Jump to content
Branndi

Twilight

Recommended Posts

Mhm. She likes the movies, not so much the books. They're entertaining, and she knows not to be any kind of crazy about it, I've made a few snide remarks here and there about the series.

 

Taking her to the movie was (one of) her Christmas presents from me.

Share this post


Link to post

The first time I saw Twilight, it was in the bestseller section of borders, with it's own table and display. I was intrigued, and read the back cover, only to put it down in disgust because it sounded, while not bad, definitely not my genre. (As an example, I love the Warrior's books, despite being in graduate school. Romance is NOT my genre.)

 

But every time I went to Borders, I would see the books again, and the display would be larger. Each time, I would pick it up and read the back cover, and each time think "yep, it really does sound as uninteresting as it did the last time I was here."

 

I only finally read the series after my boyfriend's little sister got into them, and heard about all the crazy hype surrounding the books. I figured since they were so popular, there must be something in them besides romance that's attracting all these people. And I like YA, so I gave it a try.

 

Honestly? The books aren't good, and were about what I expected from reading the synopsis on the back. But they're not horrible, either. While they definitely do not deserve all the hype they've gotten, they also do not deserve the hatred. They're just your average YA paranormal romance. I know the hatred is in response to the hype, which seems silly to me, but I don't understand the hype in the first place. I wish I did. I mean, I liked the idea of vampires when I was 13 too, but even back then I would have been bored by Twilight.

Edited by Raneth

Share this post


Link to post

Lord Vetinari is hotter than Edward Cullen. So is Commander Vimes.

 

...Just thought I'd say that.

Share this post


Link to post

^ Any sane PERSON could tell you that. OBVIOUSLY the guy is not the CHARACTER.

 

I applaud Rob for hating on the series as he stars in it.

 

But looking like a hobo on the red carpet, not so much. tongue.gif

Share this post


Link to post

no i know but there are people who assume that everyone who like edward, like him because of Rop patz. Not the case. then there are the people how judge the whole thing by the fact that the vampires sparkel. Thats really stupid. Stephine meyre worked it in really well and it makes sense!

I second the hobo thing.

Share this post


Link to post

lol, we already debunked all the "scientific" aspects of the "vamps" in Twilight.

 

It makes NO sense.

Share this post


Link to post
no i know but there are people who assume that everyone who like edward, like him because of Rop patz. Not the case. then there are the people how judge the whole thing by the fact that the vampires sparkel. Thats really stupid. Stephine meyre worked it in really well and it makes sense!

I second the hobo thing.

I'm at university, but will remember to get at this when I get home.

Share this post


Link to post
lol, we already debunked all the "scientific" aspects of the "vamps" in Twilight.

 

It makes NO sense.

yes but does burning in the sun really make any sense?

Share this post


Link to post
yes but does burning in the sun really make any sense?

Any more sense than sparkling? Not really, but it's a preferable alternative.

 

I can't stand the series. I trudged through the first book pretty literally - it doesn't take me long to finish a book, but it took me weeks for Twilight simply because I wasn't interested in the least. I've had hardcore fans say it was because I was "too stupid to appreciate it"...lol.

 

...long story short, I found Steph's writing style to be awful. I can write better than her, and all I do is write stories for my poor little half-orc - who isn't nearly as much of a simple beauty as Bella and her boyfriend likely only sparkles when the sun hits the blood on his axe just right.

 

To each their own, I guess, but I can't stand the woman nor the rabid fanbase she's conjured by putting her sexual fantasies on paper and trying desperately to disguise them as a romance geared towards teens.

 

Lord Vetinari is hotter than Edward Cullen. So is Commander Vimes.

 

...Just thought I'd say that.

 

Vimes is some kind of fine. That man can do no wrong in my books.

...well he can, but he's a believable character, so it makes sense.

Share this post


Link to post

Didn't find Meyer's explanation, but this should work.

 

http://applesparkles.wikia.com/wiki/Scientific_Inaccuracies

 

Stephenie Meyer has stated that in the process of being transformed into a vampire, a person gains two extra chromosomes.

 

Just how? I am not versed in the nature of butterflies, but I highly doubt they gain or loose chromosomes when they mutate.

 

Which leads to the whole breeding thing. Extra chromosomes do NOT create super beautiful, lovely, uber intelligent, and quick growing creatures. They create malformations, such as Down Syndrome.

 

Also, they would be highly non compatible. Sorry to sound disgusting, but there is a reason why bestiality does not produce offspring.

 

In Twilight, vampires that feed on human blood are described as having red eyes, while "vegetarian" vampires that feed on animals other than humans have golden eyes. One's diet does not affect one's eye colour; it's genetically determined. This is why real vegetarians do not have bright pink eyes. Aside from the issue of why a creature's diet would have an effect on its eye color, it makes no sense for human blood to be any different from the blood of animals. Human blood and other mammalian blood, which is what the Cullens appear to mainly feed from, have the same composition.

 

I do not need to add anything else.

 

Traditional vampire lore states that vampires cannot enter direct sunlight, lest they burst into flames. Stephenie Meyer gave a new twist to the lore, saying that vampires do not enter the sunlight because it causes their skin to sparkle like diamonds. This is apparently because the venom turns each cell into "a single facet" of a "crystal like substance". Of course, crystals are rigid, meaning that the transformation would make it impossible for the vampires to move without shattering. Stephanie claims that this works because a "venom-like substance" lubricates the cells. However, if each cell is a facet, that would imply they are connected. If each cell in an individual crystal, Meyerpires would just be shiny, because cells are way too small to see the individual sparkles. Also, if sunlight makes meyerpires glitter so should regular light. In traditional vampire lore the effect is mystical, and so the restriction to sunlight is justified, but sunlight is not fundamentally different from other very bright light. It should also be noted that such crystal structures can be found in plasma screen tvs, video game screens, and cell phones. As well as being the same lipid structure that makes soap and detergent.

 

Let me add a bit of knowledge on bats. Bat skin is highly pale, and feeble, and in direct sunlight, they are prone to sunburn, which would pretty much explain why vampires are damaged under the sunlight.

 

As it is explained in the article, diamond cells do not create a vampire. They make a gollem. Then again, let us suppose for a single minute they only glimmer under sunlight. Even during cloudy days, sun rays penetrate through the clouds, hence would make their skin glitter all the same.

 

If the cells are created into stones, why do vampires need feeding? I've yet got to find a stone that needs feeding.

Feeding is a way of obtaining energy for the cells. But this cells are stones, that is, non living, hence do not need energy to function.

 

Unlike traditional vampires, you can explain their need of blood consumption to keep the dead body from decaying (for example).

 

The only way Meyer's vamps would be able to be living, is through magic, much in the same way of golems. Therefore, they would need no energy source to function, as they would get it from the magic itself.

 

And the whole venom lubricant is stupid. What are they? Cars?

 

Since apparently Meyerpire venom carries DNA, instead of logical things like enzymes, it is possible to argue that the magical Meyerpire venom could impregnate someone. However there are other problems with Nessie's conception. Bella has 46 chromosomes, so her egg has 23. Edward apparently has 50, so his . . . uh . . . venom - has 25. According to Meyer, via Carlisle, this means that Renesmee has 24 chromosome pairs, which explains her bizarre growth acceleration and why Jacob imprints on her. This is apparently because Meyer believes that when you have too many chromosomes on one side they just fold down and make another pair. In real life, chromosomes do not work that way: Renesmee would have 23 chromosome pairs and 2 extra chromosomes hanging off on their own. (Normally, an imbalance in chromosomes causes Down's Syndrome). While it is remotely possible that she would survive and be reasonably normal, the odd chromosome structure would prevent the DNA from pairing up properly in most fetuses, and she would be mostly, if not completely infertile. Why couldn't Meyer just say it was magic again?

 

Along with this, I'll add a few things about Eddie's venom sperm.

 

An ovule is an extremely fragile cell. Edward's venom would cause the following in a female organism.

 

1. Uterus infection. It would most likely kill Bella, specially if it filtered into the blood drain, in which case it might cause her death, or transform her. After all, it is venom going into her organism.

 

2. Kill the egg. The venom would completely destroy the egg.

 

3. Eddie's sperm is supposed to have been stored in his eggs for 100 years? How is that possible? A sperm cell has a life of 3 days.

Did they become diamonds? How can a diamond impregnate a female mammal?

They got frozen in time? They would have been destroyed by the venom in Edward's body, as this cells are equally fragile.

 

The whole concept is ludicrous, and stupid. Sure, vampires might be unbelievable, but I don't recall Anne Rice trying to explain them scientifically.

 

EDIT;

 

Found it.

 

http://www.stepheniemeyer.com/bd_faq.html

Edited by DragonNighthowler

Share this post


Link to post

ok you win. But would your reaction be any different if she hadn't tried to explain them scentificly? also at some point yo halve to realize that it is fictional.

Share this post


Link to post

But would your reaction be any different if she hadn't tried to explain them scentificly?

 

Most likely, although I would still have issues with the whole breeding thing. BUt that's because she raped her own laws, and any feeble interest the plot might have had. Bella had been, throughout 3 whole books, saying how she would have to choose between the man she loved, and her life.

 

If she chose Edward, and became a vampire, she would be beautiful, and everlasting young.

But she would loose family and friends forever, and the only chance at having a family of her own, as she would not have kids.

 

In the end, she learns nothing, and sacrifices nothing. She keeps her family and friends, and has her gorgeous daughter abomination.

 

Not as much with the diamond skin thing. As I stated, golems are "living" things, and capable of moving.

 

also at some point yo halve to realize that it is fictional.

 

Precisely, she shouldn't have attempted to explain fiction as something scientifically plausible.

Specially when she raped science.

 

I work fantasy as well, but I don't go about with a speech about how logical it is for my mage to shoot down balls of fire.

Share this post


Link to post

You know, I'm very funny when it comes to magic vs. science in fiction.

 

I'm very picky about science, being a scientist. So it actually annoys me more when I find a book/TV show/movie which uses really bad science. I'd much prefer magic in that way, as long as the magic follows its own internal rules.

 

Of course, if I do find a good story with bad science, I'll ussually just suspend disbelief, except for the occasional sarcastic comment.

 

I enjoyed Twilight, as a kind of guilty pleasure. But I do not like how crazy fans have gotten over it, and I recognise the rather...darker things it shows. The way women are treated in that book, and the stalking *shudders*.

Share this post


Link to post
You know, I'm very funny when it comes to magic vs. science in fiction.

 

I'm very picky about science, being a scientist. So it actually annoys me more when I find a book/TV show/movie which uses really bad science. I'd much prefer magic in that way, as long as the magic follows its own internal rules.

 

Of course, if I do find a good story with bad science, I'll ussually just suspend disbelief, except for the occasional sarcastic comment.

 

I enjoyed Twilight, as a kind of guilty pleasure. But I do not like how crazy fans have gotten over it, and I recognise the rather...darker things it shows. The way women are treated in that book, and the stalking *shudders*.

I really love the Terry Pratchett magic "rules," as they tend to make... sense. It's odd, really. You'd probably have to read his books to know what I'm trying to talk about...

Share this post


Link to post
ok you win. But would your reaction be any different if she hadn't tried to explain them scentificly? also at some point yo halve to realize that it is fictional.

yes, my reaction would be different if she didn't try to explain them scientifically. It makes me think of her as a ****py writer with a ****py storyline and undeserved fame that happens to be full of ****, as opposed to a ****py writer with a ****py storyline and undeserved fame.

 

I don't like the books. I don't like the storyline. I don't like her writing. I don't like the characters. I don't like a single thing about it. Long live Stoker's Dracula!

Share this post


Link to post
I really love the Terry Pratchett magic "rules," as they tend to make... sense. It's odd, really. You'd probably have to read his books to know what I'm trying to talk about...

I keep meaning to go an read some Prachet- the school has like, 20 of them. But I'm so busy I just don't have enough time.

Share this post


Link to post
I really like twilight...

 

As we ask everyone... why?

 

Also, the f**k is that?!

Share this post


Link to post

I'm not the kind of person who writes a Hamlet ending. If the fight had happened, it would have ended with 90% of the combatants, Cullen and Volturi alike, destroyed. There was simply no other outcome once the fight got started, given the abilities and numbers of the opposing sides. Because I would never finish Bella's story on such a downer—Everybody dies!—I knew that the real battle would be mental. It was a game of maneuvering, with the champion winning not by destroying the other side, but by being able to walk away. This was another reason I liked the chess metaphor on the cover—it really fit the feel of that final game. I put a clue into the manuscript as well. Alice tore a page from The Merchant of Venice because the end of Breaking Dawn was going to be somewhat similar: bloodshed appears inevitable, doom approaches, and then the power is reversed and the game is won by some clever verbal strategies; no blood is shed, and the romantic pairings all have a happily ever after.

 

In her own words more or less. *shakes head* Really should have named her "Mary" and not Bella.

Share this post


Link to post

In her own words more or less. *shakes head* Really should have named her "Mary" and not Bella.

Portal is a mental game :|

 

Meyer's little excuse makes GLaDOS cry neurotoxic tears. (I've been on TV tropes too long...)

 

But really, why happy endings? Why does it always need to be sunshine and rainbows? God knows I don't do this, and I'm a teen! (Neither do I get into the emo blood and bawww lands, but I digress.)

 

Life. Is. Not. Perfect. Life sucks, kicks you in the nads a few times, then you die. There are good points, but no one ever has a perfectly happy life.

Share this post


Link to post
Life. Is. Not. Perfect. Life sucks, kicks you in the nads a few times, then you die. There are good points, but no one ever has a perfectly happy life.

EXCEPT FOR BELLA/MEYERINSERT BECAUSE SHE IS SPESHAL AND DESERVES IT AND MEYER IS IN CHARGE SO THERE. =_=

Share this post


Link to post

You know, an interesting fact.

In fact, Stephanie Meyer's vampires are not vampires.

You see, in order for some sort of mythological creature to be one, it must have certain characteristics. For example, zombies must be reanimated corpses, and they must have a hungering for human flesh. Vampires, in turn, must burn in sunlight and have to drink blood. Thus, no matter how much Stephanie calls them vampires, they aren't.

Share this post


Link to post

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.