Of course, I am legend is an incredible book. Arguably a point for zombies and vampires, too. Unconventional, but that's it's point.
That deserves a + rep.
Interview with the Vampire is thoroughly entertaining
It would probably be contracted through the penis. We all know gay vampires only suck blood straight through the urethra
On the original subject...
I was gonna see this soon, but now I prolly won't.
This is the second movie in just a few weeks that I'm skipping because of bad reviews.
On the zombie - vampire discussion:
I prefer vampires. I dunno, I always liked the idea of blood sucking, sun-shy beings.
No matter if depicted as gory monsters, as in 30 Days of Night, or thinking humans as in most movies.
I find them more entertaining and frightening then zombies too.
You know, Zombies can't even run. So it's awfully easy to escape, unless you're fucking stupid.
Makes them somewhat boring for me.
Well, they're still good for some comedy movies I guess.
The fact that they can't run is partly what makes them scary. You can quite easily run away from one or two but there's never just one or two for long. There is a horrible sense of impending doom with zombie films that never quite gets resolved.
Oh, and then all of a sudden they could run (28 Days Later, Dead Set) and that just made them even worse.
Yeah well, I never really understood how they can become so many so fast.
You know, it always starts with a single person. And even though that douche is mindless and can't run, he'll get another to join his undead joyride.
As for 28 Days Later, it was more interesting than the average zombie movie indeed.
But the sequel was horrible. Never seen a film even close this bad.
Well it depends on what the zombification process is. In romero movies its bites only. Other movies choose liquid-to-liquid contact.The movie Fido and the comic The Walking Dead both use a 'you die, you zombify' logic. (Fido has a wonderful part where it discusses the dangers of old people..they can't be trusted!
If its a bite only, usually the people that get bitten but run turn zombs within a few hours. However, something that has always bothered me is the whole feeding frenzy thing. If every zombie eats people to nothingness, how do more zombies get made?
Plus, it's usually a loved one and then you're all 'wtf'.
But it makes the fact that the guy's wife was zombified less funny if he didn't unconditionally love her.
Wow after reading all this crap about it I thought it was going to totally suck, but who am I to pass up a free movie that will at least have eye-candy if nothing else. I just do not see what is so bad about it (aside from the ending, that was fairly cheesy but also necessary because it would have been completely ridiculous not to have at least SOMETHING about that character at the end). The bad acting comment is so useless, I can recall VERY few times in a professional Hollywood film where it was the acting that was bad. There are certainly people to be blamed for "bad acting" in any film, but often times they acted a certain way because that's how they were SUPPOSED to act.
With that out of the way, what is it that actually makes so many people say it's bad? Who knows maybe my reaction to this movie is only because I was expecting it to be ridiculously horrible, but since it wasn't even close to horrible then it seems better than it was. Compounding the effect likely coming off of seeing Quantum of Solace less than a week before and having way too high of expectations for it. That was like hitting a piñata and expecting candy to come out, but instead there are just a bunch of wrappers. Twilight was like expecting a buffalo to take a diarrhea dump on your face and getting a clean Titleist golf ball instead, it's like "oh holy shit, that was amazing compared to what I thought I'd get."
I had a feeling you might like it, for obvious reasons -
There was no story. It was the case with the book - Stephanie Meyer spent so much time setting up the 'romance' between Bella and Edward, with less than 10 interactions between them before OMG LOVE that she forgot to actually add a plot until page 400. The rest of the book was, "Edward is really good looking. I love him. We drove around. His clothes made his body look great." The movie suffered from the same case. While we were given glimpses of the bad vampires - and are they really bad? They're just obeying their goddamned nature after all - but never a real threat until there is only 20 minutes left of film.
Inappropriate music - Paramore in a dress shop, the absolute mockery of Muse during the baseball game, which was incredibly shoddy and looked like shit.
The special effects were off - People say this is due to budgetary reasons, that special effects can't be done right with a 37 million budget, but I say, fuck them, hire a competent team.
The script was terrible. Stephanie Meyer, writer of the book, had final say over what went in to the script, and she chose to allow the CORNIEST of lines ever written. "And so the lion fell in love with the lamb," may look good, albiet... stupid, on paper, spoken, it's just terrible. And the follow up, "What a stupid, twisted lamb, what a sick, masochistic lion," was incredibly hammy. As was most of the script. "Hang on tight, spider-monkey." Oh... how cute.
And I'm sorry, there is such a thing as bad acting. Just because it's on the silver screen doesn't mean it's going to be good acting. Kristen Stewart, who is MORE than capable of holding her own on screen with a bunch of action going on - See Zathura - delivered a flat, monotone performance that left me bewildered. Oh, she's in love? She really doesn't show it with her eyes, inflection, words, body movement. And Robert Pattenson - AKA Edward Cullen - he was okay. That's the best I can say about him, he was passable.
But the guy who played Jasper, the vampire who looked like he stuck a fork in the fucking microwave oven that baked the sun? No. Standing with eyes wide just looks creepy. And he wasn't even supposed to be comic relief, as he becomes somewhat problematic and threatining in book 2. Oh, yes. I'm afraid of Edward Scissorhands when he doesn't have goddamned scissors for hands.
The pacing was off, etc, etc.
Just, everything that could make this a good movie wasn't in this movie. And it's not the movie's fault. Everything that could have made it a good book was missing from the book. It's a bland, stylistic and very stupid book, so in that regard, the movie succeeds in its adaptation.
EDIT: And, adding icing to the cake, Kristin Stewart hates the fans, Pattenson hates the novels and thinks Meyers is kind of fucked up after meeting her, and they both dislike the film, as is evidenced in various interviews floating around the wonderful internet. I believe Pattenson said the book was, "A kind of weird sexual fantasy by a Mormon housewife. It read like a book that was very personal, never meant to be published."
Last edited by MalReynolds; 11-26-2008 at 10:21 AM.
Not sure what's so wrong with having love as the primary plot point. If you don't find it an interesting topic that's fine, but because you don't doesn't mean it's a bad movie (and neither do the other points, as shown below). For me sports is one of the most boringass things to make a movie about, and I think they suckass. This doesn't at all make them bad; just not for me.
Can't remember anything specific about the music, which is my impression for almost every film that doesn't have a ridiculously good soundtrack, but not so bad as to take me out of the experience (though it may have been more noticeable if these middle school bitches weren't yapping behind me the first half of the film).
Special effects - not really worth talking about. I've seen worse in recent Bond films.
Yep, there certainly were cheesy lines.
Her performance seemed very realistic of the type of girl one might expect would be attracted to such a weird dude/vampire. As far as acting in general, I've already responded to what you said in my first post, it's like I'm psychic.
So yeah, the cheesy lines part is true enough but there aren't many more negative things I can say about it without seeing it more to judge its rewatchability factor. Unfortunately I'm quite aware that in real life everyone is always smooth and never says cheesy lines. Damn, I'm making an unfair comparison because this is a vampire movie, not exactly realistic. Therefore it must follow that any characters that would say a cheesy line shouldn't exist; everyone should be suave and unrealistic just like the movie.
Love is a topic which is only interesting insofar as it has some degree of depth (i.e. in character and plot development; it's about human interaction). From what I've heard so far, there's none of that, it's just vacuous self indulgent drivel. Rather than focus on the way the characters are, the characters serve to deliver an unreal, idealistic, but also pathetic conception of love, as some sort of smug, self sanctifying symbiosis. Lovely thought I'm sure, but painfully comfortable whilst avoiding any real, nobler human truth. And although I'm sure the weak hearted will just lap it up in an attempt to console themselves in their mundane existences, the film will deliver no philosophical or artistic merit.
The caveat, of course, is that I have not seen the film. I am just responding to your comment with the impression I'm getting from more critical viewers, in an attempt to show you where you may be going wrong in your Twilight apologia; of course love can be at the heart of a film, but it must be love and not just a foolish, comfortable conception of some sort of false ideal.
To use your analogy, if this were a film "about" sports, it'd start the moment the team had won the game forever, and just show their smug little eyes for an hour and a half.
I know MalReynolds and Jagang may have a conflict of interests, but I must say, gentlemen, the greatest part of this movie is the audience of underage girls.
Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.
Albert Einstein
Love is a fine primary plot point. See: Romeo and Julliete, or anything Shakespeare. That's all ABOUT love.
It's the focal point, interspersed with actual interesting things. Not, oh, we're in a forest. Oh, we're in another forest. Oh, we're in a meadow. Oh, you're glaring at me. Oh, I'm glaring back. Oh, we're in ANOTHER FOREST. Oh, we're in a restaurant, looking at each other. Oh, we're in love. Oh, we're playing baseball.
That's not a plot. It's a series of weak vignettes tied together by uninteresting characters.
And I find it very interesting as you pegged Bella as a girl to fall in love with a vampire, when in the book - - AND MOVIE - - she has no indication in any case about any particular brand of person. In fact, she has such heavy ugly duckling syndrome that she is shocked she made friends AND that all the boys are in love with her AND FOR SOME FUCKING REASON that Edward initially doesn't want to talk to her, despite the fact that she's supposedly the last cool, clumsiest person around that no one wants to be friends with.
It's poor character development.
I can't debate merits of film with you. It would tire me out how you consistently overlook faults of a movie because it just HAS to be fucking AWESOME all the time and even if it's not FUCKING AWESOME it's still PRETTY FUCKING GOOD or something. Logistically, your brain confuses me, as this movie was, on no level, even acceptable, and yet... here we are.
Of course, this is just my opinion.
EDIT: Hell yes, MPR. Naturally, it was sad for me on some level when I burst out laughing in an audience of fan girls when Eddie C goes into the sunlight and sparkles, and these rabid, rabid fucking creatures use my laugh as a starters pistol to start mocking the movie and guffawing along with me. Hell, if the FANS can't even respect the movie, why should I?
Oh, but there were so many desperate chicks there. Just like the Breaking Dawn book release. SO MANY.
Mal you really need to get an avatar or something.
I should have known the movie would not have met my expectations by the audience alone. When i slid my way into my seat, i said loudly (For the closest rows to hear) "Hey, this is that movie based on those Ann Rice novels, right?" Only to get completely flamed by 5 teenagers. "Uh.. NO! Thats Interview with a VAMPIRE this is WAYY better.. Gawd"
Needless to say, i took it upon myself to take the movie with a grain of salt due to the interaction. I started laughing.... ... less than 10 minutes into the movie. Little things they messed up would appear, or even just the AWKWARD looks everyone gave each other caused me to burst out. By the end of the movie, my whole row as well as the teenage fangirls began laughing at the movie's faults.
So.. All in all the movie was good for a large amount of laughs.
Premise of Twilight:
I love you and I will do anything for you. Mainly because you're pretty and dangerous and nothing excites me more than the idea of falling asleep next to you only to have my blood vessels sucked dry oh wow look I'm already wet.
Wow, took a real genius to tap the tween girl audience with that one, didn't it?
Oh, and if NOW is looking for a book series or movie to get pissed about... damn, talk about easy pickings. Shame this is the best thing we can get young girls to read -- not to say that the independent woman figure is the role model for every young girl, but its not like the MRS degree really needs any selling.
Last edited by sponge; 11-26-2008 at 10:45 PM.
Bella is not independent in any way, shape, or form. She's completely dependent on Edward. In Book 3, he wants to marry her before sexing her, and she says she doesn't want to get married right out of high school and have a kid because that's what losers do. And then she does EXACTLY THAT in book 4.
Ugh I'll get around to it.
LOL you have no idea how many teens in Utah (where the author is from) have kids right out of high school. Two years ago I read something that said 73% of Utah girls between ages 18-22 had children. Anyways, I got the feeling that if a guy would have wrote this book, he would have been called sexist.
I bet every flapper girl is crying tears of rage over the character that is Bella.
All your posts about Twilight have made me laugh in some way but I can't ignore this. Most of Shakespeare's stuff wasn't really about love at all. Romeo & Juliet obviously was, as were lot's of others but you can't really say "or anything Shakespeare. That's all ABOUT love." Poor man will be spinning in his grave like a Dyson.
I will say this though. You're getting far too worked up about some dickhead with poor taste. If Jagang wants to believe that shitty vampire books with shitty film versions which feature incessantly shitty acting and overtly shitty plot/character development then, please, just let him. He's the one who loses out in this situation, not any of us grounded non-retards who are resistant to such uncultured faggotry.
Meh, I know they're not all about love. Most of his comedies are, and I should have specified. R+J heavily influenced Twilight some how.
Oh, by the by, I am writing a male version of this book. And it will be sexist. We'll see if anything happens with that - most likely, like most of my other books, I will lose interest and stop writing it. Or I'll finish it and not get it published.
Well good luck with that, but I promise you I would never in a million years read it.
Wooh, Mal you have to send me an advance copy so I can be on the forefront of cool.
I've seen you post about this on Facebook, and I have to ask, to what end are you writing this? Trying to write something that'll sell? I can understand that, even if I don't like it. (It also seems like a bad career move.) Trying to make a point? To whom will you make this point? If it does sell, it'll just be perpetuating the rodent shit standards that people en masse seem to have of literature -- not to mention the abhorrent kinds of values people could pick up from these books. Read your own criticism of Bella's character. This seems so be a useless exercise at best and a harmful one at worst.
You should be using your considerable talents to write something good and popular. It's not beyond you. We are in an age where shallow and shiny is popular, but making actually good stuff popular again is what authors should be doing. Reclaim literature's high standing, etc.
the theater i went to (in the gsp in nj) was FULL of teenage girls
i mean
literally we were the only guys in the theater
so the part that the girl and the guy are in the forest and she whispers all dramatically" I know what you are" comes by, and after 3 seconds of dead silence my friend screams
BATMAN!
My two favorite lines in the whole movie are still "THIS IS THE SKIN OF A KILLER!!!" and "Hang on tight, Spider Monkey ;D"
Yeah, I did start writing the self referential bullshit, but part way through, I decided to spin it and just write my own book that has a very loosely based premise on the Twilight Saga. I'm changing pretty much everything that I had originally planned - I mean, it still takes place in Spoons, and Beau Grace still falls in love with a witch named Esra who is immortal, but that's pretty much it. There's a human villain for Beau to take care of, as well as a witchy one for Esra to help with, and a few other things like that thrown around for good measure. It is taking the basic concept - developing an attraction for something unnatural, but I don't think I'd even mention the word 'love' in the book between to two characters.
We'll see.
Rofl, I read that and whenever I need evidence that not a goddamn person takes that movie seriously, I just quote that article about how creepy the guy who plays Edward Cullen thinks the whole hot mess is.
does he say anything similar about jk rowling
No. Because Harry Potter is not a character insert for JK Rowling. Bella Swan is a character insert for Stephanie Meyer. She's pretty much writing out her own sexual fantasy, and Rob Pattinson picked up on that. While there is romance in the Harry Potter books, I highly doubt JK sat there and went, "Well, I'm Ginny Weasly," as JK Rowling seem to be an actual writer of fictions, not just a writer of seventeen year old girl's diaries.
Also, S. Meyer wrote another book that was pretty well recieved and I may end up reading that one, despite my EXTREEEMME hatred of Twilight. It's called 'The Host' and it's about souls or some shit, I don't know.
Bookmarks