Twilight : New Moon

[HowDroll]

My brother and I are going at midnight tonight, and I'm super excited.

Are you going to be high or drunk?[/QUOTE]

...

Yes.

---------- Post added at 11:52 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:51 AM ----------

My brother and I are going at midnight tonight, and I'm super excited.

Notes down that HowDroll doesn't mind creepy dudes sneaking in her bedroom at night to watch her sleep while holding back the impulse to rip her throat out.

Good to know i'll have something to do this holiday season...[/QUOTE]

 

[Cajungal]

You must promise to post afterwards!

 

[Charlie Don't Surf]

My brother and I are going at midnight tonight, and I'm super excited.

Are you going to be high or drunk?[/QUOTE]

...

Yes.[/QUOTE]

oh my god that is the best possible answer you could have given

 

[HowDroll]

You must promise to post afterwards!

Post what?

 

[Allen who is Quiet]

afterwards

 

[HowDroll]

My brother and I are going at midnight tonight, and I'm super excited.

Are you going to be high or drunk?[/QUOTE]

...

Yes.[/QUOTE]

oh my god that is the best possible answer you could have given[/QUOTE]

I'm just going to laugh at the Twihards, honestly. I was dragged to the first Twilight by my friends, like, three weeks after it opened, and there were STILL girls squealing and producing massive amounts of panty pudding even then. I'm not sure I'll make it out alive on opening night.

 

[Cajungal]

You must promise to post afterwards!

Post what?[/QUOTE]

About the experience.

---------- Post added at 11:55 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:55 AM ----------

Also, ...panty pudding.

 

[Charlie Don't Surf]

All joking aside, the general vibe I'm getting is that this is a much better movie than the first, with some actual cool action setpieces and things that actually happen during the running time. And the special effects are a cut above Road Runner legs on vampires playing baseball.

 

[HowDroll]

All joking aside, the general vibe I'm getting is that this is a much better movie than the first, with some actual cool action setpieces and things that actually happen during the running time. And the special effects are a cut above Road Runner legs on vampires playing baseball.

Good god, I hope not. The first one was comedy gold. I'd much rather go and see a facepalmingly bad movie than a mediocre one.

 

[@Li3n]

You must promise to post afterwards!

During... she must post live impressions.

 

[Espy]

All joking aside, the general vibe I'm getting is that this is a much better movie than the first, with some actual cool action setpieces and things that actually happen during the running time. And the special effects are a cut above Road Runner legs on vampires playing baseball.

Good god, I hope not. The first one was comedy gold. I'd much rather go and see a facepalmingly bad movie than a mediocre one.[/QUOTE]

Don't worry, every review I have read says while it has a few decent moments it is still a absolutely terrible film.

 

[ElJuski]

You do realize that though Bram Stoker defined the modern vampire mythos, it's not the holy bible of what vampires should be like, right?

This news has just blown my mind.

---------- Post added at 06:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:49 PM ----------

All joking aside, the general vibe I'm getting is that this is a much better movie than the first, with some actual cool action setpieces and things that actually happen during the running time. And the special effects are a cut above Road Runner legs on vampires playing baseball.

Good god, I hope not. The first one was comedy gold. I'd much rather go and see a facepalmingly bad movie than a mediocre one.[/QUOTE]

You couldn't have waited a couple more days so that I could join?

 

[Charlie Don't Surf]

Perhaps for Spring Break, the "Twilight" kids can take a trip to Bon Temps, La., Edward can down a few pints of True Blood and get tips on courtship from Vampire Bill, Jacob can hang out with the shape-shifters---and Bella can find a mentor in Sookie Stackhouse, who can show her a few things about how to get knee deep in the vampire world, grown-up style.

writing fan fiction now

 

[sixpackshaker]

You do realize that though Bram Stoker defined the modern vampire mythos, it's not the holy bible of what vampires should be like, right?

Dracula is such a compelling character that he is still being written about 112 years later. I don't think the same will hold true for the Twilight Vampires.

In my eye the compelling Vampires are the classy seducers. Not the gore drenched, mindless freaks, and especially not sparkly, teeny-boppers.

 

[The Pumes]

Meh, the Twilight series is an overhyped piece of crap that is like regular grits. Plain, a bit boring and looks like it sparkles in sunlight. It's a fad that will surely pass when something bigger comes along and vampires can go back to being the awesomely dark, seductive creatures they were born to be.

 

[Bowielee]

You do realize that though Bram Stoker defined the modern vampire mythos, it's not the holy bible of what vampires should be like, right?

Dracula is such a compelling character that he is still being written about 112 years later. I don't think the same will hold true for the Twilight Vampires.

In my eye the compelling Vampires are the classy seducers. Not the gore drenched, mindless freaks, and especially not sparkly, teeny-boppers.[/quote]

My point is that the vampire mythos has been around since recorded history. Most cultures have some sort of variation on it.

Dracula was Stoker's take on it. Personally, I like the elegant but evil version of vampires with a dash of psycho killer thrown in.

That's personal preference. There is no hard definition of how vampires should be seeing as it's all just a mishmash of sexual symbolism mashed up with old superstitions caused by the original misunderstanding of how decomposition affects a dead body.

For the record, Dracula is one of the few books I've read over and over again and I love it.

 

[HowDroll]

You do realize that though Bram Stoker defined the modern vampire mythos, it's not the holy bible of what vampires should be like, right?

This news has just blown my mind.

---------- Post added at 06:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:49 PM ----------

All joking aside, the general vibe I'm getting is that this is a much better movie than the first, with some actual cool action setpieces and things that actually happen during the running time. And the special effects are a cut above Road Runner legs on vampires playing baseball.

Good god, I hope not. The first one was comedy gold. I'd much rather go and see a facepalmingly bad movie than a mediocre one.[/QUOTE]

You couldn't have waited a couple more days so that I could join?[/QUOTE]

Are you coming home this weekend?

 

[ElJuski]

Yeah, tomorrow not I'm going to the MOTHERFUCKEN PIXIES AT THE ARAGON!

And then the usual shitshow that Thanksgiving brings. You should come out to Tambo Tuesday in the city! It's a kegger of fun.

---------- Post added at 09:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:01 PM ----------

Oh, and also, yeah, I think we're talking about the same thing Bowie. Saying that Stoker's vampire is the definitive vampire is saying that Romero's zombie is the definitive zombie, for all intents and purpose. There's just so much more that you could do with Stoker's type--and I think that's why it was so poignant, specifically to our sexually repressed culture--than other variations. 30 Days of Night, for instance, could have replaced the vampire with any sort of monstrous boogie-woogies with the same effect.

I will say "God? No God" was one of my favorite lines in that movie; probably the only thing that gave me goosebumps in an overall shlocky movie that had potential but lost it in the juggle.

 

[Bowielee]

I actually loved 30 Days of Night. It didn't have any namby pamby quasi goth vampires whining about their tortured existence.

My only problem with the movie was the fact that they moved into town and started slaughtering everyone right away when they had the unique opportunity to have all day all night hunting for 30 days. It kind of deflates the premise, seeing as they could have moved into any town and slaughtered them all in the space of a day.

I thought the vampires themselves were great and pretty true to the more primitive mythos of vampires.

as to

30 Days of Night, for instance, could have replaced the vampire with any sort of monstrous boogie-woogies with the same effect.

The same could be said about just about any horror movie featuring one of the staple monsters that feed on humans when the story is more about the humans themselves than the monsters.

One thing I need to clarify is that Dracula wasn't romantic or seductive, really. His description of him in the book is not that of some sort of dashing gentleman. He used mesmerism to get his claws into his victims, but his physical description is closer to Nosferatu than Lestat.

The regal count bullcrap was completely a Hollywood fabrication.

 

[ElJuski]

Yeah, and in fact, he looked a lot like Oscar Wilde, had hairy palms and seduced Jonathon Parker. Trust me, I'm well acquainted with the text. But what Dracula did was play cat and mouse with his prey, the slow descent into sin and destruction while the victim slowly--or never--realizes what's going on.

Stoker took the vampire and made it the fear of assimilation. Sin, sexuality, even immigration. It's about the slow but eventual take over of the oppressor.

Nosferatu was a rickety old bag of bones;You can spout the primitive mythos stuff but honestly, I don't see any of it. And yeah, you can say that about a lot of movies, from Dracula to Batman. Doesn't make my opinion of which trope I'd rather see any less valid.

 

[Bowielee]

Nosferatu was a rickety old bag of bones;You can spout the primitive mythos stuff but honestly, I don't see any of it. And yeah, you can say that about a lot of movies, from Dracula to Batman. Doesn't make my opinion of which trope I'd rather see any less valid.

I honestly don't understand what you're saying here and how it relates to my post in any way.

 

[WolfOfOdin]

Frankly Bowielee, my bile towards twilight is that the vampires in it are almost completely and utterly unkillable, perfectly beautiful and obscenely strong...there's no flaw to them at all, and that makes them horribly boring.

The aura I like a vampire to have is one of the predator, which is why I loved the vampires of 30 days of night so much...I mean come on, they looked like a great white shark squeezed into human skin.

One of the reasons Dracula strikes me as so popular is that he, as Juski said, acts like a great and horrible cat. He plays with his prey, toys with them and eventually moves in for the kill and discards them if the game wasn't fun enough (Lucy).

Twilight's vampires exist for no other purpose but to be eternally pretty men and women who angst about their 'curse'...which is one of the reasons I loathe Lestat, oddly enough, though he was enough of a prick to be amusing.

 

[Bowielee]

Whoa, hold your roll there partner. I'm not defending Twilight at all. If anything I'm defending 30 Days of Night.

As for the Twilight vampires, why wouldn't everyone just want to be one? Eternal youth, super strength, reflexes with none of the downside of being a vampire? Where do I sign up?

 

[@Li3n]

One thing I need to clarify is that Dracula wasn't romantic or seductive, really. His description of him in the book is not that of some sort of dashing gentleman. He used mesmerism to get his claws into his victims, but his physical description is closer to Nosferatu than Lestat.

If the novel wasn't written when it was i'd agree... but for victorians that thing was porn...

 

[Bowielee]

One thing I need to clarify is that Dracula wasn't romantic or seductive, really. His description of him in the book is not that of some sort of dashing gentleman. He used mesmerism to get his claws into his victims, but his physical description is closer to Nosferatu than Lestat.

If the novel wasn't written when it was i'd agree... but for victorians that thing was porn...[/QUOTE]

Yes, his actions were. His appearance and demeanor? not so much.

His concubines, however... yeah, they were DAMN pornographic for the time.

 

[@Li3n]

His appearance and demeanor? not so much.

well he was based on this guy:

who's brother was known as The Fair because of of the comparison between them.


But i think you're thinking about the description of Dracula as an old dude... after he de-aged himself by feeding the main characteristic of his was having mean little eyes... he's never described as repulsive in any physical way. Count Orlok he certainly was not.

 

[WolfOfOdin]

Whoa, hold your roll there partner. I'm not defending Twilight at all. If anything I'm defending 30 Days of Night.

As for the Twilight vampires, why wouldn't everyone just want to be one? Eternal youth, super strength, reflexes with none of the downside of being a vampire? Where do I sign up?

Haha, sorry.

What you said is the crux of why Twilight's vampires are simply horrible. They have absolutely NO downside to being what they are, none. Vampirism should have some trade-off in the transition, otherwise it's just a mary sue fantasy, which is completely the way I view Twilight. For example, everything Lestat touches more or less ends up with a violent urge to murder him horribly, the 30 days of Night vampires are bestial, violent and nearly berserk monsters in human skin and Dracula is an abomination against God who's mere presence is enough to cause madness, death and disease where there was none before.

Hell, ALL supernatural creatures that were once human usually have a large list of down-sides. Werewolves? Homocidal bloodlust and cannibalism. Zombies? Complete and utter lack of an individual mind...and cannibalism.

What I'd REALLY like to see a movie on soon is the Wendigo, that would be interesting.


An aside...anyone else notice that most of our favorite supernatural creatures are ravening cannibals?

 

[@Li3n]

What I'd REALLY like to see a movie on soon is the Wendigo, that would be interesting.

There's a great movie about a Wendingo... but i can't remember the name...

 

[WolfOfOdin]

What I'd REALLY like to see a movie on soon is the Wendigo, that would be interesting.

There's a great movie about a Wendingo... but i can't remember the name...[/QUOTE]

Ravenous?

 

[Null]

Ravenous was good but it felt like there were parts missing (ironic in a cannibal horror movie...)

What bothers me about Twilight isn't the perfect vamps, it isn't the awful dialogue, it isn't the boring plots. It's the way domestic violence is so thoroughly romanticized throughout the entire series. "I'm stalking you, I won't let you see anyone else, and I may get violent and scary towards you, but it's okay, because, you see, I really love you a lot, despite the fact that at heart I literally prey on your kind." In fact, throughout the books is the message that it's okay for the monsters to hurt, scar, threaten, and maim their girlfriends, because they really, really love them, and the girls should just accept that.

 

[Cajungal]

One thing I need to clarify is that Dracula wasn't romantic or seductive, really. His description of him in the book is not that of some sort of dashing gentleman. He used mesmerism to get his claws into his victims, but his physical description is closer to Nosferatu than Lestat.

If the novel wasn't written when it was i'd agree... but for victorians that thing was porn...[/QUOTE]

Yes, his actions were. His appearance and demeanor? not so much.

His concubines, however... yeah, they were DAMN pornographic for the time.[/QUOTE]

Yeah he was always described as this disgusting-looking man. The book itself WAS really sexy, but he was described as this pale, grotesque man with creepy red lips.

 

[Frank]

One thing I need to clarify is that Dracula wasn't romantic or seductive, really. His description of him in the book is not that of some sort of dashing gentleman. He used mesmerism to get his claws into his victims, but his physical description is closer to Nosferatu than Lestat.

If the novel wasn't written when it was i'd agree... but for victorians that thing was porn...[/QUOTE]

Yes, his actions were. His appearance and demeanor? not so much.

His concubines, however... yeah, they were DAMN pornographic for the time.[/QUOTE]

Yeah he was always described as this disgusting-looking man. The book itself WAS really sexy, but he was described as this pale, grotesque man with creepy red lips.[/QUOTE]

 

[Cajungal]

BLEH! God, he grossed me out in that movie... so I guess he did his job.

 

[ElJuski]

Nosferatu was a rickety old bag of bones;You can spout the primitive mythos stuff but honestly, I don't see any of it. And yeah, you can say that about a lot of movies, from Dracula to Batman. Doesn't make my opinion of which trope I'd rather see any less valid.

I honestly don't understand what you're saying here and how it relates to my post in any way.[/QUOTE]


I was getting sick and tired of the Dracula-scholar amateur hour we're all getting into. We all know the book. What I was saying is that the original argument spurned from a personal bias of what kind of "vampire" I would have rather had, versus the 30 Days kind.

 

[Null]

I don't know about Dracula - I haven't finished the novel ever - but I know that Lord Ruthven, an even earlier literary vampire, was supposed to be a dashing, rakish seducer who was also a predatory blood-drinker. Of course, he was based on Lord Byron, so...