Twilight

[waterspirit07]

I hate twilight, thatvideo is the burning of twilight. XDDDDDDD

[Tomchitza]

I loooooove Twilight!!!

 

I WANT A VAMPIRE BOYFRIEND!!!!

[NixAyum]

I WANT A VAMPIRE BOYFRIEND!!!!

I will not come to your funeral.

[Jadeclaw]

i haven't seen it but my one freind said it was good

[Dr. Paine]

I loooooove Twilight!!!

 

I WANT A VAMPIRE BOYFRIEND!!!!

You realize he'd kill you and suck your blood for nourishment, right? ^^

[terioncalling]

You realize he'd kill you and suck your blood for nourishment, right? ^^

Ah, but remember he won't if he's a sparkly and cuddly Adonis made of stone like Sparkle-Boy. Because their love would be super speshul and overpower his bloodsucking nature.

 

Either that or he would and Turn her and then there would be immortal super speshul love.

Edited September 20, 2009 by terioncalling

[Raviaric]

I loooooove Twilight!!!

 

I WANT A VAMPIRE BOYFRIEND!!!!           

BACK! BACK, DEMON! BACK FROM WHENCE YOU CAME! *repeatedly stabs with a rusty knife*

[DragonNighthowler]

I loooooove Twilight!!!

 

I WANT A VAMPIRE BOYFRIEND!!!!

Vade retro!!!!

 

[SylvanasWindrunner]

I love Twilight but i find the Team Edward and Team Jacob stuff stupid. If i had to pick a team it would Team Edcob. it gets quite annoying.

[Tetsaiga]

Ugh Twilight is terrible. Goes against EVERY SINGLE LAW OF THE VAMPIRE SPECIES that was made since 1048. P.S. Sylvanas, cool name. I recognize it *wink*

[SylvanasWindrunner]

haha thanks

[Draco Knight]

Eh, it was an okay series. I only hate it because something that run of the mill and mediocre shouldn't get all the praise and attention it gets... I've seriously read better fanfiction.

 

Although, to all the people who cry, "Her vampires aren't even believable! She ignores all the vampire myths and, and, SPARKLES! Seriously?!"

 

I'd just like to quickly point out that the Twilight series is a work of complete fiction, and thus it has the right to make its vampires however it wants.

[brokenglass]

Eh, it was an okay series. I only hate it because something that run of the mill and mediocre shouldn't get all the praise and attention it gets... I've seriously read better fanfiction.

*bows*

 

THANK YOU.

 

I was going to say that, but you just saved me the typing..

 

As for the other two points...

 

 

No comment.

[Dr. Paine]

 

I'd just like to quickly point out that the Twilight series is a work of complete fiction, and thus it has the right to make its vampires however it wants.

And you realize even fiction has rules?

 

DC's a hell of an example, honestly- we've pushed the definition of dragon to the limit on some of these, but all of the good ones have those qualities that make them dragons, not something else.

 

You can push the limits of anything, as long as you keep those qualities that define what it is, otherwise you look like a . Meyer got rid of everything that sets vampires apart from other undead things, and that makes her creatures non-vampires. Just a super powerful, glittering undead.

[Draco Knight]

And you realize even fiction has rules?

 

DC's a hell of an example, honestly- we've pushed the definition of dragon to the limit on some of these, but all of the good ones have those qualities that make them dragons, not something else.

 

You can push the limits of anything, as long as you keep those qualities that define what it is, otherwise you look like a . Meyer got rid of everything that sets vampires apart from other undead things, and that makes her creatures non-vampires. Just a super powerful, glittering undead.

Ah, see I was under the impression that fiction was, well, fiction. Limited to the imagination of the writer and such. If Mayer wants sparkling, vegetarian, utterly silly sounding psychic vampires then by thunder she can have them.

 

I mean, maybe if vampires were actually real, and their behaviors, eating habits, physiology, world views, etc... were well documented somewhere there would be a case against Meyer debasing everything it means to be a vampire, but they're not, so its kind of hard to say that, that isn't how 'real' vampires are. 200 years ago vampires were scary blood sucking demons, Ann Rice made them tragic romantic figures, Meyer made them sappy, sparkly, and embarrassing. In between there are hundreds and thousands of other interpretations spanning generations, regions, continents, really 'vampire' is far too broad a term to pin down.

 

Any old creature that sucks blood from necks(or any convenient vein really)using fangs, after being killed or infected, and resurrected or live, by a similar creature can technically be called a vampire.

 

 

 

[NixAyum]

Then what about the argument of over-powered beings? Edward himself talks about how outrageous it is that with their looks, strength, speed, and power that they're way too good of hunters. I'd say it IS a normal rule that creatures need some kind of weakness, and according to the haters, Meyer's have none.

 

(With that, I will take my leave, and dare I say it, be Switzerland.)

[Dr. Paine]

 

Any old creature that sucks blood from necks(or any convenient vein really)using fangs, after being killed or infected, and resurrected or live, by a similar creature can technically be called a vampire.

You completely missed my point.

 

I said " as long as you keep those qualities that define what it is". Meyer threw all but like... one of those out the window (the undead thing).

 

Vampires have, throughout history, ALWAYS had the three of the following traits:

 

1. The biggest one of all that was thrown out the window: THEY LIVE OFF OF HUMAN LIFE. Let me repeat: They live off of human life. Not animal. Human. Whether it's blood, chi, breath, whatever, it always had to be from a human. It's been thrown out there that animal blood can tide them over for a short while, but exclusively? That's like doing nothing but eating lettuce without any form of vitamins or other vegetables/fruits. It will work for a bit, but it will eventually kill you from a lack of what you need to survive.

 

2. Sunlight = Pain. Not instant death, but it has always caused some form of negative physical drawback- they lose their powers, they get burned, they get paralyzed, whatever. The point is, full on daylight will hurt them. Unless sparkling causes pain and suffering, it does not count.

 

3. Vampires are actually rather weak. They could be killed any number of ways- staked to the ground, burning, decapitation, removal of the heart, hawthorn over the grave. Some were obsessive and had to count every spilled grain of rice, some were deterred by garlic, running water, holy things, and let's not forget sunlight or being unable to hunt. Meyer just pulled a d*** move when it came to giving hers a 'weakness'. Honestly, I'd have had more respect if they were just invincible, because it seems downright STUPID to say the only way you can kill one is to chop it up, then set it on fire. One should and has always been enough. The least she could have done was given them another weakness, or at least something that would keep them away.

 

The rest? Up to the author. But those three traits are what make the vampire what it is. You need to get it through your head that fiction does not mean you can slap a name that has so many strong definitions onto something that does not fit. That's like trying to call a dragon a chocobo- they're both fictitious, but both have several clearly defined traits that set them apart from everything else.

[Aviatus]

Ah, see I was under the impression that fiction was, well, fiction. Limited to the imagination of the writer and such. If Mayer wants sparkling, vegetarian, utterly silly sounding psychic vampires then by thunder she can have them.

 

I mean, maybe if vampires were actually real, and their behaviors, eating habits, physiology, world views, etc... were well documented somewhere there would be a case against Meyer debasing everything it means to be a vampire, but they're not, so its kind of hard to say that, that isn't how 'real' vampires are. 200 years ago vampires were scary blood sucking demons, Ann Rice made them tragic romantic figures, Meyer made them sappy, sparkly, and embarrassing. In between there are hundreds and thousands of other interpretations spanning generations, regions, continents, really 'vampire' is far too broad a term to pin down.

 

Any old creature that sucks blood from necks(or any convenient vein really)using fangs, after being killed or infected, and resurrected or live, by a similar creature can technically be called a vampire.

Ok, in that case can I have a man that turns into a wolf during a full moon and wave around a magic wand, loves garlic, is a church attending Catholic, and is a vegitarian and call him a vampire? No, you at leasthave to try to follow the rules of myth

[Draco Knight]

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!! Sorry, but that was all really funny. I have this amusing quirk that when people say literary works of fiction have to have set parameters to meet with what they personally believe fiction needs to have, I laugh. Or if not laugh, I'm greatly amused.

 

Alright, alright I'll concede your points, to a certain point. I'll concede it makes a work of fiction more rich and rewarding for a reader if the writer uses tried and true idioms and ideas concerning things such as vampires... but Twilight is hardly the first work of fiction to totally disregard ALL OF THOSE things that vampires HAVE TO HAVE and still call the resulting creature a vampire, and it won't be the last.

 

1. Who says vampires HAVE TO FEED FROM HUMANS TO LIVE? I've read plenty of books in which vampires were perfectly fine drinking pigs blood or similar. And those books were actually pretty freaking good. A lot better than Twilight ever could be. I also read books in which werewolves were completely civilized and cultured, and zombies were more human than the humans. All great reads.

 

2. I'll concede sunlight, although I have read books in which vamps were fine with some sun glasses and sunblock. Doesn't make a vampire any less a vampire if it can withstand sunlight completely. The argument could be made, in the case of the Twilight universe, that these vampires' avoidance of sunlight resulted in that myth, if you follow my weird train of thought.

 

3. Now, this is a little silly, I'll give you that traditional vampires are weak. But MANY MANY contemporary accepted vamps in literature are actually hellishly strong and dammed hard to kill.

 

If I'm holding the pen, I'll call a chocobo a dragon if a darned well want to, thank you very much. A chocobo is actually a very small, bipedal feathery dragon, commonly used as a mount by traveling adventurers.

 

@Sceptile100: If you want to call it a vampire, all power to you. We don't have to agree with it or like it, in fact it could be sort of funny.

Edited September 28, 2009 by Draco Knight

[Dr. Paine]

If I'm holding the pen, I'll call a chocobo a dragon if a darned well want to, thank you very much. A chocobo is actually a very small, bipedal feathery dragon, commonly used as a mount by traveling adventurers.

 

Aaaaaaand goodbye, any respect for you I may have ever had! That, and your opening statement, rendered any opinion you may have utterly moot, since you obviously don't know what either chocobos or dragons are.

Edited September 28, 2009 by Dr. Paine

[Draco Knight]

You had respect for me?

 

 

If someone wants to write 'The Amazing Adventures of Sam the Chocobo Dragon.' It's not like I'm going to run out and buy a copy, but I don't see the point in attacking the idea. I'm sure there will be plenty of other things to riff on.

 

Edit: The complete stupidity of the statement was intended, that was the point.

 

Re-Edit: Anyway, this has gotten off topic. Twilight and it being good or bad, not fictional literary integrity is the topic. Plus, I think we're arguing... over the internet

Edited September 28, 2009 by Draco Knight

[Dr. Paine]

You had respect for me?

 

 

If someone wants to write 'The Amazing Adventures of Sam the Chocobo Dragon.' It's not like I'm going to run out and but a copy, but I don't see the point in attacking the idea. I'm sure there will be plenty of other things to riff on.

You're missing the point I've been trying to get to for a few posts now, so here it is in big, bold red letters.

 

It does NOT matter if it's fiction. Vampires have rules, and if those rules are broken, one cannot call the thing a vampire without looking like a massive idiot.

 

Meyer has done a simply fantastic job of that so far, by screwing the myth beyond the relief of any soothing creme (points to whoever got that), and reinforcing the notion that fiction = calling anything anything else and it's perfectly fine without any form of rational explanation for why.

 

And yes, I have a small amount of respect for anyone I meet, until they do something that gets rid of it.

Edited September 28, 2009 by Dr. Paine

[Draco Knight]

You think I'm an idiot that doesn't know what she's talking about and I think you way to rigid to appreciate a grand spectrum of ideas streaming from accepted an idea. We aren't going to convince each other of anything. I think we're done.

 

I dislike Twilight, you dislike Twilight, we just dislike it different degrees and for differing reasons(mostly).

 

Edit: Firefox spell checks me some weird words.

Edited September 28, 2009 by Draco Knight

[Zovesta]

Twilight sucks. Do we really have to get into it?

 

Honestly, how can we hate it when it gives us such fantastic lines as "This is the skin of a killer" and "Do I dazzle you?"? Really now?

[terioncalling]

Not getting in on the revived argument (yet).

 

Just popping in to say: Dr. Paine, you are made of awesome.

 

 

 

...damn, just noticed that there was another page and that the argument has ceased. Curses! And, last I checked, a chocobo was a bird - not a bloody feathery dragon.

Edited September 28, 2009 by terioncalling