UNDERWORLD VS. TWILIGHT by jameron4eva

hint: if you are not a girl, Twilight was not made for you. It's girl porn, and Patterson is good enough for them.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 23, 2009 3:21 AM

FREELANCERTEX

At the risk of sounding like a fangirl *does not like Twilight* it's actually Pattinson :P not Patterson.

lol Jewel, you put it quite succinctly XD

Underworld is considerably better. WAY more badass

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 23, 2009 5:49 AM

I find vampires tiresome in general, so I don't like either one.

Twilight is the purest teen girl romantic trash fic, however, and it also idealizes abusive relationships. So Underworld is probably better, but coming from me, that's not saying much.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 23, 2009 6:09 AM

I thought the Underworld movies were mediocre bordering on very bad. Twilight was just mediocre.

That, and Twilight had one scene I had not seen before (the Vampire baseball game) which I found entertaining. Underworld doesn't have anything not cribbed from other films of the Vampire/Werewolf roleplaying games.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 23, 2009 8:13 AM

Yeah, but... they sparkle.

In the next installment, Edward meets Prism the Unicorn. Intense!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 23, 2009 9:24 AM

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.

Saying that Twilight is 'girl porn' is about the same as saying a brutal beating and rape video is 'guy porn.' Either statement can be quite offensive. While it might be true for certain members of the population, some of us are disgusted by the Abusive Stalker Undead boyfriend and the Simpering Colorless Vapid Codependent Underage girlfriend. Idealizes abusive relationships? And how. Also, with the complete disregard of any accepted vampire mythos, which I assume is to serve the story in some way.
When I first read the description, I thought it was a rip-off of Buffy, at least part of Buffy. When I tried to read the book, I thought my eyes were going to bleed and I put it down. I didn't think about it again until I started seeing the ruttin' movie advertised, and all the squealy hype surrounding the whole thing told me, more and more, that it lacked anything resembling Girl Power. It was about a girl hopelessly devoted to someone because he stalked her and felt 'protective' and oh, she would just curl up and die without her creepy protective stalker, or some other creepy protective beastman. She could do nothing for herself and was defined by her relationship and by her helplessness. At least Buffy killed Angel when it was necessary, and she certainly didn't need constant protection from the evils that walk the world.
It isn't 'girl porn.' It's 'totally dysfunctional unhealthy' porn. And I think it's badly written. How badly written abusive tripe becomes popular is one of the great mysteries of reality.
About Underworld I don't care too much. Yes, hotter chicks. Yes, better butt-kicking. And hey, some following of mythos. But it didn't make me care much; I found it rather empty and uninteresting.

[/sig]

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 23, 2009 10:28 AM

Quote:
And how. Also, with the complete disregard of any accepted vampire mythos,

Huh? Seemed to fit in with general vampires of the last 20 years or so just fine, in that every vampire tale pretty much takes it's own angle.

Quote:
At least Buffy killed Angel when it was necessary, and she certainly didn't need constant protection from the evils that walk the world.

Apples and Oranges, she's a flippin superhero.

I'm not even a fan of the movie, but some complaints are rather nonsensical.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 23, 2009 6:22 PM

RIVERDANCER

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Huh? Seemed to fit in with general vampires of the last 20 years or so just fine

Huh? I wasn't aware that vampires of the last 20 years or so failed to burst into flames when exposed to sunlight. Or that they decided to wile away the time in high school for their entire unnatural lives... or that staying in high school for fifty years would never arouse suspicion... or that they didn't tend to eat people. Clearly, the last twenty years have just flown right over my head. Clearly, too, the study of vampyre culture and all that other reading I like to do, not a small part of it about vampires, has all served to delude me into totally agreeing with PR on this topic.

Quote:
Apples and Oranges, she's a flippin superhero.

I think that was the 'girl power' point. Willow was not a 'flippin superhero' when she found the strength to shoot Oz with a tranq gun when he was all wolfy and coming after her. Not putting up with abuse and not being defined by needing that abuse is what Buffy does, while Twilight does not.

Quote:
but some complaints are rather nonsensical.

If you could please explain what's nonsensical about thinking that unhealthy relationships are not something that should be romanticized, or that women should be loving but able to stand on their own feet and reject abusive situations, or that vampires don't sparkle in the sunlight, or just that vapid characters are uninteresting... Yes, please explain how some of the very best principles of Joss Whedon's myriad creations are nonsensical. Please.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 23, 2009 6:31 PM

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 24, 2009 2:43 AM

FREELANCERTEX

lllllllooooooollllllllllllllllllllll PR XD

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 24, 2009 4:51 AM

I'm a little confused by the second one. Aren't both scenarios bad?

Funny enough, I'm actually subverting that very trope in the first comic in a fic I'm writing, where BOTH the hero and the heroine try to pull that on each other.

I'm trying to expose that protective impulse as a mistake that very nearly ruins their relationship, and that the only way a relationship can work is if both partners share responsibility. Oh! And also the ridiculousness that results when one character tries to put the other on a pedestal. This is not mature healthy behaviour.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/OurVampiresAreDifferent

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 24, 2009 5:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by RiverDancer:
Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Huh? Seemed to fit in with general vampires of the last 20 years or so just fine

Huh? I wasn't aware that vampires of the last 20 years or so failed to burst into flames when exposed to sunlight. Or that they decided to wile away the time in high school for their entire unnatural lives... or that staying in high school for fifty years would never arouse suspicion... or that they didn't tend to eat people. Clearly, the last twenty years have just flown right over my head. Clearly, too, the study of vampyre culture and all that other reading I like to do, not a small part of it about vampires, has all served to delude me into totally agreeing with PR on this topic.

Defensive much? Sorry, but Twilight is hardly the first time Vampires have been able to survive sunlight. Buffy and Angel used various MacGuffins to accomplish it, the series Kindred: The Embraced did it every episode. There are other examples. And it's FAR from the first time a story has used vampires who refrain from eating people.

Come on - for someone who claims to be studying "Vampyres", you seem to have some rather huge gaps in your knowledge - or you are purposefully ignoring them to drive that little tirade.

As for High School, I bet if I looked, I could find other examples. If they are forever stuck as teenagers physically - it is the most logical place to be in order to interact with society and not draw attention (as if they didn't go, child services would investigate). Plus, your complaint about them staying in school for 50 years with no one noticing is sillyssince the film stated directly that they only stayed a few years in any one place, and moved on.

Quote:
If you could please explain what's nonsensical about thinking that unhealthy relationships are not something that should be romanticized, or that women should be loving but able to stand on their own feet and reject abusive situations, or that vampires don't sparkle in the sunlight, or just that vapid characters are uninteresting... Yes, please explain how some of the very best principles of Joss Whedon's myriad creations are nonsensical. Please.

I didn't say those issues were nonsensical - I didn't address those at all - I merelly commented on the vampire aspects. If you have problems with the relationship stuff - fine, but I didn't comment on it, so please unbunch your panties. You think the characters are vapid? Me, too. But I wasn't taalking about that. Sparkleing? So? Anne Rice gave them super-reflective fingernails, so it's a semi-natural progression. None of which has anything to do with what I was talking about. Perhaps you could be less reactionary and actually read what I wrote.

Please, indeed.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 24, 2009 6:16 AM

Yeah, Brahm Stoker's Dracula AND Camilla as I recall were both able to survive sunlight. The spontaneous combustion thing was invented in nosferatu.

The sparkling thing is just too ridiculous for my tastes, though, I'm sorry. I've never really had much respect for Anne Rice's vampires anyway, so I don't consider "reflective fingernails" something that redeems the sparkiliness. It's pointless, there's no REASON for them to sparkle in sunlight. And it ruins whatever farcical attempt at mood the author is trying to establish.

These are vampires, aren't they? Seriously, what the hell? They're CORPSES. They're a monster/horror trope and if not an exploration of the dark beastial side of human nature, then speculation on the supernatural at work preying on the human population and the very human fear of death and dead things. Sparkles? Seriously?

Perhaps the main problem is that I don't like the DIRECTION that the pop-culture vampire and vampire story seems to be headed. So maybe it's not so much whether they conform to the last twenty years, maybe it's about how they SHOULDN'T.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 24, 2009 6:22 AM

RIVERDANCER

What you 'actually wrote' was dismissive of all points. Unless you missed what the actual point was about the not needing protection and being able to let go if it was necessary. I suppose I shouldn't have ruled out that you would miss that being a point about the 'relationship stuff' so I apologize for that. But the fact is, you did 'comment' on the 'relationship stuff' with the dismissive comment that Buffy was a superhero and that was the only reason she could be strong. So, instead of claiming I didn't read what you wrote, perhaps you should look again at what the discussion is actually addressing and actually about, at least as quite a few of us are approaching it. And before you make more derogatory comments about defensiveness or bunched panties, you should also consider that, maybe, I was responding to your very own snarky and dismissive tone.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 24, 2009 6:57 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
I thought the Underworld movies were mediocre bordering on very bad. Twilight was just mediocre.

That, and Twilight had one scene I had not seen before (the Vampire baseball game) which I found entertaining. Underworld doesn't have anything not cribbed from other films of the Vampire/Werewolf roleplaying games.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

WHAT THF FRACK!!!!!!!!! MEDIOCRE, NOW THAT'S JUST CROSSING THE LINE. AND PUTTING TWILIGHT, TWILIGHT ABOVE UNDERWORLD, PRAY LUCIAN, SONJA,MICHAEL, SELENE, VIKTOR, RAZE, AND EVEN KRAVEN DON'T KICK YOUR MORTAL BUTT!!!!!!!

"The war was over... but a new terror had just begun"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 24, 2009 7:45 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by RiverDancer:
What you 'actually wrote' was dismissive of all points.

No, it wasn't. I said "some" of the objections were nonsensical, and I gave examples.

I don't know about you, but last I checked, the word "some" did not mean "all". Quite the opposite, you know?

And yes, I mentioned Buffy, but not because I take issue with your problems with the relationships in Twilight. I was simply pointing out that a comparison to Buffy is not necessarily apt, just because of the subject matter. I'm all for girl power, but not every character, male or female, is or needs to be a strong character. Just like in life, some people are weaker than others, be it physically, emotionally, intellectually or otherwise. And such characters can still be used to tell compelling stories - particularly if that weak character learns to be stronger. And, when it comes down to it, while maybe you and others hate the idea, there are people who still enjoy the damsel-in-distress story structure.

And sure, Willow tranqued Oz.... but she also had to be rescued on more than one occasion.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 24, 2009 7:47 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by jameron4eva:
Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
I thought the Underworld movies were mediocre bordering on very bad. Twilight was just mediocre.

That, and Twilight had one scene I had not seen before (the Vampire baseball game) which I found entertaining. Underworld doesn't have anything not cribbed from other films of the Vampire/Werewolf roleplaying games.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

WHAT THF FRACK!!!!!!!!! MEDIOCRE, NOW THAT'S JUST CROSSING THE LINE. AND PUTTING TWILIGHT, TWILIGHT ABOVE UNDERWORLD, PRAY LUCIAN, SONJA,MICHAEL, SELENE, VIKTOR, RAZE, AND EVEN KRAVEN DON'T KICK YOUR MORTAL BUTT!!!!!!!

"The war was over... but a new terror had just begun"

Uh... yeah.... I'll get right on that praying.

Sorry to have upset you, but I did think Underworld was terribly mediocre and derivative. And I thought the second one was just absolutely terrible. Never bothered with the third.

Like I said, I didn't particularly like Twilight, I just give it points for being incrementally less derivative than Underworld.

And, as a side note.... shouldn't the thread title be Underworld v Twilight? Underworld x Twilight sounds like multiplication. And I shudder to think of what we'd get when multiplying Underworld by Twilight.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 24, 2009 10:15 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Quote:
Originally posted by jameron4eva:
Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
I thought the Underworld movies were mediocre bordering on very bad. Twilight was just mediocre.

That, and Twilight had one scene I had not seen before (the Vampire baseball game) which I found entertaining. Underworld doesn't have anything not cribbed from other films of the Vampire/Werewolf roleplaying games.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

WHAT THF FRACK!!!!!!!!! MEDIOCRE, NOW THAT'S JUST CROSSING THE LINE. AND PUTTING TWILIGHT, TWILIGHT ABOVE UNDERWORLD, PRAY LUCIAN, SONJA,MICHAEL, SELENE, VIKTOR, RAZE, AND EVEN KRAVEN DON'T KICK YOUR MORTAL BUTT!!!!!!!

"The war was over... but a new terror had just begun"

Uh... yeah.... I'll get right on that praying.

Sorry to have upset you, but I did think Underworld was terribly mediocre and derivative. And I thought the second one was just absolutely terrible. Never bothered with the third.

Like I said, I didn't particularly like Twilight, I just give it points for being incrementally less derivative than Underworld.

And, as a side note.... shouldn't the thread title be Underworld v Twilight? Underworld x Twilight sounds like multiplication. And I shudder to think of what we'd get when multiplying Underworld by Twilight.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

It can be either way, and so you know, that's your opininon, about UNDERWORLD, i just don't subscribe to it.

AND TWILIGHT WILL NEVER BE NUMERO UNO!!!!!!!

"Take my love, take my land, take me where i can not stand."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 24, 2009 10:24 AM

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
I'm a little confused by the second one. Aren't both scenarios bad?

Haha, yes, I'd say they are, but I thought the strips were mostly apt. I didn't remember the second one was there until I went hunting for that first one, but I thought that at least the first two panels had some wisdom.

I'll be interested in reading that fic, let us know when you're done with it

[/sig]

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 24, 2009 10:31 AM

Quote:
And, as a side note.... shouldn't the thread title be Underworld v Twilight? Underworld x Twilight sounds like multiplication. And I shudder to think of what we'd get when multiplying Underworld by Twilight.

Ha, I can drink to that. Cheers. Although if it were a crossover, I wouldn't mind seeing Edward get torn apart. Just sayin'.

Is 'x' used as an symbol for "against" in any places? It seems like I've seen that usage somewhere, something to do with attacking.

PR: >_> It's Firefly related. :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 24, 2009 11:03 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by jameron4eva:

It can be either way, and so you know, that's your opininon, about UNDERWORLD, i just don't subscribe to it.

AND TWILIGHT WILL NEVER BE NUMERO UNO!!!!!!!

"Take my love, take my land, take me where i can not stand."

Yep, just my opinion. And so you know.... your view is just an opinion, too.

As for being "NUMERO UNO"... well, I have said I'm not even very fond of Twilight.... but the fact is, by any quantifiable measurement, Twilight is far ahead of Underworld.

At the box-office, Twilight alone made almost as much money as all 3 Underworld movies combined, and Twilight also has far better reviews overall (with a Rotten Tomatoes score roughly that of any 2 Underworld movies combined).

Just sayin'....

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 24, 2009 11:21 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:

The sparkling thing is just too ridiculous for my tastes, though, I'm sorry. I've never really had much respect for Anne Rice's vampires anyway, so I don't consider "reflective fingernails" something that redeems the sparkiliness. It's pointless, there's no REASON for them to sparkle in sunlight. And it ruins whatever farcical attempt at mood the author is trying to establish.

These are vampires, aren't they? Seriously, what the hell? They're CORPSES. They're a monster/horror trope and if not an exploration of the dark beastial side of human nature, then speculation on the supernatural at work preying on the human population and the very human fear of death and dead things. Sparkles? Seriously?

I think it's kinda silly, too, and didn't like the way they did it in the film, from a visual perspective.

But it does make a bit of sense as presented storyline-wise. From an ancient-world perspective, it would be beneficial for a predator to have physical characteristics which draw prey in - and simple minded creatures like shiny things. Being corpse-like works in terms of atmosphere and dread when dealing with a straight horror story, but that's not what this is (or Buffy, or a number of other vamp tales), but as applied to a predator/prey situation, it would be highly detrimental. And if you are looking at Vampires as highly evolved predators as some tales do (as opposed to reanimated corpses), it would make no sense for them to be repulsive. Plus, it gives them a reason to stay out of sunlight and still avoid the immolation cliche.

Quote:
Perhaps the main problem is that I don't like the DIRECTION that the pop-culture vampire and vampire story seems to be headed. So maybe it's not so much whether they conform to the last twenty years, maybe it's about how they SHOULDN'T.

I think it's cyclical to a degree. This is hardly the first time that touchy-feely vampires have been popular. And I think the vampire concept is rich enough that it allows for broad interpretation, both in the literal way the creatures/characters are constructed, and their metaphorical use. I like my undead scary bloodthirsty vamps, and I like characters like Angel and Lestat.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 24, 2009 11:45 AM

That's a pretty good explanation. It seems like after many years in the world, though, and there being people who don't like vampires, that eventually the sparkles would become a detriment, a way for the savvy to identify and destroy.

I have to admit I'm not super familiar with the mythos of the Twilight series, are vampires here reanimated, or are they a human genetic variation? Or are they magical/necromatic in nature?

Is this similar to the concept of a glamour, and if so, why shouldn't the vampires here be able to turn it off like in other similar interpretations?

And if the sparkles are for mesmerizing, why don't they hunt at day more often?

Well, it's still an interesting interpretation. I do think they would have been better without sparkles, power going away in the day, and just having a glamour they can turn on and off.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 24, 2009 11:58 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
That's a pretty good explanation. It seems like after many years in the world, though, and there being people who don't like vampires, that eventually the sparkles would become a detriment, a way for the savvy to identify and destroy.

Good point.

Quote:
I have to admit I'm not super familiar with the mythos of the Twilight series, are vampires here reanimated, or are they a human genetic variation? Or are they magical/necromatic in nature?

No idea. I've only seen the movie, and listened to a handfull of student book reports on the fourth book. If I were to guess, I'd lean toward the magical explaination, but who knows. It may never have been addressed at all in the books.

Quote:
Is this similar to the concept of a glamour, and if so, why shouldn't the vampires here be able to turn it off like in other similar interpretations?

And if the sparkles are for mesmerizing, why don't they hunt at day more often?

To the former... no idea. To the latter - I'd guess the answer is along the lines of your question at the top - it's just not beneficial to them anymore.

Quote:
Well, it's still an interesting interpretation. I do think they would have been better without sparkles, power going away in the day, and just having a glamour they can turn on and off.

I'm not a fan of the sparkles, but I'm open to new variations on the concept, so while this one didn't exactly fly with me, I can't fault them for the effort. I'd guess being able to turn the glamour on/off, or having their powers go away, would have been detrimental to the star-crossed-lovers conceit at the center of the story. That's what it's really about, all the Vampire stuff is just a device to drive it home.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 24, 2009 12:35 PM

I did some research.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Twilight

Quote:
These books contain examples of: Our Vampires Are Different - they're sparkly golem-like creatures made of diamonds that run on explosive oil strained from human blood, without fangs (even cute little ones) and have no problem with the sun, holy symbols or garlic. Hell, Twilight is practically the embodiment of this trope!

...o_0

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 24, 2009 12:43 PM

There's some very creepy info about fans of the series in there....

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 24, 2009 12:48 PM

Yes, that seems accurate with what I have observed and cowered from. There is some WEIRD stuff in the books, it sounds like.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 25, 2009 7:04 AM

PCCH7

I love Underworld 1.. 2 & 3 are ok, but Twilight is absolutely awful.. Basically any vampire movie you can think of, I like more then Twilight

"Summer Glau can simply walk into Mordor.."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 25, 2009 8:21 AM

CALIFORNIAKAYLEE

FYI:

It seems to me that the vast majority of Buffy and Firefly fans need a serious attitude adjustment. Over the past year, you guys have lost 10 hardcore Browncoats that I know personally – and many others, I’m sure, who aren’t brave enough to speak up about it – to this inane bullshit.

So you personally don’t like Twilight. So fucking what? Why should I, my husband, my parents, and my siblings all be made to feel unwelcome in Browncoat ranks because we happen to like it? Well guess what, that’s 10 fewer Browncoats right there, because of this ridiculous attitude in the community. How many others are you going to drive away with pointless hate?

I loaned my Firefly DVDs to a friend a while back, and I’m going to tell her to keep them. I’m done.

~CK

You can't take the sky from me...

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 25, 2009 8:25 AM

Wow....over-react much?

Given that the last time you seemed to have posted here was to launch a very long dissection of why someone who didn't care for TSCC was so WRONG, perhaps you are doing a wee bit of projection? Just a thought.

This thread is hardly a one-sided conversation, there are arguments both ways. If the fact that some don't like Twilight is so upsetting to you, perhaps you should work on thickening your skin a good bit.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 25, 2009 8:33 AM

RIVERDANCER

Turning your back on a show because certain fans have intense dislikes that you don't agree with is, of course, entirely up to you. You could also, perhaps, tell us all exactly why you think we're so wrong in our intense dislike. I mean why we're wrong about the story, of course, since you've already ranted about how wrong it is to express said dislike. We may not be swayed, of course, but it is an option, especially as so far I haven't heard a single intelligent argument as to why Twilight is worth reading, and you might be able to give one, being in my opinion a fairly intelligent lady. Or, another option, you could avoid threads about the topic, or avoid this and other sites entirely, without ceasing to watch the show out of spite towards the fans of it who are not fans of Twilight.
I know people in the vampyre culture, and have a liking for a great many (if not every single) vampire stories. That doesn't matter to people who find my opinions worth dismissing, but I've managed to keep my love of Firefly intact (actually, I never even considered giving up on the show over an unrelated argument) and have even stayed lurking and occasionally posting around the site as I always do, accepting the fact that arguing about it might not be worth my while. Other things may still be worth my while, as 'unwelcome' as I might feel for fleeting moments. That was my choice, and I happen to think it was a rather rational one. However, if our opinions are so offensive to you that you would let them destroy something you loved, as I said, that's entirely up to you.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 26, 2009 12:13 AM

SHINYGOODGUY

Hey Rose,

Speak up, don't be afraid to say what's on your mind.

You make a good point about Tweenlight, it's pure fluff - and delivers a sad and dangerous message to young girls. Only the enlightened ones will get it and stay mindful.

Now Underworld is, without a doubt, a thousand times better. The first one did have promise, IMHO.
But Underworld 2 dropped the ball. I went to see it in the theatre with great expectations and was sorely disappointed. But it had a much better story and mythos as you suggested.

And I'm quite fond of Kate Beckinsale in a tight leather suit kicking ass.

I;m just saying!

SGG

Tawabawho?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 26, 2009 12:28 AM

SHINYGOODGUY

As you may know Browncoats are die-hards. Even your tag lines about Kaylee - "No power in the verse" and
"You can't the sky from me" - suggest that you understand that to be true.

So why leave because someone disagrees with you on one particular thing?

To me, leaving this site, or anything, that easily means that you don't get it.

Good luck to you.

SGG

Tawabawho?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 26, 2009 9:42 AM

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.

Hehe, thanks SGG.
You know, it's interesting in a way, because there have been times I felt less-than-welcome because I didn't like Twilight. I felt as though there was this opinion that anything involving vampires was automatically good, no matter what the underlying metaphor may be. I'll admit, I found it frustrating, but I just didn't talk about it because I figured my opinion would be scorned and possibly be upsetting. Finally seeing some backlash, some other people coming out and saying 'no, this is not a good thing, it's not a good metaphor, it's not a good lesson, it's not a good story or use of the story' etc. made me feel a bit better, but there was still an overwhelming, almost crushing kind of feeling that most people thought this was brilliant romance, and that to think anything else made me less female somehow, or cynical and dead inside, or in some other way... not right. Soooo, I eventually snapped. And maybe it was overblown, maybe it was upsetting, maybe it makes other people feel the way I felt, and maybe I could have said it more... diplomatically. But it is just my opinion, and I'm not the only one who has it and I'm glad I'm not the only one who has it, and it doesn't mean I automatically hate you if you're a Twilight fan or something, it just means I don't understand where you're coming from.
And for the record, it isn't about how much it isn't Buffy. I am a fan of Buffy - a fairly recent fan, actually - but that doesn't mean I hate anything that isn't Buffy. Twilight has certain things in common with Buffy, what with the vampire dating a 16 year old girl, so it lends itself to comparison, but I don't hate it because it's not Buffy. The reason I brought Buffy up at all was because the underlying metaphors in that story, the dimension of the characters, the overall writing style, I happen to prefer. A lot. I think it has some good things to say with that particular metaphor, and I think Twilight uses the same metaphor in a kind of gross way. If Buffy had never existed or I had never watched it, I would still not like Twilight. Actually, I'm pretty sure that I attempted to read the first book before I had even watched Buffy, though after I had heard enough about it to know a lot of key plot points.
Anyway. Dancer made a good point, and one that I will vouch for from experience over the same issue. Feeling unwelcome over one opinion should not be enough to drive you out of an unrelated fandom. And I certainly didn't intend to drive anyone away with my opinions on an unrelated fandom, and I'm sorry if I did. It doesn't change my opinion.

[/sig]

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 26, 2009 10:55 AM

Actually, I've never even SEEN Buffy the Vampire Slayer OR Angel, and I don't want to.

You are mistaken to assume my dislike of Twilight is owing to fandom rivalry.

I merely don't like vampires, period.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 26, 2009 11:38 AM

Now, there are two cases where some things I might have said may be construed as offensive to Twilight fans, and for these I do apologize. I meant something different then how they came out sounding as.

Quote:
Twilight is the purest teen girl romantic trash fic

In this one, I was mostly identifying the series as targeted primarily towards teenaged girls, which is accurate. However, calling it trash could be taken as an insult to the TYPE of teenage girl, however I meant it in reference to a certain genre of books.

But, it likely came across the wrong way and I apologize.

And this one:

Quote:
Yes, that seems accurate with what I have observed and cowered from. There is some WEIRD stuff in the books, it sounds like.

Though in response to Storymark’s comments about the fans, really I was more focusing on my comments on elements from the books that I don’t like.

However, my agreement did seem like I was also calling Twilight fans creepy, and I’m sorry for that as well.

I am sorry that you feel unwelcome. However, these arguments really aren’t meant to be personal. As an internet discussion board, various fandoms are likely to be discussed, and for a fandom as controversial as Twilight, there are going to be folks who will argue both sides. Unwritten rules for fandom threads like “praise or get out” defeat the point of a discussion board.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 26, 2009 12:10 PM

FOLLOWMAL

Hmmm. Passionate opinions. Kind of like the Twilight vs. True Blood or True Blood vs. Buffy fandoms. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions and enjoyments I'd wager and a good thing too.

The world would be a mighty boring place to live if we all liked the same stuff.

I am weird about this I guess. I like Underworld et all very much including the purely ridiculous 2nd movie and I also enjoyed going to see Twilight.
I've read all the Twilight books and although I very much disapprove and speak out against the position the author puts young girls in I also find some things about both the books and the movie that please me. ( The baseball scene being one of them! )

I don't even mind the sparkling, as long as they don't show it too often. Good thing it's cloudy where these vampires live.

The vampire genre has changed a bunch since Nosferatu. It used to be they were simply tortured, torturing biting monsters. Since Anne Rice it seems the genre discusses the actual lives and losses and pain of vampires. They're allowed to have emotions besides constant hunger, sexual depravity and violent tendencies.

The genre can go any direction it wants to. I've been watching vampires since I was young and I'll wager I'll be watching and reading about them when I'm quite old.

Good stuff.
Oh and right now... True Blood RULES IMHO.*tease*

http://www.kidsneedtoread.org/

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 26, 2009 6:17 PM

NCBROWNCOAT

I have to agree with you FollowMal. I started my vampire watching with Barnabas Collins of Dark Shadows. And have seen and enjoyed Nosferatu (the silent version), several Draculas etc.

And I enjoyed some aspects of Twilight too, the pure escapism aspect of it. The one true love etc. And there were times I was laughing silently to myself because it was just so "tweeny".

I can't say anything about Underworld, Angel or Buffy because out of all those I've only seen season 7 of Buffy.

And now I'm addicted to True Blood. The vamps in that show show a whole range, from what could be considered the "nice vampire" Bill, the "bad boy" Eric, the vamp/human interactions at Fangtastia etc. (I won't spoil anything because I've read all 9 of the books and even then Alan Ball has created his own darker, more AU Sookieverse on HBO than Charlaine Harris did in the books).

And yes, Sookie is "kick a**" but she does have her vulnerable points too. And Bill isn't nice and the perfect boyfriend all the time and even Eric has his good points, sometimes.

http://fireflyfaninnc.livejournal.com/

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 26, 2009 6:37 PM

CHRISISALL

To ME, Joss' Buffy defines the whole "Vampire" thing. Wanna go classic? "Taste The Blood Of Dracula," "The Night Stalker" or "Scream, Blacula, Scream."

Sorry, this new s**t sucks (pun definitely intended).

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 26, 2009 9:04 PM

SHINYGOODGUY

Hey Rose,

Just so you know, I only saw the Twilight movie a few months ago, mainly because I wanted to know what all the fuss and hoopla was about. But I have not read the books (although I know many who have including my 13-year-old niece) and I'm just not interested because it doesn't appeal to me - period.

I found the movie to be fleeting and kind of like eating Chinese for dinner - within the hour I wanted to see something else. I couldn't remember a thing other than the scene where he stops the truck from hitting her. I found it very stylized and slick, but it was missing something.
I don't know, gravitas - it had no weight. I get that they tried to make a romance tweeny film out of the series of books. OK, let me stop here because I don't want to bash.

Here's the thing. I remember a few years back I was watching Siskel & Ebert (the original At the Movies) and Ebert said something that stuck with me. He said it to Gene Siskel. There are all kinds of movies for all kinds of people, our job is to review them for what they are. He was referring to Siskel bashing a particular movie and the people who went to see it. My guess is that Roger felt it was insulting to those who found it entertaining.

Then he reminded Gene Siskel of their panning of the movie Ace Ventura: Pet Detective, which some consider to be a classic farce (including me). They thought it would tank horribly at the box office. Who knew?

Ok, what am I saying with this. Everyone has their Ace Ventura/Twilight/fill in the blank. We can all think of a movie that was the worst waste of film ever in history and yet, there's someone that says to you - Are you kidding me, that was a classic.

Whatever flaws this movie, and for that matter, the book series has; there will be those that will not see what you see. I think for the most part folks here are pretty good about exchanging opinions and having intelligent dialogue as to our fav books, movies and such. But there will be those moments when someone will take a comment personal and as an affront to their character.
But everyone here is entitled to express their opinion, that's what the site is for.

What's the saying? You can lead a horse to water..............

SGG

Tawabawho?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 27, 2009 6:11 AM

QUANDOM

I wish to start with the truth contained in the characterization of Twilight as 'girl porn'. There are products that are aimed at different market segments, 'Twilight', like 'Titanic', is clearly aimed at the adolescent female. I've always thought of 'Cosmmopolitan' as girl porn, far more salacious than any of the Lad Mags such as Maxim. But there is clearly a large interest in what they sell, or it would not be so profitable a venture. No one is compelled to buy this twopenny trash. So much of the critique of 'Twilight' that calls itself feminist strikes me as being righteous overmuch.

As for the claim of abusive relationship promotion, I don't know that is consistent with the facts of the writing. Doesn't the handsome young male vampire marry the female protagonist, and they live happily (sort of) ever after? Sounds like a very tame, moraline tale to me.. Strikes be more like a recasting of "Wuthering Heights" with bloodsuckers. There's been a trend here, as we see with "Pride and Prejudice and Zombies", recasting old product into new. Like the song goes "Every old is new again".

Now, perhaps there are those who argue that any story of a younger female enraptured by an older 'bad boy' male are abusive. That is a different argument.

As more me, I love the T-shirt "And Buffy Staked Edward".

So, ladies and gentlemen, sharpen your stakes and let the contest continue!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 27, 2009 7:50 AM

HOBBLEIT

Quote:
Originally posted by PhoenixRose:
Saying that Twilight is 'girl porn' is about the same as saying a brutal beating and rape video is 'guy porn.' Either statement can be quite offensive. While it might be true for certain members of the population, some of us are disgusted by the Abusive Stalker Undead boyfriend and the Simpering Colorless Vapid Codependent Underage girlfriend. Idealizes abusive relationships? And how. Also, with the complete disregard of any accepted vampire mythos, which I assume is to serve the story in some way.
When I first read the description, I thought it was a rip-off of Buffy, at least part of Buffy. When I tried to read the book, I thought my eyes were going to bleed and I put it down. I didn't think about it again until I started seeing the ruttin' movie advertised, and all the squealy hype surrounding the whole thing told me, more and more, that it lacked anything resembling Girl Power. It was about a girl hopelessly devoted to someone because he stalked her and felt 'protective' and oh, she would just curl up and die without her creepy protective stalker, or some other creepy protective beastman. She could do nothing for herself and was defined by her relationship and by her helplessness. At least Buffy killed Angel when it was necessary, and she certainly didn't need constant protection from the evils that walk the world.
It isn't 'girl porn.' It's 'totally dysfunctional unhealthy' porn. And I think it's badly written. How badly written abusive tripe becomes popular is one of the great mysteries of reality.
About Underworld I don't care too much. Yes, hotter chicks. Yes, better butt-kicking. And hey, some following of mythos. But it didn't make me care much; I found it rather empty and uninteresting.

Couldn't have put it better myself

******************************

http://www.myspace.com/muddy_waters
http://www.freewebs.com/hobbleit

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 27, 2009 9:01 AM

I really don't think calling Twilight a modern day Pride and Prejudice is accurate. For one, unless I'm really missing something, I'm unaware of Twilight having any commentary on wealth, social class, and the break-down thereof. Unless vampires can be construed as such?

Wuthering Heights is also more about a misunderstanding that results in a break-up and then the vengeful ex-lover returning to ruin everyone than it is about women requiring someone to protect them from all the evil (the other vampires) of the world.

Lastly, you seem to be saying that all's well that ends well, with marriage being a "good ending" in the case of what seems to be a relationship associated with a lot of danger, violence, and unhappiness. I could be mistaken, but I would have to disagree on principle.

EDIT: or perhaps you're making a comment about how land generally was generally inherited by males in the Victorian times, and that women born in certain socio-economic circles would need to eventually marry to secure a home for themselves, or live with their parents their entire lives?

In which case, perhaps there are some similarities to Twilight.

I note, however, that the Victorian times in general were not very empowering for women. The repression represented in the books in question were more an artifact of the times that the books were written in than anything that can be held against the books. Twilight is a modern book: there is no reason for it to be promoting Victorian era perspectives unless it is a parody, satire, or other sort of commentary. I don't think it can be argued that it is.

Of Jane Austen, Pride and Prejudice and Northranger Abbey are the only two books that I like, and that's only really because they're comedies.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 27, 2009 9:26 AM

Shinygoodguy, you have a valid point.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 27, 2009 11:14 PM

WOW! lotsa postiness since my last visit.
Digesting.
Also, I am not a "Twilight hater" - I enjoyed it.

Couple points:
I suspect I don't adequately embrace drama queens sometimes. Or is that "simpering weak girls?"

This might be portrayed as a discussion of Vampires as victims - yea or nay.

If given the chance, I suspect many teenagers in high school would love to spend the rest of their lives in that situation - for many, it was the pinnacle of their lives.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 27, 2009 11:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by CaliforniaKaylee:
FYI:

It seems to me that the vast majority of Buffy and Firefly fans need a serious attitude adjustment. Over the past year, you guys have lost 10 hardcore Browncoats that I know personally – and many others, I’m sure, who aren’t brave enough to speak up about it – to this inane bullshit.

So you personally don’t like Twilight. So fucking what? Why should I, my husband, my parents, and my siblings all be made to feel unwelcome in Browncoat ranks because we happen to like it? Well guess what, that’s 10 fewer Browncoats right there, because of this ridiculous attitude in the community. How many others are you going to drive away with pointless hate?

I loaned my Firefly DVDs to a friend a while back, and I’m going to tell her to keep them. I’m done.

~CK

You can't take the sky from me...

Are there other anti-Twilight threads on this board, are they common?
I kinda thought this was just a discussion, other than the OP.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 27, 2009 11:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by PhoenixRose:
Hehe, thanks SGG.
You know, it's interesting in a way, because there have been times I felt less-than-welcome because I didn't like Twilight. I felt as though there was this opinion that anything involving vampires was automatically good, no matter what the underlying metaphor may be. I'll admit, I found it frustrating, but I just didn't talk about it because I figured my opinion would be scorned and possibly be upsetting. Finally seeing some backlash, some other people coming out and saying 'no, this is not a good thing, it's not a good metaphor, it's not a good lesson, it's not a good story or use of the story' etc. made me feel a bit better, but there was still an overwhelming, almost crushing kind of feeling that most people thought this was brilliant romance, and that to think anything else made me less female somehow, or cynical and dead inside, or in some other way... not right. Soooo, I eventually snapped. And maybe it was overblown, maybe it was upsetting, maybe it makes other people feel the way I felt, and maybe I could have said it more... diplomatically. But it is just my opinion, and I'm not the only one who has it and I'm glad I'm not the only one who has it, and it doesn't mean I automatically hate you if you're a Twilight fan or something, it just means I don't understand where you're coming from.
And for the record, it isn't about how much it isn't Buffy. I am a fan of Buffy - a fairly recent fan, actually - but that doesn't mean I hate anything that isn't Buffy. Twilight has certain things in common with Buffy, what with the vampire dating a 16 year old girl, so it lends itself to comparison, but I don't hate it because it's not Buffy. The reason I brought Buffy up at all was because the underlying metaphors in that story, the dimension of the characters, the overall writing style, I happen to prefer. A lot. I think it has some good things to say with that particular metaphor, and I think Twilight uses the same metaphor in a kind of gross way. If Buffy had never existed or I had never watched it, I would still not like Twilight. Actually, I'm pretty sure that I attempted to read the first book before I had even watched Buffy, though after I had heard enough about it to know a lot of key plot points.
Anyway. Dancer made a good point, and one that I will vouch for from experience over the same issue. Feeling unwelcome over one opinion should not be enough to drive you out of an unrelated fandom. And I certainly didn't intend to drive anyone away with my opinions on an unrelated fandom, and I'm sorry if I did. It doesn't change my opinion.

[/sig]

I oft enjoy your posts. Thoughtful at least. Many times I think "what would PR post about this topic/thread." And then despondent when she doesn't.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 4, 2009 8:24 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Quote:
Originally posted by jameron4eva:

It can be either way, and so you know, that's your opininon, about UNDERWORLD, i just don't subscribe to it.

AND TWILIGHT WILL NEVER BE NUMERO UNO!!!!!!!

"Take my love, take my land, take me where i can not stand."

Yep, just my opinion. And so you know.... your view is just an opinion, too.

As for being "NUMERO UNO"... well, I have said I'm not even very fond of Twilight.... but the fact is, by any quantifiable measurement, Twilight is far ahead of Underworld.

At the box-office, Twilight alone made almost as much money as all 3 Underworld movies combined, and Twilight also has far better reviews overall (with a Rotten Tomatoes score roughly that of any 2 Underworld movies combined).

Just sayin'....

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

The only reason Twilight supposedly has more people watching it is, the 9-30 varient of the Female of the species. Yes it's the girls who watch that prissy crap Twilight, and only because they read the books.

And the storyline and acting is much better than Twilight. Sorry to Pattenson, and Stewart, but i mean does Twilight have an actor the caliber of Kate Beckinsale?, Or a Bill Nighey? I think not!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh and by the way, who the hell goes to a movie because of the critics ratings anyway? We all know the best movies get reviewd the worst by them, so by that token, Underworld easily trumps Twilight. So take your critics reviews and stuff them!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 4, 2009 8:25 AM