Do you enjoy the characters in Twilight?Is Bella an Aspie?

Post Reply New Topic

And then Buffy staked Edward
The End

Also Kristen isn't an aspie. She is just a stoner.

Revised Edition:

...Buffy stakes Edward and then Blade lops off his head.

The End.

-___-' Whatever. To each their own.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZwM3GvaTRM[/youtube]

ROFL XD

He he yes, Kristen probably is a stoner now, but she obviously wasn't when she was a kid, and that's where I have heard people make similarities. But perhaps I am just looking into it too much, and trying to make it fit etc. Sorry, I do that a lot!!

I finished reading Twilight all the way through for the first time. I reviewed it in my book-reading blog here:

http://www.wrongplanet.net/postp2777835 ... t=#2777835

If you want a pithy one word summary: Meh.

One sentence review: Not actually bad, but nothing to get excited over as far as I'm concerned, and certainly not good.

Buffy/Angel fan here, remember when vampires killed people?

But seriously, maybe it was my tween cousins who ruined this movie for me, or the fact that I had to carry a life sized cutout of Edward for them through the mall, that I am so bitter about it.

But it is absolutely NOT because I have a man crush on David Boreanaz.

Do you want my honest opinion? If Stephanie Meyer reworked it, Twilight could have actually worked far better. I'm all for vampire romance, and Edward's conflicting feelings about falling in love with Bella was one of the better parts of the story. If he was actually written in a way that made him out to act like 90-something years old rather than a more mature than normal but fairly weird teenager, then I would have given Twilight a better write-up. How the Doctor from Doctor Who reacts to falling in love is maybe a little better written, as he, unlike a vampire, cannot lengthen the life-span of someone he falls in love with.

I'm all for vampires being humanised to a certain degree. It makes them more complex villains, and one of the best vampire stories ever written (and that I've read) was the Discworld novel Carpe Jugulum, by Terry Pratchett, which has a Twilight-like subplot. And making them 'sparkle' instead of burning in sunlight...it's perhaps the only novel thing that Stephanie Meyer has contributed to vampiric folklore. That and vampire baseball, that was the only sequence that I admit I was actually fully interested in, even though I detest sports. The 'sparkling' (which, for some reason, reminds me of the Japanese theme for Dragonball Z, Cha-La Head Cha-La) is a valid thing, although I can see how people hate it.

What I hate about Twilight is that it was very badly structured. We have about three quarters of a novel faffing about with a bizarre high-school romance/stalking/slap-slap-kiss and the revelations about Edward's true nature. The last quarter could have been superfluous, but I think could have worked if it was present throughout more of the story. About the vampiric hunters, I mean. That, and the abundance of cardboard characters.

BTW, about David Boreanaz, I never saw Buffy or Angel (the only Joss Whedon thing I have ever watched was Firefly, an American ripoff of Blake's 7 but with its own nice points), but I first heard him voicing Squall Leonhart in the video game Kingdom Hearts, although they replaced him with Doug Erholtz for the sequel. I have since seen him as Agent Booth in Bones, and I think he's pretty good.

For what it's worth, Buffy and Angel are totally worth watching.

Pfft. So's Doctor Who: The Curse of Fenric. I have said it before, if I wanted teenage angst, vampires, and ancient evils trying to break free, I'd watch that particular story.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wftjfP4BeJ0[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bJEFotgbE4[/youtube]

thanks for posting the buffy vs. edward video- that was hillarious!

I've read all four books, at the insistence of someone. It took all of two weeks. The story had good potential, if it were in the hands of a decent writer. But, then again, she's rich, so one could define her as a "success."

Now to come up with a silly teen romance of my own ...

No, seriously, they are worth watching. The teen angst stuff is mainly in the earlier episodes, but it gets better. Also, Angel isn't really teen angst.

There's even a subset of women's studies dedicated to analyzing Buffy.

Look, it took me ages to like Monty Python and Blake's 7. Telling me something is worth watching is likely to make me dig my heels in. Especially if it's American. I'm an Anglophile.

Besides, Sarah Michelle Gellar is a complete and utter idiot for saying (along with Freddie Prinze Jr) that Queensland was too pokey and small for big stars like them. If that ain't hubris, asking to have half the population of the state of Queensland to go all medieval on their derrieres, then I dunno what is. Paul Darrow may not be a big star, but he's a better one.

I myself am not dissing Buffy and Angel as being not worth anyone's time. I just don't think they're worth my time.

Okay, fair enough.