Don't see New Moon. I beg you...

The place for anything at all...
User avatar
Terastas
Legendary
Legendary
Posts: 5193
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2004 4:03 pm
Custom Title: Spare Pelican
Gender: Male
Location: Las Vegas
Contact:

Re: Don't see New Moon. I beg you...

Post by Terastas »

Aki wrote:Avatar is a very pretty movie, with a couple awesome concepts here and there, but it's pretty plot-light. Well, plot-light on anything that hasn't been done a thousand times in the exact same way.
It's still a major step up from Twilight: New Moon. Twi-tards don't need boot camp, they need rehab. You can't make the jump from New Moon all the way to District 9 -- that'd be like giving a first-time drinker a bottle of Laphroaig. Start them off with movies that have simple linear plots like Avatar, then we can work our way up from there into the true substance movies.
:grinp:
User avatar
Aki
Legendary
Legendary
Posts: 2595
Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2005 10:06 pm
Custom Title: Wolfblood
Gender: Male
Location: Massachusetts

Re: Don't see New Moon. I beg you...

Post by Aki »

Terastas wrote:
Aki wrote:Avatar is a very pretty movie, with a couple awesome concepts here and there, but it's pretty plot-light. Well, plot-light on anything that hasn't been done a thousand times in the exact same way.
It's still a major step up from Twilight: New Moon. Twi-tards don't need boot camp, they need rehab. You can't make the jump from New Moon all the way to District 9 -- that'd be like giving a first-time drinker a bottle of Laphroaig. Start them off with movies that have simple linear plots like Avatar, then we can work our way up from there into the true substance movies.
:grinp:
I suppose that makes sense! :lol:
Image
Silent Hunter
Legendary
Legendary
Posts: 575
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2007 3:27 pm
Custom Title: PACK IS CREDIT TO TEAM!
Mood: Ruthless
Location: Someone touched Sasha...

Re: Don't see New Moon. I beg you...

Post by Silent Hunter »

Terastas wrote:
Aki wrote:Avatar is a very pretty movie, with a couple awesome concepts here and there, but it's pretty plot-light. Well, plot-light on anything that hasn't been done a thousand times in the exact same way.
It's still a major step up from Twilight: New Moon. Twi-tards don't need boot camp, they need rehab. You can't make the jump from New Moon all the way to District 9 -- that'd be like giving a first-time drinker a bottle of Laphroaig. Start them off with movies that have simple linear plots like Avatar, then we can work our way up from there into the true substance movies.
:grinp:

HUURR HURR TWILIGHT FANS ARE DUMB AND THATS FUNNY HURR HURR. TWILIGHT LOVER ARE ALL THRICK AMIRITE?


Gods this is pathetic. I love how you automatically generalize an entire fanbase which ranges to fanatical to just wanting to see some guy topless. It's quite idiots are still jumping on the dead horse which is Twilight bashing. Gods, not every single one of them fit into your own special generalizations. People can like films you find good and bad in equal measure as well as liking both. I am not defending Twilight but I am getting rather bored of the constant digs at it as if people need to do it to be cool or something. I guess it gives you Internet cred.

I am not trying to piss anyone off but I just think it's kinda getting old now.
"Religion and politics
Often make some people
Lose all perspective and
Give way to ranting and raving and
Carrying on like emotional children.
They either refuse to discuss it with reason,
Or else they prefer argumentum ad hominem,
Which is a hell of a way to conduct a discussion."
User avatar
Sebiale
Legendary
Legendary
Posts: 472
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2007 9:14 pm
Gender: Male
Mood: Meh...
Location: Minnesota

Re: Don't see New Moon. I beg you...

Post by Sebiale »

Silent Hunter wrote:I am not trying to piss anyone off but I just think it's kinda getting old now.
No one is forcing you to read the thread...
We do not stop being children when we learn of death, we stop being children when we make peace with it.
Silent Hunter
Legendary
Legendary
Posts: 575
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2007 3:27 pm
Custom Title: PACK IS CREDIT TO TEAM!
Mood: Ruthless
Location: Someone touched Sasha...

Re: Don't see New Moon. I beg you...

Post by Silent Hunter »

Of course not but I there is a lot of interesting discussion still to be had in it.
"Religion and politics
Often make some people
Lose all perspective and
Give way to ranting and raving and
Carrying on like emotional children.
They either refuse to discuss it with reason,
Or else they prefer argumentum ad hominem,
Which is a hell of a way to conduct a discussion."
User avatar
Aki
Legendary
Legendary
Posts: 2595
Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2005 10:06 pm
Custom Title: Wolfblood
Gender: Male
Location: Massachusetts

Re: Don't see New Moon. I beg you...

Post by Aki »

Silent Hunter wrote:
HUURR HURR TWILIGHT FANS ARE DUMB AND THATS FUNNY HURR HURR. TWILIGHT LOVER ARE ALL THRICK AMIRITE?
Stunning rebutal, Blue. Really. It's called a joke, man. :grinp:
Gods this is pathetic. I love how you automatically generalize an entire fanbase which ranges to fanatical to just wanting to see some guy topless.
We're talking about the fanatics, not the average person.
Gods, not every single one of them fit into your own special generalizations.
That's why it's called a "generalization." It's general, you see.
I am not defending Twilight but I am getting rather bored of the constant digs at it as if people need to do it to be cool or something. I guess it gives you Internet cred.
I do it because it's a genuinely terrible book/film, not because I'd look "cool" doing it. I don't need Internet Cred, especially since Internet Cred is a local commodity.
Image
User avatar
Terastas
Legendary
Legendary
Posts: 5193
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2004 4:03 pm
Custom Title: Spare Pelican
Gender: Male
Location: Las Vegas
Contact:

Re: Don't see New Moon. I beg you...

Post by Terastas »

Silent Hunter wrote:I love how you automatically generalize an entire fanbase which ranges to fanatical to just wanting to see some guy topless.
And I love how you generalized the entire fanbase even while you lectured me for generalizing the fanbase. :grinp: So you agree that shirtless guys are the only thing redeemable about Twilight?
Silent Hunter
Legendary
Legendary
Posts: 575
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2007 3:27 pm
Custom Title: PACK IS CREDIT TO TEAM!
Mood: Ruthless
Location: Someone touched Sasha...

Re: Don't see New Moon. I beg you...

Post by Silent Hunter »

We're talking about the fanatics, not the average person.
I know but the 90% of Twilight's fanbase IS normal people. People who want to see a glitzy romance story. People who want to see a topless Jacob. People who don't see the bad writing. These are the same people who would of loved Titanic a few years back.

So when people mention the term Twi-tard, I am taking it that you are talking about people who like Twilight and thus, most normal people.

You may be wondering what this has to do with my original interjection by now and I will tell you. To me, the whole "oh they need rehab/oh they have to start with something with some substance" comes off as awfully pompus. Yes Twilight is awful on many levels but so was Titanic and various other "romance" films. That does always mean that people cannot enjoy films with substance at the same time nor are they inept at seeing it. Thus why, imo that comment Ter name sounded a but high and mighty and a bit assy.

It's probably a joke but meh, I just wanted to put that out.
I do it because it's a genuinely terrible book/film, not because I'd look "cool" doing it. I don't need Internet Cred, especially since Internet Cred is a local commodity.
I know I know but some do hate it just to look cool or edgy. Don't worry about it either way.
"Religion and politics
Often make some people
Lose all perspective and
Give way to ranting and raving and
Carrying on like emotional children.
They either refuse to discuss it with reason,
Or else they prefer argumentum ad hominem,
Which is a hell of a way to conduct a discussion."
User avatar
Terastas
Legendary
Legendary
Posts: 5193
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2004 4:03 pm
Custom Title: Spare Pelican
Gender: Male
Location: Las Vegas
Contact:

Re: Don't see New Moon. I beg you...

Post by Terastas »

Silent Hunter wrote:These are the same people who would of loved Titanic a few years back.
The difference being that Titanic actually was a good movie. It was a far cry from the greatest movie of all time, but it's also unfair that it's predominantly remembered for all the crazy girls lining up over and over again just to see Leonardo DiCaprio. There were only two things that really were honest-to-god bad about Titanic; the fact that everybody knows what's going to happen to the ship after three hours of film, and the super-sappy ending. It wasn't the greatest movie ever, but I don't consider it wrong that it won the Oscar for Best Picture (especially considering it somehow wound up competing against The Full Monty).

Twilight, on the other hand, has no redeeming qualities. The writing, acting and directing are all equally horrible -- it's Days Of Our Lives with vampires. The special effects are crap, the premises is as lame as can be, and the plot line is so weak that the movie actually has to take a break from it every now and then with those lame "gazing into each others' eyes" scene setups. The presence of bare-chested men is the only redeeming thing in the movie.

I was just joking when I made the rehab comment (after someone else said they needed boot camp). I thought that was pretty clear by the use of :grinp: at the end, but I guess not.

Which suffices as even further proof to just how bad Twilight: New Moon was. I just accidentally pulled a Stephen Colbert -- I joked about it and somebody thought I was serious.
That's not even "so bad its funny" anymore. That's downright depressing. :P
User avatar
Howlitzer
Legendary
Legendary
Posts: 486
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2008 6:57 pm
Custom Title: yradnegeL
Gender: Male
Location: Places
Contact:

Re: Don't see New Moon. I beg you...

Post by Howlitzer »

Sigh...

The Twilight series is one of the banes of my existence, if only because my own mother became almost as much a fan of it as she is of Jane Austen books.

I could tell you the plot of pretty much any of the Jane Austen books, in excruciating detail, without having read them. That level of overexposure isn't healthy. I was able to write an AP English RESEARCH PAPER on how much I hated Pride and Prejudice...and I really only found it necessary to read the book for quotes because I knew it already. That's how bad it gets. And her books are actually considered to be good literature by some....

Now put that scenario with Twilight, and picture my attitude towards it...then add to the problem that my dad was initially tricked by her into buying tickets to Twilight because he knew nothing about it, and likes vampire movies.... and then bought tickets to the second one JUST TO SHUT HER UP about it.

Seriously... guhh. :VERYcaf:

ON THAT NOTE...LET ME INTERRUPT THIS DISCUSSION WITH SOMETHING SILLY AND IRRELEVANT!!!!


Image
User avatar
Aki
Legendary
Legendary
Posts: 2595
Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2005 10:06 pm
Custom Title: Wolfblood
Gender: Male
Location: Massachusetts

Re: Don't see New Moon. I beg you...

Post by Aki »

Silent Hunter wrote:
You may be wondering what this has to do with my original interjection by now and I will tell you. To me, the whole "oh they need rehab/oh they have to start with something with some substance" comes off as awfully pompus. Yes Twilight is awful on many levels but so was Titanic and various other "romance" films. That does always mean that people cannot enjoy films with substance at the same time nor are they inept at seeing it. Thus why, imo that comment Ter name sounded a but high and mighty and a bit assy.
Movies with no substance shouldn't get to do this well. People give into the pure wish-fulfillment wank of the movie rather than judge it for it's acting, cinematography or story.

It should rate down there with every other airport paperback romance novel. Or every mindless hollywood shoot 'em up action flick.
Howlitzer wrote:
I could tell you the plot of pretty much any of the Jane Austen books, in excruciating detail, without having read them. That level of overexposure isn't healthy. I was able to write an AP English RESEARCH PAPER on how much I hated Pride and Prejudice...and I really only found it necessary to read the book for quotes because I knew it already. That's how bad it gets. And her books are actually considered to be good literature by some....
You should try this instead:

Image

:D
Image
User avatar
Sebiale
Legendary
Legendary
Posts: 472
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2007 9:14 pm
Gender: Male
Mood: Meh...
Location: Minnesota

Re: Don't see New Moon. I beg you...

Post by Sebiale »

Howlitzer wrote:Image
I don't get it.
We do not stop being children when we learn of death, we stop being children when we make peace with it.
User avatar
Terastas
Legendary
Legendary
Posts: 5193
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2004 4:03 pm
Custom Title: Spare Pelican
Gender: Male
Location: Las Vegas
Contact:

Re: Don't see New Moon. I beg you...

Post by Terastas »

Howlitzer wrote:And her books are actually considered to be good literature by some....
Mostly by people who haven't actually read the book, but enjoy talking about it as if they have because they think having read a book most people will inevitably be using as a pillow makes them look cultured and civilized. Picture the horse races scene from My Fair Lady -- those are the kinds of people that speak highly of Jane Austin -- not people who enjoy reading, but people who want you to believe they read it so that you will think they are more cultured and/or more educated than they actually are.

I actually got duped into seeing the movie adaptation of Sense & Sensibility (I fell asleep halfway through it) at this old fashioned single screen movie theater we used to frequent. They give out newspapers that show the entire month's schedule, and as we were leaving I heard this one woman pick one up, look it over and then suddenly announce to the world: "Oh! Pfah! James Bond: GoldenEye, here! Can you imagine!" That's Jane Austin's readership for you.

The difference is that the people who rave about Twilight actually do genuinely believe that they are good books. If the clip above is to Jane Austin's readers, this clip is to Stephanie Meyer's. Austin was a pompous blowhard who wrote excessive dribble the likes of which no rational mind would ever try to decipher. Meyer was a self-absorbed dullard who wrote simplistic crap the likes of which even the dumbest of the dumb can follow.

And Howlitzer, I know what kind of pain you must be feeling right now. My step-mother is a Twi-mom too. . . And I'm worried I might not be exaggerating anymore when I suggest that she might be "special" too. :P She's a nice woman, but I gotta' face facts: this is a woman who thought Twilight was a challenging read, believes FOX News is fair and balanced and gets excited when she finds the toy in a box of cereal. :P

I can't imagine what someone that (claims to) likes both Jane Austin and Stephanie Meyer is like. . . Though I suspect it might once again be someone that hasn't read anything at all. Maybe Stephanie Meyer is the outlet for her mid-life crisis or something, like she used to claim to love Jane Austin when she wanted to look smart but now has latched onto whatever she think will make her look current and/or young instead. :P
User avatar
alphanubilus
Legendary
Legendary
Posts: 642
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2006 9:43 am

Re: Don't see New Moon. I beg you...

Post by alphanubilus »

Hey I believe Fox News is fair and balanced... but then again, when you consider that ALL media outlets like to push their own agendas depending on their party backers who pay for their air time... and yes... I am being sarcastic...

As a Twilight fan, I readily admit that Meyers isn't the greatest writer on the face of the earth, and honestly you'd be surprised at the large amount of fans who acknowledge her draw backs. They still like her stories though. Most Twilight fans, that I've met have their fair share of gripes about the books, especially the last one, but that doesn't mean they toss them out.

A fair comparison is Star Wars Episodes I, II, III... Most Star Wars fans went to see these movies, of which made George tons of money, and while i am sure there are dire hard fans who still think the Jar Jar Binks was some sort of Messiah, most will argue that these films were heavily flawed. I think they verge on the idea of lunacy, to be honest, but that doesn't stop me from enjoying the few segments of Jedi arss kicking.

I enjoyed the books. So what? I didn't think I would, but I did find things to like about them, of which kept me coming back. Stephenie isn't the best writer on the market, and she has a LOT of improvement to make. Whether she does or not, is up to her. She sort of reminds me of an early Stephen King, of which some regarded as a genius, while most other writers thought he was horrid. After all, he could write literally hundreds of pages of meaningless garble before getting into the story. Cujo coms to mind... It's page 100 before you get to the actual plot of the book. The first 100 pages are about marital issues.

It is amazing to me that people will gripe constantly about Twilight, including the movie, and yet they will readily go see Underworld, of which has one of the worse stories to ever be concieved and only got worse with the second movie. The third movie was okay, but as you never REALLY get to know the characters other than the fact that Sonya and Lucian are suppose to be in love, their plight becomes lost in the blood and gore. Underworld series is one of the most emotionless sagas too date. Yet people like it.

Yes there are die hard Twilight fans who sware that Stephenie Meyer is a goddess and that her material should be compared and revered to the likes of Lord of the Rings (and yes they are clinically insane too) but the greater majority of them are bright young women and a few men, who simply enjoy them despite everything.

Lets face it folks we all have movies and books that we enjoy that we know aren't really good or quality for that matter. That fact doesn't stop us from enjoying them. Why trash somebody else for liking their little guilty pleasures.

Also note... Titanic was a HORRIBLE movie. Successfull yes, good... NO... 3 hours of the most cliched love story to ever be concieved and just a little bit of boat sinking... Half way through I forgot what the movie was about.

Michael Bay tried to rekindle the Titanic craze with... Pearl Harbor, and I equally despised that movie. Thank God it was an epic fail...The only redeaming factor, was Kate Beckinsale, but then again... she IS a goddess. :lol:
User avatar
Howlitzer
Legendary
Legendary
Posts: 486
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2008 6:57 pm
Custom Title: yradnegeL
Gender: Male
Location: Places
Contact:

Re: Don't see New Moon. I beg you...

Post by Howlitzer »

Terastas wrote: I can't imagine what someone that (claims to) likes both Jane Austin and Stephanie Meyer is like. . . Though I suspect it might once again be someone that hasn't read anything at all. Maybe Stephanie Meyer is the outlet for her mid-life crisis or something, like she used to claim to love Jane Austin when she wanted to look smart but now has latched onto whatever she think will make her look current and/or young instead. :P

well...there's the thing....I *KNOW* she's read them. My grandmother is a Jane Austen fan as well, and both of them are bookworms who know their literature and are intelligent when you get down to it.

except...to the point of delerium, they both like Jane Austen, and my mom likes Twilight.

WHY?! ??

Take that away and it'd be fine.

Except for politics. Not going there. Please, please don't go there.
User avatar
Terastas
Legendary
Legendary
Posts: 5193
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2004 4:03 pm
Custom Title: Spare Pelican
Gender: Male
Location: Las Vegas
Contact:

Re: Don't see New Moon. I beg you...

Post by Terastas »

I. . . I hate to post one of those uber-lengthy "dissected into quoted sections" post, but I think this one calls for one.
alphanubilus wrote:A fair comparison is Star Wars Episodes I, II, III... Most Star Wars fans went to see these movies, of which made George tons of money, and while i am sure there are dire hard fans who still think the Jar Jar Binks was some sort of Messiah, most will argue that these films were heavily flawed. I think they verge on the idea of lunacy, to be honest, but that doesn't stop me from enjoying the few segments of Jedi arss kicking.
What you're leaving out is the fact that Lucas originally began with VI, V and IV, which are absolute masterpieces of cinematography, even by today's standards. The prequels were more of a fan service -- people had been asking for the prequels for decades. Then when the prequels were finally made, everybody found out why Lucas began at A New Hope and the fanbase absolutely turned on him.
Cujo coms to mind... It's page 100 before you get to the actual plot of the book. The first 100 pages are about marital issues.
The reason being because Stephen King tries to portray his characters as. . . You know, characters. He tries to make you like the guy right before he kills him.

Pet Sematary was like that in the beginning too. The zombie cat stuff didn't begin as soon as Lou and his family arrive in Ludlow -- they get an introduction first from their neighbor, a tour of the actual pet cemetery, a warning about the road on which they live, and yes, even some family angst, all of which are integral and serve as the foundation for the plot about to develop (Rachel's sister Zelda doesn't come out of nowhere -- we get a hint that Rachel has some serious baggage first). It also wasn't until some 50-100 pages in that King finally introduces Victor Pascow, and even then the supernatural elements do not come into play immediately.

Then when the supernatural elements do come into play, everything he had revealed before then suffices as either the foundation for its revelation, or affects the development of it. Those introductory chapters might not be interesting, but they are important, and as soon as the supernatural becomes involved, you're going to know damn well that all that material you were trudging through in the beginning is going to play a significant part in how the story develops.

Imagine if King had written Dreamcatcher without ever significantly delving into the four friends' childhoods with Duddits first. Would have left a pretty significant gap in the plot I think.
It is amazing to me that people will gripe constantly about Twilight, including the movie, and yet they will readily go see Underworld, of which has one of the worse stories to ever be concieved and only got worse with the second movie. The third movie was okay, but as you never REALLY get to know the characters other than the fact that Sonya and Lucian are suppose to be in love, their plight becomes lost in the blood and gore. Underworld series is one of the most emotionless sagas too date. Yet people like it.
Underworld has nothing to do with literacy. Underworld was an attempt to replicate the success of the original Blade movie with a vampire-related action flick. The plot of Underworld was indeed very shallow, on par with the Terminator series I would say. Of course, in spite of the latter's equally shallow plot, T-2: Judgment Day is still considered a masterpiece. . . Because it had scenes like this in it. Some good quality FX, well-scripted action scenes and some damn good acting by Linda Hamilton were all it took . Underworld didn't have good writing, but nobody ever made the claim that it did.
Also note... Titanic was a HORRIBLE movie. Successfull yes, good... NO... 3 hours of the most cliched love story to ever be concieved and just a little bit of boat sinking... Half way through I forgot what the movie was about.

Michael Bay tried to rekindle the Titanic craze with... Pearl Harbor, and I equally despised that movie. Thank God it was an epic fail...The only redeaming factor, was Kate Beckinsale, but then again... she IS a goddess. :lol:
Titanic's faults were the most readily evident features, but still, eleven Oscars are hard to argue with. Pearl Harbor doesn't even begin to compare to it, however, and I can sum up why with two simple words: Michael Bay.

James Cameron's pre-Titanic works:
The Terminator / T-2 + Aliens + The Abyss = :D

Michael Bay's pre-Pearl Harbor works:
Bad Boys + Mystery Men + Coyote Ugly = :sickpup:

Titanic came to be when James Cameron had a vision. Pearl Harbor came to be when Michael Bay decided he wanted a Titanic on his resume too.

Michael Bay was making a desperate grab at James Cameron's stature (and threw a tantrum when he didn't get it) much the same way Stephanie Meyer pouts and whines because nobody with a quarter of a brain is buying into her claims at being on par with Stephen King.

Oh, and one more thing: Just because Twilight has absolutely no redeeming qualities whatsoever does not mean it's wrong to like it. . . Just as long as you acknowledge that it has no redeeming qualities. I mean. . . Some of my favorite movies include Tank Girl and Mars Attacks!, but I will readily acknowledge the fact that they are both absolutely horrible movies. I love The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy too, and when you get down to it, that's a pretty horrible book too.

It's okay to like a bad book or a bad movie, but you can't pretend the fact that you like it is proof enough that it isn't bad. By in large, Stephanie Meyer and her fans are not capable of recognizing this.
User avatar
alphanubilus
Legendary
Legendary
Posts: 642
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2006 9:43 am

Re: Don't see New Moon. I beg you...

Post by alphanubilus »

Hum...

Have you read any of the books in the Twilight Saga? If not, then is it really fare to spear the saga to death, based upon other opinions, or to fault its fans as such?

Thus far most critics that I've found of the series, especially those who despise it so much, haven't even read it. This, to me, is just as insane as "quote/unquote" Christians who raised literal hell over Harry Potter, stating that it was teaching children how to become witches. As more of these mental cases started reading these books, they realized that not only does Harry Potter NOT teach children how to become a witch or warlock, but Rowlings intertwines tons of Christian values.

While I regard the Harry Potter as a far superior narrative and story all the way around, over that of Twilight, I still believe that you have to read them, to justly make an informed opinion.

Again, as stated, most readers of Twilight readily state or have stated that the Twilight saga isn't perfect. Many of them have expressed their dismay for the last book. They still enjoyed it though. Yes, you do have a few Twilighters who sware that Stephenie is the greatest author to ever exist and that Twilight outshines "Lord of the Rings" and "Chronicles of Narnia" or even Star Wars for that matter, in quality. However, those folks are few and far between.

Stephenie Meyer has NO need to realize her issues as a writer. She's making a bajillion dollars of her saga. This will change as she goes along. In many ways I still compare her to Stephen King. When King first started writing, many writers hated his works and regarded him as a cheap writer, of whom dilutes his stories with excessive amounts of fodder, in order to hide a very weak narrative. Like Meyer's, despite critics disdain, King achieved success. King however continued to improve his craft, and was able to diversify his material. Will Stephenie be able to do that? Only time will tell.

Twilight Saga is like a fad, and eventually once all the movies have been made and such, it will wear off and girls everywhere will freak out about the next "great" romance.

Is Twilight Saga completely unredeemable... I don't think so. I find it strange that so many pack members hate it so much, when Freeborn (the version I read at least) had many of the same perks and faults.

I think the greater question is...

Are people really that disgusted with Twilight because it is JUST that bad, or simply because it has just been THAT successful?

Aslo... using "I like and Tank Girl" in the same sentence has been known to kill kittens.... just thought you'd like to know. :lol:
JoshuaMadoc
Legendary
Legendary
Posts: 1257
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2005 6:36 pm
Custom Title: HERO OF NIGHTMARES
Gender: Male
Additional Details: I just don't care.
Mood: Indifferent
Location: Ausfailia
Contact:

Re: Don't see New Moon. I beg you...

Post by JoshuaMadoc »

alphanubilus wrote:Are people really that disgusted with Twilight because it is JUST that bad, or simply because it has just been THAT successful?

How in the name of a** am i supposed to relate to a character that says nearly word-for-word, "Too bad I'm not able to pull this off... At least I'm pretty" in countless occasions? I mean, damn, man, even Narcissus had his shortcomings. One that killed him.
User avatar
alphanubilus
Legendary
Legendary
Posts: 642
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2006 9:43 am

Re: Don't see New Moon. I beg you...

Post by alphanubilus »

kitetsu wrote:
alphanubilus wrote:Are people really that disgusted with Twilight because it is JUST that bad, or simply because it has just been THAT successful?

How in the name of a** am i supposed to relate to a character that says nearly word-for-word, "Too bad I'm not able to pull this off... At least I'm pretty" in countless occasions? I mean, damn, man, even Narcissus had his shortcomings. One that killed him.
So you're not pretty? :D

I don't remember Bella ever saying that about herself. If anything she was very self conscious and always tearing herself down. She never says she's pretty. So I don't really know what you've been reading.

In reality Bella is one of the blandest characters ever concieved. She literally doesn't have much character, but as the story is told first person, it worked brilliantly for Meyers. The reason being, literally ANY body who reads this story could endow their personality into hers. One of Meyer's greatest flaws, became her biggest triumph.

Bella could literally look like anybody or be anybody. No wonder you see young girls pushing 300 pounds became huge fans of the books. Edward never once tells Bella that he likes her because she's pretty. Her looks have no interest to him what so ever. As this doesn't even factor, ANY girl could be Bella.

Let's face some facts here... The world is full of insecure girls who don't see themselves as pretty (even though some really REALLY are on the inside). They face a reality of never getting Mr. Right, or the awful fact that most "HOT" guys are only in to "HOT" girls. While this isn't reality, Hollywood, mags, and other media outlets are always pushing uber petite pretty things in everybody's face, as a definition of beauty.

The books as poorly written as they are, serve as a gateway to another world, where "unpretty" things can take a moment to shine in the spot light, to have two otherwordly handsome guys fighting over her, a girl, who isn't really anything special, or so she thinks.

No wonder girls eat this up.

As a guy, I couldn't relate to Bella... other than laugh at her quirky comments. I readily admit by the end of Twilight, I was strangling Edward in my dreams, and on one occasion, I merged a story structure session of Hour of Darkness, and had Fenrir just about to slice is bronze head off, before I woke up. I hate that, it was SUCH a good dream.

I read New Moon and I was able to relate to Jacob Black, and then I stuck with the series, and I found that despite all of its flaws, I actually liked it.

The problem I have here is that we have members of the Pack totally blasting people who actually liked the Saga, or at best IF they liked it, they need to readily admit that it is utter garbage. That is up to the individual to decide, and not to have somebody force their anti-Twilight angst down their throat.

And in reality...

Folks...

It is fiction. Don't like it... Don't read it... don't watch the movies.
User avatar
Terastas
Legendary
Legendary
Posts: 5193
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2004 4:03 pm
Custom Title: Spare Pelican
Gender: Male
Location: Las Vegas
Contact:

Re: Don't see New Moon. I beg you...

Post by Terastas »

alphanubilus wrote:Are people really that disgusted with Twilight because it is JUST that bad, or simply because it has just been THAT successful?
Both. There are plenty of books and movies that are just as bad as Twilight, but most bad books wind up collecting dust in displays next to the registers at grocery stores while most bad movies crash and bomb at the box office. The books only ever catch our attention if one of them has a really stupid title or cover artwork, and when a bad movie crashes and bombs at the box office, my general response is usually to just point and laugh at them twice, first at their box office returns, and second at their Razzie Awards. It does piss me off that such piss-poor authors, actors and/or directors are able to employ themselves as such, but the outrage over their employment is balanced out by the satisfaction of seeing them get the returns that they deserve

It's only when people get rewarded for their half-hearted work or bad behavior that it really pisses me off. Stephanie Meyer's success with Twilight pisses me off the same way Rod Blagojevich being on Celebrity Apprentice does -- it pisses me off when people do bad things and get rewarded for it.
alphanubilus wrote:Have you read any of the books in the Twilight Saga? If not, then is it really fare to spear the saga to death, based upon other opinions, or to fault its fans as such?
I have actually. As I said, my stepmother owns the books, so I tried the first at her recommendation. I made it about a third of the way through before I got completely fed up with it and asked her if she remembered on which page (ballpark) it was that the plot actually begins to develop (she didn't remember, so I had to skim through the pages to find it for myself anyway).

Stephen King's "time wasting" is meant to give depth to the setting and characters, both to make them more believable as characters, and to give proper depth and justification to the plot (imagine what a trashy book/movie The Shining would have been if Jack Torrance went mad in Chapter 2). Stephanie Meyer, on the other hand, pretty much jumps right to the point, making it very obvious who has what problems right from the get go, but still stretches it out, effectively making the readers feel smart while treating them like they're stupid simultaneously. Furthermore, King rarely ever includes any personal material after the central plot device has been implemented -- if King hasn't told you about any problems a character has by then, that means they don't have any that you need to know about. Meanwhile, even after the "big reveal" in Twilight, Meyer still continues to drag it out with page after page of nothing but "Edward is so beautiful" dribble.

Sure, Stephen King started off rough around the edges too, but there's three big problems with that comparison:

1) King didn't achieve fame and fortune for any of his early work. He published his first short story in 1965; nine years later, King had a modest amount of success with Carrie (74) and Salem's Lot (75) before finally publishing The Shining (77), his first bestseller. Meyer hadn't written anything, not even a short story, before Twilight.
2) King's earliest works did have some redeeming qualities to them.
3) King actually listened to his criticism.

Meyer wants to think her instant success means she's already at King's level, which is why she never will be.
JoshuaMadoc
Legendary
Legendary
Posts: 1257
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2005 6:36 pm
Custom Title: HERO OF NIGHTMARES
Gender: Male
Additional Details: I just don't care.
Mood: Indifferent
Location: Ausfailia
Contact:

Re: Don't see New Moon. I beg you...

Post by JoshuaMadoc »

alphanubilus wrote:So you're not pretty? :D
Me? Pretty? Fatigue bags under the eyes aren't in-fashion with the Armani/Prada/Hilfiger/etc folks last I heard. Nor are army mole-jackets with tons of pockets.

I'm also so underweight that flyweight boxers look bigger than me, I'm too lazy to get fatter, my head's enormous, my dense, curly, portuguese-water-dog-like hair perms instantly even though I quit having an afro, my lips look like Blackface, my mouth rivals Eddie Murphy in terms of the size of my slasher smile, and I have an anorexic's a**. My only redeeming physical quality are my calves which are completely covered in body hair too dispersed to be actual fur.

If this was a time of the neanderthals, I would be the reigning champion. But this is the present day where botox, synthol and waterproof makeup is premium to looks.

In short, I'm ugly.
User avatar
alphanubilus
Legendary
Legendary
Posts: 642
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2006 9:43 am

Re: Don't see New Moon. I beg you...

Post by alphanubilus »

kitetsu wrote:
alphanubilus wrote:So you're not pretty? :D
Me? Pretty? Fatigue bags under the eyes aren't in-fashion with the Armani/Prada/Hilfiger/etc folks last I heard. Nor are army mole-jackets with tons of pockets.

I'm also so underweight that flyweight boxers look bigger than me, I'm too lazy to get fatter, my head's enormous, my dense, curly, portuguese-water-dog-like hair perms instantly even though I quit having an afro, my lips look like Blackface, my mouth rivals Eddie Murphy in terms of the size of my slasher smile, and I have an anorexic's a**. My only redeeming physical quality are my calves which are completely covered in body hair too dispersed to be actual fur.

If this was a time of the neanderthals, I would be the reigning champion. But this is the present day where botox, synthol and waterproof makeup is premium to looks.

In short, I'm ugly.
In truth, beauty is in the eye of the beholder... For example in Botswana women with wide-gaped buck teeth are considered the most beautiful. I was once treated to a Botswanan beauty pagent in history class, when I was in the 7th grade.

So the reality, no matter how ugly you think you, there is always somebody out there that will find you attractive... of course desperation might also play a factor... but alas... :D Then again, I've seen a number of really hot girls date guys I thought were next of kin to a wooly mammoth. In my humble opinion, had she wanted a fur coat, it probably would have been less expensive to buy one at a store, and then she wouldn't have to put up with the emotional baggage and football... I've also seen guys who could get ANY girl, fall for ones that well... I dunno... could have done better... not necessarily the looks, but the attitude and such. Some of my friends giving "whiping" an all new meaning. Poor guys...

As for myself... I was blessed with the grand ability of not caring. Never desired a relationship, and probably never will... such is life...

Also did you purposely misspell your location... You have Ausfralia instead of Australia... :lol:
User avatar
W-Lupus
Just Bitten
Just Bitten
Posts: 5
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2010 6:58 pm
Gender: Male
Location: UK
Contact:

Re: Don't see New Moon. I beg you...

Post by W-Lupus »

Sometimes i wonder how things can be so sucessful.
i happened to try to read the book , to see what the fuss was about.
i didnt finish it. why? Im sure this would have happened to me ---- :splodey:

my reasons why i dont like it to say the least?

Plot - strikes me to be nothing more than a teenage girls angst over relationships , and unfrotunatly a werewolf and vampire were thrown into the quagmire.

Characters- are just so dull and one dimensional. Not to mention bella. She always seems to be such an unstable mess. The only character i would possibly allow to exist if the book came reality would be Jacob , mainly cos he seems to want to kill edward , so i'll let him off the hook for that one. the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

i certainly dont like how its written. its just so simple.
i dont really see much originality either , which is the thing i like best in books. Sadly , there was no redeming factor , as i could see the werewolf had been taken from native american styles and a few other places. Not really original. certainly was original with having a vampire sparkle... i still dont get why. ??
Im not going to even say what i think of bella.

yep , so twilight ,ironically, can be proud - its made it into the privaliged list of things that i would like to see wiped off the face of the earth , which includes people who hunt wolves for sport , murderers , exams...
The Midnight Runner
Post Reply