THE PACK Message Boards

Hmmm. Not to rain on anyone's Boycott parade; but...

1. The Werewolves are NOT shown as insane monsters. They are people who can turn into wolves.

2. If there are more "Fluffy" werewolf movies, the likelihood of Freeborn being made will increase since there is now a market for it.

3. When you're a virtual Immortal, interest in anybody who is under 80 is gonna be considered as "pedophelia".

So, what's the problem?

That it is shares heavily off a horrible book therefore will be dragged down into a horrible film?

Not that a boycott will be any good. Given the amount of Twilight fan's its like pissing in the ocean.

Aki wrote:I don't see why they'd need a substitute-

To lessen the number of people that know about vampires. You could kill for blood, but then the bodies would start to pile up. You could go the blood bank route, but that'd be pretty costly, especially once the bums and hobos that give you your regular supply figure out they can start charging hush money on top of their weekly fees.

Meanwhile, in 2006, the U.S. alone consumed nine metric tons just in pork alone. That's why they should try to find a substitute -- because they're not just available, they're readily available.

or drinking human blood would leave them bitter.

Be. . . Cause they're drinking blood. Even if they absolutely love the taste of it. . . It's still [expletive]ing blood! If any vampire had half a shred of decency in him/her, that would be the part of their life that they hate the most -- the part where they come face to face with the fact that their nature is that of a freakin' bloodsucker.

Keep in mind, however, that the above statement was meant to be about a vampire with morals. There are already practicing vampires out there in the world -- people that don't actually need to drink blood but do it anyway because of. . . I don't know, some sadistic power trip they get out of it, I guess. So yes, a vampire could enjoy drinking blood if he was a sadistic [expletive] with a bitter black heart. Those, of course, are also the vampires that will eventually get a bullet in their head for it, from some Hellsing wannabe if the vampires that still have a shred of decency in them don't nail him first.

outwarddoodles wrote:It's not juvenile to dislike Twilight.

But it is to go out of one's way to attack it, create a thread insisting people share that opinion, and express revulsion at people who do.

My comment was mostly aimed at the initial post. "Boycott Twilight?" : \

I don't see how it's juvenile to say "Hey guys, this is crap. Maybe you shouldn't go see it."[/quote]
That was my take on it too. It's not juvenile to say "please guys, save your money and don't encourage this."

Because Hollywood isn't looking at the quality of the script or the artistry of the production. They're just looking at the box office returns.

Roland Emmerich's 2012 was a festering [expletive] of a movie. . . But it turned a profit, so there will be another.

Michael Bay's Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen was an even bigger piece of [expletive] film. . . But that also turned a profit, so we can expect another one of those too.

Beverly Hills Chihuahua was a massive mound of [expletive] the likes of which has yet to be surpassed. . . But guess what? Turned a profit! So there will be another.

So even though I'm pretty much resigned to the fact that Blew Moon is going to be a hit too, I'm still going to do my part to try and discourage films like these. I imagine that, much like Matt, I'll be saving my money up to try and encourage Fantastic Mr. Fox instead.

From the Rifftrax vid:
"You can read [her mind], there just isn't anything there." ROFLMFAO
"She loves him based on him not killing her, that's healthy."
'Remember who you are.' "A noble proud suck of the blood of other creatures."
'Bella needs you.' "To make her hammy acting look good by comparison"
"I heard Stephenie Meyers was not happy with this production..." "Oh dear lord she's got a sniper rifle." (Why didn't she use a sniper rifle? It would have made everything so easy...)

Shameless re-promotion, that is an epic vid.

RedEye wrote:Hmmm. Not to rain on anyone's Boycott parade; but...

1. The Werewolves are NOT shown as insane monsters. They are people who can turn into wolves.

2. If there are more "Fluffy" werewolf movies, the likelihood of Freeborn being made will increase since there is now a market for it.

3. When you're a virtual Immortal, interest in anybody who is under 80 is gonna be considered as "pedophelia".

So, what's the problem?

Is it boycotting if we each decide individually not to see it, instead of a group decision? (Obviously that isn't quite the case here.) But if everyone just decided not to use the bus as an independent decision tomorrow, is that technically boycotting?

1. Well they were considering killing Bella at one point, or at least hurting her, and we call some humans monsters for their behavior. So we could certainly call them (watered-down)monsters because they want to hurt/kill other people from time to time, and because they can change into wolves. Power corrupts, and Meyer makes the wolves much more powerful than the average human, could just be the rush of being wolves can make them act like monsters.

2. Freeborn is going to be 'fluffy'?! WTH...

3. That is a valid point. Although if Meyers was going for the cynical vampire(which she didn't) would a younger or older vampire be considered the more cynical?

Terastas wrote:Even if they absolutely love the taste of it. . . It's still [expletive]ing blood! If any vampire had half a shred of decency in him/her, that would be the part of their life that they hate the most -- the part where they come face to face with the fact that their nature is that of a freakin' bloodsucker.

What I want to know is...how in nine hells is drinking blood any different than feasting on the flesh of something that was once alive? Something DIED to become your meal, not because it had to, but because you thought it was tasty. At least blood can be given willingly and the donor can live.

Because typically humans don't dine on other humans.

Roland Emmerich's 2012 was a festering [expletive] of a movie. . . But it turned a profit, so there will be another.

Sorry, off-topic, but how do you get a sequel about the end of the world? lol Are they seriously planning one?

On-topic-I wouldn't pay to go see NM, but I'd watch it if it was free. See if it is really as bad as the critics say(It has a 30 something % on rottentomatoes.com as of now).

Silverclaw wrote:

Roland Emmerich's 2012 was a festering [expletive] of a movie. . . But it turned a profit, so there will be another.

Sorry, off-topic, but how do you get a sequel about the end of the world? lol Are they seriously planning one?

Well, I had actually meant to say that there would be another wildly unrealistic disaster movie, but. . . Well, yes. Sort of.

Set wrote:What I want to know is...how in nine hells is drinking blood any different than feasting on the flesh of something that was once alive? Something DIED to become your meal, not because it had to, but because you thought it was tasty. At least blood can be given willingly and the donor can live.

And does the vampire also have that same luxury of choice?

That was a very PETA way to sum up the argument, but you are absolutely correct: I had fish for dinner tonight and loved every bite of it. If at any given moment, however, I suddenly could not live with the fact that something had to die just so I could eat something delicious, I could have just as easily put it away and made a sandwich or boiled water for pasta instead. It was a choice to put some meat on my plate that I can live with.

But what options would a vampire have? Pretty much just two:
1) Drink blood.
2) Go mad and/or die.

People eat meat because they choose to. Vampires, on the other hand, drink blood because they have to. Don't like being a bloodsucker? Pfft! Sucks to be you!

In that sense, drinking blood would be to a vampire (for lack of a better comparison) kind of like what using an inhaler is to an asthmatic or taking insulin to a diabetic. Maybe the (decent-minded) vampire gets accustomed to taking his "medicine," but he shouldn't explicitly learn to like it. There's no choice in the matter -- he either sucks it up and does it, or he suffers the consequences.

So even if he was getting his blood from donors, he still has to face up to the fact that he's a bloodsucker / parasite. Even having sparkly skin can't sugarcoat a label like that enough.

Maybe the vampire gets used to it. Maybe he finds a substitute that doesn't weigh so heavily upon his conscience. Maybe he rations that the perks of being a vampire outweigh the drawbacks. But the moment he starts to count drinking blood as one of the perks of being a vampire, that's you should be prepared to drive a stake through him.

RedEye wrote:Hmmm. Not to rain on anyone's Boycott parade; but...

1. The Werewolves are NOT shown as insane monsters. They are people who can turn into wolves.

2. If there are more "Fluffy" werewolf movies, the likelihood of Freeborn being made will increase since there is now a market for it.

3. When you're a virtual Immortal, interest in anybody who is under 80 is gonna be considered as "pedophelia".

So, what's the problem?

1. No one complained about that.

2. Doesn't mean we have to like this crap. There are much better books with "fluffy" werewolves. Like, oh, Moon Called or the Fool Moon book from the Dresden Files, etc. Moon Called has the advantage of having an actually strong female lead, too.

3. Technically, pedophilia is only attract to children (not teenagers - that's another philia). And there are two non immortals who engage in it. Jacob and one of his werewolf pals. Jacob on an infant, and his pal on a toddler.

Terastas wrote:

Aki wrote:I don't see why they'd need a substitute-

To lessen the number of people that know about vampires. You could kill for blood, but then the bodies would start to pile up. You could go the blood bank route, but that'd be pretty costly, especially once the bums and hobos that give you your regular supply figure out they can start charging hush money on top of their weekly fees.

Or you could get a donor. Or you could just do what they typically do in fiction and seduce/trick people off somewhere secluded and do it. If they try and say anything no one's going to believe that you're a goddamn vampire. That's crazy talk.

Some mythoses even go as far as to have the process cause a limited memory loss (IE, not remembering the whole feeding business).

Be. . . Cause they're drinking blood. Even if they absolutely love the taste of it. . . It's still [expletive]ing blood! If any vampire had half a shred of decency in him/her, that would be the part of their life that they hate the most -- the part where they come face to face with the fact that their nature is that of a freakin' bloodsucker.

I don't see how a moral vampire has to hate that part of their existence. Nothing says you have to get your sustenance unwillingly - or get it from the innocent. For example, The Astounding Wolf-Man has a bit with a vampire superhero who got his blood whilst fighting crime.

Aside from some blood loss, the one fed upon comes out unharmed, it's not like you're committing murder. It may not be the most ethical thing to do or enjoy but hey, it's as much a part of your existence as a wolf eating a moose. Only for you the 'moose' in question walks away and lives a happy, productive life (or whatever their choices and luck leads them to). Hating yourself for enjoying it is just being agnsty.

Keep in mind, however, that the above statement was meant to be about a vampire with morals. There are already practicing vampires out there in the world -- people that don't actually need to drink blood but do it anyway because of. . . I don't know, some sadistic power trip they get out of it, I guess. So yes, a vampire could enjoy drinking blood if he was a sadistic [expletive] with a bitter black heart. Those, of course, are also the vampires that will eventually get a bullet in their head for it, from some Hellsing wannabe if the vampires that still have a shred of decency in them don't nail him first.

Erm, while I am not into the real life Vampire culture, they do tend to have donors, so I don't see how it would be "sadistic" if one side is volunteering for the whole thing.

Terastas wrote:

Set wrote:What I want to know is...how in nine hells is drinking blood any different than feasting on the flesh of something that was once alive? Something DIED to become your meal, not because it had to, but because you thought it was tasty. At least blood can be given willingly and the donor can live.

And does the vampire also have that same luxury of choice?

That was a very PETA way to sum up the argument, but you are absolutely correct: I had fish for dinner tonight and loved every bite of it. If at any given moment, however, I suddenly could not live with the fact that something had to die just so I could eat something delicious, I could have just as easily put it away and made a sandwich or boiled water for pasta instead. It was a choice to put some meat on my plate that I can live with.

But then you've just switched from killing animals to killing plants, as the main ingredients in both of those is flour (and then with pasta you have the issue with eggs). Drinking blood isn't really like eating meat anyway. I can do without 10% of my blood by volume with little ill effect. I don't think I can say the same thing about 10% of my flesh.

But what options would a vampire have? Pretty much just two:
1) Drink blood.
2) Go mad and/or die.

But what options does any other animal have:
1) Eat some other organism.
2) Die.

People eat meat because they choose to. Vampires, on the other hand, drink blood because they have to. Don't like being a bloodsucker? Pfft! Sucks to be you!

In that sense, drinking blood would be to a vampire (for lack of a better comparison) kind of like what using an inhaler is to an asthmatic or taking insulin to a diabetic. Maybe the (decent-minded) vampire gets accustomed to taking his "medicine," but he shouldn't explicitly learn to like it. There's no choice in the matter -- he either sucks it up and does it, or he suffers the consequences.

So even if he was getting his blood from donors, he still has to face up to the fact that he's a bloodsucker / parasite. Even having sparkly skin can't sugarcoat a label like that enough.

Which really isn't any different than anyone else, it's just that most people don't (or choose not to) think about it.

Aki wrote: Aside from some blood loss, the one fed upon comes out unharmed, it's not like you're committing murder. It may not be the most ethical thing to do or enjoy but hey, it's as much a part of your existence as a wolf eating a moose. Only for you the 'moose' in question walks away and lives a happy, productive life (or whatever their choices and luck leads them to). Hating yourself for enjoying it is just being agnsty.

So then vampires graze as long as they don't kill their prey? I could pretty much replace 'mosquito' with 'vampire' in the following paragraph and it would read the same:

Wikipedia wrote: An example of a grazer that may seem counterintuitive is a mosquito, which is not a parasite in that it does not form any lasting association with its prey, and is not a true predator in that it does not kill them by this process (although they can act as a vector for fatal diseases such as malaria). In this sense it is the antithesis of parasitoidism, in which an organism (typically the larval stage of a wasp) feeds on another by eating it from within.

Oh, by the way, one thing not really related to the discussion at hand...

Why isn't this topic in the Entertainment section?

Good point.

Lupin wrote: So then vampires graze as long as they don't kill their prey? I could pretty much replace 'mosquito' with 'vampire' in the following paragraph and it would read the same:

Wikipedia wrote: An example of a grazer that may seem counterintuitive is a mosquito, which is not a parasite in that it does not form any lasting association with its prey, and is not a true predator in that it does not kill them by this process (although they can act as a vector for fatal diseases such as malaria). In this sense it is the antithesis of parasitoidism, in which an organism (typically the larval stage of a wasp) feeds on another by eating it from within.

Pretty much, yeah.

Big humanoid mosquitoes.

Lupin wrote:[snip]

Lupin. . . I am disappoint.

I'm sorry Lupin, but you are never going to convince me that drinking blood can somehow be a greater moral alternative to eating broccoli. That's exactly the kind of bull[expletive] stupidity I would expect to come from a practicing vampire (the ones that call themselves "the chosen ones").

I'm just going to leave it at that. The impression I got from that post is that you're intent on maintaining your stance no matter how ridiculous the counterarguments have to get, so there's absolutely nothing good that can come out of continuing this debate.
The sad thing is that this whole argument stemmed out of the one and only thing I gave Stephanie Meyer credit for. The only thing to be learned from this thread? That Twilight brings out the absolute worst in everyone.

Terastas wrote: The only thing to be learned from this thread? That Twilight brings out the absolute worst in everyone.

...interesting...

Damn, this movie's beaten the midnight and Friday records of The Dark Knight. 26 million at Midnight Showings and 71 million from Friday showings. o_O

It's the suicide watch list population and the fangurls, they've joined force

Oh well, I'm pretty sure that it won't last. (30% on RT)

Back to watching TMNT

NightSlash wrote:Damn, this movie's beaten the midnight and Friday records of The Dark Knight. 26 million at Midnight Showings and 71 million from Friday showings. o_O

Most likely because a lot of the people who were at the Midnight showing also stayed to see it again on Friday.

Titanic was a huge hit too, but not because it was good -- it was because DiCaprio was the tweeny heartthrob at the time and there were legions of girls in that age range going to see it over and over again. I remember they had on the local news one girl that had seen it fifty times in one month and was still going back to see it again.

So New Moon will last as long as it takes for every last idiot to run out of money to burn seeing it over and over again. Even the (notoriously creepy) Twi-moms will have to return to real life eventually.

Aki wrote: I don't see how a moral vampire has to hate that part of their existence. Nothing says you have to get your sustenance unwillingly - or get it from the innocent. For example, The Astounding Wolf-Man has a bit with a vampire superhero who got his blood whilst fighting crime.

Uh... yeah, and then murdered Gary's friggin' wife. Zechariah was a moral vampire? Really?

Uniform Two Six wrote:

Aki wrote: I don't see how a moral vampire has to hate that part of their existence. Nothing says you have to get your sustenance unwillingly - or get it from the innocent. For example, The Astounding Wolf-Man has a bit with a vampire superhero who got his blood whilst fighting crime.

Uh... yeah, and then murdered Gary's friggin' wife. Zechariah was a moral vampire? Really?

I was using his superheroing days as an example, not his character itself. One can mimic Zach's whole "run around in a cape beating up muggers and drinking their blood" schtick without finding a werewolf and killing his wife in a pique of rage.

It's more "This guy did something a moral vampire could do" and less "Zach is totally a great guy, be exactly like him."

I know completely nothing about this film, but Spoony made a funny review video about it:

http://www.spoonyexperiment.com/2009/11 ... -new-moon/

Morkulv wrote:I know completely nothing about this film, but Spoony made a funny review video about it:

http://www.spoonyexperiment.com/2009/11 ... -new-moon/

Haha, nice! I love Spoony, but his reviews should not always be trusted, especially when it comes to games. >.>

He's very sarcastic indeed, although I do agree with him on alot of points in certain reviews.

Finally! Something good finally came out the Twilight series!!

AN UBER-HILARIOUS SPILL.COM REVIEW!!

[warning: features crude language, herpes vampires and Edward on the can]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBSA4cekWWg
"We knew this was gonna' be bad. . . But I had no idea!"

Terastas wrote:Finally! Something good finally came out the Twilight series!!

AN UBER-HILARIOUS SPILL.COM REVIEW!!

[warning: features crude language, herpes vampires and Edward on the can]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBSA4cekWWg
"We knew this was gonna' be bad. . . But I had no idea!"

Heh, funny s***.

Damn, that CGI 'werewolf' looks bad. Like they said, its just a wolf, its not even a werewolf.