The Twilight Series: Books and Films

[DC 536]

I just finished watching New Moon and I'm bewildered to say that it wasn't horrible. I mean the acting was abhorrent, premise was as stupid as ever, but hell, it wasn't a waste of time.

Any movie that features people turning into werewolves IN MID-AIR isn't going to be a complete bust.

[Guest Reno]

I used to think I was Stig of the Dump before I saw that programme. I was amazed that people were about 100x more messier than me.

 

Any movie that features people turning into werewolves IN MID-AIR isn't going to be a complete bust.

 

I highly doubt that was the reason people went to see it though. :lol

[Paul 584]

The mid air change looks great on the trailer, but having seen the actual clip of the film it looks so amazingly CGI and fake its scary. Not that it matters, the Twilight fans will forgive anything. :P

[Guest Reno]

I've been told a few times that the Thom Yorke song, "Hearing Damage", is used really well in the film, and provides one of the best scenes.

 

And this from from Twilight fangirls who had never heard of Thom Yorke before (apart from one, but she's my Radiohead/Smiths/Morrissey bumchum :lol).

[Guest John Hancock]

Every Twilight fan I know is saying New Moon is sh*t. I haven't seen it yet, but I'm glad all the obese, lonely, wanna be counter culture 30 somethings who need to be condescending to teenage girl sof all people to maintain their ego-reactions as well as hold of the realizations that their lives are, very much, a failure, have even less of a leg to stand on that they did before when it comes to there irrational hatred of this completely, acceptably average film series.

 

That's not really directed at anyone in particular before the paranoia starts sinking in with you defensive internet types.

[Guest Reno]

^^^^^

You better be listening to Hancock, DS. :lol

[Paul 584]

Pff, my issue is how bad the books are not the films. I only saw the first film (and not even all of it) and I thought it was just below average rather than the utter shite that the books are. Anyone who thinks the books are 1) well written, or 2) a good story/life lesson are utter idiots.

 

edit: and J rock is using a lot of words to say nothing really. :lol

[Guest John Hancock]

I didn't mind the first film. It's pretty obvious I'm not supposed to like it, it's a girls film, but there was some relatively nice bits. My main issue with the films is that Edward Cullen is... well... a bit of a p*ssy. I mean, smile dude. Why are girls attracted to that? Some moody teenager moping about and running off every five seconds to cry. He needs to get mauled by the bad ass Native American wolf kids.

[Paul 584]

The guy who plays him said something that really made me laugh:

 

"When you read the book," says Pattinson, looking appropriately pallid and interesting even without makeup, "it's like, 'Edward Cullen was so beautiful I creamed myself.' I mean, every line is like that. He's the most ridiculous person who's so amazing at everything. I think a lot of actors tried to play that aspect. I just couldn't do that. And the more I read the script, the more I hated this guy, so that's how I played him, as a manic-depressive who hates himself. Plus, he's a 108-year-old virgin so he's obviously got some issues there."

 

Just brilliant.

 

And yes, I will watch new moon when my sister in law gets it. May end up being OK as a film. probably wont, but hey ho. :P

[Paul 584]

OK, I've merged posts from the Tv and films threads to make one thread of EVIL about the series. Save all my bile for one place. :lol

 

edit:

 

28 Reasons why Twilight The Film is better than Twilight The Book

 

That actually makes me want to watch the film again. :lol

Edited November 29, 2009 by Paul

[etz 78]

Seriously, with all the crap about vampires around lately (True Blood, Vampire Diaries, Twilight etc.), I find it hard to believe that they're all so mediocre. Admittedly, True Blood probably isn't, but the name Sookie grates on me so badly (I have no clue why), I could only watch 2 episodes and stopped. This from someone who finds BtVS great. How Sookie is more annoying than Buffy, I can't explain, it just is.

 

Moonlight was better than the current fare, and that was basically a cliche from start to finish, though it knew it, which is probably why it worked.

 

Blade the Series was also better than most of the current stuff.

[Guest Anime Otaku]

The mid air change looks great on the trailer, but having seen the actual clip of the film it looks so amazingly CGI and fake its scary. Not that it matters, the Twilight fans will forgive anything. :P

No, they won't.

 

http://twilightsucks.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=fangirls&action=display&thread=5175

[Guest Phil]

DS - I've been meaning to ask this for some time, but define 'well written'

 

You say Twilight is poorly written, but that's such a blanket statement I can't really pinpoint what you mean. I haven't read Twilight so I don't know how you mean.

 

I mean, I've read books by Shaun Hutson relied too heavily on the same word used over and over again ('cloying' is one word he loves) but were very entertaining, yet struggle with some Dan Brown and Stephen King because I find them too cluttered with unnecessarily long sentences.

 

If you mean Grammatically or repetitive word choice then yeah I can see that, but otherwise I think 'to each his own', if they're enjoyable it doesn't matter what the style of writing is like.

[Paul 584]

Maybe I'm missing something Amy, but thats a forum for the anti Twilight people moaning about the die hard Twilight fans. Unless your point is they dont forgive people being nasty about twilight, in which case it goes against the comment I made as I was talking in reference to the way the fans are over the books and films.

[Guest Anime Otaku]

Yeah, it was a bit of a snark, but the examples generally aren't people being mean it usually goes.

 

Twihard: Don't you love Twilight?

 

other person: I didn't think it was that good.

 

Twihard: I'LL KICK YOUR HEAD IN/ KILL YOU!!!

[Paul 584]

DS - I've been meaning to ask this for some time, but define 'well written'

 

You say Twilight is poorly written, but that's such a blanket statement I can't really pinpoint what you mean. I haven't read Twilight so I don't know how you mean.

 

I mean, I've read books by Shaun Hutson relied too heavily on the same word used over and over again ('cloying' is one word he loves) but were very entertaining, yet struggle with some Dan Brown and Stephen King because I find them too cluttered with unnecessarily long sentences.

 

If you mean Grammatically or repetitive word choice then yeah I can see that, but otherwise I think 'to each his own', if they're enjoyable it doesn't matter what the style of writing is like.

 

 

 

In several ways:

 

the stunningly horrible use of purple prose.

grammar on par with mine (shite :lol)

ignoring her own in universe rules

the way she overuses words and phrases

the characters are given no depth and little descriptions (other than the million on how good looking Edward is)

 

 

I think my favorite bit of purple prose in the books is

 

He lay perfectly still in the grass, his shirt open over his sculpted, incandescent chest, his scintillating arms bare.

 

Just wow. I mean purple prose is a very bad literary technique, though a book can be forgiven for it if the story is good enough. Twilights isnt really.

I also agree that Brown and King ramble on far too much as well.

 

 

Edit: For the sake of balance I should also add that with a bit of editing the books could have been rather good. They had a lot of good ideas (I dont care what anyone says, the sparkling thing was an interesting little idea) and if the first two books were combined and then shrunk down to the size of the first it would have been very impressive. Also the book does have an odd appeal, like you are waiting to see what happens next... then you get a bit dissapointed when nothing does. Meyer manages to connect to her core audience (teen girls), a bit of effort would have made it something so much bigger than it currently is.

Edited November 29, 2009 by Paul

[Maxximus 353]

Don't dis King because he knows more words than you, Darkstar. :lol

 

Of course I'm a die hard fan and will gladly read a menu or phone directory if he wrote it and think it was the best thing ever written and even defend it to my dying breath.

[Paul 584]

King tends to be at his best doing short stories when he doesnt have the space to write too many words. :lol

 

Though IT was brilliantly done.

[Guest John Hancock]

You can't really say the story's bad considering that it's Pride And Prejudice. You can say that it's a rip, you can say it's a bad rip off, but, unless you're saying that one of the most beloved books ever written has a bad story, you can't really lay that criticism on it.

[Maxximus 353]

I read IT ever 4 years or so just because I love the history of Derry. I think that's where a lot of readers get stuck. You want to know what happens and you have the ENTIRE history of this little town to get through before you do. But learning all the history and taking in the atmosphere of the town is what truly makes the story brilliant.

 

I also agree about his short stories. Some of his best work is 20 pages or less. It seems that the shorter the story is the more impact it has on you. That's my take anyway.

 

On topic, I read the first Twilight book years ago, and while it is crap. I've read far worse. But like Hancock said, and I'm not afraid to admit, I mostly hate it due to the fanatical popularity of the thing. It drives me nuts to see Twilight stuff everywhere I go, and I mean EVERYWHERE. It's as bad as Christmas.