136 réponses à ce sujet

[the_one_54321]

Mistress9Nine wrote...
Twilight is a really great book and just because you guys can't get over that for once not something testosterone filled or generally more of male intrest is popular like, LoTR and Rush Hour 12, that's your own problem.

I think you miss the point. Also, Mord makes jokes like that. Don't take it too personally.

Anyway, it's not that no one should like it. It's not that it's more stupid than things guys like. Similar to the who gay romance thing, I'll say "hey knock yourself out, I just don't want to participate." But rocognizing things for what they are is important too. Harry Potter = great story with horrible writing. Twilight = horrible writing with fantastic appeal to a certain audience. Nothing wrong with that.

Edit:

Oops, m9n, I thought you were Ryzaki because of the portrait.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 15 mars 2010 - 07:25 .

[Mordaedil]

Disagreeing with your point of view means we must be testosterone-filled or prefer stuff like LotR or Rush Hour 12, huh?



I can't dislike Twilight because of what it does to stereotypes of vampires and how it goes from being something you can kinda talk about to something you can receive a beating for saying you are a fan of?

[Amberyl Ravenclaw]

Mistress9Nine wrote...

Okay. Here we go again. Deep breath.

Twilight is a really great book and just because you guys can't get over that for once not something testosterone filled or generally more of male intrest is popular like, LoTR and Rush Hour 12, that's your own problem. I loved the book and hated the second movie, the first one I adore, there is nothing wrong with them, all you people saying that it's mormon propaganda and mind **** for girls should just read any other romance novel and see that it's pretty much the same thing only without vampires. Geez,

< Biologically female as far as I know, an occasional consumer of fluff material, and yet I still think that the notions of romance that Twilight promotes are foundationally shallow and bordering on creepy even. I will never get why writers need to create characters who are seemingly overdependent on their significant others. Also, the entire romance genre has its share of pitfalls, but I've certainly seen written romances in TV and literature that are deeper and more meaningful. Sorry, M9N.

P.S. I hope for your sake that the Eclipse movie doesn't suck. I'll be going to watch it, but somehow the trailer has already set off some warning bells that tell me there won't be much in the way of story and character development.

Modifié par Amberyl Ravenclaw, 15 mars 2010 - 07:43 .

[the_one_54321]

Is the whole vampire sex and birth thing really so violent? I am naturally assuming hyperbole in that post, because that is what usually get's laughs. But I am also assuming a measure of truth because that's also what gets laughs. So just how accurate is it?

[Mistress9Nine]

Mordaedil wrote...

Disagreeing with your point of view means we must be testosterone-filled or prefer stuff like LotR or Rush Hour 12, huh?

Duh, do I need to spell it out for you Mord? Gosh, you can be so slow sometimes.

Mordaedil wrote...
I can't dislike Twilight because of what it does to stereotypes of vampires

Why is it wrong to change it up a bit? I'm sure there are a million other literary works out there that make vampires seem redicilous. And it's not like Twilight ruined vampires forever, in 2 years the craze will be over and you can get back to you nasty, badass, evil vampires.

Mordaedil wrote...and how it goes from being something you can kinda talk about to something you can receive a beating for saying you are a fan of?

How is that the books or the fans fault?

the_one_54321 wrote...

Is the whole vampire sex and birth
thing really so violent? I am naturally assuming hyperbole in that
post, because that is what usually get's laughs. But I am also assuming
a measure of truth because that's also what gets laughs. So just how
accurate is it?

It is so like that. Bloody, gory and twisted. I can't wait to see if they dare to shoot it.

[the_one_54321]

Mistress9Nine wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

Is the whole vampire sex and birth thing really so violent? I am naturally assuming hyperbole in that post, because that is what usually get's laughs. But I am also assuming a measure of truth because that's also what gets laughs. So just how accurate is it?

It is so like that. Bloody, gory and twisted. I can't wait to see if they dare to shoot it.

That is, for lack of a better word, [copulated] up.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 15 mars 2010 - 07:58 .

[DalishRanger]

@ OP: I think it has the same appeal as typical "romance trash" a lot of women read. What baffles me is the level of popularity it has in the mainstream. Maybe it is the vampire/werewolf thing.

[Mordaedil]

Mistress9Nine wrote...

How is that the books or the fans fault?

That's... It's not. Was that the implication I made? I'm sorry, my joke filter must have slipped in some tastelessness.

[vocalemuse]

DalishRanger wrote...

@ OP: I think it has the same appeal as typical "romance trash" a lot of women read. What baffles me is the level of popularity it has in the mainstream. Maybe it is the vampire/werewolf thing.

These people need to play some World of Darkness, then they'll know what vampires and werewolves should really be like. Twilight is some middle aged woman's fantasy that she got published, what I find funny is that Robert Pattinson says pretty much that in an interview when asked if he read the book. Apparently he didn't make it through the first one. xD

[chiliztri]

vocalemuse wrote...

DalishRanger wrote...

@ OP: I think it has the same appeal as typical "romance trash" a lot of women read. What baffles me is the level of popularity it has in the mainstream. Maybe it is the vampire/werewolf thing.

These people need to play some World of Darkness, then they'll know what vampires and werewolves should really be like. Twilight is some middle aged woman's fantasy that she got published, what I find funny is that Robert Pattinson says pretty much that in an interview when asked if he read the book. Apparently he didn't make it through the first one. xD

I'm a Twilight fan, and I've also read most of the oWoD and nWoD books. Don't see the point you're trying to get at? I think it's fine not to stick to the general stereotypical type of vampires and werewolves.

[thepiebaker]

its because its a girl's fantasy of something that is supposed to be dangerous (vampires, werewolves) that falls in love with them and fights other dangerous things over them and to protect them...



i saw the twilight movie because i wanted to see what the big deal of this was and the vampire fell in love with the girl all too quickly even for me, and i'll fall in love on the first date usually

[MerinTB]

Mistress9Nine wrote...
Twilight is a really great book and just because you guys can't get over that for once not something testosterone filled or generally more of male intrest is popular like, LoTR and Rush Hour 12, that's your own problem.

Just to be clear on where I stand -

when I say I blame Anne Rice and Joss Whedon, I speak from KNOWING their work.  As in reading / watching stuff created by them.

And very much enjoying it.  Claiming that Anne Rice or Joss Whedon are "testosterone filled" or "of male interest like Rush Hour" is pretty much unsupportable.

I also mentioned Mercedes Lackey, Laurell K Hamilton and L.A. Banks - because I've also read them and, to varying degrees, enjoyed them.  classify them as NOT romance or AS testosterone driven, I dare you.

there is nothing wrong with them, all you people saying that it's mormon propaganda and mind **** for girls should just read any other romance novel and see that it's pretty much the same thing only without vampires. Geez,

You directly contradict yourself in the same run-on sentence.  You say "there is nothing wrong with them" in the same sentence you say it's what is in all romance novels, which correct me if I'm wrong is your attempt to say what's wrong with Twilight is wrong with all romance novels - meaning something is wrong.

I don't think the Mormonism is in all romance novels.  Honestly, most romance novels go hot and heavy into sex in the first book - and don't have the actual sex act a multilating act on the woman, and then the unwed mother being horrifically damaged and deranged due to her out-of-wedlock pregnancy.  That's all Meyer and the Twilight series.

The unbelieveable crap that romance novels put into women's heads about unrealistic courtships and "bad boys who are good for you" and such crap is porn for women - as bad, IMO, as men watching porn and having put in their head that all women love oral and anal or similar unrealistic crap that's in almost all porn.  Both are dangerous.

So while there's probably a healthy dose of people hating on Twilight because it is successful...
and another healthy dose of guys hating on Twilight because women like it so much...
there are plenty of us who look at the work objectively and find it, on many levels, reprehensible.  Even those of use who've read (and enjoyed) Anne Rice and Joss Whedon.

As Buffy said to the big bad Twilight in the last issue of the Joss Whedon Buffy comic - "Twilight?  Seriously, you chose THAT name?  You know what that's a reference to now?  So lame - that story was my story first, and my vampire was way better!"

[chiliztri]

MerinTB wrote...

I don't think the Mormonism is in all romance novels.  Honestly, most romance novels go hot and heavy into sex in the first book - and don't have the actual sex act a multilating act on the woman, and then the unwed mother being horrifically damaged and deranged due to her out-of-wedlock pregnancy.  That's all Meyer and the Twilight series.

I'd just like to address this paragraph. It's not clear to me, but I think you're saying that in the Twilight series the act of sex multilated Bella, and Bella was also unwed and horrifically damaged and deranged due to her out-of-wedlock pregnancy? I think thats what you're trying to get across, if I'm interpreting your paragraph wrong, then I apologize.

I'd just like to say that Bella and Edward were married before they had sex, and that wasn't until the fourth book in the series. It wasn't an out-of-wedlock pregnancy, and while I agree the pregnancy was risky and damaging to Bella, as evident by what happened, I didn't find Bella "deranged" in the least. But, perhaps I'm being biased because I like the series.

[Godak]

chiliztri wrote...

MerinTB wrote...

I don't think the Mormonism is in all romance novels.  Honestly, most romance novels go hot and heavy into sex in the first book - and don't have the actual sex act a multilating act on the woman, and then the unwed mother being horrifically damaged and deranged due to her out-of-wedlock pregnancy.  That's all Meyer and the Twilight series.

I'd just like to address this paragraph. It's not clear to me, but I think you're saying that in the Twilight series the act of sex multilated Bella, and Bella was also unwed and horrifically damaged and deranged due to her out-of-wedlock pregnancy? I think thats what you're trying to get across, if I'm interpreting your paragraph wrong, then I apologize.

I'd just like to say that Bella and Edward were married before they had sex, and that wasn't until the fourth book in the series. It wasn't an out-of-wedlock pregnancy, and while I agree the pregnancy was risky and damaging to Bella, as evident by what happened, I didn't find Bella "deranged" in the least. But, perhaps I'm being biased because I like the series.

What I got out of that scene was "Vampire babies kick ass."

...Does that make me shallow?

[Jenocide]

Vampires + Glitter + half naked boys = OMG IN GIRLS PANTS!

[vocalemuse]

chiliztri wrote...

vocalemuse wrote...

DalishRanger wrote...

@ OP: I think it has the same appeal as typical "romance trash" a lot of women read. What baffles me is the level of popularity it has in the mainstream. Maybe it is the vampire/werewolf thing.

These people need to play some World of Darkness, then they'll know what vampires and werewolves should really be like. Twilight is some middle aged woman's fantasy that she got published, what I find funny is that Robert Pattinson says pretty much that in an interview when asked if he read the book. Apparently he didn't make it through the first one. xD

I'm a Twilight fan, and I've also read most of the oWoD and nWoD books. Don't see the point you're trying to get at? I think it's fine not to stick to the general stereotypical type of vampires and werewolves.

The point I'm trying to get at is - I don't like how she has dumbed down vampires and werewolves so everyone thinks (as that genius comic strip suggested) vampires are all like Edward now. So I don't think it's fine? =P
 
Not to mention that Stephenie Meyers couldn't write her way out of a paper bag and I have no idea whose bright idea it was to publish her in the first place... but that's beside the point. >_>

Modifié par vocalemuse, 16 mars 2010 - 04:19 .

[vocalemuse]

Double post, bleh.

Modifié par vocalemuse, 16 mars 2010 - 04:14 .

[chiliztri]

vocalemuse wrote...

The point I'm trying to get at is - I don't like how she has dumbed down vampires and werewolves so everyone thinks (as that genius comic strip suggested) vampires are all like Edward now. So I don't think it's fine? =P
 
Not to mention that Stephenie Meyers couldn't write her way out of a paper bag and I have no idea whose bright idea it was to publish her in the first place... but that's beside the point. >_>

I don't think she "dumbed down vampires and werewolves". She took vampires and spun them her own way, and her vampires aren't as "perfect" as you all may seem to be presuming. There are things that don't stay perfect about them. Example, the Volturi leaders aren't young, perfect, and springy. Their skin is translucent and papery, and there eyes are clouded and filmy. Also, the "werewolves" from La Push aren't really werewolves, they're shapeshifters. In the fourth book it's revealed that one of the Volturi leaders despised real werewolves and had them hunted to the point of near instinction.

Do you have any evidence that suggest that everyone believes vampires are like her vampires? It's up to the person what vampires they like and believe in the most, because they are fictional as far as we know. If you don't like say, Joss Whedon's version of vampires you don't think people should watch Buffy because you don't personally like them? I don't think anyone has any right to tell anyone what they can and cannot choose to believe in.

Modifié par chiliztri, 16 mars 2010 - 04:47 .

[Statulos]

chiliztri wrote...

vocalemuse wrote...

DalishRanger wrote...

@ OP: I think it has the same appeal as typical "romance trash" a lot of women read. What baffles me is the level of popularity it has in the mainstream. Maybe it is the vampire/werewolf thing.

These people need to play some World of Darkness, then they'll know what vampires and werewolves should really be like. Twilight is some middle aged woman's fantasy that she got published, what I find funny is that Robert Pattinson says pretty much that in an interview when asked if he read the book. Apparently he didn't make it through the first one. xD

I'm a Twilight fan, and I've also read most of the oWoD and nWoD books. Don't see the point you're trying to get at? I think it's fine not to stick to the general stereotypical type of vampires and werewolves.

WoD books are crap To begin with, how the **** can you name a princess from Aragón from the XIV century "Lucita"? Lucía or Lucinda perhaps but that one is BS.

[Remmirath]

Clearly everybody likes different things, and I doubt anybody's got a problem with that.

It just baffles me because of the extremely poor writing/characterisation. If it was decently written I'd just write it off as 'not my kind of thing' and not wonder about. As it is, I find myself wondering what it is people like about the books so much they're willing to ignore those flaws.
I suppose, in truth, the simplest explanation is that other people aren't as picky about that as I am.

I don't have any problem with re-imagining vampires and such - after all, you can't do the same thing all the time. I don't like the way it was done, but that's personal preference.

Mistress9Nine wrote...
Twilight is a really great book and just because you guys can't get
over that for once not something testosterone filled or generally more
of male intrest is popular like, LoTR and Rush Hour 12, that's your own
problem.

Um, not all of us are male, so I'm thinking that's not it. 
Anyhow, I admit I don't get the appeal of romance books/movies/pretty much anything else in general, but clearly there must be some for many people, as many people read them. It's more of 'why these?' then 'why is any romance book popular?'. Surely there are higher quality ones out there.

I am honestly curious as to how these huge spurts of popularity get started. Why the Harry Potter books, and then why this?
Between the two of 'em, I'd take Harry Potter. I could see myself having enjoyed them quite a lot if I'd read them when I was seven or so, but at the time I read them I thought them rather mediocre and bland. They were better written, though still not great by any means, and the characters had more character.
There are lots of good books nobody has ever heard of (including me, certainly!), so why do people latch on to these? 

Getting people to read is clearly a good thing, but I think it only counts as getting them to read if they then read other things. That goes for any book, really.

Edit: Momentarily forgot exactly how quoting works here. <_<

Modifié par Halae Dral, 16 mars 2010 - 06:19 .

[MerinTB]

chiliztri wrote...

MerinTB wrote...

I don't think the Mormonism is in all romance novels.  Honestly, most romance novels go hot and heavy into sex in the first book - and don't have the actual sex act a multilating act on the woman, and then the unwed mother being horrifically damaged and deranged due to her out-of-wedlock pregnancy.  That's all Meyer and the Twilight series.

I'd just like to address this paragraph. It's not clear to me, but I think you're saying that in the Twilight series the act of sex multilated Bella, and Bella was also unwed and horrifically damaged and deranged due to her out-of-wedlock pregnancy? I think thats what you're trying to get across, if I'm interpreting your paragraph wrong, then I apologize.

I'd just like to say that Bella and Edward were married before they had sex, and that wasn't until the fourth book in the series. It wasn't an out-of-wedlock pregnancy, and while I agree the pregnancy was risky and damaging to Bella, as evident by what happened, I didn't find Bella "deranged" in the least. But, perhaps I'm being biased because I like the series.

You'll have to forgive me for getting my information second hand.  Outside of Harry Potter, I don't make it a habit of reading books in the Young Adult section and as such I've never cracked open a Twilight book.
I made an assumption that the sex was out of wedlock as I've not read close summaries until now.

Still -

Twilight is "abstinece porn" - the no sex until marriage, and even when married Bella is battered and bruised and cannot remember what happened but is so enamored with Edward that she makes him do it to her again.

And then the pregnancy which, by all accounts, is bloody-brutal with Bella having bones and I think even her back broken.  During the pregnancy she also needs to drink blood as if a vampire to survive - I think most people would categorize a human drinking human blood as derangement.

I stand by Stephen King's assessment - "Meyer can't write worth a darn.  She's not very good."

Feel free to enjoy it regardless - I like many novels that I've been told are "trash" so to each their own.

[vocalemuse]

chiliztri wrote...

vocalemuse wrote...

The point I'm trying to get at is - I don't like how she has dumbed down vampires and werewolves so everyone thinks (as that genius comic strip suggested) vampires are all like Edward now. So I don't think it's fine? =P
 
Not to mention that Stephenie Meyers couldn't write her way out of a paper bag and I have no idea whose bright idea it was to publish her in the first place... but that's beside the point. >_>

I don't think she "dumbed down vampires and werewolves". She took vampires and spun them her own way, and her vampires aren't as "perfect" as you all may seem to be presuming. There are things that don't stay perfect about them. Example, the Volturi leaders aren't young, perfect, and springy. Their skin is translucent and papery, and there eyes are clouded and filmy. Also, the "werewolves" from La Push aren't really werewolves, they're shapeshifters. In the fourth book it's revealed that one of the Volturi leaders despised real werewolves and had them hunted to the point of near instinction.

Do you have any evidence that suggest that everyone believes vampires are like her vampires? It's up to the person what vampires they like and believe in the most, because they are fictional as far as we know. If you don't like say, Joss Whedon's version of vampires you don't think people should watch Buffy because you don't personally like them? I don't think anyone has any right to tell anyone what they can and cannot choose to believe in.

Haha, evidence? Ask anyone under the age of 21 pretty much what they think vampires should be like and they'll describe Edward - as for Buffy vampires I like them just fine, they are flawed as I think they should be. Meyers tries to make hers this perfect 'good' vampire, and even the ones that are supposedly 'bad' are laughable. There is a standard that has started, at least I believe so, on what vampires should be like or at least similar to - with Dracula.

But as others have said, feel free to enjoy it - I'll just be glad when this whole Twilight fad is over.

Modifié par vocalemuse, 16 mars 2010 - 07:24 .

[Jenocide]

Vampires = boring.

Dexter = Goood )

[Balerion84]

Shallow book/movie appealing to shallow audience? What a surprise...