plot is as I said before, stupid, and the writing is horrible. OK so Joss changed a few things with Buffy too, but the way he turned the vampire myth was done smoothly. Everything had an explenation! Not just suddenly "And then he got a soul." but also the background story. It means a lot!

You've read one book - ok, thats like watching season one of Buffy and thinking you've got the entire redefinition of Vampires and Demons and vampires with souls.
Stories are more complex than that.
Now, if you choose not to read the rest because the first book is just THAT bad then fair enough, but don't argue there isn't explanation in the first book because if Joss explained everything in the first season we wouldn't have had 6 more years PLUS 5 years of a spin off.