Dunjohn Posted February 17, 2010 Posted February 17, 2010 I haven't seen Twilight, so I can't comment on how naff the sparkling is or what other aspects of vampirism have been adapted to ft it into the boyband mould. And it's definitely true that the definition of a vampire changes in the detail from one fantasy universe to another. I think the reasons so many people pick on the sparkling skin are twofold: They hate the idea of vampires being "dragged down" to the boyband level in general and need a specific target to rail against, and the sparkling skin is a particularly tweenified, overly romantic reimagining of a "genuine" vampire trait and it doesn't seem to serve any logical purpose. I can't really say anything else until I see the other ways that Edward acts as a vampire.
Tereglith Posted February 18, 2010 Posted February 18, 2010 I would rebut the assertion that people can do whatever they want with vampires because they're fictional. All fictional things have canon, and there's some canon you just don't mess with. The central tenets of Star Wars are set down in the G-canon (originating with George Lucas), and are the highest law within the continuity of the canon. The analogue for Vampire canon would be the elements that were present by the time that the original Balkan legends entered the public conciousness, mainly the fact that the vampire is an undead entity which drinks blood to survive, that there are a number of odd ways that it can be killed (this varied from culture to culture), that it is averse to sunlight, running water, and garlic, cannot pass the threshold of a house until it has been invited, and that (in most cultures) does not cast a shadow. If you mess with more than a few of these tenets, then what you have is a mythical creature of your own creation that should not rightfully be called a vampire. Of course, over the years and throughout different cultures, different variations of Vampire folklore have occured, which add such things as its ability to transform into a bat or dog (or in some older legends, a pile of straw or a cloud of mist), or the ability to choose to kill others or turn them into a vampire themselves. These creatures are vampires with added capabilities, the "Expanded Universe" if you will. However, taking away the central tenets of vampirism will result in a half-canon, sort of like Star Wars but with just Luke and Leia, no Han. Adding in lame things that don't belong once one has taken away the central tenets is like replacing Luke with Jar-Jar. I think that we can all agree that Leia and Jar-Jar's Big Adventure would not longer be Star Wars, the point being that just because things are fictional doesn't mean that they don't have a defined existence and definition that can be trespassed upon. A quick perusal of the omniscient Wikipedia (I don't have the iron stomach that would be needed to read the books or watch the films) reveals that, in fact, Meyer does not go that deep into the logistics of her vampires (further revealing the shallowness of the series), and that the only vampiric features that Edward has are the fact that he is undead and that he could drink blood if he wanted to - she's left out about ninety percent of the legends. However, she's also given him superspeed, superagility, mind reading, a supernose, magical pheromone smell, superlungs, the option to drink animal blood, and the infamous sparkling. Thus, I would contend that Stephanie Meyer's books are not about vampires, they are about blood-drinking superheroes of her own invention that are posing as vampires, and sadly will be seen as vampires by an entire generation of screaming teen girls. I apologize for my rant, but talking about fiction brings out the hereditary english teacher in me. Perhaps we should have a Twilight discussion thread somewhere else in Community? In any case, a film that hasn't been listed yet is Santa Claus Conquers the Martians, whic, I regret to say, I saw the original, uncut version of a couple of Christmases ago. The story is exactly what you would assume from the title, and the whole thing is about what you would expect from a 60's science fiction movie with a budget of $500 and a scriptwriter that dropped out at the last minute. It's... oh, God, it's awful.
5150 Lego Posted February 18, 2010 Posted February 18, 2010 I somewhat agree with what you are saying. However, if you change something enough then it isn't really whatever you are trying to call it anymore. I'm not saying that is the case with Twilight. I never read the book or saw the movie and I have my doubts I will anytime soon. They drink blood, they're immortal, then they're probably vampires. The rest changes from one version to another. Some are super strong, some can be killed by stabbing them enough times to cause them to bleed out, some can walk in sunlight with no trouble, etc. It's the same thing with zombies. As long as they are dead creatures that eat the living (but not vampires) then they're probably zombies.* Some can run, some are smart, etc. If you mess with the core though, then they aren't what they are trying to be names anymore. Like a vampire that doesn't drink blood (or have some alternative like draining someone's lifeforce or something). That isn't a vampire anymore and the person claiming it is is trying to cash in on the connection to other (likely better) vampire stories. For some folks though, the list of core characteristics is a little bigger and has no room for sparkling vampires. I hate the concept personally (I'm fine with vampires being unaffected by the sun, but unless sparkling is a precursor to combustion then I think it's a stupid idea), but they are vampires from everything else I know of the story. So I guess what I am trying to say is that while there is room for change, there is a point where there is too much change to still call it whatever the creator is trying to call it. And this is pretty much my feelings as well. For me (and this is just the way i see vampires) Vampires have three key things that make them...Well, Vampires. 1.1. Vampires drink blood 2. Vampires are affected by some form of garlic 3. when exposed to sun light, they burn All others such as shape shifting into animals, super strength, sleeping in coffins, pointy ears etc. don't really dictate one being a vampire. These are the basic rules. Yes, they can be bent, but can't be entirely thrown out. For me, having them sparkle not only ruined them as being vampires, but goes against the opposite of what should happen. When one See's someone sparkle in the sunlight, their not going to associate them with vampires. But as i said, this was just one problem i had with the movie as a whole. Considering all the hype, i honestly tried to give the movie a chance, but for the life of me, i just don't see why this movie took off like it did. I guess i have to be a teenage girl to get it. Can those that actually liked this movie please explain what is it they found appealing about this? I really want to know as its bugging the hell out of me!
Inertia Posted February 19, 2010 Posted February 19, 2010 American Pie: The Book of Love. Shocking movie. Shocking in terms of whatever happened to such a good series. Athough having 6 other movies which are rather good gives them credit for something I suppose.
Tobbe Arnesson Posted February 19, 2010 Posted February 19, 2010 Worst movie ever: Miami Vice. They had the budget, the hype and the characters. Still they managed to do a totally worthless piece of junk!
Cutty Posted February 19, 2010 Posted February 19, 2010 (edited) "SAW" - The first one. I remember being flashed by the trailer and then being bored to no end upon seeing it. It's rare I get sleepy in a cinema, yet then taking a nap would've been bliss. That MTV-cut, new-metal sheetstorm.... no never again. Thinking it spawned that many sequels and inspired other series' emerging is incomprehensible to me. "A Beautiful Mind" - Lamest. Biopic. EVER. I didn't even make me relate to any of its characters at all. "Aliens vs. Predator" - Being a huge fan of the original "Alien"-franchise and having a soft spot for "Predator (1 + 2)" I gave it a shot. LA-ME! When my brother-in-law showed me the sequel's trailer online, smirking in delight, I was seriously disgusted upon the gratuitous, yet ultimately, unnecessary graphic violence seen. I didn't even bother watching it in its entirety. "Emmerich's Godzilla" - I had great interest in this way back, went to see it and got so seriously underwhelmed. What was the purpose of that movie? Was I supposed to root for these unsympathetic characters or the creature? It failed to inspire sympathy to either... "Bay's Transformers" - I remember posting something in an appropriate thread way back, when it was coming out. Never again, never bothered with the second, will not bother with any subsequent sequels. Robot-design was solid though, given it still looks like something a human, not an alien-species, would come up with. In a positive way, unseeing Snyder's "Watchmen" is something I can not. Perfect in any way, given the limitations faced when trying to adapt that monster of a novel into another medium. Greetings, Cutty Edited February 19, 2010 by Cutty
Dunjohn Posted February 19, 2010 Posted February 19, 2010 "Aliens vs. Predator" - Being a huge fan of the original "Alien"-franchise and having a soft spot for "Predator (1 + 2)" I gave it a shot. LA-ME! When my brother-in-law showed me the sequel's trailer online, smirking in delight, I was seriously disgusted upon the gratuitous, yet ultimately, unnecessary graphic violence seen. I didn't even bother watching it in its entirety. Ooh! Yes, and I also love the original Alien movies and respect the original Predators. This was little more than trashy name-dropping, though. After about twenty-five minutes of trying to get my head around a nonsensical plot that spat in the faces of both it's inspirational movie franchises, I just turned to my brother (who'd already seen the movie) and said, "If Predator ends up siding with the humans, I'll scream." He was strangely silent for the rest of the movie... yeah, the plot was that vapid. I did stick the movie out to the end, just to see how badly they'd end up disrespecting the source material. From that point of view, it was absolutely gripping. Over and over, they did it. Haven't seen the sequel, though I think my brother has the dvd. He loves trashy movies. I do too, but I have limits.
Tobbe Arnesson Posted February 22, 2010 Posted February 22, 2010 Hehe, I've stayed clear of "Aliens vs. Predator" for a long time and I see no reason to stop that. Now if I only could unsee The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy... How the h*ll did they expect to pull that off? The just about only good thing about the book(s) is the hilarious written language (and I do love that), that can't be transfered to a movie...
Sisco Posted February 25, 2010 Posted February 25, 2010 The newest The Day The Earth Stood Still was absolute crap, IMHO. I seem to be reliving it in my nightmares, over and over again. The movie itself wasn't scary in the slightest, not that it was supposed to be! But, whew, the ending was corny/cheesy/whatever-else-you-can-think-of. Little robotic insects eating everything in sight . Wow. I didn't even want to see it, but the theater was sold out of all the other movies. For obvious reasons. 3/10. No, 3/100.
Oky Posted February 25, 2010 Posted February 25, 2010 (edited) Mind you, the satires of it have been glorious! Indeed! name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src=" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>"> name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src=" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350">Make sure you watch the end! Now if the film was made about the father who had to cope with such a b*tchy daughter and a family of vampires as a single father, I'd be all over that. That would be an awesome concept. Anyway, I'm usually not one to call something downright bad, but I really regret seeing American Beauty. I still can't believe I let my parents drag me into this depressing piece of garbage. I was young when I saw it and was bored out of my mind. I wish I could have just gone home. Also: Knowning. Nicolas Cage isn't the greatest actor to begin with, and the movie turns out to be just a big fat ad for Christianity. I could just ignore this movie if it wouldn't have had a good concept (numbers from a time capsule that predict the apocalypse) and good execution (good suspense and catastrophe scenes). What was the point of those numbers? Everyone was gonna die anyway! Even though it would have been yet another hollywood-style happy end, I would have preferred if they would have left the aliens out and have Cage figure out some way to prevent the apocalypse using the numbers. Also, pretty much all Disney sequels (except maybe the Aladdin ones). Why, oh why do they have to ruin every single one of their classics with a terrible sequel?! Edited February 25, 2010 by Oky Wan Kenobi
samurai-turtle Posted February 25, 2010 Posted February 25, 2010 Also, pretty much all Disney sequels (except maybe the Aladdin ones). Why, oh why do they have to ruin every single one of their classics with a terrible sequel?! I like Lilo & Stitch and all of those sequels. But I guess you could blame the TV show for my liking of the Stitch the most. And the Twilight was funny.
Batbrick Posted February 25, 2010 Posted February 25, 2010 Also: Knowning. Nicolas Cage isn't the greatest actor to begin with, and the movie turns out to be just a big fat ad for Christianity. I'm pretty sure last time I read my Bible there weren't aliens in it. Perhaps you mean Scientology? Batbrick Away!
DarthSion Posted February 25, 2010 Posted February 25, 2010 Yeah the day the earth stood still. And he has a point, knowing was pretty much religious propaganda, so was the day the earth stood still, and 2012. And come on that's a lame megablocks excuse, aliens may not be in the bible but neither are dinosaurs.
Luke McAwesome Posted February 26, 2010 Posted February 26, 2010 (edited) 2012. I... I can't even begin to say how ridiculous this was. Nice special effects, but that seemed like the only reason they made this film. I wish they could just leave people alone about these dumb "prophecies from the grave " and if we die, we die. Let's not make stupid movies just to satisfy our need for watching people get crushed by skyscrapers and fall of cliffs in giant airplanes. The escape scenes and narrow escapes in the escape scenes were the worst part. They just had to BARELY make it out each time. The airplane going between the falling skyscrapers, just barely misisng the walls on each side... it was so predictable, that it was disappointing. Of course, movies like The Day After Tomorrow and Independence Day were personal favorites of mine. This movie was a downfall for Emmerich, and I wish he could have come up with his own idea for his last apocalypse movie. Not steal the Mayan's movie. That's just copyright piracy. So, yet again, we get a film with good special effects, but a terrible plot and terrible actors. I think the reason the actors did bad in this film was because they had no idea how to react to an apocalypse situation, because it's never happened before. And hopefully will never happen, because if December 21st, 2012 is like this movie, I will be ticked. And I doubt I have to explain why... Edited February 26, 2010 by Striker
DarthSion Posted June 12, 2010 Posted June 12, 2010 I know they arent even out yet, but given the live action TMNT has been giving to michael plot whats that bay to be butchered im going with that.
def Posted June 12, 2010 Posted June 12, 2010 I know they arent even out yet, but given the live action TMNT has been giving to michael plot whats that bay to be butchered im going with that. You can't 'unsee' a movie that hasn't been made yet You know what the verb "see" means, right?
DarthSion Posted June 12, 2010 Posted June 12, 2010 No but im sure i will see it to say how bad it is.
def Posted June 12, 2010 Posted June 12, 2010 No You don't understand what the verb "see" means? Your schools have failed you.
MrTools Posted June 12, 2010 Posted June 12, 2010 I enjoy almost every movie i see, however there is one exception being the two live action Scooby Doo movies. They were absolutely awful.
Lilsniffs Posted June 12, 2010 Posted June 12, 2010 I don't know if anyone said these, but: Dragonball Evolution (Oh God, I wish I never saw this one.) Transformers 2 (No, 7 year old boy, this movie was NOT the greatest movie ever seen. It seems like most of Megan Fox's scenes were just to fulfill a fanboy's fantasy.) Other than that, I haven't seen any bad movies I want to erase from my brain that I can think of.
The Legonater Posted June 12, 2010 Posted June 12, 2010 "A Beautiful Mind" - Lamest. Biopic. EVER. I didn't even make me relate to any of its characters at all. I'm wishing I saw this before I posted: Just watched A Beautiful Mind, which is a wonderfull movie with some very emotinal moments. Also, pretty much all Disney sequels (except maybe the Aladdin ones). Why, oh why do they have to ruin every single one of their classics with a terrible sequel?! I agree- I find it rediculus that they're making a fourth Shrek. Argh! Personally, I hated D-Day, the Sixth of June. terrible movie. I bought it because I'm a WW2 fan, and it's just one long flashback, a love flashback too., It's like a bad parady of While You Were Sleeping (A much better movie)
Oky Posted June 12, 2010 Posted June 12, 2010 This topic again? I thought we left this negativity magnet behind. The latest posts don't even make sense to me. No but im sure i will see it to say how bad it is. First you revive this thread to say that you wish to unsee a movie you haven't seen and then you say you plan to watch it?? I'm wishing I saw this before I posted: SNIP I don't get it. If you liked it, why do you wish to have read negative feedback about it earlier? I agree- I find it rediculus that they're making a fourth Shrek. Argh! Uhm, what does Shrek have to do with Disney? I'm a WW2 fan How can you be a fan of a war?
The Legonater Posted June 12, 2010 Posted June 12, 2010 I don't get it. If you liked it, why do you wish to have read negative feedback about it earlier? It was supposed to be a joke. Uhm, what does Shrek have to do with Disney? Oops! I just realised it was made by Dreamworks How can you be a fan of a war? This I don't get.
Oky Posted June 12, 2010 Posted June 12, 2010 It was supposed to be a joke. I know, but I don't get it. Oh well. Oops! I just realised it was made by Dreamworks Considering that part of the main humor of Shrek is it to make fun of Disney movies, it seems funny to me how someone could think it was made by Disney. But then again, it wouldn't have been the first time that Disney spoofs itself (I'm looking at you, Enchanted). This I don't get. I'm sure you meant you're a fan of WW2 flicks, but the way you said it sounded rather strange.
The Legonater Posted June 13, 2010 Posted June 13, 2010 But then again, it wouldn't have been the first time that Disney spoofs itself (I'm looking at you, Enchanted). That was a terrible movie...
Recommended Posts