Twilight

[mitchellmckain]

The pacing in the first two movies was unbearably slow for my taste.

So perhaps the tastes of your sector is the reason I cannot stand so many modern films -- like the film-makers have ADD or something. So I have to dig around among films made by more daring film-makers that refuse to cater to the crowd, so I can find something worth watching.

The first one had some Benny Hill moments that made me laugh.

The books have some really great comic moments and the films just don't come close to doing justice to this aspect of the books.

(Vampires should be like in Lost Boys and Fright Night)

I will never understand the those who insist that stories always be told the same way. This is in fact what I like MOST in the telling of such tales - that find very interesting new ways to portray and explain them. Before this my favorite vamp movie was "Near Dark" and it was the gratuitous violence it portrayed that I found to be the fresh perspective. I think the very best portrayal of vampires is in Scott Westerfields book "Peeps" which puts vampires in the context of the stunning biological reality of parasites in the world (every other chapter is actually a biology lesson introducing some of the astounding species of parasites).

[crazylegsmurphy]

I will never understand the those who insist that stories always be told the same way.

Same way, no...but there has to be some kind of consistency. In Twilight, if the vampires go in the sun...they glow like diamonds. That is NOT a vampire.

It's lame to take something cool like a vampire and make it all lame and sappy. In fact, if you watch the series you'll notice quite quickly that it doesn't really matter that they're vampires. The only thing that makes them remotely like vampires is they drink blood. Basically, in Twilight, the vampires are about as dramatic as someone with an addiction to cupcakes.

[Pseudonym]

It's lame to take something cool like a vampire and make it all lame and sappy.

It's not entirely fair to blame Twilight for this. We started down slippery slope thanks to Anne Rice.

Nonetheless, for your listening pleasure.

[marcuspnw]

The pacing in the first two movies was unbearably slow for my taste.

So perhaps the tastes of your sector is the reason I cannot stand so many modern films -- like the film-makers have ADD or something. So I have to dig around among films made by more daring film-makers that refuse to cater to the crowd, so I can find something worth watching.

My wife has trouble with action films where the camera jumps around such as in the latest Bond film or the Normandy landing in Saving Private Ryan. That type of camera work makes her dizzy to the point of vomiting. She has the same reaction to most combat-style video games and an old favorite pc game of mine, George Lucas' Outlaws. That's never been a problem for me.

Good luck searching and if you find a good film, let us know. I've really enjoyed the Netflix "watch instantly" feature especially the number of documentaries and classic foreign films that are available.

[mitchellmckain]

We all have a right to our own preferences and opinions but I guess it is just my preference and opinion that what I find to be pathetic are those who love to hate and trash talk the creative work of other people. I cannot help but wonder if they think that by this they lift themselves up and think they are better or comparible in some way, but in reality that haven't created anything or done anything comparable -- thus it seems rather pathetic to me.

Let me think. There are films that I haven't liked. Mel Gibson's "Signs", all the sequels to "The Highlander", and Alien 3 are all at the top of that rather short list. In "Signs" the "aliens" (more like creatures from the black lagoon) just didn't make any sense to me as aliens, so that ruined it for me. The others seemed like they were just ripping off those who loved the previous film(s) without paying for a good writer to make a decent story for the films. There certainly are criticisms we can make of poor film-making, particularly when they fail to bring out what was so appealing in the books or ideas that it was based on. But I definitely think that this can be taken way too far -- and that is when it just seems to get a little pathetic in my opinion.

The Twighlight films are certainly not anywhere in the class of my favorite films (like Dark City, Donnie Darko and The Matrix), but they were enjoyable even for someone who had already read and loved the books and frankly that is a considerable accomplishment all by itself. For those who don't want to hear about any different ideas about what vampires could be like, well just I would say the same to them as I would to anyone who cannot stand films about any vampires whatsoever -- watch whatever you like, and I will keep on watching what I like.

[crazylegsmurphy]

We all have a right to our own preferences and opinions but I guess it is just my preference and opinion that what I find to be pathetic are those who love to hate and trash talk the creative work of other people. I cannot help but wonder if they think that by this they lift themselves up and think they are better or comparible in some way, but in reality that haven't created anything or done anything comparable -- thus it seems rather pathetic to me.

I hate this argument, it's so weak sauce! Because someone doesn't create something comparable they can't have an opinion? Rubbish!

But by your logic... I spent six years working as a make-up artist in film and TV. I spent a year drawing comics for an entertainment / video game company. I have been working as a web / graphic designer for almost 10 years. I played in a punk band for a few years, and I am currently writing and drawing my own web comic.

Does this qualify me to have an opinion about Twilight?

[mitchellmckain]

We all have a right to our own preferences and opinions but I guess it is just my preference and opinion that what I find to be pathetic are those who love to hate and trash talk the creative work of other people. I cannot help but wonder if they think that by this they lift themselves up and think they are better or comparible in some way, but in reality that haven't created anything or done anything comparable -- thus it seems rather pathetic to me.

I hate this argument, it's so weak sauce! Because someone doesn't create something comparable they can't have an opinion? Rubbish!

That contradicts what I said. So what you say here is indeed rubbish.

But considering the following I will acknowledge that the part in italics is also rubbish.

But by your logic... I spent six years working as a make-up artist in film and TV. I spent a year drawing comics for an entertainment / video game company. I have been working as a web / graphic designer for almost 10 years. I played in a punk band for a few years, and I am currently writing and drawing my own web comic.

Cool!

Was any of it any good? Or is that a nonsensical question? I would imagine that some people liked it and some people didn't or wouldn't, right? Punk music certainly isn't my taste. Likewise vampire stories is certainly not to many peoples taste and I think romance also is not to many people's taste either.

Does this qualify me to have an opinion about Twilight?

Anyone can have an opinion about anything. Whether anyone has to have much regard for it is another thing. What are some of your favorite punk bands? I can listen to them and tell you how much I hate them and how I don't even think they should be called music. What do you think? Is there any need for you to have any regard for my opinion of these punk bands, considering?

Modern literature and film is disolving all the boundaries between the classic categories. As a horror film, Twilight would indeed be pathetic, but despite the vampires in Twilight, it is not horror. The author explains that Twilight was written to combine romance, comedy and thriller -- and I think it does that very well. I can see that if you were expecting horror then you could indeed be disappointed. As for myself, I read and watch books and films of the horror genre but it is not for the horror but in spite of it. I avoid films that are what I think is purely of the horror genre. For example, there is one of Stephen King's films that I that I did not like at all even though it was one of the more popular ones: "The Shining" -- a good example of pure horror I would say. But things in the horror genre also often explore many other things that I do find interesting, and so I do like a lot of his other films. In fact, Stephen King's film "It" is my favorite film in the genre.

[Kiwi]

Why are you guys even having this discussion? Isn't Twilight just chick-lit with fangs thrown in for a bit of variety?
I shouldn't really comment, I've neither read the books nor seen the films.
I would, however, like to see the Swedish vamp film 'Let The Right One In'. Anyone seen it?

And personally I prefer zombies, more scope for fun. Shaun of the Dead and Zombieland spring to mind.

[gary_s]

I hate them all for the following reasons.

1. Super horrible CGI
2. Diamond studded vampires (Vampires should be like in Lost Boys and Fright Night)
3. Lame story

I like them for only one reason.

1. Dakota Fanning

But Dakota Fanning's role was so small it was almost insignificant.

Why are you guys even having this discussion? Isn't Twilight just chick-lit with fangs thrown in for a bit of variety?

They don't even have fangs, Kiwi. But your general assessment is accurate.

Here's my guess at the next young adult fiction to take cinema by storm, "The Hunger Games".

[Pseudonym]

Why are you guys even having this discussion? Isn't Twilight just chick-lit with fangs thrown in for a bit of variety?

No. Chick-lit is usually much better.

What actually happened is that a bunch of teen girls grew up on Harry Potter, but the book industry didn't anticipate that when they became young adults they might like to read something else. So what they did end up reading was whatever was there that was close enough. Hence, [i]Twilight[/].

[gary_s]

This was actually Kiwi's comment, not mine...

Why are you guys even having this discussion? Isn't Twilight just chick-lit with fangs thrown in for a bit of variety?

What actually happened is that a bunch of teen girls grew up on Harry Potter, but the book industry didn't anticipate that when they became young adults they might like to read something else. So what they did end up reading was whatever was there that was close enough. Hence, [i]Twilight[/].

This is likely a true statement, but it warrants a "so what" kind of response because, as an open market, it's not like there's anything orchestrated by the fiction industry. I think Harry Potter filled an empty gap in the children's market, simple, easy-to-read, entry level fantasy about other kids. I don't remember this sort of book existing when I was 12. I read the only fantasy that was available. Stephani Meyer is doing much the same thing, writing books about vampires that young girls like to read. In fact, both authors are doing what all authors always do, create something marginally new to appeal to an audience. All the better if it's an audience that hasn't been tapped before. It's interesting to note that both of those fields are now flooded with nearly identical copy-cats.