www.ditl.org

We have a 20 year old girl in our office. Her exact words were "Twilight rocks. It's life changing!"

SuperSaiyaMan12 wrote:

Reliant121 wrote:"Ruined Vampires and Werewolfs" : And there's something wrong with being a bit different? just because its overly feminine and soppy, and not to your taste doesnt make it bad.

There is nothing wrong in being different, there is something wrong in creating monsters that resemble NOTHING of the originals. Vampires do not Sparkle. Vampires seduce women (and men). Vampires need blood to survive.

Twilight Vampires: Super strength, speed, and sparkling. They are not Vampires, they are a completely different monster. If Meyer did her research, she'd have found out a lot about Vampires. But she didn't.

Twilight Werewolves: They are not Werewolves, they are shifters. Its even blantantly said in the last book.

Since when does something have to conform to an archaic (and always changing, I hasten to add) myth? The whole point of originality is being original. So she takes the name vampire, and changes it completely. So what?

Mark wrote:We have a 20 year old girl in our office. Her exact words were "Twilight rocks. It's life changing!"

So's Titanic - that's three hours of my life I'll never get back.

I agree with Reliant. Vampire mythology is all over the place. Blade-verse vampires aren't vulnerable to religious icons, while Buffy-verse ones were. Heck, the original Dracula was immune to sunlight!

As for the werewolves, turns out they were shape-shifters in the end. Just didn't know it. The original ones probably just figured, "Hmm, we change into wolves? Okay, we're werewolves! High-paw!"

The writing is bad, though. I could do better, IMHO.

Reliant121 wrote:Since when does something have to conform to an archaic (and always changing, I hasten to add) myth? The whole point of originality is being original. So she takes the name vampire, and changes it completely. So what?

Well put. SSM, if you think "sparkling" is a huge change, I suggest you read up about traditional Romanian folk vampires. The modern stereotype introduced in "The Vamyre" bears little, if any, resemblance to them.

But Meyer claimed she didn't even read any Vampire fiction to get any of the traditional Vampire traits right. Hell, all Vampires from fiction have one or two things that make them different. From massive regenration from Hellsing Vampires, to the movie monster Vampires, to Buffy Vampires, to Supernatural Vampires, etc.

Meyer could have called the Vamps in Twilight 'Vampire-like', like Blood Plus did with the Chiropterans.

SuperSaiyaMan12 wrote:But Meyer claimed she didn't even read any Vampire fiction to get any of the traditional Vampire traits right.

And? Just so we each know what we're discussing, what traits do Twilight vampires have?

Since when does she have to start from the traditional myth? She's perfectly justified to make her own interpretation if you will. My idea of vampires are much like those in Terry Pratchett's Carpe Jugulum: Very well dressed and spoken, incredibly polite. The fear of garlic and the sunlight damage are merely psychological traits, that the Carpe Jugulum vampires who come from "Uberwald" have managed to gain control of.

Thats just how i see it.

Twilight is just how she imagines them to be. So it isn't what you like. You know what, who actually gives a damn? It's entirely up to the individual. Her success comes from the fact that her ideas on vampires happen to be appealing to the overwhelming majority of female young teens.

Captain Seafort wrote:

SuperSaiyaMan12 wrote:But Meyer claimed she didn't even read any Vampire fiction to get any of the traditional Vampire traits right.

And? Just so we each know what we're discussing, what traits do Twilight vampires have?

...they actually seem more like Kryptonians than Vampires. Super Strength, Speed, stuff like that.

The problem is that there is no such thing as a definitive vampire. there are so many different myths across the world concerning vampires and their like, so which one is "correct".

Simple answer, there just ISN'T a correct one.

SuperSaiyaMan12 wrote:

And? Just so we each know what we're discussing, what traits do Twilight vampires have?

...they actually seem more like Kryptonians than Vampires. Super Strength, Speed, stuff like that.

Strength enough to lift a coffin full of earth one-handed? Fast enough to move across a room in the blink of an eye? Dracula could do that.

When I ask what traits they have I'm talking about all traits that differentiate them from normal Humans, to establish whether they really are "completely different" from other vampires as you claim. Quite frankly, if they resemble humans and feed on them, then they're vampires. Everything else is superficial and can and has been changed at some point by someone.

Ok, one thing that really bothered me, is apparently the vampire gets Bella pregnant(in the third book, IIRC) and it very graphically describes the baby eating it's way out of the mother, which kills her... It's just gross, and weird, and... Just, ewww

If they get away with showing that in theaters I would be quite surprised.

Nickswitz wrote:If they get away with showing that in theaters I would be quite surprised.

Why not? If anything that sounds less gory than an Alien chestburster.

Captain Seafort wrote:

Nickswitz wrote:If they get away with showing that in theaters I would be quite surprised.

Why not? If anything that sounds less gory than an Alien chestburster.

Its actually more gory when Edward has to perform a cesarian...USING HIS TEETH.

Honestly, compared with the tortured writing, her 'changes' to vampires and the shape-shifters are minor at best. But Bella Sue is one of the worst characters I've ever read about. She is a complete bitch.