Twilight... I'm mystified, and I have to ask...

Post Reply New Topic

I read the first book and, I have to admit, it was like candy for my mind. I enjoyed reading it but I just couldn't deal with the HORRIBLE writing after a while. It was like a 10 year old wrote it. Way too many of the same phrases and words used over and over again. Get a thesaurus, Stephanie Meyer.

I guess the first movie was okay. I liked the cinematography and I'm into stories about lovers who can't be together. But I just didn't feel there was any real LOVE between Bella and Edward, just lust. So I didn't care about them as characters.

And they'll all be ridiculously handsome and sparkly and will have a poorly written Mary Sue fall in love with them.



I've read a few articles which go through all the Mormon/abstinence propaganda in the books - it's very disturbing.

I know. Thus, a comparison can be made. Twilight is beef jerky and expired beef jerky at that, while Artemis Fowl is filet mignon.





Why, thank you. Why Artemis Fowl isn't a movie yet and Twilight is seems to be a mystery for our age.

That being said, Stephanie Meyer is not the worst example of published female authorship there is. That dubious honor goes to a certain Ayn Rand. Twilight has nothing on Atlas Shrugged.

I'm still mad over the fact that the "Ender's Game" movie was cancelled, I waited on that movie for years. I really hope Artemis Fowl doesn't disappoint, I honestly haven't read a single AF book since the Opal Deception. It just seemed to be losing sight of what I liked about the original and The Eternity Code and to some degree The Artic Incident.

I just read the series but found Breaking Dawn to be very boring, long and more for adults. It was way too much. The series was ok, way too much romance and more for teen girls I think. I did see the first movie, Twilight and thought it was ok. Stephenie Meyer is an ok author, but I still think Anne Rice is better.

This parody says it all....

I recieved the series for christmas, still have not read any of them, but my mother, sister and brother have read them, and my sister and mother seem particulary enthralled in it. I have an interest in vampires, so I like a bit of popularity vampires get, but they don't even feel like vampires, it just seems too beutified to quite fit the title of of vampire, being closer to some kind of fairy who likes blood.

For crying out loud they sparkle in the sun, and actually are no weaker in the sun, I don't expect them to burst into flames from the sun, as apparently that itself is also not traditional vampire lore, instead I heard that came from the movie Nosferatu, where they made the vampire die by the first rays of day. Still even though they were suposed to be able to walk in day without too much effect, they are suposed to be night creatures and represent the dark side of human nature, instead it seems to have just become just sexuality, lust and hotties. In fact it goes right against suposed lore aswell, vampires not suposed to enter dwellings without invitation, instead make him crazy stalker (though apparently that is desirable), they suposed to have a weakness to water, instead they don't even need to breath and can stay indefinetly, suposed to need rest, now they can go non-stop. Seems girls just want a superhero and not a vampire. Well at keast they stood back from the bat thing as that, as vampires were suposed to more often turn into things like.

Here's the abridged script for Twilight, here's the one for New Moon, and if you want a full parody, buy Twishite: New Moan.

Twilight is basically a series made for idiots. Said idiots unfortunately make up a large percentage of the population. Parodies of it, on the other hand, are hilarious.

Except that it ain't no parody.

http://www.twilightmoms.com/

To paraphrase Hunter S. Thompson, sometimes reality is more twisted than fantasy.

The vBulletin forum affiliated with the site used to be one thread after another about which teenage boy was the hottest. Dunno if its still like that, and I don't have the courage to check.

It always seemed to me that Stephanie Meyer is a sanitized version of Laurel K. Hamilton or, possibly, pre-Christian Anne Rice (as in Sleeping Beauty era).

In other words, the original vampire novels in the genre were basically porn for girls. This is the socially acceptable version.

Those were some awesome abridged scripts Asp-Z, quite a bit of it was also what I had also thought.

I also have a problem with certain parts of shallowness that appear with such stories, like the fact the romance is ok just because the vampire looks like a teenager, when in fact he is ancient. I could honestly say there was more fitting romance in Dance of the Vampire Bund, but I am quite sure that the general public would reject it because the age old vampire in the relationship looks like this, that is that it is not just about the hot bod. Though it probably explores the darker natures thing better, that is the main character actually questions it rather then straight up doing anything for the "perfect" vampire, it has certain natures that will probably prevent it from ever becoming live action.

Actually the first episode of Dance in the Vampire Bund also does a very good job of looking at known vampire lore aswell as things like Twilight as a suposed tv show gone wrong, at one point a suposed vampire fiction writer stating that he ignored certain things just to make it more interesting. Give it a watch if you want and can stand a subtitled anime and, well themes.

One's a vampire and the other one's a werewolf. It would make for an interesting choice of in-laws.

Perfect! I've noticed this double standard for ever so long. It's all over, too, that is, situations that would be completely different if things were similarly reversed. I reversed the sexes of a couple in a story I was working on, just to shake things up, and was astonished how the story changed. It was food for thought, too. I'd kinda figured myself for someone who didn't see a significant difference in the roles, at least in modern society, as far as certain things were concerned, but I couldn't help thinking some things were more plausible for a guy or a girl respectively. Now I have to decide which way to write it!

Incidentally, I mostly put this up to complain about how doggoned ugly the guys playing the werewolf and vampire are. Because they are so danged ugly. Twilight bashing in general is absolutely appropriate as a branch of this thread, but I really don't know how this came around to Mormon bashing. In my experience, one of the number one virtues encouraged by the Mormon church is free will both among the members and among non-members alike, and it is exercised as such. Choice has consequences, ones we may not like. Not arbitrary or unfair punishments, but the natural ones that come with each choice made. This includes the choice to have, or not have, sex before marriage. Mormon doctrine does not take that particular choice as lightly as much of society. Once given, some things can't be taken back. It has its consequences, and it's still a choice. If anything you're hearing about church doctrine suggests that free will is denied or discouraged, it would seem likely that it has been misrepresented. If you visit either of the Church web sites (www.lds.org, www.mormon.org) and find that what you read there seems to you to be wrong or bad, then you've made your own judgment, whether I agree with it or not. But do make your own. There's an awful lot of anti-Mormon propaganda running around right now, carried by angry people. I'd hate to see angry people choosing what others think. You can disagree with individual points of doctrine without condemning the whole, and every person in it. For my part, I believe in the entire thing... though I'm not really a fan of people...

It was surprising, really... I would have expected us to be pegged as anti-vampire. But it's okay, I'm anti-vampire anyway... well, at least, these vampires...

I've always thought that Robert Pattinson (the guy who plays the vampire) and Taylor Lautner (the guy who plays the werewolf) were really... Not good looking, to put it mildly. My 29 year old sister and a lot of my female cousins find them very attractive, but I find them repulsive. The angles of Robert's face are such that he only looks decent in very specific lighting. In normal lighting, he looks rather homely. And when he has stubble on his face, it makes him look about 10 times worse for some reason. Taylor's face looks perpetually swollen, and his eyes are too small and too far apart.

Not only am I far from being a Twilight fan, I am sick of vampires in general, especially when they're portrayed as sex symbols. The current vampire craze borders on necrophilia.

Well, I did see one T-shirt that described the Twilight tales as "one girl's choice between necrophilia and bestiality."