The "We Hate Twilight" Club

Post Reply New Topic

I also don't believe a thing said in the book --- they won't happen, man.

I haven't seen twilight and I don't think i ever will.
I don't hate it, I just haven't watched it.

I really liked what Richard Matheson did, trying to mix vampires with sci-fi and explain in a
realistic way how they exist and why they function the way they do.

Yes I liked that one. I only saw the movie (the one with Will Smith), can't recall the name right now.

Interested in her? I took her to the senior prom! She was nice, but not that great in the sack-I think we had different rhythms. Also, she was kinda neurotic, and had a tendency to go off the deep end and disappear for a few months. Finally she disappeared for good. I'd be willing to try another weird girl, just as long as we meshed a little better.

I think I'm going to teach my niece the fine art of knife throwing, as my sister has a massive poster of the popular dude in her computer room.

I Am Legend.

The Will Smith movie had almost nothing to do with the book, though

Good idea.

I read one of those vampire books aimed at teenagers (not Twilight because the back of the book just has an excerpt and I refuse to read a book that doesn;t have a plot summery in an easy to find place) and it was pretty good. I think that the deal with the Twilight books is that the author had a sexy dream and decieded to see if she could make any money off of it. As for the movie: I read somewhere the "sparkle effect" just made him look sweaty and their famous kiss (which won an MTV Movie Award for "Best Kiss") was not sexy AT ALL. It was like they could smell bacon but they couldn't tell where the smell was comming from.

Come on, that's offensive to 'Manos'. At least they just did it as a result of a bet instead of any actual belief that it was good.

But I do love it (the site, that is, not the books or movies). I laughed the whole time.

This quote

is very accurate. I still don't see why girls swoon over him.

And this

would be the only reason I would ever go to see any of those movies.

Although, I do admit, when I read 'Twilight': The Lost Script when it first came out, I half wanted to see the movie just to see if it was really that bad. Fortunately, I didn't.

Seriously, when the lead actor of the whole movie calls it disturbing and creepy (and not in a good way), it's time to step back and stop.

I have read the book, and when I heard about Edward I thought he was going to be the sexiest ever, but...... When I SAW him in the movie, I thought he looked no more than average, almost all the people I see around me looks like him, average. From when you're 5, you have surely seen a hotter boy than Edward, maybe it's just me and my taste, or maybe it's just a girl taste...... I DON'T KNOW!! The movie was lame, boring story, broing characters, and Bella was so LAAAAAAAAMEEEEEEE. She was not hot either, I thought she was going to be hotter and stronger than that, I swear that I will murder some twilight-fans when I see them

Speaking of bloodsuckers, have anyone read Richelle Mead's "Vampire academy"? Are these books any good?

Re: Edward's appearance, I pictured him as a young Edward Furlong, who I thought was really hot back in the 90's (Brainscan, drool), boy was I disappointed with Edward Cullen's looks in the movie... He was the best they could find???? Ooookay....

The only vampire book I have is a book about "Vampyrpirater." I didn't bother reading that s***. About Edward Furlong, I didn't think he looked that good in American History X which I saw with my class some months ago, but in Brainscan...... I was very surprised that no one commented of how cool his hair was, how awesome his FACE was, I did only pay attention to him instead of the story, even though he no longer is hot. Edward Cullen is so overrated, Zac Efron is prettier than him, but a person that could fit the role was JesseMc Cartney, he looks very good. Robbie Patson isn't ugly, but.......... not that hot in ANY way

After the twilight craze, there are whole shelves filled with vampire romance novels at barnes and nobles and books a million.

But vampires aren't a "life form" - they're more of a death form. Vampirism is supposed to be a curse, an inability to age or change coupled with a thirst for human blood (some RPGs and novels introduce the concept of vampires learning to subsist on animal blood for short periods, but the classic legend requires the blood of humans). Basically, you're cursed with an urge to live forever, with the knowledge that in order to do so you're going to have to kill someone every few nights.

The "bursting into flame" (or other methods of dissolution, if you go by Hammer Films) is an expression of the fact that vampirism is a curse. The "purity of the light of the sun" is supposed to be lethal to those so cursed - it's part of the downside. Sure, you get to "live" forever, but you have to kill to survive, and you'll never be out in the sunlight again.

In Meyer's novels (and the movies made therefrom), though, vamps can live happily on animal blood (most apparently just choose to feed on humans), and suffer no real ill effects from sunlight. In other words, the author has just taken away every downside of vampirism, making one wonder why the Cullen clan have to hide from normal society, or for that matter why normals aren't queuing up to be turned into vamps themselves - apparently it makes you perfect, beautiful, graceful, and unchanging for eternity, with no unpleasant side effects. Unlike the vamps in the White Wolf RPG Vampire: the Masquerade, you don't even lose interest in sex!