 |
  |
 
|
||
 Dec 15 2008, 04:07 AM
|
Thought this deserved a topic of its own, this movie blew!
Apathetic teen girl + mysterious vampire = NO WAI THEY FALL IN LOVE, DID NOT SEE THAT COMINZ = the end. Money back, pls.
|
The book was way better. The book is actually pretty good if you ignore the fact that there's not much of a plot line apart from ooh, cute vampire!
The first half of the movie was mind numbingly boring and the second half was oh hey, lets use some special effects! Not to mention the makeup in most of it was just oh so bad and the characters pretty much completely lacked personality. Yeah, don't go see it. It sucks.
|
I was thinking of making a rant about this... and here I have a tidy place to do so. SPOILERS AHEAD, but as if anyone cares.
1. Bella Swan is pretty much the biggest Mary Sue evar. And a shameless self-insert on Smeyer's part - tweaked to perfection, of course. Everyone loves her, despite the fact that she's distant towards them at best and at worst outrightly rude and dismissive. She walks into school and somehow everyone wants to do her. I've heard this doesn't happen in the movie as much, but in the books she is seriously whiny and really ungrateful for pretty much everything. She is also constantly going on about how she is not good enough for Edward and how she's just a useless human BAWWWW. We never find out what she likes (apart from a few "discussions" on books, which are of course related back to her relationship with Edward), we never get a sense of what she wants for her future, we never really find out ANYTHING about her except for the fact that she is an underweight adoraklutz with a big thing for vampires. 2. Edward is abusive like whoa. Seriously. In the 4th one she lives in active fear of him forcibly tying her down and aborting the baby. She has to get her sister in law to guard her. Yeah, healthy. He gets his sister to kidnap Bella when he's out of town so she can't go see her friends, he watched her while she slept without permission or her knowledge, he fucks around with her car so she can't drive to see her friends. He also lays a guilt trip on her 24/7 and basically does a whole heap of shit that, if it happened in real life, he'd get a restraining order slapped on him like whoa. When he leaves Bella in the second book she pretty much stops functioning without him and puts herself in seriously dangerous situations just so she can feel as though he is talking to her. And this is meant to be not only a HEALTHY relationship, but the GREATEST RELATIONSHIP EVER? And millions of teenaged girls want a boyf like ol' Eddy? OH HELL NO. 3. The characters are all one dimensional, with no real faults or flaws. Edward is perfect at everything he attempts and loaded to boot, Bella is adorably clumsy but in a very tokenistic-hey-look-you-guys-I-have-faults-too kind of way. During a 100 or so years of life Edward NEVER developed any interest in anything except for Bella. Bella doesn't really have interests except for Edward; she never had any friends before him, either. And at the end of the series a 100% happy ending is achieved without any real sacrifice. Even the big event of Bella turning into a vampire had no serious ill effects - she was *amazingly amazing* at resisting the *lure* of human blood, and was pretty much rational and fine from the get-go. She got to have a bb, keep in touch with her father and even reconcile shit with her bff. 5. The characters have no real relationship. Apart from a brief section in the first book where they discuss each other's favourite colours, breakfast cereals etc they never talk about anything apart from a) their undying love and b) their undying relationship and c) their undying feelings. They have no real connection, which is fair enough because neither of them are at all like real people. Even the whole I-want-to-eat-you-so-bad-you-smell-amazing-but-I-can't-because-I-want-to-be-good-and-I-luff-you-Bella part, which could have been interesting, was shit because it became pretty much immediately obvious that Eddy would do no such thing. What had potential for a really great, conflicting storyline just became puerile mush. Because... 5. It reads like a fan fiction. Seriously. Mucho adjective abuse, horrible sentence construction and a complete lack of respect for not making things sound like a half-baked romance novel. The woman cannot write. That she has been published is a travesty to literature and a slap in the face to real authors everywhere. She says 'chagrin', 'dazzled', 'hissed' and variations thereof so much that they stop sounding like words. 6. The ideas promoted in it are really creepy. For example: getting married at 19 to a guy you've known for 2 years is fine. Having a baby with same immediately after marriage is also fine. Giving up (literally) your life for this dude is also sweet. If you have a boyfriend there is no need to go to college or make other friends or have a life outside of him, because if it is real love then you won't need any of that. If your boyfriend stops you from seeing your friends, that's fine if it's because he 'cares' about you. And so on and so forth, until you basically want to smack Smeyer with a copy of 'The Second Sex'. 7. The whole werewolf-soulbonding thing is WRONG. It is WRONG to fall irrevocably in love with a two year old. It's also wrong to try and explain that away by saying "oh, but it's not sexual love! He'll be like her brother! He'll always be there for her, until she's ready for romance!" EVER HEARD OF CHILD GROOMING? Someone call Chris Hansen. It's not healthy or good to pressure people into loving you. It's also not good to soulbond with your ex/bff's NEWBORN CHILD. Just putting that out there. 8. Smeyer breaks her own rules. One minute vampire's can't have kids, the next she comes up with some hokey, bizarre, and completely illogical reason why vampire sperm still works - even if all their other bodily functions don't. 9. VAMPIRES DO NOT SPARKLE. VAMPIRES DO NOT SPARKLE. VAMPIRES DO NOT SPARKLE. This post has been edited by n0lite: Dec 15 2008, 08:42 AM
|
Wow damn at nolite didn't really know that the spoilers you were writing about were in the book not the movie...Bummer.
REALLY hated the girl actress she really didn't pull off the role and the commentary throughout it sounded way out of place and irritated me. The other guy was alright but yeah when my boyfriend was in hospital I read the whole book in a day so good.
|
Srsly? There's nothing to spoil : | While I can sorta kinda not-really-but-for-the-sake-of-argument see that the first book was boring and poorly written and promoted awful values, I mean, alright in a kind of guilty pleasure/trashy read sort of way, the rest of the series goes down the can faster than you can say "sparkle". They go exactly like this:
Edz: I <3 u but i am a ~monztar~! Bellz: no i <3 u but i am fug n not worth u Edz: no u r #1 Bellz: no u r #1 Edz: no u r srsly Bellz: no i <3 u moar dan u will evar no Ed: geez but bella im a monzda n i cud kill u but i cant cuz i <3 u Bellz: ur nut a munsdar ur amazin. i dun no whi u <3 me im fug Edz: no u r #1 ... WASH, RINSE, REPEAT. Chuck in a feeble plot in the last 100 or so pages of each book and a werewolf bff that wants puppies with BellaSue and that's about it, really. Oh, except for the last book. That's when things get freaky-deaky. This post has been edited by n0lite: Jan 16 2009, 12:46 PM
|
I went to see this last night... got to the theatre they're like 'oh yeah we're not doing the 640 show of twilight anymore' - thanks for writing it in the paper.
Ended up watching Grant Torino. Anyone who thinks Twilight is bad really needs to sit through Clint Eastwood trying to pretend he didn't lose it 20 years ago. It was like a bad midday movie. There are no words to express how bad it was. Now i'm not really sure if I should see twilight at all... hmm maybe on dvd.
|
i saw twilight the other day with my boyfriend. he picked it hehe. he thought the whole thing was corney except for when the chick snapped the bad vampire dudes head off and burned him. I personally thought the movie was okay but it moved way too slowly. and some parts of the movie were corney. like when he was showing bella what stuff he could do "i can do this this and this blah blah blah".
and the question we are all wanting the answer to is "where were the vampire fangs?"
|
They arnt vampires, a fundemental part of being a vampire is that sunlight burns you! no dazzeling crap.
|
QUOTE (slurpee @ Jan 19 2009, 03:20 AM)  They arnt vampires, a fundemental part of being a vampire is that sunlight burns you! no dazzeling crap. I thought in Bram Stoker's Dracula (ie. main vampire story) vampires could walk in the day, but when they made Nosferatu and basically made an unautherized movie of the book, they invented the concept of sunlight hurting vampires. In any case, you're still right, i just thought it was interesting because we think of Dracula as the essential vampire story yet because Nosferatu introduced the concept pretty much all vampire movies have it now.also: what about Blaaaade! lol. he's too badass to be hurt by sunlight...now that i think of it, in Blade 3 Dracula isn't hurt by the son because of the alleged purity or whatever, so perhaps there's some relivance to the original Dracula i've missed. eh...*shrugs* btw: twilight movie was pretty lame and didn't make me want to read the books. Best thing to come of the movie was the "Decode" filmclip lolz >3
|
QUOTE (slurpee @ Jan 19 2009, 01:20 PM) They arnt vampires, a fundemental part of being a vampire is that sunlight burns you! no dazzeling crap. Abso-bloody-lutely. Stoker's work is probably the most referenced and well-known vampire fiction, but although Dracula didn't burn up in sunlight he became much less powerful. He had other weaknesses, too: he's repelled by garlic and holy symbols, and he can only cross running water at certain times. Apart from being nonsensical. anti-egalitarian and basically some woman's marysue wet dream, I think my main issue with Twihard is that the vampires had no real weaknesses. She should have made it so that certain things do weaken or hurt them, or so that they can possibly be defeated by a large mob of humans. Also, it sort of pissed me off that none of the vamps were really dark, or sexual, twisted, or even truly dangerous, which are all major vampiric folklore themes. All the vampires were like characters off The Bold and the Beautiful. No, not even that interesting. (And don't give me any of Eddy-Kin's "I IZ A MONZTAR" crap.) Also: WHY THE HELL ARE THE CULLENZ AT SCHOOL? WOULDN'T IT BE EASIER FOR THEM TO STAY AT HOME AND PRETEND TO DO CORRESPONDENCE RATHER THAN JUST SIT AROUND BEING BORED ALL THE TIME? WHAT ARE THEY ACTUALLY DOING WITH THEIR IMMORTALITY? REPEATING HIGH SCHOOL OVER AND OVER? AREN'T THERE ARE MILLION BETTER THINGS TO DO? OH AND THEY ALL SUCK AT BLENDING IN WITH THE HUMANS. SITTING AND STARING AND NOT EATING IS HARDLY CONVINCING AND YOU WOULD THINK THAT AS THEY HAVE BEEN DOING IT SO LONG AND ARE ALL SO ~INTELLIGENT THAT THEY WOULD BE BETTER AT IT.
|
I remember Edward saying that the younger they pretend to be when they move somewhere new, the longer they can stay there. Its subterfuge babeh.
I found it ok, i think though thats because i hadnt read the books. Watching a movie of something you have read the book to is just disappointing, due to your own preconceptions of how the characters look/think/feel etc. I read Lord of the rings way before seeing the movies and was so disappointed , iono just my POV.
|
Yeah, I get the younger thing, but wouldn't it be easier for them to just lead a life with minimal human contact and do their own thing? None of them seem to like humans very much, they seem to think they're boring and stupid and lame. If they moved somewhere and were just sort of like "hi, y'all, we be homeschooled" and kept it at that then people would have much less chance to observe them and they could just do their own thing. Seriously, immortality is a shitty thing if you ask me, but if you had it wouldn't you use it for something better than repeating high school/pretending to go to college over and over again? It'd be pretty boring. Eddykins says something along the lines of he's been to med school several times. Which in the US I think is something you can only do at grad school. So if he can pass for someone who's in their twenties then why the hell is he at high school? Wouldn't it be better to do something with his education, as in more fufilling?
The only real reason I can think for them to be at HS is so they can get use to the smell of blood. But that's a pretty big risk (what if they snap and massacre it up? In the Eddykins-perspective book he talks about fighting the urge to do so and he's supposedly one of the more in-control vamps) that goes against the whole ~*Kullen Kode*~. Haha, oh plotholes.
|
The plot hole that bothered me the most is that they want to live 'Normal lives' so they go to the same high school over and over but they never talk to anyone so why bother?
And I don't think Edward went to med school just his dad ?
|
twilight...lets go!
I was recently taken to a screening of this film (not against my will) I paid my 10 dollar happily to the cute ticket guy because I wanted to know what the big idea was. I didn't even know of this cult harrypotteresk uprising that must have taken place whilst I was living a life free of whiny teen novels...I know, insanity... I sat happily in my seat whilst a young girl began her tale of leaving her mother to move to rainy Washington with her cop father...and then well... Dear Twilight: have you heard of sub-text...? The only thing I can take from the lack of subtext in this film is that vampires must be a new type of creature who can only say exactly what they are thinking or feeling...or just perhaps that this film was very poorly adapted from the novel,(melissa rosenburg Im looking at you!), which seems to be like making an adaptation of a mental patients fecal wall scrawling into a film... This seems to want to want to insult me.... Dear twilight: have you heard of pacing, casting actors, having a plot, not making us watch angsty children recreate the last three years of high school.... I mean all I need to do is replace the word vampire with emo and strong with depressed and it's prom night at my old highscool... lets not go to the point that all the women in this film are being controlled by men or abandoning their children...apparently Stephanie Meyers is angered by those free wheeling libbos who seem to believe that the last 40 years has taken place and there was indeed a feminist movement in there somewhere...don't worry stephy you have peeps to keep you company...Miss Rowling. It's not totes fun to run around loving the twilight...it represents a trend that has been allowed to perpetuate because teen kids will now accept any drivel sneezed out by some talentless writer/screen writer...These film are being made, funding is going to these films, these empty and uninteresting 'actors' are getting attention, these hack writers are our getting money and an entire demographic of film goers looses out on the treasure of good story telling...the magic of having the light dimmed around you and having a story lovingly crafted for you...characters appear on screen and we are allowed to interpret their actions, defining and charge changing moments force us to alter our perceptions of places and events.... Instead this film was made and I sat for two hours and was told how to feel and exactly how they felt by these pale faced CKny models and forced to toil in darkness waiting for a direction to follow...a small stream to place my paper boat of giving a shit about this film, which eventually trickled dimly through the isle half way through this film and lead me to a derivative and reconstituted conclusion...all the guess work was taken out...the film was quite sure i didn't need to do any work...much like hiring a prositute...if i pay for it I want it to be a little stimulated, I want to be interested, sometimes scared, I wanted there to be pressure, intrigue and climax...I guess I'm trying to say this film was dud sex with an aging prossy in a back staff bathroom of a kmart loading bay... That seems to sum it up... twilight.....more like 'gay Mcfaglight' B the y SEVEN POUNDS ALSO FAILED! but being shocked that will smith's new film is bad is like being shocked when anna nicole died
Attached File(s)
|
Trust me, roboito, the book was, if anything, worse. I agree with pretty much everything you said except...
JK Rowling is sexist?? I don't think so. I mean, her books are full of strong, intelligent, capable women. The smartest student at Hogwarts is a female(Hermione); the best and most respected teacher is female (McGonnagal); some of the best Quidditch players are female (Angelina, Katie, Alicia); the kindest, most nurturing character in the books is female (Mrs Weasely); the Order of the Phoenix is full of brave, strong women (Fleur, Tonks, Mrs Weasely, Hermione again); the person who made the ultimate sacrifice and therefore made the entire series possible is female (Lily); the woman Pottsy eventually ends up with is shown to be every bit as strong, talented and brave as he is; and just for equalities sake, some of the most sadistic and cruel characters were female (Bellatrix/Umbridge). None of the female characters were shown to be inferior or obiedient towards their male counterparts, and none of the female characters faced any oppression or setbacks because of their gender. I think the books are well-written and that the character and storyline development is fantastic, but I'm not the sort of person who writes fanfic or has HP merch or whatever. I don't even like the movies. But yeah, once in a while when I'm bored I'll read through the books and it's sort of like visiting an old friend. It's like comfort reading. And one of the things I really, really like about them is how egalitarian they are. Gender, race and sexual orientation are all by-the-by in HP world, and one of the series' major themes is how awful discrimination is. So yeah, I'm going to have to say that I don't know wtf you're talking about when you say Rowling is sexist. Why do you think so? This post has been edited by n0lite: Jan 26 2009, 03:44 AM
|
Well here is where I'm coming from...
It is true that within the HP world (which I am not fully inducted into as I have only read 6 of the 7 books) there is indeed no repression of women by society shown. Women are given all the same rights as men it seems. Which seems a little disturbing as even without these societal repressions women still play secondary roles to men. The strongest and most focused on female character within the HP series is Hermione, who is the smartest and strongest with magic out of our three leads. However she time and time again placed in the nurturing role and falls second to harry. Prof McGonnagal falls second into command to Dumbledore. etc etc The only time we see a woman fully in control is in a domestic situation. At Privit dr where the woman (harry's Aunt) take control of household chores and of the men within and the male is the bread winner. And Ron's home where his mother also takes control of household chores and the children, whist yet again the male plays the bread winner... Female character are constantly shown as second in command to men, but without societal pressures to do so. It seems to suggest women are implicitly weak and constantly working comfort men and help them achieve. Also this book series rambles on, the writing style is annoying ie. This happened, then this happen oh and then this happened, without any sort of flavor. Chapters are jammed in that stretch on for 20-30 pages without any sort of baring on the plot or even character exposition...This series feels rather more like an afternoon soapy that we constantly tune in for just to see how exactly rocket boy gets out of the wayward car.
|
So, what I get from your post is that because one of the many women I listed is a home-maker and that another comes "second" to her male counter part and is shown in a "nurturing" role, the book must be antifeminist. No. Showing some women as mothers, friends and wives is not anti-feminist, it's realistic. And as I listed in my previous post, many other women were depicted in roles far outside the "domestic". If a women displays some compassion towards others, or is helpful, or gives a crap, that's not anti-feminist. That's called being a decent human being. Being feminist or for equal rights doesn't mean refusing to have children, get married or do anything considered "feminine". It's about being assertive and making your own choices in life, and fighting for an equal playing field. It doesn't mean defining yourself by what you aren't or fighting against things that come naturally to you.
Hermione is not shown as "coming second" to Harry. She is shown, time and time again, to perform better at school than he does, and is far more studious, organized and reliable than him or anyone else at school. She is also indepenantly passionate about things the males in her life couldn't care less about. When it comes to fighting Voldemort she does just as much as Harry, and often it is her research that helps them solve the latest mystery. (And no, that's not putting her life aside to help Harry; it's to help the cause that she believes in and she maintains her "life" just fine.) She does not attempt to nurture anyone; she helps Harry and Ron with their work, which again simply proves the point that she is superior in that field. She cares for her friends, as one would hope would be the case in any friendship. That's not a sign of weakness. As for McGonagal, of course she falls second to Dumbledore. Everyone in the HP universe does. He's in a category entirely of his own. That was not my point. My point is that out of the many teachers in the school, male and female, she is portrayed as the most respectable. She doesn't take any shit from students, staff or the ministry and holds her own against various enemies. Harry's aunt and uncle are shown to be shallow, petty, often cruel people, so if there is any case in which a woman is portrayed as "subserviant" then yes, that is it. The Dursleys are representative of everything mundane and small-minded; obviously Rowling does not promote their behaviour as ideal. Now, Mrs Weasely. I knew this would come up. Her husband works, yes. She cooks and cleans, yes. But who runs the family? Who keeps the kids in line? How many times does she put Arthur in his place when he's going off on a Muggle-tangent? Who do the kids in that family view as their authority figure? Her. She wears the pants in that relationship, for sure. She also presents a strong, commanding front outside of her house. She is a major player in the order of the phoenix and well-respected by the wizarding community. And that's what I find objectionable. The fact that a female character is (gasp!) a wife and a homemaker is not antifeminist. Someone has to do those things, even in a magical world. Raising children and looking after a house is a real job, one every bit as difficult and important and rewarding as working in an office somewhere. Possibly more so. Her profession does not make her who she is; it is her thoughts, actions and behaviour that do. It's bigotted and stereotypical to assume that every woman who "keeps house" is a subserviant maid-replacement, or that housekeeping is somehow inferior to a "real job". By looking at things this way then we are doing exactly what the feminist movement strives against; pigeonholing people and telling them that because of outside appearances, this is who they are. It's not the case. Portraying a woman who is a stay-at-home-mother is realisic, as many women do this. It's their choice. If Rowling portrayed her as weak or under her husband's thumb, then yes. That would be sexist or anti-feminist. But she portrays her as a woman who has managed to successfully feed, clothe and raise a large family with limited funds, and she's instilled some values in the process. That is a difficult task. It's demeaning to brush it off as "only domestic". And what is wrong about being "nurturing"? If you're in a position that calls for nurturing, then you should do so. Male or female. It's not a negative thing. So, I'll ask again, because I really don't get this. How are women shown as implicitly weak, or working only so the men in their lives can suceed?
|
Harry Potter? This is twilight kids!! Tad off topic
By the way appreciation for Nikki Reed in this movie. She got about 2 lines in the movie which sucked but I think she is awesome anyway  That's my idea of curvy + hot
|
inorite? Somehow people always draw comparisons between Pottsy and Twilight, and I don't get why. They really have nothing to do with each other.
Nikki is hot as. And pretty smart, too, she wrote the 13 screen play in her teens (I think 13 is a load of horse shit but the point is that how many teenagers write their own movie? It's pretty cool even if you didn't like it). loool, I hate it when morbidly obese people are labeled 'curvy', it turns it into a bad thing when clearly it's awesome. Nikki demonstrates that!
|
|
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 22nd May 2013 - 07:48 PM |