O negative, really that great?

Pandora · **Posted:** Tue Mar 31, 2009 10:38 pm

anyone else a bit dissapointed with the twilight movie, or the book for that matter.

I tried to read the first chapter on the net, and well it's too much of a soppy school girl story to really be that interesting to me. I can't be the only one who can't understand why everyone likes this story.

vampirehunter42 · **Posted:** Tue Mar 31, 2009 10:57 pm

Wow, you went further than I was able to go on the movie/book. All I did was look at the poster and saw a "hot guy and girl" (more notice on the hot guy) and knew it was some type of "chick flick". (no offence to the girls/women of the site) But it is the same wonder of why people liked 'Titanic' so much. Of what I can tell is it a tragic love story of sorts, and for some reason people eat that up. Maybe a ‘Romeo and Juliet’ type thing, two lovers from different worlds or something like that. Either way they are ideas done to death, but the zombie minded movie watchers will keep flocking to it.

Though my sister is trying to read the book, I will ask her what she thinks of it. We have some of the same views on things.

But I do have a harsh view on movies as a whole. I find fault in movies I like.

Matty Lee · **Joined:** Thu Mar 26, 2009 10:45 pm **Posts:** 20

http://impishidea.com/criticism/331/eve ... ght-part-8

Twilight isn't quality literature in the least. Not by a long shot, and this article is far from the only reason. (there is an entire series of articles on the subject)

Ersska · **Posted:** Wed Apr 01, 2009 2:20 am

My sister read the first two books and even asked for them for Christmas! She never reads. I'm not a big vampire fan, so the story never really interested me. But considering my sister actually asked me to buy the books for her, I decided to check them out. I was upset with it by the time I finished the first page. You know a book is not very well written if you can find grammatical errors on the first page. Now, granted, I am an English major, and I tend to pick things apart without really thinking about it. The little things have become pet peeves. Therefore, by the end of the first page, I was already upset with the book. I didn't get much farther (only 3 or 4 pages) after that. A friend of mine (also an English major with the same pet peeves) has attempted to read the book. He has only read a little over half of it during the three months he has had it (and he loves vampires).
I did sit through the movie, however. A friend of mine bought it and wanted to watch it. I, unfortunately, happened to be at her house that night. My friend (who has read all the books) informed me afterwards that the movie had left parts of the book out. But, it was still more than enough to make me want to read the books even less and to find Meyers and beat her for ruining vampires! Since when do vampires sparkle "like diamonds" in the sunlight? It made me laugh to think that a creature as feared as a vampire sparkles in it's true form. Seriously, the guy looked like a glittering lizard. Also, I know that vampires can be stronger and faster than the average human, but since when are they able to keep up with Superman?
Then there's the bad acting in the movie. The fact that the guy who plays Edward is not the least bit hot (in my opinion) but is suppose to be like the best looking thing on the planet. Also, the supposedly toughest vampire dies way too easily. Yes, I know that the book is told from Bella's perspective and that she blacks out during that part, but they could have done something better in the movie than a simple two minute fight scene. I mean, he's suppose to be a bada$$, not go down halfway into the fight. Oh, and the fight was in a ballet studio filled with MIRRORS! And the vampires had REFLECTIONS! That's not right. Not to mention at the end of the movie, Edward gets his PICTURE taken with Bella.
Yeh, needless to say, I will not be purchasing nor re-watching the movie. The only interest I have in the books is the fact that werewolves come into play later on (werewolves are my favorite). Then again, I'm too scared to even find out how horribly Meyers is going to butcher. . .I mean, portray them.

Pandora · **Posted:** Wed Apr 01, 2009 3:58 am

I'm glad to see there's a lot of people who agree with me on this one. There are a bunch of loons who will fight tooth and nail over this stuff.

Knowing they published such bull makes me think that none of us will have any trouble getting our work published since from what I've seen, everyone on this website can do better than twilight, and then some.

They think that load of bull is amazing, we're all sitting on million dollar dimonds, Now if I were only better at spelling.....

Falconer · **Posted:** Wed Apr 01, 2009 1:03 pm

Thank you, Matty, I now have soda spray over my laptop and Coke in my nose. Seriously, that was a funny link.

Ersska · **Posted:** Wed Apr 01, 2009 3:34 pm

You're not the only one, Pandora. I had a girl almost jump me because I said Edward was not hot and then proceeded to make fun of him being sparkly. Yeh, she went into fight mode. . .I thought it was funny.

Oh, and another thing that bothered me about the whole affair was the stalking. There was one scene in the movie where Edward suddenly shows up, out of nowhere, just in time to save Bella. Then soon after he magically appears in Bella's room. She asked, "How did you get in?"
"Through the window."
"Do you do that often?"
"Only in the past few months." Then he proceeds to tell her that he's intrigued by how she looks (or sounds or something) while she sleeps. He has been sneaking into her room to watch her sleep! He's STALKING her! And she ENJOYS it! By that point in time, I would keep a stake close at hand and tell him to stay away or else. That's not the kind of attention you should want from a boy (or girl or anybody for that matter).

And then people wonder why today's youth is so totally warped. . .

Blue Tiger · **Joined:** Sun Feb 18, 2007 6:16 am **Posts:** 443

I never read the book, I saw the film not long after it came out. I thought it was quite good, I would class the film as a classic teenager bookish film.
And there was a few parts where I thought, "wow, this is really pervy..." but anyway... there was some interesting ideas for the vampires too, like the sunlight/skin thing... But definitely targeted at teens...

Pandora · **Posted:** Wed Apr 01, 2009 5:06 pm

well then maybe that explains it, I'm technically not a teen anymore.

Of course, the movie would be better than the book since it can show detail where someone might not have the know how to write.

Blue Tiger · **Joined:** Sun Feb 18, 2007 6:16 am **Posts:** 443

Yes its always the same, books are always better than the films made from them. theres too any examples.. LOTR, Eragon, forgot the others, will remember them later...lol

Falconer · **Posted:** Wed Apr 01, 2009 5:29 pm

Inkheart
Journey to the Center of the Earth
Spiderwick Chronicles

vampirehunter42 · **Posted:** Wed Apr 01, 2009 6:21 pm

Glitter in the sunlight? The only thing a vampire should do in the sunlight is fry. Really (to link this to the time travail thread), if I could go back in time and interact with the past, I would knee Bram Stoker in the groin many times. He ruined vampire legends. Just read the old things. They are nothing like the stuff now.

But the main problem for the 'book to movie' thing is a lot of stuff look a lot better on paper than they do on a screen. And normally those are the best parts of the book. Even The Princes Bride had large chunks taken out of it, and the screen play was written by the writer of the book.

Pandora · **Posted:** Wed Apr 01, 2009 6:51 pm

well I admit that one of my own characters, Ivan which most of you know because he get's used in rps a lot can go into the sun and not fry, but there is a reason for that, and plus he doesn't glitter that's just freegen gay!

He's special cuz one he's a vampire lord, and two he's not really a vampire but a vampirum. if you want to know the detail on him and his story let me know and I'll do some kind of artwork post on it.

anywho, I think the whole burn in the sun thing is a bit overrated. I perfur saying they get really bad sunburn.

vampirehunter42 · **Posted:** Thu Apr 02, 2009 12:52 am

Yea, I am a little old school with my use of vampires. I like the idea they can not cross running water and things like that. It makes great games, you can really use a vampire to its full power at times like that. I once had one dominate a member of an adventuring party to believe the rest of the party's lives were in danger if they passed a certain point. And he must use all of his power to stop them from crossing it. Made a sweet escape doing that, but that is D&D rules.

I normally make the older and stronger undead, much more like a corpse. As time goes their undeath almost can't hold them together. But again that is more D&D influence. That is how you treat a Lich as they age.

Blue Tiger · **Joined:** Sun Feb 18, 2007 6:16 am **Posts:** 443

vampirehunter42 wrote:

Glitter in the sunlight? The only thing a vampire should do in the sunlight is fry. Really (to link this to the time travail thread), if I could go back in time and interact with the past, I would knee Bram Stoker in the groin many times. He ruined vampire legends. Just read the old things. They are nothing like the stuff now.

What was wrong with Bram Stokers vampires? I thought that he did keep to the old legends?

vampirehunter42 · **Posted:** Sat Apr 04, 2009 6:35 pm

He did and didn't. He added the romance part of it. He kept the a lot of the ideas I like, but he romance part is what brought forth thinks like Buffy and its runoffs.

Falconer · **Posted:** Mon Apr 06, 2009 10:15 am

Romance? I read the original Dracula and the only romance is his attempt to convert an unwilling Mina Harker to vampirism.

Corva · **Joined:** Tue Jul 18, 2006 3:05 pm **Posts:** 1657

I must admit, I have all four of the books. They aren't that bad, though maybe only twice as good as JKR.

I didn't get the 'glittering in the sunlight' stuff. It wasn't needed till the second book, and not really even then.

Oh, if you want to know about the werewolves... well, they are big people who turn, in a flash, to big wolves. No transmission, either, except through reproduction.

vampirehunter42 · **Posted:** Mon Apr 06, 2009 5:57 pm

Falconer wrote:

Romance? I read the original Dracula and the only romance is his attempt to convert an unwilling Mina Harker to vampirism.

Ok, I must note. I find the woman's neck the sexiest part of the body. And Stolker brought the feeding from the neck into the story. That is a very sensual thing to do. (unless you make it a habit of nuzzling other peoples necks) Dracula is a hansom suave gentleman, a man most any woman would fall for. This may not be a ‘clean’ love, but it is a form of it. Compared to the repulsive walking corpses of older tells. Who fed through the chest.

On the other book note. I have to add my sister likes the book and movie, and said she is going to get the other books.

Falconer · **Posted:** Tue Apr 07, 2009 10:26 am

Uh... more detail than I wanted, thank you....

Stoker introduced the neck bite? Huh. It actually seems more logical, all the main arteries in the chest are located pretty deep, whereas in the neck I could see a set of fangs reaching them.

vampirehunter42 · **Posted:** Tue Apr 07, 2009 6:15 pm

Yes and no. Some vampire mythos say they drank the "life essence" out of the victim. No biting, they would feed by laying their hand on the victim. This was normally a close family member. Like a older sibling coming back to feed on the younger ones. I need to search a bit more to find others, I’ll try to get some Greek myths. Everything now are copy and paste jobs from the other sites that use only modern myths.

Check these out though, I found them a good read.

http://www.cse.unr.edu/~lambertt/vamp.html

http://nmhm.washingtondc.museum/collect ... mpire.html

Blue Tiger · **Joined:** Sun Feb 18, 2007 6:16 am **Posts:** 443

So apart from the romance addition, nothing else was really amiss? In the Bram Stokers Dracula film, dracula turned to mist, a wolf, a freaky half bat, a werewolf (very ugly, lol), and changed from an old man to a younger man. Also, no reflection and aversion to the cross, but rather than having no shadow, his shadow moved on its own(very funny)

And earlier legend of vampires says that they were more like zombies, or unclean ugly men, who crush and smother their victims while they fed. The clean shaven vampire like dracula didnt apear until the 19th century CE. Thats all from a book I have somewhere...

But, the legend of Dracula being Vlad the Impaler also stands, and Vlad was probably a realy person and the dracual legend may have formed from his reputation. Also, Dracula means Son of the Dragon.

Silentiea · **Posted:** Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:24 am

While the legend of the vampire is decently well-spread, I know it has a bunch of variations from region to region.

In some traditional Russian fairytales, vampires were just amorphous globs of blood with no other physical body.

Sometimes taking it back to tradition isn't best for the genre.

Pandora · **Posted:** Thu Apr 09, 2009 3:51 pm

Oh vampirehunter, showing us a more sensitive side are we? Hee, hee I just had to say that.

Anywho, I kinda like the idea of vampires being hansom or pretty. It's part of the imortal touch of being a vampire I think.

And vampire have always been kind of about romance. If you really think about it. The girl in the story is always saved by the hansom guy who slays the vampire and them they fall in love, or the vampire loves a girl he know he can't have so he forces her to love him back. It's kind of a set up for a tragic love story that you know won't end well.

Then they started the thing were the girl in question finally realizes that the vampire really does love her, and she starts to love him back. Not a bad plot, but it wasn't displayed well in twilight by any means.

You wnat a good story to read that goes along the same plot, but isn't so blah, Look for an older book called dark angel. It's a trilogy and It's really good, except for the end of the last book which I though sucked soo bad because well I wouldn't want to ruin it for you.

Silentiea · **Posted:** Fri Apr 10, 2009 1:42 am

I think the real culprit here, far predating Twilight, is probably Anne Rice. Sure, her vampires still had mostly 'traditional' mystical powers, but she's the really the one who made it all about romance, more than anyone before or since. Well, maybe not since. But definitely before.

O negative, really that great?

Who is online