To everyone who hates Twilight and thinks it sucks:

[theweaselking]

Now you experience my pain.

If you don't like Twilight, you're *exactly* where I was half a decade ago with Harry Fucking Insulting To My Intelligence Potter.

Next?

Comments

[kadath.livejournal.com]

I am so glad Harry Potter is over. Twilight isn't as bad because at least none of my friends like it.

Not wanting to alarm you, but ...

[cliph.livejournal.com]

There are two more movies to go

[anivair.livejournal.com]

The twilight bashing bugs me. I mean, don't get me wrong. they're not great books. And they're certainly not great movies. But I find that the things that people attack about them are not really the things that are wrong with them. The books have quite a few flaws that don't have anything to do with the author's aesthetic choices. And those are much bigger problems. But everyone is so busy saying the word sparkle that they breeze right past the actual problems.

My thought on the movies is similar (except for people attacking Kristin Stewart's cardboard acting and Pattinson's obvious hatred of his own character ... those are pretty much dead on).

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

Dude hates his own character because the character has *no redeeming features*

And "sparkly vampires" has become short for "creepy-ass stalker and abusive relationship masquerading as Twoo Wuv, like, two years back. The fact that you paid to see the new movie based on the disfunctional Mormon propaganda does *not* make it acceptable.

[skiriki.livejournal.com]

"But everyone is so busy saying the word sparkle that they breeze right past the actual problems."

I'm going to do the nasty thing and point out that there's a good reason to kind of get stuck with the concept of "sparkle" as well.

Okay. In Meyerverse vampires sparkle: this is because they have rock-like skin. I can live with rock-like skin, it is not exactly the first thing you expect when you hear the word "vampire", but hells, oWoD had Skin of Marble as one of the Discipline powers, and it gave rock-like skin sans sparkles. So, whatevah.

In Meyerverse, vampires sparkle whenever they're exposed to sunlight (thus revealing that OMG, they're vampires -- see Edward's suicide plot and hiding it from others; he makes the revelation to Bella a big deal after all); other than this, they don't seem to suffer ill effects from sunlight. Dracula was just weakened in Stoker's books, and had no accidental bursting into fire (unlike most modern vampires) when exposed to it. So whatever, vampires sparkle and are okay in sunlight.

Still with me? See how I have said "whatever, sparkle away", right?

Why the hell is Edward then going to school like a normal teenager if he's afraid of exposing his vampirehood to the world at large by sparkling in sunlight?

Classrooms are likely to have windows through which sunlight will slip.

What about outdoor breaks, gym class, or field trips?

He needs to move between a school building and whatever vehicle of transportation he uses and catch some sunlight and thus sparkle like a human-shaped bottle of glitter.

Why? Why does he go to school if the risk of exposure is so high that it would get him killed? Couldn't that vampire family file in a notice that they're homeschooling their peterpans and here's the paperwork, officer?

The only reason why he goes to school is because story requires him to go to school so Bella can meet him, because the writer is such a hack that she can't imagine a teenaged girl meeting a boy in any other setting, with no good thought given to the problem caused by the fact that actually, he should sparkle a lot already.

Stephenie Meyer takes the internal logic of a story to a back alley, beats it, mugs it, and then pisses on the corpse she lit on fire.

Of course, if you really want to point and laugh, here's Chris Sim's review of Meyer's biopic comic book, every bit as hacky as everything she has written. Holy shit!

[skiriki.livejournal.com]

Don't worry! I had the same reaction back then!

Of course, it is kind of sad that when compared to Twilight, Harry Potter looks good. That's like saying "Boy, when you put Bush Jr. next to Palin, he looks smart!"

Sorry about the politics, but it was the first comparison that truly felt adequate.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

Works for me.

[gryphart.livejournal.com]

Could not agree more.

[dreamshade.livejournal.com]

Yeah, my general reaction to Harry Potter was... meh, it's a children's book that's selling a lot. It's probably not terrible - I cared about as much as I cared about Pokemon. Twilight just seems... deliberately insulting your intelligence.

[kafziel.livejournal.com]

I thought Harry Potter was a lot better before I read the last book and realized that pretty much every layer I was seeing was not, in fact, actually there.

I still maintain that Twilight is something that everybody should see, because it's so fucking hilarious.

[tsunami-ryuu.livejournal.com]

I thought Harry Potter was a lot better before I read the last book and realized that pretty much every layer I was seeing was not, in fact, actually there.

That's it right there. I was ok with Harry Potter up until the last book; up until then, it was passable children's literature with a few interesting characters and some cute novel concepts in its fantasy world.

And then came Deathly Hollows, and even worse, Deathly Hollows' godawful epilogue. Killed my preconceptions about HP pretty fast.

[aeduna.livejournal.com]

You mean in that they are both stories for children? :)

[lafinjack.livejournal.com]

I liked the original movie better.

“I heard that, John Constantine.”

[catsidhe.livejournal.com]

Hey kid! You ever see a dead body? a naked man? the beginning and ending of Time and Space?

[whisperkit.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure on the last point, there are an odd amount of similarities early on. But then Books of Magic goes off in one direction, and Harry Potter takes another.

Obligatory.

[lafinjack.livejournal.com]

[eididdy.livejournal.com]

Right because they're the same thing.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

Children's books, with writing aimed at "tweens" (Potter) or 8-year-olds (Twilight), that are irrationally liked by allegedly intelligent adults?

Yeah. Similar. Like the Hardy Boys or the Bobbsey Twins or Sweet Valley High.

[sydneycat.livejournal.com]

I've got to agree with you. I read the first couple of HP books before they became Teh Rage. But I was reading them thinking they were for the 9-12 yo set. When it became Teh Rage...I thought 'Really? Ick!' Cause they were a decent distraction but not worthy of the hype in any way. These books don't even have the redeeming quality of having vaguely interesting plots and a strong female character. Hermione seriously kicks butt and takes names. Bella makes me want to smack her up side the head and say "you need to do a self esteem workshop like NOW".

[missysedai.livejournal.com]

Hah. I make a habit of keeping up with what my kids are reading, and I liked Harry well enough. Not enough to flip my shit and redecorate my office in Gryffindor colors, write fic and go to cons and all the other inexplicable things that sprung up around Harry, but it was entertaining and fluffy and great for those ten minutes or so that I read before falling asleep.

Twilight, OTOH, makes me want to punch people in the face. "Byronic hero" and "romantic", my fucking fat ass. Try "stalker" and "abusive", and we might get a little closer. I only made it slightly further into the first book than Alex did, and we both agreed that it was worthy of setting ablaze.

[rimrunner.livejournal.com]

That's almost exactly the reaction I had to The Da Vinci Code.

I haven't tried to read Twilight. The movie was bad enough.

okay here is a novel of a comment, which will be a post in my LJ

[reyl.livejournal.com]

I can't hate something without trying it out. And sometimes I fail at hating something I'm supposed to. Since I've read the first two twilight books, seen both movies, read all of HP and seen all the movies, I think my opinion should count for something. So here goes.

Neither Rowling nor Meyer are great writers. Rowling gets points for creativity on her setting, whereas Meyer's world is boring and banal. Meyer's writing style is actually boring to the point of making your brain feel like it is getting dumber. Meyer's characters are stronger than Rowlings. I hate Edward. I REALLY hate Edward. The fact that this character can evoke an emotional response in me, speaks volumes about the character. However, the reason she is a bad writer is because this isn't what she was intending. She does an excellent job of portraying the effects of patriarchy on teenage girls through the Marysue romances of Bella. The girl choses suffer endlessly over a twooo wuuv who is harmful to her physically and mentally. This romantic hanging on to a stalker of an old man, who just happens to look pretty? Choosing to take Edward back when Jacob has been such a friend to her? Choosing a lifetime of vampirism and danger over a normal happy life? These are the kinds of stupid choices real teenagers would make. So it's understandable that some girls identify with it. I found the characters in HP far less realistic. Draco Malfoy was the only one who wound up seeming a bit more real, once he was revealed to be more than just a snotty bully.

I loved the idea of Hogwarts and the wizarding world. I love Jacob and the Quileute. Rowling gets points for actually making up her setting. Meyer used actual Quileute legends and history so she doesn't. The fact that Jacob really comes alive in the second book, when he and his father were basically "magical indians" to start with, speaks of Jacob's strength. I also hate Bella, and Meyer, for desexualizing all the relationships. This is something the movies do much less of. There is actual sexual tension between her and Jacob in the movie, far more than the "oh pain" faces of when her and Edward are ever together.

As for the movies, the acting and directing is far better in Harry Potter. The first Twilight movie is so boring. I hadn't read anything or seen anything of Twilight before I checked out the movie. The last 15 minutes were entertaining but the rest was pretty much a wash. I decided to read the book after because I thought that there was no way it could possibly be as brain-numbing as the movie.

For fear I was wrong, I bought the book in French instead, so at least I'd get some good out of it. I was wrong, it was boring, and even the translation was boring and repetitive in style. Even Harry Potter had more interesting turns of phrase. I'm a word whore, and love things to be interestingly said. Minus a million points on that part.

Still, I was curious what was going to happen, and where the werewolf insinuations were going. So I picked up book number two. I was thrilled that creepy Edward was out of the picture in the first chapter, and pretty much crushed that he returned at the end. The whole idea that he was going to commit suicide when he thought he'd have to live without Bella is awful. Worse, that she felt she had to save him. Yay more disfunctional relationships! In truth, these kinds of relationships do exist. And my emotional reaction at the repellant idea of this situation would be amazing if there had been some kind of appropriate resolution of the situation. If the author had actually been intending my horror, and gave Bella some kind of redemption I would have cheered. Instead I'm considering re-writes in my head. Is there such a thing as anti-fan fiction? Because I could seriously write it. The end of Harry Potter had me doing similar things. I spent so much time anticipating the last book, and having some kind of closure and mysterious relevation. Instead, I was proved right in my feeling that Harry is pretty much a git, who happens to be in the right place, at the right time, with the right people. Snape was right all along.

...continued

Re: okay here is a novel of a comment, which will be a post in my LJ

[reyl.livejournal.com]

...
The thing with Twilight, is there really aren't any strong villains. The biggest villain is Bella. And Edward. The problem is that Meyer doesn't realize this. If she did, and she took some writing classes, the books could be far better.

If the books are so bad, why am I reading them? Well Harry Potter I loved the setting, and was interested in where the huge plot was going. There was lots of stuff going on, and I like a good puzzle. I was disappointed that there wasn't more to it, but I still enjoyed them. And I thought the movies were great fun, except the latest one... ewww. Twilight? I will read the third one, just to see if it gets as ridiculous as I think it will. And because sometimes it's fun to hate a character. It's unexpected for me to find characters I hate and not see them punished for their failings. It's kind of strange. It's like reading fantasies from bizarro land. It almost *is* a bizarre parody for me, because I don't understand how she can make these choices. And yet I remember doing things just as stupid when I was her age. I broke free of that mentality, and I have hope that she will. But I realize that Meyer is still in that mentality. So really there is no hope and it's just a masochistic kind of voyerism. Almost as masochistic as watching the first movie. Oh man. So boring. The second wasn't boring, but it was high on the romantic cheese factor. Especially the opening scene where Edward first appears and has his hair and shirt blowing in the wind and walks slow motion towards her. It's almost like a parody of teen romance. Very bizarre.

I'm not sure why there are adults who actually like this as "good". But I have to admit to my secret shame that I *was* looking forward to the second movie. Because it was full of Jacob, and I think the actor and the character are great. If there is more of him in the next book I might keep reading. As for the movies, I can honestly I'm not that picky. I like cheese. But you couldn't pay me to watch the first one again.

As for HP, the last movie really jumped the shark. Unless I hear great things I probably won't bother with another. I do own a couple of them, and love watching the parts with Alan Rickman and Gary Oldman since they are major favourites of mine. But meh.