A Deconstruction Of Twilight

[ZeroVX]

I imagine something like this has been done in the past, what with all the attention the series has been getting lately. But the new movie is on its way this summer, with everyone going crazy over "WHO'S SHE GONNA CHOOSE?!" like it's the most important decision ever.

This won't be a short one. It'll be divided into three parts. The first two parts will be looking at the history of the monsters that the two male leads are based on, while the third will be looking at the actual love triangle.

I warn you: If you're a fan, you'd do best to walk away now.

Actually, stick around. I imagine you could use a little logic. You won't like it, but what can you do?

So, let's start with the main male protagonist, or more specifically, what he is: the vampire.

The vampire has changed a LOT in movies throughout the years. And I do mean a LOT. However, through all of the changes that have been made, there have been certain constants:

1.) Vampires die in sunlight.

This is one of the most well-known traits of the vampire, aside from its visual appearance. It has long been established that vampires attack their victims at night, because if they wandered out during the day, they would burn up and die. The reasons for this aren't exactly clear, but I believe it has to do with God being in the sun and that the dead should never see the sun again or whatever. Point is, they can't go out in sunlight. This has been tweaked a bit over the years, but never completely erased.

2.) Vampires cannot go near holy objects.

This is another big trait of the vampire, and ties in with what I mentioned before, about God and all that. Throughout the history of vampires in cinema, they would typically be repulsed or in some cases hurt just by looking at something considered holy, particularly crosses. In fact, two sticks put together in the shape of a cross would be enough to wound a vampire. This would later be modified to include holy objects from ALL religions, as well as saying that the wielder needed to believe in the respective religion for it to work. Of course, this wouldn't stay with all adaptations, but I find it to be a nice touch, continuing with the theme of vampires that I'll explain fully in a bit.

3.) Vampires need blood to survive.

This is possibly the biggest trait of all, that of the vampire's main food source: blood. Whether it has to be human blood or it can be any kind of blood is, again, dependent on the source, but the bottom line is, they need this. This is the source of their power, what makes them immortal. Without this, they would suffer and become weak. The reason behind this isn't exactly clear, but it's just been commonly accepted. They can't choose to not eat blood, because anything else will either taste terrible or cause them to be sick. This also ties in with how they kill their victims, by attacking the neck. Because the neck is a pathway between the brain and the heart, a lot of blood is moving within it, so, naturally, if the source of a creatures nourishment was blood, they would attack the biggest supply. Plus, it's a fairly vulnerable point on the human body. This can also tie in with how new vampires are created. It's been changed from completely draining blood, to only draining enough blood, to transferring some of their own blood, and so on. Either way, it usually needs to be in the process of feeding.

4.) Vampires are weak against garlic.

I'm not entirely sure where this began, but I think it was an old folk legend, where if you lay cloves of garlic around your door or your bed, a vampire can't touch you. Maybe garlic is considering holy as well, or maybe vampires just hate the smell. Either way, they hate it. It isn't considered to be a main weakness of a vampire, and certainly nothing that could kill it, but more of a deterrent, a way to protect a potential victim. Oddly enough, this is one of the traits that wouldn't be played around with too much, though it is commonly used as a joke when one is trying to have a laugh about vampires.

5.) One way to kill a vampire is to drive a stake through its heart.

This is one that most people know, particularly movie-goers who are watching the final battle between the vampire and the vampire-hunter, the latter of which is armed with a wooden stake, or more than one, in some cases. This has been altered from "need to hammer the stake in while they're asleep and then cut off the head" to "need to hammer the stake in while they're asleep" to "just stab them in the heart with the stake" to "just stab them in the heart" and so on. While it has changed considerably, it's almost always accepted that a) it needs to be something sharp and pointy, and b) it needs to be the heart.

6.) Vampires cannot cast reflections.

This is another well-known trait that is commonly used as a way to detect vampires: if they have no reflection in a mirror, they're a vampire. Again, not sure where this came from, but it probably ties in with them being undead and how they don't have souls or something. I guess in the old days they thought that the reflection was because of the soul. Point is, a vampire would not be seen in a mirror.

7.) Vampires have limited shapeshifting abilities.

Please note I said "limited". Throughout history, vampires are typically seen changing into bats, but have also changed into wolves, rats, bugs, or mist. This is, again, something that has been played with over the years, but not to the extent of the others. Normally, vampires just changed into abnormally-sized bats and that's the extent of it. It has become one of the more recognizable signs of a vampire, and more than likely explains the vampire bat's name.

8.) Vampires have hypnotic powers.

This is one of the more important aspects of a vampire, as it explains how they get their victims. In the old days, vampires were considered hideous undead creatures, so they needed to rely on hypnosis to lure their victims to them. This is the one that's been toyed with the most in cinema, to the point that in some cases the vampire doesn't have this ability at all. It's pretty clear why, but I'll get to that in a second.

I think I've covered all the important ones as far as I know. There are some lesser-known aspects, such as vampires being unable to cross bodies of water unless they're near the ground they were buried in, or having to count multiple objects if they're spilled on the ground. Not sure where that one started...

Though it would explain this guy.

As you look over all the points I covered, you may notice a particular theme: God hates vampires. The holy object thing is proof enough, but dying in sunlight or not casting reflections are all based in religious beliefs. Basically, vampires are sins against God, nature, and mankind, should not exist, and are a danger to anything and anyone around them.

They are not whiny emo kids trying to fit into society. They are not sympathetic humans gone wrong. While it can be argued that they didn't choose to become vampires, it must be established that, in most cases, all semblance of their original personality is gone as soon as they are turned. They pretty much die, and something else entirely is living in their body.

Oh, and I hate to sound like a broken record here, or that I'm jumping on a bandwagon, but vampires DO NOT FUCKING SPARKLE!

But you fans may say "vampires have changed a lot over time! You even said that yourself!" And you would be right. BUT, it must be established, that for every change that was made, it was for a reason.

Let me make an example: There's a webcomic that I've been reading for a while now that focuses on various monsters. The main character is a vampire, but he can survive in sunlight. How? Apparently he's part of a new breed of vampires called "The Elite". These vampires can live in sunlight, don't require blood to survive, have more extensive shapeshifting powers, and retain more of their free will. In fact, what appears to be the series main battle on the horizon is a war between the normal vampires and the Elite. Why there are "Elite" vampires hasn't been explained, but the series is still ongoing, so there is plenty of time for an explanation to be made.

But the point is, for every change made, there is an established reason. When there isn't an established reason, then there is a decline. Which brings me to my next point: the vampire's look.

First, let's take a look at the first known vampire in cinema, Count Orlok of Nosferatu from the 20's.

Not exactly pretty, is he? In fact, he's downright hideous, looking like some sort of bat/human hybrid. As such, he has to rely solely on his hypnosis and sneaking into rooms at night while his victims are asleep.

Next, the most famous version of Dracula, namely the Bela Lugosi rendition from the 30's.

OK, still not exactly attractive, but now he looks like a human being. This actually makes him more dangerous, since he can blend into society and attack his victims at will. He's still relying on hypnosis and sneaking into rooms at night, though.

Now we have what is the considered the most vicious version of Dracula, the Christopher Lee rendition from the Hammer horror films.

OK, maybe that's a poor example, but this version was considered, in the films anyway, to actually be physically attractive. Meaning that this Dracula didn't really need to hypnotize anyone, he could just lure his victims in sexually. This is where the notion was born that vampires were extremely attractive beings that could use that to their advantage.

It should be noted, however, that Dracula's CHARACTER hadn't changed at this point. He was still the same heartless monster that he was in previous movies. In fact, some would argue that he was even moreso in the Hammer films, becoming a vicious brutal monster who attacked whoever he pleased and went on a long quest of revenge against the Van Helsing family line. Hell, just LOOK at that picture! That's a scary fucking monster!

But, like I said, the notion that vampires were physically attractive was implanted, and would be used from then on. While vampires were still treated as monsters for a period of time after the Hammer films, the 90's movie Bram Stoker's Dracula would actually cause a lot of harm to the perception of vampires. This movie starred Gary Oldman in the titular role, and actually had two different appearances:

Here he is at the start of the film.

He takes this form because he hasn't fed in quite some time, and as such, his physical appearance reflects his age. He has to rely on hypnosis again to regain his food source.

This is him after he's had enough blood.

Wow. Talk about a significant change. Long wavy hair, a mustache, sunglasses, and a top hat. No wonder the girls are all over him. Hell, he looks like Johnny Depp before Johnny Depp was popular! This is taking the "physical attractiveness" to ridiculous levels, but the character change would do much more damage.

See, in this movie, Dracula is played in a much more sympathetic light, going after the one girl because she reminds him of his long lost love. This goes against everything Dracula was in the past. Dracula was a vicious monster who attacked people because they were food or because they pissed him off. He held no feelings for anyone and only turned others into vampires so he could use them. He held no feelings for anyone and at some points wanted to rule the world. He did not, could not fall in love.

All the same, the damage had been done. Since then, multiple films and stories had been made about a vampire trying to fit into society, or a vampire in love with a human, or what have you, and it has severely damaged the public view of vampires.

However, I will easily admit that there is a right way to do this. If the vampire traits are all retained and aren't changed TOO drastically, and any changes that are made are given a reason, and the attraction between the human and the vampire is for a perfectly logical reason, then, conceivably, it could work.

Twilight does none of that. The traits of a vampire are changed seemingly at random and for convenience's sake, and there is NO explanation whatsoever as to why these changes were made. We don't know why the vampire sparkles, why they have reflections, why they bite the wrist instead of the neck (though I notice a metaphor for wrist-cutting there, and I'll spare you my thoughts on that), why they can't shapeshift but can instead jump around like a frog on steroids, and why they wangst about how they're freaks, even though they're pretty much superheroes with these changes in place. As for the attraction between the human and the vampire, I'll get to that later on.

But, even if we were to accept all these problems, there are still issues with the other male lead, the werewolf. Which I'll get to next time.

Whenever that is.

 

[ZeroVX]

Short break over, as we now look at the other male lead in the upcoming movie: the werewolf.

Much like the vampire, the werewolf has gone through changes over the years, though not as drastic as the vampire. To be honest, the main thing about the werewolf, that being a person that can turn into a wolf-like creature, has been kept constant throughout its history in cinema. A few other things are very clear when it comes to the werewolf:

1.) A werewolf changes shape when the moon is full.

This is the most well-known part of the werewolf. Not sure why this is, but every month when the moon is full, a werewolf will change into its wolf-like form once the moon rises. Maybe it has to do with the moon serving as the devil's answer to God as the sun, and when it's full he's at his full power, but for whatever reason, it has to be under a full moon. This establishes the fact that the werewolf can be anybody outside of those circumstances, and if they play their cards right, their victims won't find out until it's too late.

2.) The one thing that can kill a werewolf is a silver bullet.

This has been extended over the years to be anything that's made of silver. This is a logical move, because it's been established that it's the silver that harms the werewolf, since it can shrug off normal bullets. This is, again, probably due to religious background, most likely because silver is/was considered holy. Whatever the case, that's the only thing that can kill a werewolf. Nothing else.

3.) The only known way to create a werewolf is to be bitten by another werewolf.

This is another thing that is commonly known, since that's usually how the plot to a werewolf movie begins, with the main character being bitten by another werewolf and surviving, but now having the curse themselves. This has sometimes been extended to just being attacked by the wolf, whether by their claws or teeth, though being bitten is still considered the worse of the two. Note I said only "known" way, because a glaring question is: If the only way to create one is to be bitten by one, where did the original werewolf come from? The origin tends to change from story to story, so there is no established way. However, the vampire has the same problem, so the issue isn't exclusive.

4.) The transformation is into a half-man, half-wolf creature.

This is more of a visual trait, but it is particularly important. While the balance between man and wolf changed over time, it has been established that there is still some sort of balance between the two. After all, the term "were" is actually old Latin for "man", hence the full word being "manwolf". It wouldn't exactly be true if the transformation was into a full wolf, would it?

Now, like with the vampire, I probably missed a few lesser-known things with the werewolf, such as them seeing a pentagram on the person they're going to kill next, as well as the role of wolfsbane, which has changed drastically from film to film. But, since these have usually been forgotten as time moved on, I didn't see the need to mention them.

One important thing is that, unlike the vampire, the werewolf is typically played as a sympathetic character in movies, mainly because a) unlike the vampire, they don't die when they are attacked and retain their normal personality, and b) didn't ask to be a werewolf, and won't be able to control their actions once they change, meaning they would commit murder without wanting to.

There are a few movies I want to talk about, for various reasons. First, what is considered to be the start of it all, the original Wolf Man.

This film established all of the recognizable traits of the werewolf, as well as the person behind the werewolf. Larry Talbot is portrayed as a very sympathetic character. He doesn't want to be a werewolf, doesn't want to hurt or kill anybody, but now will when he changes, and that person may be the girl he loves. We feel extremely sorry for the character, but both he and the audience knows that he has to die for there to be a happy ending. The transformation here is brief and the character seems to be asleep as it happens. That would change drastically in the next film I mention, but that wouldn't happen for another 30 years. Unlike the vampire, the werewolf didn't go through many significant changes in cinema history, but enough were made to talk about.

Next, in the 70's, a film would come out that would make the werewolf scary again, An American Werewolf In London.

Um.....wow. That's a pretty significant change.

There are multiple things that were established in this film. First of all, once the character is bitten, they go through multiple drug-trip-style dreams. This essentially treats the bite like an infection, with hallucinations being one of the symptoms. Second, leading up to the night of the full moon, the victim starts to display wolf-like tendencies. They become more aggressive, more sexually active, want to eat meat more and more, etc. This makes sense as it, again, treats the bite like an infection, with the symptoms getting worse and worse as time moves on. Third, when said transformation begins, it is long, and it is very painful. Bones break and re-heal, jaws englarge and teeth grow and sharpen, body parts grow where they aren't supposed to, fur grows over their whole body, and so on. It is not a pleasant experience, not even remotely. Fourth, once the transformation is complete, the werewolf is basically a wild animal. While in the past, the werewolf was more accustomed to sneaking around and attacking their victims from behind, here, the werewolf just barges into large groups of people, wherever they are, attacking whomever they please, because now, it's just a wild beast. No semblance of the original human is there.

Those are the two main films I wanted to mention, because those are the ones where the big changes happened. I won't mention the Wolf Man remake, because it didn't really do anything new in terms of werewolf mythos.

However, you may notice a theme with what's already been established. Much like the vampire, the werewolf is supposed to be a monster. The fact that its one weakness is silver, a supposed holy metal, indicates that it is an unholy creature. The pentagram thing I mentioned earlier adds to that, as well as the transformation under moonlight.

It is not supposed to be a pet. It can't change whenever it wants to. It doesn't work in packs, though that much is debatable. And when it changes, it is not into a giant puppy. It is into a vicious half-man, half-beast monster and it will kill anyone without thinking twice, because it has the mentality of a beast.

Again, Twilight ignores this. We see a pack of werewolves, in human form no less, we see them transform whenever the time calls for it, when they transform, it's in a few short seconds and presumably doesn't hurt, and they transform into a giant wolf, not a wolf/man hybrid. And, much like the vampires in the series, it is done without explanation or reason.

But, even if we accept the changes done to the werewolf in addition to the changes done to the vampire, there's still one glaring problem with the Twilight series. The main plot. Which I will get into next time.

 

[ZeroVX]

Now we come to the third and most important part of the Twilight series, that being the plot. Because, even if someone could suspend their disbelief enough to accept all the changes made to both vampires and werewolves in this series, the plot would be enough to shatter their suspension of disbelief into pieces the size of grains of sand.

And no, the plot is not the implied upcoming war between vampires and werewolves. No, that would leave a chance that the series could be, you know, good. No, the plot of Twilight is basically the love between Edward and Bella, and possibly Jacob.

Let's try and go over this as best we can, alright?

First, we have Bella. An average girl both in looks and personality, but she is considered attractive enough to get asked out by a few people, and interesting enough to make friends almost instantly. I could comment on the implausibility of this, especially when you take into account high school life, but it'd be best to just move on.

Next, we have Edward, the vampire. And, naturally, since this is vampires post-Gary Oldman, he is so incredibly attractive that the girls are all going gaga over him. Bella, however, takes one look at Edward and determines that this is the one she's going to spend the rest of her life with.

This is my first problem here. Why is she suddenly so attracted to Edward that she views him as her soulmate or whatever? I mean, I can understand initial physical attraction, but once they start talking to each other, Edward acts like a total asshole. He constantly tells her to stay away from him, that it's dangerous, or whatever, yet they somehow wind up talking to each other again and again and again. Bella just won't take the hint and won't stay away from Edward. But what's worse is Edward's attraction to Bella. I don't think there's any explanation at all as to why this is. Yes, I'm aware that the story is about Bella, but there's enough focus on Edward for there to be SOME establishment. They take one look at one another and suddenly they'll be together forever. This reeks of high school teenybopper romance that ends once they move out of their parents' houses. Except it doesn't.

So, they wind up together, even though Edward won't turn Bella into a vampire. This is the next problem I have. Edward DOES give a reason as to why he won't turn Bella into a vampire, but it's a ridiculously stupid reason. Like I said before, he basically wangsts about how he's a monster and such, even though this version of vampire allows him walk around in sunlight like a normal person and be the closest thing to a superhero. Sure, there's the need for blood, but they solve that by hunting deer. So what's the problem in turning Bella, who I should mention, WANTS to be a vampire?

Well, we don't get that reason, and the first story continues. There's some fight with another vampire, Bella almost becomes a vampire but Edward stops the transformation, but who gives a crap about any of that? The story is about Bella, dammit!

We then move to the second story where an incident occurs on Bella's birthday. She gets a paper cut and one of Edward's relatives almost kills her because of the blood. As such, Edward breaks up with Bella and moves away to protect her. Ignoring the fact that this could all be solved if Bella herself was turned, of course.

Bella's reaction to this is another problem I have. It is....well, it's just unhealthy. Bella goes into a depression that suicidals would be shocked at. She purposely gets herself into dangerous situations, because she sees Edward suddenly appear whenever she has a near-death experience. That's a sign of insanity, if you ask me. Plus, it's very unrealistic. Most people don't go into psychotic depressions after a break-up, unless they really loved the person and had been with them for years. But, then again, apparently the two were meant to be so this is perfectly acceptable.

Enter Jacob, the werewolf. He starts a relationship with Bella, though it isn't exactly mutual. The two do become close, though. I should also note that Jacob actually treats Bella like a human being, taking care of her and looking after her, which is a contrast to Edward, who was an asshole. So, in doing so, Bella starts to get over Edward.

Of course, we can't have that. There's some shit about Edward wanting to kill himself by attacking a higher-up in the vampire world, some other vampire wants revenge on Bella, Bella has to save Edward, but again, who gives a crap? This is about Bella and Edward's twue love!

So now we come to the next story, which will determine once and for all who Bella will choose. The asshole vampire, or the kind werewolf? Well:

Spoiler

It's Edward. I know, you're shocked.

This is yet another problem with the series, and one I imagine will be criticized heavily once Eclipse comes out. The fact that Bella chooses the ass over the one who treated her like, y'know, a human being, just seems to scream "fanfiction" to me. I mean, it's not like Jacob abandoned her at the first sign of danger or anything, right?

But that's not the worst of it. See, if this choice was made just for no reason, then even the most devoted of fans would see a problem. So, a reason needed to be made. Problem was, it was a shitty reason, one that most TVTropers will recognize as Derailing Love Interests on the spot.

For those of you who don't know, Derailing Love Interest is where one character breaks up with another for whatever reason, and then finds another character who is essentially perfect for them. Problem is, the author doesn't want that couple to stick, and wants the original couple up and running again. But why would they break up when they are so happy? This is when the author needs to create a reason out of nowhere. As such, the previously perfect character will do some seriously wrong without any explanation whatsoever, thusly causing the two to separate and the original couple to reunite.

In the case of the Edward-Bella-Jacob triangle, Jacob becomes a bit obsessive, essentially forcing himself on Bella to the point of sexual harassment. I must reiterate that this is the one who was actually NICE to Bella earlier. The reasons for this are never explained, at least not logically, and, because the author commanded it, Edward and Bella are together for good this time.

And there you have it. All the problems I see with the Twilight series thus far. Not to say there won't be any more problems. I won't provide any more spoilers, but personally, I cannot WAIT to find out how they're going to pull off Breaking Dawn.

And for those rabid fans who are no doubt about to rain hatred onto me, I have to ask:

Did you even read the original books beforehand?

 

[SorgFamily]

Why oh why am I replying to this. I'm putting this out there, I like the books. My fiance at the time read the first one and every two or three days would buy the next one. So one day I was putting music on my Xbox and the estimated rip time was ten minutes or so. I look over and there is the book just staring at me. I pick it up and figure I'll only read until the music is done ripping. I look up later it's done and I'm on page 90. Huh. So yeah I read them. Now, lets not get ahead of ourselves. I hate............hate the sub-par crap acting in the movies. But the books save for the last 20 pages in Breaking Dawn (the final book) were great.

I'll agree with you to a point. She (Stephanie Meyers) did change the perception of a vampire and werewolf loads and just let it fly. I can't fault her though for wanting to make up her own story and not have to follow the rules that were laid before her. Just because it's been a set way for a long time doesn't mean it's the only way to write it. You can't really say she wrote the part wrong because the part written is made up in the first place. There is no right or wrong way to write a vampire or werewolf because they are not real. There's examples you can follow that came first but it doesn't mean it's the right way, it's just one interpretation of thousands.

And not to pick hairs but they're not werewolves, they're shape shifters that choose the form of the wolf because it represents their tribe.

So I agree that she has taken the traditional stories of vampires and werewolves (shape shifters) and turned them upside down but once again I can't fault her for trying something new even if a million people hated it. Because in the end, millions of people loved it.

 

[ServantofTwilight]

First, I would like to say that my name has nothing to do with this series. I have had this name on this and other forums for years before Meyers wrote her books. my name comes from the Koontz novel " The Servants of Twilight". That said I have enjoyed the books which I read on the request of my wife and daughter, and I enjoy the movies because I don't expect much and just want to be entertained. I think the hatred for this series is just because it is so popular and it is cool to hate what is popular.

All the quotes will be from ZeroVX.

The vampire has changed a LOT in movies throughout the years. And I do mean a LOT. However, through all of the changes that have been made, there have been certain constants:

1.) Vampires die in sunlight.

This is one of the most well-known traits of the vampire, aside from its visual appearance. It has long been established that vampires attack their victims at night, because if they wandered out during the day, they would burn up and die. The reasons for this aren't exactly clear, but I believe it has to do with God being in the sun and that the dead should never see the sun again or whatever. Point is, they can't go out in sunlight. This has been tweaked a bit over the years, but never completely erased.

Actually, this is an idea invented by the movies, specifically to end the movie Nosferatu. Traditionally vampires could come out whenever they wanted. In fact in Dracula the good count is seen walking about in London in the daylight. So if the father of all vampires does it I don't think it can be knocked.

2.) Vampires cannot go near holy objects.

This is another big trait of the vampire, and ties in with what I mentioned before, about God and all that. Throughout the history of vampires in cinema, they would typically be repulsed or in some cases hurt just by looking at something considered holy, particularly crosses. In fact, two sticks put together in the shape of a cross would be enough to wound a vampire. This would later be modified to include holy objects from ALL religions, as well as saying that the wielder needed to believe in the respective religion for it to work. Of course, this wouldn't stay with all adaptations, but I find it to be a nice touch, continuing with the theme of vampires that I'll explain fully in a bit.

This one is a combination of myth and movie. In vampire legend it is said they don't like holy items because the people who believed in the vampires believed them to be evil and needed the tailsmans of goodness to be their weopons. Peasants did not have a vast array of weopons to defend themselves so their faith became their defence. The movies took it up a notch by having the items sear the flesh of the vampire. However, there have been movies which have dropped this belief, most noticably Interveiw With the Vampire, in which Louis claims he is quite fond of crosses, and in The Vampire Lestat Lestat enters churches.

3.) Vampires need blood to survive.

This is possibly the biggest trait of all, that of the vampire's main food source: blood. Whether it has to be human blood or it can be any kind of blood is, again, dependent on the source, but the bottom line is, they need this. This is the source of their power, what makes them immortal. Without this, they would suffer and become weak. The reason behind this isn't exactly clear, but it's just been commonly accepted. They can't choose to not eat blood, because anything else will either taste terrible or cause them to be sick. This also ties in with how they kill their victims, by attacking the neck. Because the neck is a pathway between the brain and the heart, a lot of blood is moving within it, so, naturally, if the source of a creatures nourishment was blood, they would attack the biggest supply. Plus, it's a fairly vulnerable point on the human body. This can also tie in with how new vampires are created. It's been changed from completely draining blood, to only draining enough blood, to transferring some of their own blood, and so on. Either way, it usually needs to be in the process of feeding.

Not sure what your point here is as the vampires in Meyers story need to feed on blood with only a select few chooseing to abstain from human blood. The scene at the end of New Moon with the Voulturi shows this point clearly as men, women and children are led to their deaths.
As for the neck, ther are many movies in which other body parts are bitten including Twilight, Interveiw With the Vampire, The Lost Boys and Return to Salem's Lot.

4.) Vampires are weak against garlic.

I'm not entirely sure where this began, but I think it was an old folk legend, where if you lay cloves of garlic around your door or your bed, a vampire can't touch you. Maybe garlic is considering holy as well, or maybe vampires just hate the smell. Either way, they hate it. It isn't considered to be a main weakness of a vampire, and certainly nothing that could kill it, but more of a deterrent, a way to protect a potential victim. Oddly enough, this is one of the traits that wouldn't be played around with too much, though it is commonly used as a joke when one is trying to have a laugh about vampires.

Garlic was believed to have strong medicinal qualities and was also used to ward of the supernatural, including vampires. Not really used much today.

5.) One way to kill a vampire is to drive a stake through its heart.

This is one that most people know, particularly movie-goers who are watching the final battle between the vampire and the vampire-hunter, the latter of which is armed with a wooden stake, or more than one, in some cases. This has been altered from "need to hammer the stake in while they're asleep and then cut off the head" to "need to hammer the stake in while they're asleep" to "just stab them in the heart with the stake" to "just stab them in the heart" and so on. While it has changed considerably, it's almost always accepted that a) it needs to be something sharp and pointy, and b) it needs to be the heart.

This is the most often used in movies but is not the only way. Depending on where the legend is from the method varies from stakes to silver nails to beheading to fire. Twilight uses a combination of beheading and fire.

6.) Vampires cannot cast reflections.

This is another well-known trait that is commonly used as a way to detect vampires: if they have no reflection in a mirror, they're a vampire. Again, not sure where this came from, but it probably ties in with them being undead and how they don't have souls or something. I guess in the old days they thought that the reflection was because of the soul. Point is, a vampire would not be seen in a mirror.

Thats it right there. It was believed that a mirror reflected the soul. Sence we know that is wrong, today it is not used so much.

7.) Vampires have limited shapeshifting abilities.

Please note I said "limited". Throughout history, vampires are typically seen changing into bats, but have also changed into wolves, rats, bugs, or mist. This is, again, something that has been played with over the years, but not to the extent of the others. Normally, vampires just changed into abnormally-sized bats and that's the extent of it. It has become one of the more recognizable signs of a vampire, and more than likely explains the vampire bat's name.

Again, this was created more to the vampire a more fearful ability to get to us. How do you stop mist from coming in? Again more modern movies like Interveiw, Lost Boys and Twilight have dropped this.

8.) Vampires have hypnotic powers.

This is one of the more important aspects of a vampire, as it explains how they get their victims. In the old days, vampires were considered hideous undead creatures, so they needed to rely on hypnosis to lure their victims to them. This is the one that's been toyed with the most in cinema, to the point that in some cases the vampire doesn't have this ability at all. It's pretty clear why, but I'll get to that in a second.

Movie power. Most notably with Dracula.

They are not whiny emo kids trying to fit into society. They are not sympathetic humans gone wrong. While it can be argued that they didn't choose to become vampires, it must be established that, in most cases, all semblance of their original personality is gone as soon as they are turned. They pretty much die, and something else entirely is living in their body.

Thats debatable. Louis and Lestat and even Armande stayed pretty much the same. The vampires in The Lost Boys remained as wild teens. Forever Knight kept his humanity.

Oh, and I hate to sound like a broken record here, or that I'm jumping on a bandwagon, but vampires DO NOT FUCKING SPARKLE!

While I am not crazy about this, Anne Rice had her vampires skin resemble marble.

Twilight does none of that. The traits of a vampire are changed seemingly at random and for convenience's sake, and there is NO explanation whatsoever as to why these changes were made.

Actually they are in the books. The vampires of Twilight kill humans, except for a select few including the Cullens. We learn that Carlile is the first, how he became, why he chose the life he did and how he came to make his family.

We don't know why the vampire sparkles

Doesn't matter. Meyers wanted them to sparkle and so therfore have to remain in overcast areas or else be revealed.

why they have reflections

Because that is a silly believe that has been ignored by others, not just Twilight.

why they bite the wrist instead of the neck (though I notice a metaphor for wrist-cutting there, and I'll spare you my thoughts on that)

Where are you getting this from? In Twilight no one gets bit on the wrist. And when Carlile turns edward he bites him on the neck. When the rogue vampires come to town they tear into people like animals. James bites Bella on the hand just to taunt Edward, not to feed.

why they can't shapeshift but can instead jump around like a frog on steroids

The vampires in the Lost Boys couldn't shape shift but flew like superman. The vampires in Interveiw didn't shape shift but leapt great distances and had super speed.

and why they wangst about how they're freaks

Carlile, Esme, Emmitt, Jasper and Alice all like what they are. Rosalie regrets what she is because she never had a choice and Edward fears he has no soul. Two out of seven have a problem.

After all this it is clear that you never read the books, did not pay close attention to the movies, and don't know what you are talking about.

I'll get to your other posts/points later.

 

[ServantofTwilight]

First I wanted to start off by clearing something I said up. ZeroVX said that the vampires in Twiight fed by biting the wrist, to which I replied that no vampire in Twilight did this. This is not 100% true. In the book when James is attacking Bella he bites her on the hand to torment Edward. In the movie he bites her on the wrist. So while I stand by my statement that no Twilight vampires feed by using the wrist James does indeed bite Bella on the wrist.

Now, with ZeroVX's post on werewolves I was undecided as to whether I should reply as it is pointless to the story of Twilight. ZeroVX asks if people read the original books but it is clear he/she did not. However, since he took all the time to write it and it is his second point in his "deconstruction" of twilight I will respond.

Again all quotes are from ZeroVX

1.) A werewolf changes shape when the moon is full.

This is the most well-known part of the werewolf. Not sure why this is, but every month when the moon is full, a werewolf will change into its wolf-like form once the moon rises. Maybe it has to do with the moon serving as the devil's answer to God as the sun, and when it's full he's at his full power, but for whatever reason, it has to be under a full moon. This establishes the fact that the werewolf can be anybody outside of those circumstances, and if they play their cards right, their victims won't find out until it's too late.

While I won't say this is an untrue belief it is not a constant one. in fact in most of the earliest werewolf legends from Greece and Rome the moon had nothing to do with the transformation. This became a mostly European belief, probably added to the legends as wolves would howl at the moon. Also it adds a degree of fearfulness as the werewolf would only be out at night. In fact, in most legends, the werewolf can change whenever he/she wants, night or day.

2.) The one thing that can kill a werewolf is a silver bullet.

This has been extended over the years to be anything that's made of silver. This is a logical move, because it's been established that it's the silver that harms the werewolf, since it can shrug off normal bullets. This is, again, probably due to religious background, most likely because silver is/was considered holy. Whatever the case, that's the only thing that can kill a werewolf. Nothing else.

Actually this is not true. Not totally antway. We will not see silver mentioned as a bane to werewolves until after the 19th century began. It is believed that the most famous werewolf story of all, The Beast of Gevaudan, was alterd later to include the use of silver. There are tales of werewolves killed by beheading and swords. Silver was probably added to the story to make it harder to kill, threrfore making it more dangerous.

Ironically, the werewolf in one of the two movies you mentioned is killed by bullets, not silver.

3.) The only known way to create a werewolf is to be bitten by another werewolf.

This is another thing that is commonly known, since that's usually how the plot to a werewolf movie begins, with the main character being bitten by another werewolf and surviving, but now having the curse themselves. This has sometimes been extended to just being attacked by the wolf, whether by their claws or teeth, though being bitten is still considered the worse of the two. Note I said only "known" way, because a glaring question is: If the only way to create one is to be bitten by one, where did the original werewolf come from? The origin tends to change from story to story, so there is no established way. However, the vampire has the same problem, so the issue isn't exclusive.

Actually this is a more Hollywood belief. In the old days no onesurvived a werewolf attack. A werewolf was created by a curse, through witchcraft, or by a rare event. One belief was that a child born on Xmas eve would become a werewolf. However, later legends do tend to treat the lycanthropy as a disease and therfor it is spread by a bite.

4.) The transformation is into a half-man, half-wolf creature.

This is more of a visual trait, but it is particularly important. While the balance between man and wolf changed over time, it has been established that there is still some sort of balance between the two. After all, the term "were" is actually old Latin for "man", hence the full word being "manwolf". It wouldn't exactly be true if the transformation was into a full wolf, would it?

I don't think you could be anymore wrong here. A werewolf changes from a man to a wolf. not into some hybrid. the hybrid started in 35 with The Werewolf of London, a movie in which Henry Hull played a scientist affected by wolvesbane. He did not want to go through tons of makeup so they made him more human then wolf. this would be a trick that would be used often, as it was better for the monster to be on screen like that.

Again, in a twist of irony, one of the movies you mention has this. We all know Larry Talbot turns into the wolfman, and he walks upright and prowls the moors, however who remembers how he turns into a werewolf? He is attacked by the gypsy who is a werewolf. A werewolf in WOLVES form. This is never expained in the movie as to why the gypsy was a wolf but Talbot was a hybrid.

Those are the two main films I wanted to mention, because those are the ones where the big changes happened. I won't mention the Wolf Man remake, because it didn't really do anything new in terms of werewolf mythos.

However, you may notice a theme with what's already been established. Much like the vampire, the werewolf is supposed to be a monster. The fact that its one weakness is silver, a supposed holy metal, indicates that it is an unholy creature. The pentagram thing I mentioned earlier adds to that, as well as the transformation under moonlight.

While some of the points you made are weak on facts, I will agree here...the werewolf is a monster.

It is not supposed to be a pet. It can't change whenever it wants to. It doesn't work in packs, though that much is debatable. And when it changes, it is not into a giant puppy. It is into a vicious half-man, half-beast monster and it will kill anyone without thinking twice, because it has the mentality of a beast.

No one said any wolf in Twilight was a pet, you already second guess your pack statement, and a werewolf is not some ridculous half man hybrid but a large wolf.

Again, Twilight ignores this. We see a pack of werewolves, in human form no less, we see them transform whenever the time calls for it, when they transform, it's in a few short seconds and presumably doesn't hurt, and they transform into a giant wolf, not a wolf/man hybrid. And, much like the vampires in the series, it is done without explanation or reason.

Now here is where I lower the boom...THERE ARE NO WEREWOLVES IN TWILIGHT! Thats right, none. If you had read the books you would see that Jacob's tribe were decended from wolves and the wolf was their protecter. To defend themselves from 'the cold ones' the spirit of the wolf and of the tribe merged. They are shapeshifters. It could have easily been bears or eagles or any other animal. Meyers chose wolves. Jacob and Bella refer to them as werewolves for lack of a better name but, again, if you read the books you would see the difference is explained. Hell, the difference is mentioned when a vampire states to another that these wolves are not 'Children of the Moon' AKA werewolves.

So your whole second point was...pointless.

I'll get to your last point later.

 

[Remy LaCroix]

I won't be able to add anything more than what was already stated, but I really hate it when people jump on bandwagons and bash Twilight. They come off as ignorant (as the OP was proven) and it's almost as if they never even read the damn books to begin with -- and then they compare it to the multiple, stereotypical fashions in which the common vampire is portrayed as.

If you wanna bash it, read the series first and then knit-pick the bad stuff. They become pretty obvious after you know what you are talking about.

 

[Nitafrong]

I was going to reply more generally to some of your points here but ServentofTwilight has already done this pretty successfully (he also has a fairly cool and unique avatar I might add ) It is though a pretty good article ZeroVX- credit to you for the very long piece which is written well.

There are just a couple of other points I would like to add which I don't think have been covered. With regard to Vampires being attractive- this isn't something which started with Gary Oldman. The two most famous examples of early vampire fiction from the 19th century, Camillia and Dracula feature beautiful villains who entrap their victims through their looks as much with their physical strength.

Edwards reasoning for not wishing to turn Bella Vampire is also fairly simple. He believes that in doing so she will lose her soul (whether this is true or not Stephanie Meyer doesn't make clear) which is believed by many religions if not all, as the part of you which will progress after death. Something else takes its place it is also clear- something which desires human blood and thus murder- which it is only through years of practice that some vampires can make them resist against. The inability to go out and enjoy the sun in public, to have lasting relationships with those outside vampires (which is a fairly tiny community, to actually age and mature, to even have children and a family, even to go to sleep. In reality the life of a vampire sounds at the very least boring, and at the worst a depressing wretched existence seeking to fight off your desires at all costs. Would you really wish this upon someone you felt you loved?

Also I wouldn't really get too hung up on all the different rules or cannon of vampires. As a myth which has been propagated for hundreds of years they almost never appear exactly the same in any medium which they are displayed in. Every author takes liberties with the myth. There are no right or wrong rules with how to use vampires.

The bigger problem with the books and therefore the movies however is with the characterisation of its characters, especially that of Bella. While I can understand why there might be an attraction between the two of them- but its not really the kind of emotional love to inspire. Edward can read the mind of everyone around him and has been able to do so for over a hundred years. Can you not appreciate how fascinating it might be for him to meet someone who he cannot do this to- someone who is a closed book- someone he cannot read? (The pun is poor I know) It is the things we can't have that we always want. Additionally she is his "perfect brand of heroin". Her smell, touch, taste drive him wilder than anyone else ever will. Its easy to see why he falls for Bella- the strongest physical attraction mixed with an intriguing mystery which he- the control freak wishes to solve.

Bella has similar reasons for her love- his perfect face, his perfect smile, his perfect face, his perfect body...... As much as she explains to a friend in the first book, that the man behind the body is even more fascinating- I never really saw it. Edward seeks to dominate and control Bella completely- he spies on her all the time, he has to be the one to drive her to school- to take and buy her lunch- commands her to eat and drink. When he doesn't get his own way immediately- say Bella wishes to keep some aspect of her mind to herself- he seeks to manipulate her by using his looks as he does with all other human women. When she challenges him or says something he doesn't like- he frequently gets angry and sometimes loses his temper. As he says to Bella in the first book and then proves in the second book- if he feels the relationship is going bad or if he perceives that she will be in danger, or for whatever reason he thinks things are wrong- he takes everything into his own hands and without any discussion with her or rational explanation he abandons her. He also seeks to have the high ground while doing this- in acting in such a way he has proved he loves her more than she does him. When they meet up later- it is he though who had the worst of it not her (in Edwards eyes of course) While Bella is reprimanded as a child for doing something dangerous- because they believed it was suicide- nothing is said to Edward when he attempts much the same thing- only his suicide will likely involve the killing of a lot of humans who have seen too much.

The love between the two is really more of a purely physical kind than really ever gaining an emotional power (up to Book 2 anyways). As much as Stephanie Meyer attempts to give the impression that this emotional attachment has taken place- in the first book Edward spends two days questioning her completely about her life- giving the impression that if he knows all this he most love her- it is never really shown in the book other than Edward seeking to be her guardian at all times. Even the manner of this questioning stresses Edwards controlling nature further- rather than an intimate heart to heart sharing of secrets it is an interrogation where he forces Bella to tell him all even when she gets embarrassed and wishes to hold stuff back.

Such of lack of spirit on the behalf of the lead heroine- an inability to put Edward in his place, or to become anything more than a classic damsel in distress- running from one strong male to another seeking their protection would shame a character from Jane Austin's time. Despite coming from a background which so much more restrictions and in which a woman’s role was clearly defined- Miss Elizabeth Bennet would make very short work of Edward Cullen. I would hate to see what Buffy would do.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

However, you may notice a theme with what's already been established. Much like the vampire, the werewolf is supposed to be a monster. The fact that its one weakness is silver, a supposed holy metal, indicates that it is an unholy creature. The pentagram thing I mentioned earlier adds to that, as well as the transformation under moonlight.

It is not supposed to be a pet. It can't change whenever it wants to. It doesn't work in packs, though that much is debatable. And when it changes, it is not into a giant puppy. It is into a vicious half-man, half-beast monster and it will kill anyone without thinking twice, because it has the mentality of a beast.

Again, Twilight ignores this. We see a pack of werewolves, in human form no less, we see them transform whenever the time calls for it, when they transform, it's in a few short seconds and presumably doesn't hurt, and they transform into a giant wolf, not a wolf/man hybrid. And, much like the vampires in the series, it is done without explanation or reason.

But, even if we accept the changes done to the werewolf in addition to the changes done to the vampire, there's still one glaring problem with the Twilight series. The main plot. Which I will get into next time.

Er, the only problem with all this being is, hello, fucking vampires and werewolves arent actually real. Hence, there are no guidelines or "rules" when writing fantasy stories about fantasy beings. Its like saying every alien in every movie has to be like the ones from Roswell pictures or some shit. No one gave a fuck when Underworld and Blade made alterations on the characters, or fantasy beings, they dont suddenly have rules now. Just blind Twilight hate, you look like a dumbass.

Its beyond ******ed when people do the "ZOMG THATS NOT HOW VAMPIRES ARE!!!" um, hello, Vampires aren't like anything, becuase they dont actually exist. Same with Werewolves. Let the kiddies have their fun.

 

[ServantofTwilight]

As with the werewolf post I almost chose not to respond to this as the point made is fairly weak. Even if one thinks the plot lines of the Twilight books are week or full of holes it matters not. As long as the author holds together what she created in an entertaining manner the book works. I could make an arguement that 'The Lord of the Rings' is week on plot. If the giant eagles could come and fight in The Battle of Five Armies, could rescue Gandolf from Saruman, battle the ring wraiths at the Black Gate and fly into Mordor to rescue Sam and Frodo then why couldn't they fly the Fellowship where they wanted to go. Because then we wouldn't have a great story. So we allow ourselves to ignore this and instead enjoy the tale that was given to us. So we should with Twilight.

ZeroVX said--

Now we come to the third and most important part of the Twilight series, that being the plot. Because, even if someone could suspend their disbelief enough to accept all the changes made to both vampires and werewolves in this series, the plot would be enough to shatter their suspension of disbelief into pieces the size of grains of sand.

Well, considering I pretty much shot your vampire and werewolf posts to hell I think maybe you are off on this one also.

And no, the plot is not the implied upcoming war between vampires and werewolves. No, that would leave a chance that the series could be, you know, good. No, the plot of Twilight is basically the love between Edward and Bella, and possibly Jacob.

Not totally true. There is no love triangle in the first book. Jacob may have a crush on Bella but there is no conflict with the three. The first book is all Edward and Bella with Jacob as a small secondary character. Actually the arthur does a pretty good job of using him just enough in book one to leap into the bigger parts Jacob would have in the next three.

That said, the love triangle between Jacob, Edward and Bella is a major plotline through the next books but not the only plot. New Moon is almost all about Bella and Jacob becoming close and the introduction of The Pack. Edward is hardly in the book save for the begining and end. There is also storylines with Victoria and The Volturi. In Eclipse the love story/conflict grows but is also fueled by the hatred the Pack and the vampires have for each other. Edward and Jacob are natural enemies with the love for Bella stoking the fire. Add the continued threat from Victoria, The Volturi, The Newborns and Bella's desire to 'become' and you have several different plotlines which all wrap together. In Breaking Dawn it goes further as Meyers didvides the book into two tales, Jacob's and Bella's, and does a fairly good job of wrapping up all her storylines. While I will never argue it is the greatest plot I do not think it is as awful as you say.

First, we have Bella. An average girl both in looks and personality, but she is considered attractive enough to get asked out by a few people, and interesting enough to make friends almost instantly. I could comment on the implausibility of this, especially when you take into account high school life, but it'd be best to just move on.

Lets not move on so fast. Who says she is average? And lets take whether we find Kristen Stewart to be attractive or not. See, this is another point which makes me think you have never read the books. All the books, except for a section of Breaking Dawn, are narrated in the first person by Bella. She believes herself to be average in looks and in personality. Most people would say they are that way. She questions her own looks. However as the series goes on we as readers see that Bella is more beautiful then she believes, and that she has just had a harder judgement of herself. In one of the books, I can't remember which, as Alice is helping her get made up she looks in the mirror and realizes she really is beautiful. So your point on that is pretty weak.

As for the asked out and friends, take away Jacob and Edward and two other guys go after her and only Mike Newton pursues it with any gusto. Eric makes a small play but that is it. As for friends if you read the books you would find that she makes four good friends( Jessica, Eric, Mike and Angela), several who are just there and one, Lauren, who does not like her and does stuff against her. Don't really see your point here.

Next, we have Edward, the vampire. And, naturally, since this is vampires post-Gary Oldman, he is so incredibly attractive that the girls are all going gaga over him. Bella, however, takes one look at Edward and determines that this is the one she's going to spend the rest of her life with.

No she does not. This point was just so bad I am not going to say anything more on it.

This is my first problem here. Why is she suddenly so attracted to Edward that she views him as her soulmate or whatever? I mean, I can understand initial physical attraction, but once they start talking to each other, Edward acts like a total asshole. He constantly tells her to stay away from him, that it's dangerous, or whatever, yet they somehow wind up talking to each other again and again and again. Bella just won't take the hint and won't stay away from Edward. But what's worse is Edward's attraction to Bella. I don't think there's any explanation at all as to why this is. Yes, I'm aware that the story is about Bella, but there's enough focus on Edward for there to be SOME establishment. They take one look at one another and suddenly they'll be together forever. This reeks of high school teenybopper romance that ends once they move out of their parents' houses. Except it doesn't.

As stated, she does not just go nuts for him. In fact there are points in the begining of the book where she is indifferent to him. In fact, while he is being an asshole she is mainly just trying to be friendly since they go to school together and are Biology partners. it isn't until after the car accident that she really starts to become somewhat obsessed with him. Also, Bella would stay away but then Edward would come to her.

As for Edward's attraction to Bella..I'll quote Nitafrong-

Edward can read the mind of everyone around him and has been able to do so for over a hundred years. Can you not appreciate how fascinating it might be for him to meet someone who he cannot do this to- someone who is a closed book- someone he cannot read? (The pun is poor I know) It is the things we can't have that we always want. Additionally she is his "perfect brand of heroin". Her smell, touch, taste drive him wilder than anyone else ever will. Its easy to see why he falls for Bella- the strongest physical attraction mixed with an intriguing mystery which he- the control freak wishes to solve.

That says it better then I probably could.

ZeroVX said-

So, they wind up together, even though Edward won't turn Bella into a vampire. This is the next problem I have. Edward DOES give a reason as to why he won't turn Bella into a vampire, but it's a ridiculously stupid reason. Like I said before, he basically wangsts about how he's a monster and such, even though this version of vampire allows him walk around in sunlight like a normal person and be the closest thing to a superhero. Sure, there's the need for blood, but they solve that by hunting deer. So what's the problem in turning Bella, who I should mention, WANTS to be a vampire?

I am going to be lazy and quote Nitafrong again-

Edwards reasoning for not wishing to turn Bella Vampire is also fairly simple. He believes that in doing so she will lose her soul (whether this is true or not Stephanie Meyer doesn't make clear) which is believed by many religions if not all, as the part of you which will progress after death. Something else takes its place it is also clear- something which desires human blood and thus murder- which it is only through years of practice that some vampires can make them resist against. The inability to go out and enjoy the sun in public, to have lasting relationships with those outside vampires (which is a fairly tiny community, to actually age and mature, to even have children and a family, even to go to sleep. In reality the life of a vampire sounds at the very least boring, and at the worst a depressing wretched existence seeking to fight off your desires at all costs. Would you really wish this upon someone you felt you loved?

Well put. Also in Eclipse I believe we have a part where Edward, by accident, shows Bella a reason not to become a vampire. She is talking about how hard it will be to leave Charlie and Renee and all her friends and Edward says not to worry, in years all the people you know will be dead. A thought that catches Bella of guard and has Edward saying he is sorry. However, the truth is that everone she knows will die while she will live forever. It is a concept not easily accepted.

ZeroVx said-

Well, we don't get that reason, and the first story continues. There's some fight with another vampire, Bella almost becomes a vampire but Edward stops the transformation, but who gives a crap about any of that? The story is about Bella, dammit!

YES WE DO! We get the reason throughout the books. That is why he stops the trnsformation. God, read the books.

We then move to the second story where an incident occurs on Bella's birthday. She gets a paper cut and one of Edward's relatives almost kills her because of the blood. As such, Edward breaks up with Bella and moves away to protect her. Ignoring the fact that this could all be solved if Bella herself was turned, of course.

But since he is dead set against changing her it is not an option for him.

Bella's reaction to this is another problem I have. It is....well, it's just unhealthy. Bella goes into a depression that suicidals would be shocked at. She purposely gets herself into dangerous situations, because she sees Edward suddenly appear whenever she has a near-death experience. That's a sign of insanity, if you ask me. Plus, it's very unrealistic. Most people don't go into psychotic depressions after a break-up, unless they really loved the person and had been with them for years. But, then again, apparently the two were meant to be so this is perfectly acceptable.

True her reaction and solution are dark and unhealthy but it is a story and that is the way the authur took it. If you don't like dark or unhealthy actions from characters then watch sesame Street.

As for the unrealistic part, most people don't date vampires either so...

Enter Jacob, the werewolf. He starts a relationship with Bella, though it isn't exactly mutual. The two do become close, though. I should also note that Jacob actually treats Bella like a human being, taking care of her and looking after her, which is a contrast to Edward, who was an asshole. So, in doing so, Bella starts to get over Edward.

No, enter Jacob her friend. And yes he does have a crush/feelings for her but that is not what this is about here. Here they bond, fix motorcycles and hang out. And yes he treats her good.

Now fast forward to when jacob becomes the shapeshifter. He ignores Bella, won't return her calls, is hostile to her when she comes to La Push. No, Jacob is the same as Edward once he 'becomes'.

Of course, we can't have that. There's some shit about Edward wanting to kill himself by attacking a higher-up in the vampire world, some other vampire wants revenge on Bella, Bella has to save Edward, but again, who gives a crap? This is about Bella and Edward's twue love!

After Jacob and Rosalie accidently cause Edward to believe that Bella has killed herself over him. And the vampire wanting revenge was a plotline started in the first book and which carries into the third. And by saving Edward and going before the Volturi bella seals her fate and must now become a vampire and all that stuff is important. Your post is pathetic.

So now we come to the next story, which will determine once and for all who Bella will choose. The asshole vampire, or the kind werewolf? Well:

Spoiler

It's Edward. I know, you're shocked.

This is yet another problem with the series, and one I imagine will be criticized heavily once Eclipse comes out. The fact that Bella chooses the ass over the one who treated her like, y'know, a human being, just seems to scream "fanfiction" to me. I mean, it's not like Jacob abandoned her at the first sign of danger or anything, right?

But that's not the worst of it. See, if this choice was made just for no reason, then even the most devoted of fans would see a problem. So, a reason needed to be made. Problem was, it was a shitty reason, one that most TVTropers will recognize as Derailing Love Interests on the spot.

For those of you who don't know, Derailing Love Interest is where one character breaks up with another for whatever reason, and then finds another character who is essentially perfect for them. Problem is, the author doesn't want that couple to stick, and wants the original couple up and running again. But why would they break up when they are so happy? This is when the author needs to create a reason out of nowhere. As such, the previously perfect character will do some seriously wrong without any explanation whatsoever, thusly causing the two to separate and the original couple to reunite.

In the case of the Edward-Bella-Jacob triangle, Jacob becomes a bit obsessive, essentially forcing himself on Bella to the point of sexual harassment. I must reiterate that this is the one who was actually NICE to Bella earlier. The reasons for this are never explained, at least not logically, and, because the author commanded it, Edward and Bella are together for good this time.

My responce...

Spoiler

Bella choses her true love. They both treat her like assholes at points but bella love edward more. She actually states that she loves jacob but that she loves Edward more. Just the way it is.

And for petes sake the reasons for everything is explained. Why Edward acts like he does, why Jacob acts like he does, Victoria, The Volturi everything.

Ugh, why did I waste my time answering someone who has no clue what he is talking about.

And there you have it. All the problems I see with the Twilight series thus far. Not to say there won't be any more problems. I won't provide any more spoilers, but personally, I cannot WAIT to find out how they're going to pull off Breaking Dawn.

They are making it into two movies to cover everything.

And for those rabid fans who are no doubt about to rain hatred onto me, I have to ask:

Did you even read the original books beforehand?

Yes I did, but I know for a fact you did not.

And since I generally don't like flaming I will qoute Mighty NorCal-

Just blind Twilight hate, you look like a dumbass.

 

[ZeroVX]

Actually, this is an idea invented by the movies, specifically to end the movie Nosferatu. Traditionally vampires could come out whenever they wanted. In fact in Dracula the good count is seen walking about in London in the daylight. So if the father of all vampires does it I don't think it can be knocked.

I think I should probably explain my standpoint a little further. I'm basing my points on the vampire traits from movies, since this is the Movies and Television section. I'm only bringing up literature to discuss origins of the traits and such. Same with the werewolf traits. As for Dracula surviving in sunlight, some stories depict Dracula as the strongest of all vampires, therefore the weaknesses don't affect him as much. So it's not completely inconceivable to have the King of the Vampires walk around in sunlight, whereas other vampires would still die.

This one is a combination of myth and movie. In vampire legend it is said they don't like holy items because the people who believed in the vampires believed them to be evil and needed the tailsmans of goodness to be their weopons. Peasants did not have a vast array of weopons to defend themselves so their faith became their defence. The movies took it up a notch by having the items sear the flesh of the vampire. However, there have been movies which have dropped this belief, most noticably Interveiw With the Vampire, in which Louis claims he is quite fond of crosses, and in The Vampire Lestat Lestat enters churches.

And because the movies took it up to the point of causing physical harm, that's what I'm basing my argument off of. As for Interview and Lestat, Anne Rice has taken a number of liberties with the vampire mythos. Not as drastic as with the Twilight series, granted, but significant enough to be notable. Outside of her stories and Twilight, holy objects are still considered harmful to vampires, therefore, my point still stands.

As for the neck, ther are many movies in which other body parts are bitten including Twilight, Interveiw With the Vampire, The Lost Boys and Return to Salem's Lot.

Yes, and when done properly, it's not that big a deal. A good example would be From Dusk Till Dawn, where multiple vampires are attacking one person and biting any part they can get at. When it's one vampire VS one person purposely biting a part besides the neck, it doesn't really make sense, since the neck has the most blood moving and is a spot that's poorly protected. But I already explained that point.

This is the most often used in movies but is not the only way. Depending on where the legend is from the method varies from stakes to silver nails to beheading to fire. Twilight uses a combination of beheading and fire.

This is another problem I have that I didn't mention. Why is that considered the way to kill a vampire? How is cutting apart and burning considered a significant vampire weakness? That just makes vampires even more powerful than they normally are, and is just a little hard to believe.

Thats it right there. It was believed that a mirror reflected the soul. Sence we know that is wrong, today it is not used so much.

I wouldn't have as much a problem with this if it wasn't blatantly disproved. We see Edward standing in front of a mirror, and his reflection is right there. Why would you bother to change that? It's not a big trait of a vampire, but it's a significant way to detect one. What reason is there for changing that?

Movie power. Most notably with Dracula.

And again, since it's from the movies, I'm using it as a point. And this is an important one, because again, vampires were originally not sexy. They were hideous, barely human monsters, so they had to rely on their hypnosis to lure victims. Even some of the sexy vampires would use hypnosis when the situation called for it.

Thats debatable. Louis and Lestat and even Armande stayed pretty much the same. The vampires in The Lost Boys remained as wild teens. Forever Knight kept his humanity.

Already talked about Rice, moving on. The vampire characters who retained their humanity in Lost Boys were considered "half-vampires", so them keeping their basic personalities makes sense. As for Forever Knight, I haven't seen that, but it looks pretty cool, so I'll hold off on my judgment for that.

While I am not crazy about this, Anne Rice had her vampires skin resemble marble.

Not while in broad daylight, since even in her stories, vampires burn in sunlight.

Actually they are in the books. The vampires of Twilight kill humans, except for a select few including the Cullens. We learn that Carlile is the first, how he became, why he chose the life he did and how he came to make his family.

So let me see if I got this right: The only reason all these changes are made to vampires is because the Cullen family don't kill humans?

Yeah, that's the weakest explanation for this there could be. The Cullen's being vampires from another planet where their physiology is different makes more sense.

Doesn't matter. Meyers wanted them to sparkle and so therfore have to remain in overcast areas or else be revealed.

Really, really weak reason.

Carlile, Esme, Emmitt, Jasper and Alice all like what they are. Rosalie regrets what she is because she never had a choice and Edward fears he has no soul. Two out of seven have a problem.

And Edward's fears don't make sense. He's living the same life as his family, despite his past, so his fears are completely unfounded. It just seems tacked on for random conflict.

While I won't say this is an untrue belief it is not a constant one. in fact in most of the earliest werewolf legends from Greece and Rome the moon had nothing to do with the transformation. This became a mostly European belief, probably added to the legends as wolves would howl at the moon. Also it adds a degree of fearfulness as the werewolf would only be out at night. In fact, in most legends, the werewolf can change whenever he/she wants, night or day.

But, in the various werewolf movies, which, again, are what I'm basing my points off of, the werewolf changes at the full moon. Even if the moon isn't a significant point of the movie, or even seen, it's when the moon is full.

Actually this is a more Hollywood belief. In the old days no onesurvived a werewolf attack. A werewolf was created by a curse, through witchcraft, or by a rare event. One belief was that a child born on Xmas eve would become a werewolf. However, later legends do tend to treat the lycanthropy as a disease and therfor it is spread by a bite.

This I don't have a problem with, because either way, there is an explanation for the werewolf's existence. Whether it be through a bite, a curse, or being born on a certain day or whatever. I'd say that there isn't an explanation for the werewolves in Twilight, but I'll get to that in a moment.

I don't think you could be anymore wrong here. A werewolf changes from a man to a wolf. not into some hybrid. the hybrid started in 35 with The Werewolf of London, a movie in which Henry Hull played a scientist affected by wolvesbane. He did not want to go through tons of makeup so they made him more human then wolf. this would be a trick that would be used often, as it was better for the monster to be on screen like that.

And, once again, this was a movie, so that's what I'm basing my points off of. Since that movie, it's been accepted that a werewolf isn't just a wolf that used to be a human being. That wouldn't be anywhere near as memorable.

Again, in a twist of irony, one of the movies you mention has this. We all know Larry Talbot turns into the wolfman, and he walks upright and prowls the moors, however who remembers how he turns into a werewolf? He is attacked by the gypsy who is a werewolf. A werewolf in WOLVES form. This is never expained in the movie as to why the gypsy was a wolf but Talbot was a hybrid.

Here's the problem I have with that: to the best of my memory, we don't ever get a good look at the gypsy in werewolf form. We see Talbot being attacked by something, and him killing it. The police say that it was a wolf. BUT, when Talbot himself becomes a werewolf and attacks people, the cops say the same thing. And, in honesty, when a huge wolf-thing is in your face, and you somehow survive it, are you going to be calm enough to describe it as anything more than a big wolf?

Now here is where I lower the boom...THERE ARE NO WEREWOLVES IN TWILIGHT! Thats right, none. If you had read the books you would see that Jacob's tribe were decended from wolves and the wolf was their protecter. To defend themselves from 'the cold ones' the spirit of the wolf and of the tribe merged. They are shapeshifters. It could have easily been bears or eagles or any other animal. Meyers chose wolves. Jacob and Bella refer to them as werewolves for lack of a better name but, again, if you read the books you would see the difference is explained. Hell, the difference is mentioned when a vampire states to another that these wolves are not 'Children of the Moon' AKA werewolves.

Regardless of why they are referred to as werewolves, whether for convenience or for another reason, they are referred to as werewolves, both in and out of the stories. Therefore, if they are called werewolves, I'm going to compare them to other werewolves. If they aren't werewolves, they shouldn't be called as such.

As long as the author holds together what she created in an entertaining manner the book works. I could make an arguement that 'The Lord of the Rings' is week on plot. If the giant eagles could come and fight in The Battle of Five Armies, could rescue Gandolf from Saruman, battle the ring wraiths at the Black Gate and fly into Mordor to rescue Sam and Frodo then why couldn't they fly the Fellowship where they wanted to go. Because then we wouldn't have a great story. So we allow ourselves to ignore this and instead enjoy the tale that was given to us. So we should with Twilight.

I could go into why Gwahir didn't send the eagles right off the bat, but that's a subject for another thread. At any rate, you have a point when you say that the author making things entertaining should hold importance over everything else, and anyone can tell you that you can't please everybody. Having said that, when the problems in your story are as blatant as the ones I've mentioned, you should expect criticism.

Not totally true. There is no love triangle in the first book. Jacob may have a crush on Bella but there is no conflict with the three. The first book is all Edward and Bella with Jacob as a small secondary character. Actually the arthur does a pretty good job of using him just enough in book one to leap into the bigger parts Jacob would have in the next three.

That said, the love triangle between Jacob, Edward and Bella is a major plotline through the next books but not the only plot. New Moon is almost all about Bella and Jacob becoming close and the introduction of The Pack. Edward is hardly in the book save for the begining and end. There is also storylines with Victoria and The Volturi. In Eclipse the love story/conflict grows but is also fueled by the hatred the Pack and the vampires have for each other. Edward and Jacob are natural enemies with the love for Bella stoking the fire. Add the continued threat from Victoria, The Volturi, The Newborns and Bella's desire to 'become' and you have several different plotlines which all wrap together. In Breaking Dawn it goes further as Meyers didvides the book into two tales, Jacob's and Bella's, and does a fairly good job of wrapping up all her storylines. While I will never argue it is the greatest plot I do not think it is as awful as you say.

Multiple plotlines? Yes. Do they intertwine as well as you say? I don't see it. The love triangle is obviously center stage, but how in mixes with the other stories is a problem. How does one girl being interested in a vampire cause a problem with so many other forces? Why should the Volturi, supposedly the most powerful group of vampires in existence, care about one girl? It doesn't make any sense, and doesn't mesh well at all. Plus, the resolution makes even less sense.

Lets not move on so fast. Who says she is average? And lets take whether we find Kristen Stewart to be attractive or not. See, this is another point which makes me think you have never read the books. All the books, except for a section of Breaking Dawn, are narrated in the first person by Bella. She believes herself to be average in looks and in personality. Most people would say they are that way. She questions her own looks. However as the series goes on we as readers see that Bella is more beautiful then she believes, and that she has just had a harder judgement of herself. In one of the books, I can't remember which, as Alice is helping her get made up she looks in the mirror and realizes she really is beautiful. So your point on that is pretty weak.

You said it yourself, she views herself as average, so I call her average. And how this supposedly average girl can attract so many people to her is beyond me. OK, yeah, in that one instance she considers herself beautiful, but that's after she's having makeup and such done to her. Plus, her previously established character of a relatively timid girl wouldn't suddenly declare herself beautiful. At most, she think "OK, I don't look THAT bad", or "I look better than I thought". This just seems unrealistic.

As for the asked out and friends, take away Jacob and Edward and two other guys go after her and only Mike Newton pursues it with any gusto. Eric makes a small play but that is it. As for friends if you read the books you would find that she makes four good friends( Jessica, Eric, Mike and Angela), several who are just there and one, Lauren, who does not like her and does stuff against her. Don't really see your point here.

My point being that all this happens in a very short amount of time, not long after she moves into this new neighbourhood and starts going to this new school. It usually takes time to get used to one's new surroundings, and, speaking from experience, one feels pretty awkward for quite a while. To suddenly have this many people, for whatever reason, interacting with her is, again, unrealistic.

As stated, she does not just go nuts for him. In fact there are points in the begining of the book where she is indifferent to him. In fact, while he is being an asshole she is mainly just trying to be friendly since they go to school together and are Biology partners. it isn't until after the car accident that she really starts to become somewhat obsessed with him. Also, Bella would stay away but then Edward would come to her.

OK, but again, this happens in a very short amount of time. Yeah, it makes sense to be grateful towards someone who just saved her life, but randomly attracted? And even so, this STILL doesn't give a significant reason as to why she likes Edward. We're just supposed to accept it without any sort of reasoning behind it, besides "ooh, he saved my life and he has superpowers".

As for Edward towards Bella, OK, being unable to read the one person's mind when you can everyone else's would lead to curiousity, at least, but that doesn't automatically equate attraction! And the whole scent thing or whatever doesn't work either! You can't base a relationship purely on physical attraction. In the real world, those never last. To have a relationship like that last as long as it has is extremely unrealistic.

Well put. Also in Eclipse I believe we have a part where Edward, by accident, shows Bella a reason not to become a vampire. She is talking about how hard it will be to leave Charlie and Renee and all her friends and Edward says not to worry, in years all the people you know will be dead. A thought that catches Bella of guard and has Edward saying he is sorry. However, the truth is that everone she knows will die while she will live forever. It is a concept not easily accepted.

OK, all the points Nita made would work...if we were dealing with normal vampires. Instead, we're dealing with Twilight vampires, who can walk around in daylight, don't have to feed on human blood, and can integrate into society easily. The family members dying is a fact of life, regardless of one's mortal status. Likewise with friends. It's a common argument when used for immortality arguments, but it can be argued against.

True her reaction and solution are dark and unhealthy but it is a story and that is the way the authur took it. If you don't like dark or unhealthy actions from characters then watch sesame Street.

Really? Did you really mean that? You completely missed my point. A relationship, which has mostly been proven to be based on physicality, wouldn't earn that level of reaction if it ended, especially when you take into account that they haven't been together that long. If they were married for years and years, and then one day, one of them up and died or left for no explained reason, then that reaction would be conceivable. Not when they've only been dating, and not for that length of time.

As for the unrealistic part, most people don't date vampires either so...

That is a piss poor excuse, so much so that it can barely be an excuse at all. What does him being a vampire have to do with her level of reaction? And don't give me the "vision" thing, that's not explained either.

No, enter Jacob her friend. And yes he does have a crush/feelings for her but that is not what this is about here. Here they bond, fix motorcycles and hang out. And yes he treats her good.

Now fast forward to when jacob becomes the shapeshifter. He ignores Bella, won't return her calls, is hostile to her when she comes to La Push. No, Jacob is the same as Edward once he 'becomes'.

No, see, the reasons there are different. Edward acts the way he does towards Bella out of some misguided belief that he's "protecting her". Jacob acts that way because a) of the rivalry between vampires and werewolves, and b) because the Pack is looking for Victoria. It's more because he doesn't have the time than of his own choice. Nice try.

Spoiler

Bella choses her true love. They both treat her like assholes at points but bella love edward more. She actually states that she loves jacob but that she loves Edward more. Just the way it is.

And for petes sake the reasons for everything is explained. Why Edward acts like he does, why Jacob acts like he does, Victoria, The Volturi everything.

Ugh, why did I waste my time answering someone who has no clue what he is talking about.

Spoiler

No, nothing is explained. Jacob's change in attitude comes out of freaking nowhere, Victoria gets overshadowed by the Newborns, and the Volturi ultimately just stand there and look intimidating. If there are reasons, give them. Please.

As I already said, when you make a story, you need to expect criticism. Especially when you're basing yours off of pre-existing stories. That's why I went out of my way to talk about all the differences with vampires and werewolves, because they are pre-existing stories with backgrounds already established. To change so much and give no reasoning as to why just screams bad writing. There are people who enjoy the original stories for whatever reasons that they have, and when someone else comes along and makes changes this drastic, there will be backlash. Why do you think fanfiction is so rarely praised? Because it's rarely good, and rarely anything more than someone taking a pre-existing concept and warping it into what they think is good. And chances are, what they think is good actually isn't.

 

[ServantofTwilight]

I think I should probably explain my standpoint a little further. I'm basing my points on the vampire traits from movies, since this is the Movies and Television section. I'm only bringing up literature to discuss origins of the traits and such.

Since most of the movies mentioned here are based on books it seems relivent that we look at them as much as the movies. And many of my points were not from books or movies but the legends and myths themselves. Also, how can you say that you are just going by movies when you finish your points by saying...

Did you even read the original books beforehand?

Can't have your cake and eat it too. However, I will play your game.

As for Dracula surviving in sunlight, some stories depict Dracula as the strongest of all vampires, therefore the weaknesses don't affect him as much. So it's not completely inconceivable to have the King of the Vampires walk around in sunlight, whereas other vampires would still die.

As i stated, the concept of a vampire dying in sunlight was invented in 1921 to end the movie Nosferatu. Nowhere before this in all the legends does it state that sunlight is fatal to a vampire. This means of ending a vampire has been used often and has been generally accepted as fact. However, since it was created for a movie with no explaination then I do not see why it could not be ignored for a movie.

As for Dracula, lets look at some of the way he has died in movies.

Dracula(1931) dies when staked through the heart. Dracula(1959) dies from sunlight. Dracula(1979) dies from sunlight. Dracula(1992) dies from having his throat slit and stabbed by a knife. This last death is closest to the book.

So we see that even in the same story for different movies the ending and method has been changed. You can do that in movies. Just like how in the Twilight movies they went with sunlight does not hurt them.

And because the movies took it up to the point of causing physical harm, that's what I'm basing my argument off of. As for Interview and Lestat, Anne Rice has taken a number of liberties with the vampire mythos. Not as drastic as with the Twilight series, granted, but significant enough to be notable. Outside of her stories and Twilight, holy objects are still considered harmful to vampires, therefore, my point still stands.

As stated, in the Rice movies holy symbols do no harm. In Twilight they do no harm. In Fright Night they will do harm but only if the wielder has faith in them. The vampire in this movie crushes a cross in one scene but is held back from one in another nased on the characters faith. In the Tobe Hooper version of Salem's Lot whem the preist agrees to take anothers place as Barlow's victim he loses the ability to be saved by his cross. In The Lost Boys you lose all powers against a vampire if you invite him into your house.

There are many different takes on this, just as there are many different movies. Your point falls.

Yes, and when done properly, it's not that big a deal. A good example would be From Dusk Till Dawn, where multiple vampires are attacking one person and biting any part they can get at. When it's one vampire VS one person purposely biting a part besides the neck, it doesn't really make sense, since the neck has the most blood moving and is a spot that's poorly protected. But I already explained that point.

As I have explained, there are other movies in which vampires go for other body parts. Also, the wrist is actually a good spot as a good amount of blood can be lost from there.

However, I will make a deal with you. Show me in one of the Twilight movies where a single vampire feeds from the wrist and I will conceed the point.

This is another problem I have that I didn't mention. Why is that considered the way to kill a vampire? How is cutting apart and burning considered a significant vampire weakness? That just makes vampires even more powerful than they normally are, and is just a little hard to believe.

Why should a stake be the way? Meyer chose the beheading and fire, but there are many ways to do it in movies. In Interview with the Vampire Louis kills the Theatre of the Vampire by fire and a large scythe. In Queen of the Damned they drink Akasha to death. Akasha also kills several vampires with fire. In Dracula, Prince of Darkness he falls into running water and dies. I don't see your point here.

I wouldn't have as much a problem with this if it wasn't blatantly disproved. We see Edward standing in front of a mirror, and his reflection is right there. Why would you bother to change that? It's not a big trait of a vampire, but it's a significant way to detect one. What reason is there for changing that?

You miss the point. A mirror does not reflect the soul. It was a wrong belief. So now most vampire tales drop that point.

And again, since it's from the movies, I'm using it as a point. And this is an important one, because again, vampires were originally not sexy. They were hideous, barely human monsters, so they had to rely on their hypnosis to lure victims. Even some of the sexy vampires would use hypnosis when the situation called for it.

Fine, it is a movie power. So what? Barlow in Salem's Lot(79) didn't use it. The Lost Boys didn't use it. The vampires in Blade didn't use it. Who cares if the vampires in Twilight don't use it.

Already talked about Rice, moving on. The vampire characters who retained their humanity in Lost Boys were considered "half-vampires", so them keeping their basic personalities makes sense. As for Forever Knight, I haven't seen that, but it looks pretty cool, so I'll hold off on my judgment for that.

Just because you mentioned Rice's work does not dismiss the fact that in two movies based on her work the vampires kept some human traits. And in the Lost Boys I could argue that David and his gang, full vampires, kept some human traits. Not mercy or compassion, but they still liked to have fun, ride bikes, hang out at the amusement park, partied. And Max, full vampire, fell in love. As does Dracula in Bram Stokers Dracula. I could argue that Selene keeps some of her humanity.

Not while in broad daylight, since even in her stories, vampires burn in sunlight.

No, what I was saying here was that Rice altered the way vampires are seen. not sickly pale but like white/black marble.

So let me see if I got this right: The only reason all these changes are made to vampires is because the Cullen family don't kill humans?

Yeah, that's the weakest explanation for this there could be. The Cullen's being vampires from another planet where their physiology is different makes more sense.

No, because in this work of FICTION these were the way the author decided to portray her vampires. Simple as that.

Really, really weak reason.

Why? The author wanted them to stand out in the sunlight so she made them sparkle. Again, simple as that.

And Edward's fears don't make sense. He's living the same life as his family, despite his past, so his fears are completely unfounded. It just seems tacked on for random conflict.

Edward fears that he does not have a soul. That is actually a well used vampire mythos. Why is it odd that Edward fears this is so. Just because the rest of the Cullens do not share his concern does not lessen his fear/concern.

But, in the various werewolf movies, which, again, are what I'm basing my points off of, the werewolf changes at the full moon. Even if the moon isn't a significant point of the movie, or even seen, it's when the moon is full.

I am curious. Why must this movie conform to your belief system based on movies of your choosing? Seems you are going out of your way to find flaws that are not there. Anyway...

And in various movies the werewolf can change when it is not a full moon, such as Blood and Chocolate, The Howling and Underworld.

This I don't have a problem with, because either way, there is an explanation for the werewolf's existence. Whether it be through a bite, a curse, or being born on a certain day or whatever. I'd say that there isn't an explanation for the werewolves in Twilight, but I'll get to that in a moment.

Then I would say you have not seen the movies or read the books.

And, once again, this was a movie, so that's what I'm basing my points off of. Since that movie, it's been accepted that a werewolf isn't just a wolf that used to be a human being. That wouldn't be anywhere near as memorable.

Really, An American Werewolf in London is not memorable?

Here's the problem I have with that: to the best of my memory, we don't ever get a good look at the gypsy in werewolf form. We see Talbot being attacked by something, and him killing it. The police say that it was a wolf. BUT, when Talbot himself becomes a werewolf and attacks people, the cops say the same thing. And, in honesty, when a huge wolf-thing is in your face, and you somehow survive it, are you going to be calm enough to describe it as anything more than a big wolf?

[YOUTUBE]4E0PorQRJI4[/YOUTUBE]

Go to about 7:09 and you will see it is a wolf. I do not think you have seen this movie either.

Regardless of why they are referred to as werewolves, whether for convenience or for another reason, they are referred to as werewolves, both in and out of the stories. Therefore, if they are called werewolves, I'm going to compare them to other werewolves. If they aren't werewolves, they shouldn't be called as such.

Unless you watch all the movies and read all the books. But I guess that makes too much sence.

I could go into why Gwahir didn't send the eagles right off the bat, but that's a subject for another thread. At any rate, you have a point when you say that the author making things entertaining should hold importance over everything else, and anyone can tell you that you can't please everybody. Having said that, when the problems in your story are as blatant as the ones I've mentioned, you should expect criticism.

And again, when you go out of your way to make it seem that it is filled with problems you are opening yourself up to criticism. And when you make the blatent mistakes you have made, well...

Multiple plotlines? Yes. Do they intertwine as well as you say? I don't see it. The love triangle is obviously center stage, but how in mixes with the other stories is a problem. How does one girl being interested in a vampire cause a problem with so many other forces? Why should the Volturi, supposedly the most powerful group of vampires in existence, care about one girl? It doesn't make any sense, and doesn't mesh well at all. Plus, the resolution makes even less sense.

I could take the easy way out and say watch the movies and read the books but...I am going to summarize some parts of the movies so be warned.

Bella loves Edward and wants to be one of his kind. Jacob and the Pack only get their abilities when vampires are near. Jacob and Edward are natural enemies and they both love the same girl. James wanted Bella because she was protected and he wanted the challenge. Edward kills James. Victoria, James mate has sworn revenge on Edward by planning to kill his mate, Bella. By staying in and around Forkes she has affect the Pact who have now grown in number and pratrol the area around the reservation and the town. In New Moon it is the Pack that keeps Victoria from Bella. They learn why Victoria is staying around so they hunt her and protect Bella and Charlie. By mistake Edward believes that Bella has died. He goes to the Volturi to ask to be killed. They refuse so he plans to do something to forse their hand. Bella rushes to Italy and saves Edward but her, Edward and Alice must go before the Volturi. Aro, leader of the Volturi, wants Edward and Alice for their powers. He also beomes intrigued with Bella because she has the ability to withstand others powers. She is allowed to live by promicing to become a vampire. Back to Forkes where in Seattle Victoria is making a newborn army so she can get to Bella. Newborns attract unwanted attention so here come the Volturi. Battle, fight, confrontation, yadda yadda yadda set up for the next movie. All seems to tie together nicely to me.

You said it yourself, she views herself as average, so I call her average. And how this supposedly average girl can attract so many people to her is beyond me. OK, yeah, in that one instance she considers herself beautiful, but that's after she's having makeup and such done to her. Plus, her previously established character of a relatively timid girl wouldn't suddenly declare herself beautiful. At most, she think "OK, I don't look THAT bad", or "I look better than I thought". This just seems unrealistic.

Right, but you have to read into it more then just say 'she calls herself average, so shes average'. I will agree that Meyers does rush the whole making friends parts, but I don't think they are as bad as you make them seem.

OK, but again, this happens in a very short amount of time. Yeah, it makes sense to be grateful towards someone who just saved her life, but randomly attracted? And even so, this STILL doesn't give a significant reason as to why she likes Edward. We're just supposed to accept it without any sort of reasoning behind it, besides "ooh, he saved my life and he has superpowers".

Technically it takes weeks, but it seems quicker in a 90 minute movie. Again, read the books. And in that time she becomes attracked to him. Why does juliet fall for Romeo?

As for Edward towards Bella, OK, being unable to read the one person's mind when you can everyone else's would lead to curiousity, at least, but that doesn't automatically equate attraction! And the whole scent thing or whatever doesn't work either! You can't base a relationship purely on physical attraction. In the real world, those never last. To have a relationship like that last as long as it has is extremely unrealistic.

Again, in 100 years he has never met anyone who affects him like her. And the relationship is not purely physical. and most relationships start of on a physical/external note. We see someone and are attracked. Afterwards we get to know them and go from there. Just like Bella and Edward.

OK, all the points Nita made would work...if we were dealing with normal vampires. Instead, we're dealing with Twilight vampires, who can walk around in daylight, don't have to feed on human blood, and can integrate into society easily. The family members dying is a fact of life, regardless of one's mortal status. Likewise with friends. It's a common argument when used for immortality arguments, but it can be argued against.

Vampires are fictional characters with a multitude of different traits. Who says you get to pick what is normal.

Really? Did you really mean that? You completely missed my point. A relationship, which has mostly been proven to be based on physicality, wouldn't earn that level of reaction if it ended, especially when you take into account that they haven't been together that long. If they were married for years and years, and then one day, one of them up and died or left for no explained reason, then that reaction would be conceivable. Not when they've only been dating, and not for that length of time.

Again, the relationship lasted longer then you are giving credit for. And it was never physical. Edward will hardly kiss her. When their relationship starts they are both virgins and stay that way until...read the books. Now, I will conceed that this reaction was a strong one, but the circumstances where not normal. So therfore we must allow for some extreme reaction. Also, she was never suicidal. As her one friend put it she became an adrenaline junky because a form of Edward would come to her. I can see how you may not like this part of the story so I will end it at that.

That is a piss poor excuse, so much so that it can barely be an excuse at all. What does him being a vampire have to do with her level of reaction? And don't give me the "vision" thing, that's not explained either.

The point I was making is this is fantasy fiction. You are trying to apply strict logic to fantasy. How do you know what dating a vampire is like? Maybe if you dated one and she dumped you you would react the same. Oh wait, no you wouldn't, because its FANTASY.

No, see, the reasons there are different. Edward acts the way he does towards Bella out of some misguided belief that he's "protecting her". Jacob acts that way because a) of the rivalry between vampires and werewolves, and b) because the Pack is looking for Victoria. It's more because he doesn't have the time than of his own choice. Nice try.

No, he becomes hostile toward her. She goes to see him and he is down right mean. Not just busy. That wasn't even a nice try. Again, read the books.

Spoiler

No, nothing is explained. Jacob's change in attitude comes out of freaking nowhere, Victoria gets overshadowed by the Newborns, and the Volturi ultimately just stand there and look intimidating. If there are reasons, give them. Please.

Spoiler

Jacob is unhappy about his new found powers and blames the Cullens and to a small point Bella. Add the fact that Bella is dating/in love with a vampire and he can't take it. He tries to come around and eventually does. Victoria is mentioned throughout the book. During the battles it is Edward and Seth's battle with Riley and Victoria that is shown, not the newborns and the Cullens/Pack. Again, the Voltouri are there to clean up the mess the Newborns make. They also hoped that the Cullens would be destroyed as Aro wants Edward and Alice. They coment on the fact that Bella is still human and Jane says that Aro will be intrested to know this. Alice says a date has been set.

As I already said, when you make a story, you need to expect criticism. Especially when you're basing yours off of pre-existing stories. That's why I went out of my way to talk about all the differences with vampires and werewolves, because they are pre-existing stories with backgrounds already established.

But yet you ignore the fact that in some of the examples you gave the movies changed things. Take An American Werewolf in London. It does not take silver to kill him. In fact in the moviehouse scene several ways are suggested for the character to end his life and none are silver. You are being over critical of the Twilight series and are turning a blind eye to others.

To change so much and give no reasoning as to why just screams bad writing

Actually it has nothing to do with writing. You just don't like the changes. As stated, there are many movies that change things that you or I mentioned that you ignore. I stand by what I said in my first post, it is just cool to hate Twilight because it is popular.

 

[ZeroVX]

As i stated, the concept of a vampire dying in sunlight was invented in 1921 to end the movie Nosferatu. Nowhere before this in all the legends does it state that sunlight is fatal to a vampire. This means of ending a vampire has been used often and has been generally accepted as fact. However, since it was created for a movie with no explaination then I do not see why it could not be ignored for a movie.

It was extended from an already-established belief, that vampires are weakened in sunlight. Exaggerating that to the point of death isn't that difficult to believe. Going the exact opposite direction and ignoring it altogether is a problem.

As for Dracula, lets look at some of the way he has died in movies.

Dracula(1931) dies when staked through the heart. Dracula(1959) dies from sunlight. Dracula(1979) dies from sunlight. Dracula(1992) dies from having his throat slit and stabbed by a knife. This last death is closest to the book.

So we see that even in the same story for different movies the ending and method has been changed. You can do that in movies. Just like how in the Twilight movies they went with sunlight does not hurt them.

All of those deaths are established ways to kill a vampire. Yes, even the last one. To the best of my knowledge, the knife that he was stabbed with was made of silver, which, as we established, is or was considered to be holy. Therefore, all of those deaths are acceptable, because they are within the established continuity. Again, changing things around for no explained reason is wrong.

As stated, in the Rice movies holy symbols do no harm. In Twilight they do no harm. In Fright Night they will do harm but only if the wielder has faith in them. The vampire in this movie crushes a cross in one scene but is held back from one in another nased on the characters faith. In the Tobe Hooper version of Salem's Lot whem the preist agrees to take anothers place as Barlow's victim he loses the ability to be saved by his cross. In The Lost Boys you lose all powers against a vampire if you invite him into your house.

Fright Night is fine because, as I'm sure I've said already, IT EXPLAINED THE CHANGE. It clearly said that only those who believe in the faith that the object is based on will be protected by it. That's been used in other media as well. The Lost Boys one is based on another vampire power that I forgot to mention, where a vampire can only enter a house if they are invited in. Again, established power with an explained change. Why are you not getting this?

As I have explained, there are other movies in which vampires go for other body parts. Also, the wrist is actually a good spot as a good amount of blood can be lost from there.

As much as the neck? Considering it's pumping blood back and forth from the brain and the heart, which are the two most important organs in the human body, I don't see how.

Why should a stake be the way? Meyer chose the beheading and fire, but there are many ways to do it in movies. In Interview with the Vampire Louis kills the Theatre of the Vampire by fire and a large scythe. In Queen of the Damned they drink Akasha to death. Akasha also kills several vampires with fire. In Dracula, Prince of Darkness he falls into running water and dies. I don't see your point here.

Staking was supposed to be for draining all the blood that they themselves drained from their victims. Scythes or sickles were sometimes used, so I'll concede that point. Fire, on the other hand, not as much. The vampires were always buried, because they started off buried and were supposed to be returned as such.

You miss the point. A mirror does not reflect the soul. It was a wrong belief. So now most vampire tales drop that point.

By ignoring it altogether. Twilight decided to blatantly disprove it. That's my problem.

Fine, it is a movie power. So what? Barlow in Salem's Lot(79) didn't use it. The Lost Boys didn't use it. The vampires in Blade didn't use it. Who cares if the vampires in Twilight don't use it.

Because. It's. An. Established. Power. And it's there for a very good reason. Plus, why remove hypnotism, but let Edward be able to read minds and Alice be able to see into the future? When were either of those vampire abilities?

Just because you mentioned Rice's work does not dismiss the fact that in two movies based on her work the vampires kept some human traits. And in the Lost Boys I could argue that David and his gang, full vampires, kept some human traits. Not mercy or compassion, but they still liked to have fun, ride bikes, hang out at the amusement park, partied. And Max, full vampire, fell in love. As does Dracula in Bram Stokers Dracula. I could argue that Selene keeps some of her humanity.

You said it yourself. They lost both mercy and compassion, and therefore, became monsters. That's the whole point. The Dracula remake took some heavy liberties with the character, since almost every other adaptation portrayed Dracula as a monster, because that's what he was. Not a sympathetic character. Just because the vampire acts like it has human traits, doesn't mean it has them.

No, because in this work of FICTION these were the way the author decided to portray her vampires. Simple as that.

I'm hoping you never say something that irrevocably stupid ever again.

Why? The author wanted them to stand out in the sunlight so she made them sparkle. Again, simple as that.

Which is bad writing 101. You don't take an established character and change it around to whatever you want to because you feel like it without giving a reason as to why. I've already explained this.

Edward fears that he does not have a soul. That is actually a well used vampire mythos. Why is it odd that Edward fears this is so. Just because the rest of the Cullens do not share his concern does not lessen his fear/concern.

Even though vampires in this version clearly do retain their original personas and make choices on their own. If he was truly soulless, he wouldn't think, would just act and react blindly, and would probably be barely above a wild animal. He clearly isn't, so this is basically teenage angsting.

I am curious. Why must this movie conform to your belief system based on movies of your choosing? Seems you are going out of your way to find flaws that are not there. Anyway...

Of course, I'm just nitpicking. God forbid something you like have flaws in it. No, your choice of story is absolutely perfect and how dare anyone say otherwise.

God, just when I thought you were making decent points...

And in various movies the werewolf can change when it is not a full moon, such as Blood and Chocolate, The Howling and Underworld.

Blood and Chocolate treats it as a spiritual thing, Howling offers no explanation for that, and Underworld werewolves are the product of a virus. Three big liberties, two of which offer some semblance of an explanation.

Really, An American Werewolf in London is not memorable?

Not for how the werewolf was killed, no.

Go to about 7:09 and you will see it is a wolf. I do not think you have seen this movie either.

Considering it was the first werewolf movie I ever watched, you'd be wrong. Also, we only see the front half of it and one arm, so it's open to interpretation.

Bella loves Edward and wants to be one of his kind. Jacob and the Pack only get their abilities when vampires are near. Jacob and Edward are natural enemies and they both love the same girl. James wanted Bella because she was protected and he wanted the challenge. Edward kills James. Victoria, James mate has sworn revenge on Edward by planning to kill his mate, Bella. By staying in and around Forkes she has affect the Pact who have now grown in number and pratrol the area around the reservation and the town. In New Moon it is the Pack that keeps Victoria from Bella. They learn why Victoria is staying around so they hunt her and protect Bella and Charlie. By mistake Edward believes that Bella has died. He goes to the Volturi to ask to be killed. They refuse so he plans to do something to forse their hand. Bella rushes to Italy and saves Edward but her, Edward and Alice must go before the Volturi. Aro, leader of the Volturi, wants Edward and Alice for their powers. He also beomes intrigued with Bella because she has the ability to withstand others powers. She is allowed to live by promicing to become a vampire. Back to Forkes where in Seattle Victoria is making a newborn army so she can get to Bella. Newborns attract unwanted attention so here come the Volturi. Battle, fight, confrontation, yadda yadda yadda set up for the next movie. All seems to tie together nicely to me.

Why do the Pack only get their powers near vampires? Why are they natural enemies? Why doesn't Edward just set himself on fire if he wants to die? Look, there are still problems!

Technically it takes weeks, but it seems quicker in a 90 minute movie. Again, read the books. And in that time she becomes attracked to him. Why does juliet fall for Romeo?

Romeo and Juliet was made hundreds of years ago, when writing was still developing as a whole. It was considered acceptable back then to have two people fall in love for seemingly no reason. Also, recent adaptations of that? They gave reasons.

Again, in 100 years he has never met anyone who affects him like her. And the relationship is not purely physical. and most relationships start of on a physical/external note. We see someone and are attracked. Afterwards we get to know them and go from there. Just like Bella and Edward.

How? What traits are given that attract the two to one another? What about their respective personalities makes them so magnetic to one another? Especially given Edward's assholery?

Vampires are fictional characters with a multitude of different traits. Who says you get to pick what is normal.

Established explained traits says what's considered normal. Stop turning me into a broken record, it's irritating.

Again, the relationship lasted longer then you are giving credit for. And it was never physical. Edward will hardly kiss her. When their relationship starts they are both virgins and stay that way until...read the books. Now, I will conceed that this reaction was a strong one, but the circumstances where not normal. So therfore we must allow for some extreme reaction. Also, she was never suicidal. As her one friend put it she became an adrenaline junky because a form of Edward would come to her. I can see how you may not like this part of the story so I will end it at that.

Spoiler

I know about the virgin thing, obviously. Why do you think I commented on how they're going to make Breaking Dawn?

Also, screw the circumstances. They. Broke. Up. That's it. Edward didn't die, beat Bella or try to kill her or anything that drastic. They just separated. And don't wave the vampire thing around, because that's hardly a factor in this case. And, let's not forget, no concrete explanation is given for the "form". That much is open-ended, so it can go either way.

The point I was making is this is fantasy fiction. You are trying to apply strict logic to fantasy. How do you know what dating a vampire is like? Maybe if you dated one and she dumped you you would react the same. Oh wait, no you wouldn't, because its FANTASY.

So, by your logic, who gives a crap what happens within the story, so long as it's fantasy, anything can and will happen without any explanation or reason behind it?

You know nothing about good writing, do you?

No, he becomes hostile toward her. She goes to see him and he is down right mean. Not just busy. That wasn't even a nice try. Again, read the books.

If you were dumped for no explicable reason, after you were nice to the person, just so they can run off to some asshole, wouldn't you be hostile as well?

Spoiler

Jacob is unhappy about his new found powers and blames the Cullens and to a small point Bella. Add the fact that Bella is dating/in love with a vampire and he can't take it. He tries to come around and eventually does. Victoria is mentioned throughout the book. During the battles it is Edward and Seth's battle with Riley and Victoria that is shown, not the newborns and the Cullens/Pack. Again, the Voltouri are there to clean up the mess the Newborns make. They also hoped that the Cullens would be destroyed as Aro wants Edward and Alice. They coment on the fact that Bella is still human and Jane says that Aro will be intrested to know this. Alice says a date has been set.

Spoiler

Jacob wasn't so unhappy that he would try to sexually assault Bella, which is pretty much what happened. That was thrown in to give fans a reason to gravitate towards Edward. Yes, Victoria is mentioned, but is she given the prime villain treatment? No, she isn't. As for the Volturi, like you said, they just clean up the mess left behind. We're supposed to believe that these guys are the most powerful vampires in existence. Why? What reason is given for this?

But yet you ignore the fact that in some of the examples you gave the movies changed things. Take An American Werewolf in London. It does not take silver to kill him. In fact in the moviehouse scene several ways are suggested for the character to end his life and none are silver. You are being over critical of the Twilight series and are turning a blind eye to others.

Does the title of this thread say "Deconstruction of An American Werewolf In London"? No, it doesn't. But if you're so freaking curious about what I think of it, fine:

It's hit or miss. On one hand, it added onto and improved the personality of the werewolf and the transformation itself, which is a good thing. On the other hand, it flat out ignores the werewolf's weaknesses. So, your mileage may vary on this one.

There, happy?

Actually it has nothing to do with writing. You just don't like the changes. As stated, there are many movies that change things that you or I mentioned that you ignore. I stand by what I said in my first post, it is just cool to hate Twilight because it is popular.

It has everything to do with the writing, because it's freaking terrible. I've said it plenty of times already, but I'll say it again: You cannot take established characters and change them on a whim without any given reason. The people who liked the original characters will inevitably backlash against the new ideas, especially when the cheap rip-off makes millions of dollars. That's why fanfiction is so universally hated, and speaking as someone who has written bad fanfiction, I can see why.

Also, get over yourself. There's a reason so many people hate Twilight. It's obvious why.

 

[ServantofTwilight]

It was extended from an already-established belief, that vampires are weakened in sunlight. Exaggerating that to the point of death isn't that difficult to believe. Going the exact opposite direction and ignoring it altogether is a problem.

No, instead of sunlight destroying them it exposes them, forcing them to live in darkened or overcast places if they want to fit into society.

All of those deaths are established ways to kill a vampire. Yes, even the last one. To the best of my knowledge, the knife that he was stabbed with was made of silver, which, as we established, is or was considered to be holy. Therefore, all of those deaths are acceptable, because they are within the established continuity. Again, changing things around for no explained reason is wrong.

No, it was a regular bowie knife Quinsey Morris stabs him with, not silver. And dismemberment and fire are established ways. Therfore the deaths in twilight are acceptable.

Fright Night is fine because, as I'm sure I've said already, IT EXPLAINED THE CHANGE. It clearly said that only those who believe in the faith that the object is based on will be protected by it. That's been used in other media as well.

No it does not. It just drops that on us out of the blue near the end of the film. Nothing is explained. And what other media has it been used in?

The Lost Boys one is based on another vampire power that I forgot to mention, where a vampire can only enter a house if they are invited in. Again, established power with an explained change. Why are you not getting this?

Ah, but you are forgeting that in The Lost Boys they change it. The vampires can come in without invitation. At the end David and his crew enter the house with no problem at all. In The Lost Boys they say if you invite a vampire into your home it renders you powerless. So suddenly Max is not affected by holy water or garlic and he casts a reflection in a mirror. This is never truly explained.

As much as the neck? Considering it's pumping blood back and forth from the brain and the heart, which are the two most important organs in the human body, I don't see how.

Of course not as much as the neck, but it is still a effective place to feed.

Also, I noticed you chose to ignore my challenge so I will give it again. Tell me of one instance in Twilight where a vampire feeds on a persons wrist and I will concede the point.

Staking was supposed to be for draining all the blood that they themselves drained from their victims. Scythes or sickles were sometimes used, so I'll concede that point. Fire, on the other hand, not as much. The vampires were always buried, because they started off buried and were supposed to be returned as such.

from Vampire Superstitions of Transylvania...

This is a list of common ways to destroy the vampire: Immobilize or destroy the vampire by driving a stake through the heart. The stake in some legands must be made of a particular wood, such as ash, hawthorn, maple, blackthorn, buckthorn, aspen or from a wild rosebush. Some cases the stake should be driven through with one blow. Cutting off the head of the vampire will destroy it, but in some legands it must be done with a gravedigger's shovel. Burning the vampire is the universal method of destroying the vampire. Cutting out and burning the heart is another.

from How to kill a Vampire...

3. Burn A Vampire With Fire.

Vampires don't like fire. One way to kill a vampire would be to light them on fire and burn them completely to ashes. They must be burned to ashes or else they will heal themselves and you will be their next victim.

Combine this method with another, for example stake him in the heart and then burn his body to ashes and you are sure to get rid of a vampire.


from Vampires Monsterous...

The other known vampire remedies included dismemberment, decapitation and/ or burning.

from Vampires...

Description
This article is from the Vampires FAQ, by BJ Kuehl [email protected] with numerous contributions by others.


13 How can one kill a vampire?
Vampires in legend and fiction are usually already dead...er...UNdead.
Therefore, the aim is not to kill them but to destroy them in such a
way that they can never again rise up to walk among the living. Some
time-honored ways of destroying a vampire include:

- Burning. This seems to be a universal method in both legend and
fiction of destroying vampires.

Shall I go on or have we seen that burnibg is an acceptable way to kill a vampire?

By ignoring it altogether. Twilight decided to blatantly disprove it. That's my problem.

If thats your problem then so be it. My point is that it is an outdated belief and Twilight is not the only one to ignore it.

Because. It's. An. Established. Power. And it's there for a very good reason. Plus, why remove hypnotism, but let Edward be able to read minds and Alice be able to see into the future? When were either of those vampire abilities?

Because. The. Author. Wanted. It. That. Way. And if you don't like those powers wait till you see some of the ones in Breaking Dawn.

You said it yourself. They lost both mercy and compassion, and therefore, became monsters. That's the whole point. The Dracula remake took some heavy liberties with the character, since almost every other adaptation portrayed Dracula as a monster, because that's what he was. Not a sympathetic character. Just because the vampire acts like it has human traits, doesn't mean it has them.

Lost Boys- you are ignoring all the other human traits they kept. Including Max falling in love and wanting to create a family. Hell, the vampires in The Lost Boys actually eat real food. Tell me that is not a human trait. I will also refer back to Louis and Lestat and to Forever Knight. Again, there are a host of instances where vampires retain some of their human traits, not just in Twilight.

I'm hoping you never say something that irrevocably stupid ever again.

While I don't think it neccesary I will expand my answer.

Their is no difference between the Cullins and their friends in Alaska and the other vampires in the twilight mythos. All the vampires are immortal( or as close as one can come ), all the vampires sparkle in sunlight, all the vampires feed on blood, all the vampires are super strong and super fast, some other vampires have special talents and all have odd eyes. The only difference is that the Cullins and the other non human feeders have yellow/gold eyes while the rest have red eyes. the Author took the vampire myth and created one of her own. Why? Because she wanted to. Could she have written the story using other vampire myths? Sure, but she chose not to.

Which is bad writing 101. You don't take an established character and change it around to whatever you want to because you feel like it without giving a reason as to why. I've already explained this.

Why in Nosferatu does sunlight kill him? The whole concept of the sun killing a vampire was done because the director did not have a way of ending his movie so he says a women of pure heart must sacrifice herself to the vampire so he loses track of time and is killed by the sun. Where the hell is that from? F.W. Murnau makes it up. So Meyer's can't make up that vampire skin sparkles in sunlight?

Even though vampires in this version clearly do retain their original personas and make choices on their own. If he was truly soulless, he wouldn't think, would just act and react blindly, and would probably be barely above a wild animal. He clearly isn't, so this is basically teenage angsting.

Now you are making no sence. A common belief is that a vampire has no soul. That means Dracula, Selene, Lestat, Yorga etc etc. Yet none of these vampires act like animals. All of these vampires think and fit into society. So why is dward lamenting the fact that he has no soul( or so he believes ) so bad?

Of course, I'm just nitpicking. God forbid something you like have flaws in it. No, your choice of story is absolutely perfect and how dare anyone say otherwise.

Ah, but you are. You are comparing twilight to a set of rules which i have shown are not absolute. Also you have used movies which I have shown do not always follow said rules.

Blood and Chocolate treats it as a spiritual thing, Howling offers no explanation for that, and Underworld werewolves are the product of a virus. Three big liberties, two of which offer some semblance of an explanation.

All that is irrelevant. My point is that there are many other movies who ignore the 'traditional' myths and legends. So why not Twilight?

Considering it was the first werewolf movie I ever watched, you'd be wrong. Also, we only see the front half of it and one arm, so it's open to interpretation.

Yeah right. Ok...

from imdb..

The "wolf" that Larry Talbot fights with was Lon Chaney Jr.'s own German Shepherd.

from imdb...

As for why Bela turns into a complete wolf while Larry turns into more of a wolfman, well maybe the curse just is really erratic and has different effects on different individuals, like how some people are just alergic to certain foods and medications that other people don't have a problem with, if my analogy doesn't sound too strange.

from Classic Horror.com...

Larry accompanies Gwen and her hapless friend Jenny to a swingin' gypsy camp outside town to have their fortunes told. Haplessly enough, Jenny is separated from her friends and is attacked by gypsy Bela Lugosi in the form of a wolf. Okay, it was actually a German Shepherd named Moose; they couldn't find a wolf who could act the part.

from lonchaney.com...

Larry's dark journey begins when he responds to a women's scream in the forest and arrives in time to see a large wolf attacking Jenny. Larry beats the wolf to death with his cane, but is badly bitten and too late to save the girl..

from Cinefantastique...

Nevertheless, THE WOLF MAN is riddled with flaws, the most obvious being that the filmmakers are inconsistent about whether or not a lycanthrope turns completely into a wolf or into a man-wolf hybrid. We are left to ponder why Bela Lugosi (the old generation passing on the curse of typecasting to the next generation?) is replaced by a real wolf when the full moon rises, instead of putting the actor in a werewolf makeup like Chaney’s.

Need I go on?

Why do the Pack only get their powers near vampires?

Answered in Eclipse.

Why are they natural enemies?

Answered in Eclipse.

Why doesn't Edward just set himself on fire if he wants to die?

That one I will give you. If Edward truly wanted to die he could do just that. this is a flaw/mistake which Meyers just goes around.

Romeo and Juliet was made hundreds of years ago, when writing was still developing as a whole. It was considered acceptable back then to have two people fall in love for seemingly no reason. Also, recent adaptations of that? They gave reasons.

What? No, Romeo and Juliet is a tragic love story so people just went with the flow. Are you telling me everyone in Shakespeares time where prone to love at first site? Fake deaths and suiside if you could not be with the person you just met? And twilight gives reasons, you just don't like them.

How? What traits are given that attract the two to one another? What about their respective personalities makes them so magnetic to one another? Especially given Edward's assholery?

What made Tony and Maria fall in love being so different? What made rich boy Oliver fall for poor girl Jennifer in Love Story? To the point where he is ready to give up his money. What made billionaire Edward fall for hooker Vivian? They are love stories. We accept that they are in love. You are setting the bar too high for Twilight simply because you don't like it.

Established explained traits says what's considered normal. Stop turning me into a broken record, it's irritating.

So answer me this...which is normal? A vampire can go out in sunlight as in Dracula or a vampire dies in sunlight as in Interveiw with the Vampire?

Spoiler

I know about the virgin thing, obviously. Why do you think I commented on how they're going to make Breaking Dawn?

Spoiler

Then why have you , more then once, say that their relationship was physical when, except for some light kissing, it is not.

Also, screw the circumstances. They. Broke. Up. That's it. Edward didn't die, beat Bella or try to kill her or anything that drastic. They just separated. And don't wave the vampire thing around, because that's hardly a factor in this case.

I disagree. I think it has everything to do with it. Bella is prepared to end her mortal life for Edward so that she can spend eternity with him. I say that is some pretty heavy stuff. Does the author take it too far? Maybe. But for the story and the situation I think it works.

And, let's not forget, no concrete explanation is given for the "form". That much is open-ended, so it can go either way.

This is true. I never cared for the whole 'Edward appears and talks to her' thing. I agree it is closer to insanity then anything else.

If you were dumped for no explicable reason, after you were nice to the person, just so they can run off to some asshole, wouldn't you be hostile as well?

He was never duped. Bella always makes it clear that she does not feel that way toward Jacob until near the end of Eclipse.

So, by your logic, who gives a crap what happens within the story, so long as it's fantasy, anything can and will happen without any explanation or reason behind it?

No, my point is that it is fantasy so everything is not going to fit nicely with an explanation. You use other legends that make no sence yet bash Twilight when you don't like something in it. It is possible that 50 years from now every vampire novel will have sparkling vampires. just like years after Nosferatu vampires are dying in the sun.

Spoiler

Jacob wasn't so unhappy that he would try to sexually assault Bella, which is pretty much what happened. That was thrown in to give fans a reason to gravitate towards Edward.

Spoiler

He kisses her. I think you are getting a little carried away.

Spoiler

Yes, Victoria is mentioned, but is she given the prime villain treatment? No, she isn't.

Spoiler

It is told in first person. What Bella can't see she can't talk about.

Spoiler

As for the Volturi, like you said, they just clean up the mess left behind.

Spoiler

No, just four of them were sent to kill the 20 or so newborns. the Cullens and the Pack beat them to it.

Spoiler

We're supposed to believe that these guys are the most powerful vampires in existence. Why? What reason is given for this?

Spoiler

Read the books. Watch the movies. However just those four were enough to put the Cullens on guard.

Does the title of this thread say "Deconstruction of An American Werewolf In London"? No, it doesn't. But if you're so freaking curious about what I think of it, fine:

It's hit or miss. On one hand, it added onto and improved the personality of the werewolf and the transformation itself, which is a good thing. On the other hand, it flat out ignores the werewolf's weaknesses. So, your mileage may vary on this one.

There, happy?

Now you are completely missing the point. You brought up movies like Dracula, the Wolfman and An American Werewolf in London to prove your point. I took them and destoryed your point. In your werewolf post you list as one of your traits/legends that silver is the only thing that can kill a werewolf. In that same post you have Werewolf in London listed as one of your movie examples. I showed how in that movie your silver legend is ignored. Basically you defeated your own arguement. All I am doing is pointing it out.

It has everything to do with the writing, because it's freaking terrible. I've said it plenty of times already, but I'll say it again: You cannot take established characters and change them on a whim without any given reason.

And as I have shown many times it has been done in the movies you are using to strengthen your point. Your just to blind to see it.

The people who liked the original characters will inevitably backlash against the new ideas, especially when the cheap rip-off makes millions of dollars. That's why fanfiction is so universally hated, and speaking as someone who has written bad fanfiction, I can see why.

So now you are an author?

Also, get over yourself. There's a reason so many people hate Twilight. It's obvious why.

Get over yourself. There is a reason so many people love Twilight. It's obvious why.

 

[Hazardous]

wow, quite the little back and forth thing going on, while i would rather not want to get between the two of you, i must make one comment, can be taken either way, as im really not going to choose a side here. yes i have read a few of the books, and have watched the movies, so im not going to claim to know EVERYTHING about it, but then again, im not a teen. thats what this whole series was marketed at. TEENS. so yes, of course they would modify it a bit.

in an interview with the author, she stated that before writing the books, she had never looked into, or done ANY research on Vampires, or ware-wolves before (or shape shifters if you will) so that is where all the change comes from.

so yes, you can rip into eachother for lack of knowledge about it all, but when it comes down to it, the whole series comes from lack of knowledge. she had none about either of the two types of "Monsters" she was writing about. now while i have always been a vampire fan, and yes, when i first herd they could do a lot of the shit that vamp's couldnt do in any of my favorite vampire movies before could, i let it go. Change isnt always bad. the sparkly skin threw me off, not going to lie. but again, MADE FOR TEENS. look at the lines of people outside to see it, mostly teen girls. (hey guys, lookin to get some? take a girl to see these movies) they go CRAZY over these 2 characters. even the skinny white boy. proof you dont need to have the airbrush abs to get the girl in the end i guess.. haha.. anyway, i guess the point is.. if you dont like it, why watch it? i didnt like the third blade movie, so, i shut it off. didnt go on a huge rant about it, because i knew that some people DID like it, and i would only get ripped a new one for it.

 

[ZeroVX]

No, instead of sunlight destroying them it exposes them, forcing them to live in darkened or overcast places if they want to fit into society.

And that's obviously deadly. Because fitting into society is so incredibly important. Before = sunlight killed. After = doesn't. That simple.

No, it was a regular bowie knife Quinsey Morris stabs him with, not silver. And dismemberment and fire are established ways. Therfore the deaths in twilight are acceptable.

Established ways to kill a vampire that appear in all media, as well as folklore, is staking to the heart, and in some cases, decapitation. Dismemberment and fire only appear in one area of folklore, and that is supposed to be for a) strong cases, and b) to use the ash as a cure for other victims.

No it does not. It just drops that on us out of the blue near the end of the film. Nothing is explained. And what other media has it been used in?

It doesn't matter when the explanation is given, it's still given! You said yourself that they give that towards the end of the film, so it is given. As for other media, try the Marvel version of Dracula.

Ah, but you are forgeting that in The Lost Boys they change it. The vampires can come in without invitation. At the end David and his crew enter the house with no problem at all. In The Lost Boys they say if you invite a vampire into your home it renders you powerless. So suddenly Max is not affected by holy water or garlic and he casts a reflection in a mirror. This is never truly explained.[/QUOTE]

That is modified from a pre-existing condition. Before, a vampire had to be invited in to enter a house. In that movie, they could enter anyway, but they could be detected as a vampire. Having a vampire's powers nullified upon being invited is used as a way for a vampire to track their victims. It makes sense, and is explained.

from Vampire Superstitions of Transylvania...

This is a list of common ways to destroy the vampire: Immobilize or destroy the vampire by driving a stake through the heart. The stake in some legands must be made of a particular wood, such as ash, hawthorn, maple, blackthorn, buckthorn, aspen or from a wild rosebush. Some cases the stake should be driven through with one blow. Cutting off the head of the vampire will destroy it, but in some legands it must be done with a gravedigger's shovel. Burning the vampire is the universal method of destroying the vampire. Cutting out and burning the heart is another.

from How to kill a Vampire...

3. Burn A Vampire With Fire.

Vampires don't like fire. One way to kill a vampire would be to light them on fire and burn them completely to ashes. They must be burned to ashes or else they will heal themselves and you will be their next victim.

Combine this method with another, for example stake him in the heart and then burn his body to ashes and you are sure to get rid of a vampire.


from Vampires Monsterous...

The other known vampire remedies included dismemberment, decapitation and/ or burning.

from Vampires...

Description
This article is from the Vampires FAQ, by BJ Kuehl [email protected] with numerous contributions by others.


13 How can one kill a vampire?
Vampires in legend and fiction are usually already dead...er...UNdead.
Therefore, the aim is not to kill them but to destroy them in such a
way that they can never again rise up to walk among the living. Some
time-honored ways of destroying a vampire include:

- Burning. This seems to be a universal method in both legend and
fiction of destroying vampires.

Shall I go on or have we seen that burnibg is an acceptable way to kill a vampire?

In only some media. The vast majority doesn't have this.

Because. The. Author. Wanted. It. That. Way.

Weakest excuse ever.

Lost Boys- you are ignoring all the other human traits they kept. Including Max falling in love and wanting to create a family. Hell, the vampires in The Lost Boys actually eat real food. Tell me that is not a human trait. I will also refer back to Louis and Lestat and to Forever Knight. Again, there are a host of instances where vampires retain some of their human traits, not just in Twilight.

Did Max actually show these traits, or was he just pretending to? That's a factor most don't consider, that a vampire is just pretending to show these traits to blend in. And just because you refer to these things, doesn't mean they're good.

While I don't think it neccesary I will expand my answer.

Their is no difference between the Cullins and their friends in Alaska and the other vampires in the twilight mythos. All the vampires are immortal( or as close as one can come ), all the vampires sparkle in sunlight, all the vampires feed on blood, all the vampires are super strong and super fast, some other vampires have special talents and all have odd eyes. The only difference is that the Cullins and the other non human feeders have yellow/gold eyes while the rest have red eyes. the Author took the vampire myth and created one of her own. Why? Because she wanted to. Could she have written the story using other vampire myths? Sure, but she chose not to.

Missed my point completely. You said that because it was fictional, the author could do what they wanted. By that logic, I could write a story about flying inverted-coloured ponies who eat pixies and shoot ribbons out of their asses while dancing in a land in the clouds made of cotton candy.

You know what would happen? NO ONE WOULD READ IT!

Why? BECAUSE IT MAKES NO GODDAMN SENSE!

The whole point of fiction is to let the viewer suspend their disbelief long enough to think that "Yes, this could happen within what was established". Meaning that there needs to be some semblance of logic within it to allow the viewer to do so. And when basing your story off of pre-existing stories, then you need to adhere to what was established, because that's the logical thing to do. Can changes be made? Yes, but they need to still make a degree of sense within what already happened, AND IT NEEDS TO BE EXPLAINED.

You want to know why J.R.R. Tolkien is praised so highly for his work? Not only did he practically invent the fantasy genre, but he described everything down to the last detail. Unless you're a bit of a speed reader, you can easily suspend your disbelief when reading his stories. He's gone above and beyond meticulousness to the point that some believe that he attempted to create a mythology. Obviously, I don't expect everyone to adhere to detail at that level, but SOME explanation for the drastic changes would be extremely appreciated! You can't just say "the author changed it because they felt like it" and expect everyone to just nod their heads and accept it.

Why in Nosferatu does sunlight kill him? The whole concept of the sun killing a vampire was done because the director did not have a way of ending his movie so he says a women of pure heart must sacrifice herself to the vampire so he loses track of time and is killed by the sun. Where the hell is that from? F.W. Murnau makes it up. So Meyer's can't make up that vampire skin sparkles in sunlight?

AGAIN, it's based off of a pre-existing condition. Sunlight weakens vampires. How much is varied. Extending it to the point that it could kill a vampire does make sense. Going the opposite direction and saying that it only makes them social outcasts does not.

Now you are making no sence. A common belief is that a vampire has no soul. That means Dracula, Selene, Lestat, Yorga etc etc. Yet none of these vampires act like animals. All of these vampires think and fit into society. So why is dward lamenting the fact that he has no soul( or so he believes ) so bad?

A vampire can think enough to figure out how to fit in, so as to have easier access to their victims. It's survival instincts at most. Don't believe me? Watch Nosferatu, since you love to reference it, or the original Dracula, or the Spanish version, or any of the Hammer Dracula movies, and try and tell me that those creatures have human souls.

Ah, but you are. You are comparing twilight to a set of rules which i have shown are not absolute. Also you have used movies which I have shown do not always follow said rules.

You say that as though you expect me to think that your sources are OK for doing the same thing that Twilight has done. They aren't, by the way.

All that is irrelevant. My point is that there are many other movies who ignore the 'traditional' myths and legends. So why not Twilight?

And like I said, those other movies tend to fall into the same category as Twilight when it comes to ignoring pre-established stories, just not at the same level.

Yeah right. Ok...

from imdb..

The "wolf" that Larry Talbot fights with was Lon Chaney Jr.'s own German Shepherd.

from imdb...

As for why Bela turns into a complete wolf while Larry turns into more of a wolfman, well maybe the curse just is really erratic and has different effects on different individuals, like how some people are just alergic to certain foods and medications that other people don't have a problem with, if my analogy doesn't sound too strange.

from Classic Horror.com...

Larry accompanies Gwen and her hapless friend Jenny to a swingin' gypsy camp outside town to have their fortunes told. Haplessly enough, Jenny is separated from her friends and is attacked by gypsy Bela Lugosi in the form of a wolf. Okay, it was actually a German Shepherd named Moose; they couldn't find a wolf who could act the part.

from lonchaney.com...

Larry's dark journey begins when he responds to a women's scream in the forest and arrives in time to see a large wolf attacking Jenny. Larry beats the wolf to death with his cane, but is badly bitten and too late to save the girl..

from Cinefantastique...

Nevertheless, THE WOLF MAN is riddled with flaws, the most obvious being that the filmmakers are inconsistent about whether or not a lycanthrope turns completely into a wolf or into a man-wolf hybrid. We are left to ponder why Bela Lugosi (the old generation passing on the curse of typecasting to the next generation?) is replaced by a real wolf when the full moon rises, instead of putting the actor in a werewolf makeup like Chaney’s.

Need I go on?

More than likely there were some backstage issues going into that. Bela Lugosi wouldn't agree to do Frankenstein because of all the make-up he had to wear. Why would he suddenly change his mind for another movie? There's also the possibility that they couldn't afford to put Lugosi in make-up, possibly because they already did so for Chaney. Having a dog's upper half appear for a few seconds and then have Talbot beat the tar out of it would be an easier route.

Answered in Eclipse.
Answered in Eclipse.

How? How?

What? No, Romeo and Juliet is a tragic love story so people just went with the flow. Are you telling me everyone in Shakespeares time where prone to love at first site? Fake deaths and suiside if you could not be with the person you just met? And twilight gives reasons, you just don't like them.

Theater and fiction in general was still in its infancy in the Shakespeare days, so they were more general and less logical so that the viewers would be able to suspend their disbelief a little easier. Things have changed since then, that argument won't cut it anymore. Twilight is not Romeo and Juliet, no matter how hard it tries to be. And no, it doesn't give a reason, at least none that you've cared to explain.

What made Tony and Maria fall in love being so different? What made rich boy Oliver fall for poor girl Jennifer in Love Story? To the point where he is ready to give up his money. What made billionaire Edward fall for hooker Vivian? They are love stories. We accept that they are in love. You are setting the bar too high for Twilight simply because you don't like it.

You know, giving examples of other pieces of love fiction doesn't serve as an answer to "Why do Edward and Bella fall in love". That's a cop-out and you know it.

So answer me this...which is normal? A vampire can go out in sunlight as in Dracula or a vampire dies in sunlight as in Interveiw with the Vampire?

The reason some adaptations have Dracula walk around in sunlight is because he's supposed to be the original and most powerful vampire, so the traditional weaknesses wouldn't hurt him AS MUCH. He is still weakened though, much like the original folklore you keep bringing up. And it's still not a complete 180 from "potentially harmful weakness" to "mildly embarrassing condition".

Then why have you , more then once, say that their relationship was physical when, except for some light kissing, it is not.

Because Nita brought up the whole "scent" thing, as well as Bella being immune to Edward's mind-reading. Those are the only reasons I've been given as to why the two are attracted to each other, which is mainly physical traits. Therefore, I say the relationship is based on physicality, and therefore, not plausible.

I disagree. I think it has everything to do with it. Bella is prepared to end her mortal life for Edward so that she can spend eternity with him. I say that is some pretty heavy stuff. Does the author take it too far? Maybe. But for the story and the situation I think it works.

It's called high school romance. How many high school couples go on about how they're going to live together, get married, have kids and all that, only to break up before their term is over? That's really just one big metaphor for that, since "ending her mortal life" is essentially the same as getting married, since there wouldn't be any going back from it.

He was never duped. Bella always makes it clear that she does not feel that way toward Jacob until near the end of Eclipse.

If that was 100% true, there wouldn't be a conflict. Yes, there would be tension, but not on that level.

No, my point is that it is fantasy so everything is not going to fit nicely with an explanation. You use other legends that make no sence yet bash Twilight when you don't like something in it. It is possible that 50 years from now every vampire novel will have sparkling vampires. just like years after Nosferatu vampires are dying in the sun.

There. Still. Needs. To. Be. Logic. Especially within stories based on pre-existing concepts. See above, I'm not going through that again.

Spoiler

He kisses her. I think you are getting a little carried away.

Spoiler

If it can be used as grounds for a sexual harassment lawsuit, no, I'm not. He kissed her without her permission and when she doesn't want him to. That's enough.

Spoiler

It is told in first person. What Bella can't see she can't talk about.

Spoiler

So if Victoria is trying to kill Bella, why isn't she appearing more to attempt to do so?

Spoiler

Read the books. Watch the movies. However just those four were enough to put the Cullens on guard.

Spoiler

You keep saying that, yet you don't actually give reasons or explanations from the books or movies. I think you're copping out again.

Now you are completely missing the point. You brought up movies like Dracula, the Wolfman and An American Werewolf in London to prove your point. I took them and destoryed your point. In your werewolf post you list as one of your traits/legends that silver is the only thing that can kill a werewolf. In that same post you have Werewolf in London listed as one of your movie examples. I showed how in that movie your silver legend is ignored. Basically you defeated your own arguement. All I am doing is pointing it out.

I used those movies as examples for the physical changes that the monsters made over time. I didn't mention Werewolf in London for its death scene, but its transformation scene, which, as I said, evolved the pre-existing concept and improved it. Then, after you brought it up, I criticized the same movie for ignoring the silver. Read my posts more carefully next time.

So now you are an author?

Aspiring non-fiction author. Not that it's any of your business.

Get over yourself. There is a reason so many people love Twilight. It's obvious why.

Missed my point yet again. If these points weren't so blindingly blatant, then people wouldn't keep bringing them up for criticism and just ignore the series altogether. Since they don't, that should be an indication of how bad it is.

 

[Remy LaCroix]

Established? In the media?! So the media established the characteristics and traits of something purely fictional? This is asinine.

You CAN write a story about flying inverted-coloured ponies who eat pixies and shoot ribbons out of their asses while dancing in a land in the clouds made of cotton candy. Somebody might read it -- there might be a niche market for it.

How else would Tolkien have invented the "fantasy genre", like you said? A lot of things inspires people, fact or fiction. I say this cuz you can certainly relate a few things in Middle-Earth to our very own world. Besides, he created a whole fuckin' world! It's unfair to compare Meyer to him seeing how her story is set in our world.

Do you how how boring it'd be if everything was all about uniformity? If that were the case, your examples to rip apart Twilight wouldn't exist if they followed the exact same lore. You're being hypocritical and, quite frankly, insane.

Major red rep for you cuz you certainly earned it, bub. Reeks of idiocy here.

 

[ServantofTwilight]

Sorry it took so long to reply.

After reading jabroni-beatin_pie-eatin post it has accured to me that this thread has become basically a two man show. While there are over 600veiws there are only about 15 post with the majority of them coming from myself and ZeroVX. As jabroni-beatin_pie-eatin, he does not want to come between our bickering, and i think that is a bad thing. If people are looking and not posting because of our lengthy and quote filled post then that hurts the thread, and other opinions would add and help the arguement. I myself have become confused trying to remember what some of the quotes are from and have had to go back and reread what was said.

It is pretty clear that ZeroVX and myself could go on forever. I certainly think I am right and I am sure he thinks he is right. I don't see him changing my mind and I assume I can't change his. So instead of bickering back and forth I am with more long and confusing posts I think it is time to stop.

Now, I don't mean just quit, but rather I will post this last one and attempt to explain what I have been trying to say and show. Perhaps I have been doing it poorly. I will, out of respect to my oppenent, answer some of his last post, but then I will wrap it up and be done. However, like all good horror movies I will try to leave room for a sequal.

SPOILERS...I will not be using the spoiler tags in this post as I think they are muddling up our previous posts. There is a part in ZeroVX's last post with six tags in a row. I will openly mention parts of Twilight(book and film), New Moon(book and film), Eclipse(book and film) and Breaking Dawn if needed. I will also mention films and books like Dracula and The Lost Boys. If someone decides to read this and does not want to know anything about them stop now. Otherwise....



I will start with sunlight. ZeroVX and myself have been going back and forth over this. The vampires in Twilight do not die in sunlight. ZeroVX, in his first post, stated that vampires die in sunlight so this is a problem. I have shown that the concept of vampires dieing in sunlight is a new one. Originally vampires could go out in the daylight. It would weaken them but not destroy them.

Zero VX said this in an earlier post...

It was extended from an already-established belief, that vampires are weakened in sunlight. Exaggerating that to the point of death isn't that difficult to believe. Going the exact opposite direction and ignoring it altogether is a problem.

Now what I take from this is that he is sayiing that it is ok to go in the direction of sunlight weakens to sunlight kills, but not sunlight weakens to sulight does nothing. Now, I argue that actually going with sunlight doing nothing is the more plausable of the two. Look at the word he uses...exaggerating...in order to use the concept of sun=death you must exaggerate the legend to its ultimate end. You have gone from having his powers weakened( not that the vampire is weak, but his strength is lessened. It is not like he is crawling around or using a walker) to his irrevocable death. The vampires in Twilight are closer to the legends in they can go out, they just are not weakened. Since vampires could go out in the sun, this is closer to the truth. Vampire legends have been around for about 4,000 years. The concept that the sun kills them has been around for 90 years. Not even close.

Now, while I say the sun does not weaken the Twilight vampires it does have a physical effect on them. Their skin sparkles in the sunlight. This is a somewhat silly idea I admit but not really one that should condemn the stories. I don't really like it myself. It is used in the stories to explain why vampires can't just walk around us at anytime, that they must stay in overcast or darker areas. Basically it was a reason to have the Cullens living in Forkes, as Forkes has alot of rain and cloudy days. I find that most of the hate directed towards twilight has to do with this. VAMPIRES DON'T SPARKLE!!!!! is something I have read or heard often.

Next, one of ZeroVx's complaints about The Twilight Saga was that it failed to explain things. I argued that it did explain most things if you read the books or watched the movies. I then listed several movies that had things in them that were not explained. the one we seemed to land on was Fright Night. In the final fight scenes Peter Vincent trys to confront Jerry with a cross. Jerry is unaffected and says that Peter has to have faith for that to work. I contend that it is unexplained in the movie why this is. ZeroVX states that since Jerry says it it is explained. I don't see that as an explaination but rather a statement. In fact if we list the order of events leading up and around you will see it is not explained and seems to be thrown in for the drama.

Evil Ed becomes a vampire and attacks Peter at Peter's apartment. In the struggle Peter picks up a cross from a model and sears Evil' forehead with it.

Later, Peter confronts Jerry and his cross is uneffective because of lack of faith.

Later, near movies end, Peter confronts Jerry and his cross works.

So, first Peter can use a tiny toy cross to sear a vampires flesh, then he has no effect on one, then he does have an effect on the same one some few hours later. So he had faith, lost it and regained it all in a few hours.

Sorry, doesn't hold. Even if you argue Jerry was a more powerful vampire it doesn't hold that things would work that quick. I love fright Night. I own it and saw it in the theater in 1985, but this was always a point that bothered me.

Another example is the dinner scene in The Lost Boys. Max comes to dinner but will not enter unless invited. This is fine as that is an old vampire legend that a vampire cannot enter a dwelling if not invited first. However, that is not what happens. While at dinner sam and the frog brothers perform tests on max with garlic, holy water and a mirror to see if he is a vampire. He passes them all so you are left thinking he is human. Later in the film it is revealed that Max is a vampire and that none of the tests worked because inviting a vampire into your home renders you powerless. Here I have a problem. First that is a made up thing. I have never heard of a vampire becoming immune to all the things that affect it simply by getting an invite. And that is the only explanation we get. It is better then fright Nights but still lacking. Garlic is still garlic and holy water is still holy water. Most important was the mirror. Now I think the reflection thing is an outdated vampire myth. The idea that a vampire casts no reflection because it does not have a soul is silly. However, The Lost Boys used it. Earlier in the scene we see Micheal losing his reflection in a mirror. So I ask you, How did Max grow a soul to cast a reflection? Is it his to keep? No, this was just a silly change made to keep us guessing as to who the vampire was.

Now, are these the only movies/stories that changes things without explaination? Of course not. I have mention many others including the various Dracula films and the Lestat series. My point is it is unfair to overly punish Twilight for doing something many others have done.

Another point ZeroVX and myself have disagreed upon is the means of death in the Twilight movies. Meyers has chosen dismemberment and fire and her means of ending a vampire, rather then the traditional stake thru the heart. I have shown in different movies and sources that fire is an established means of destroying a vampire. ZeroVX has yet to give a convincing arguement as to why fire should not be used. I don't see any reason to argue this until he provides proof that fire is not a reasonable way to kill a vampire.

I also pointed out that Dracula himself in the actual novel does not die by traditional means but rather by a stab woulnd to the heart with a bowie knife. ZeroVX first tried to state that the knife was silver( it was not ) and is now saying that that counts as staking. It does not. It must be a wooden stake. ZeroVX said so in his first post. And in some legends it must be of a certain kind of wood. So the most powerful vampire, as ZeroVX has refered to dracula, died by a non traditional and mundane way. Yet twilight sucks because it uses fire.

Next I would mention the debate over whether or not a vampire can love. Love plays a big part in the Twilight Saga and ZeroVX argues that vampires don't love. now I think we can agree that vampires keep some of their former human emotions. In various movies they hate and show fear. So the real arguement is love. And in that ZeroVX has not given one sound arguement against it other then vampires don't love. I argue that not only do they but that it has been done before.

Once again we seemed to have settled on The Lost Boys as the point of our arguement. I state that in The Lost Boys Max shows love. He woes Lucy and wants her to be part of his family. ZeroVX says how do we know he is not pretending. Talk about a cop out answer. This answer provides no proof and is basically a 'what if?'. In the movie we are given a set of facts with which we must determine what is meant. If the director does not show or offer something else than we must go with what is presented. Lets look at the love story between Max and Lucy in The Lost Boys.

Max meets Lucy and right off the bat offers her a job. He then asks her out for a dinner date. Then he comes to her home for dinner and to meet the boys. Here we see Max and Lucy kissing. Next Max cooks dinner for Lucy at his house. At the end when the Lost Boys are killed Max explains how he wanted Lucy to join him and be the 'boys' mother. He states he still wants her and implores her to not fight him.

So I ask you...where is the part where he was faking. Not even at the end when all his vampires are killed does he drop the pretence of love. Rather it seems he deeply cares for her and wants her to join him for eternity. To go with ZeroVX's theory you have to pull an explaination out of thin air and accept it as truth, based on no facts what so ever.

Besides The Lost Boys movies and shows such as Fright Night, True Blood, Dracula, Interveiw with the Vampire, Being Human, Forever Knight, Near Dark, Let the Right One In, Underworld and The Vampire Diaries have all portrayed vampires as having human emotions such as love and compassion. Again I fail to see why Twilight should be blasted for something many others have done.

Some quotes.

ZeroVX said- Aspiring non-fiction author. Not that it's any of your business.

Yes it is my business. You entered it into the discussion to bolster your arguement. You made it open for comment. Can't through it out there and then complain when someone mentions it.

ZeroVX said- More than likely there were some backstage issues going into that. Bela Lugosi wouldn't agree to do Frankenstein because of all the make-up he had to wear. Why would he suddenly change his mind for another movie? There's also the possibility that they couldn't afford to put Lugosi in make-up, possibly because they already did so for Chaney. Having a dog's upper half appear for a few seconds and then have Talbot beat the tar out of it would be an easier route.

This is in responce to an arguement we had over The Wolfman( 1941 ). He used the Wolfman as an example as how a werewolf should be a two legged hybrid. I said that in that same movie Bela the Gypsy turns into an actual wolf. ZeroVX said that you could not ever see Bela in wolf form. I posted a clip which shows him. ZeroVX then argued that it was not a good shot and maybe he was a hybrid. I sited several sourse which states like I do that bela turned into a wolf. I also posted two seperate quotes stating that Lon Chaney Jr's german shepard was used in the scene. To this ZeroVX argues the above.

First, it does not matter what backstage conflicts there was. Fact is that in the finished product bela turns into a wolf while Larry turns into a hybrid. And it is never explained. ZeroVX has expressed several times that things must be explained. Yet this isn't and as such weakens his arguement.

Second, as an aspiring non-fiction writer you should know how important the correct facts are. Bela Lugosi did not turn down Frankenstein because of makeup but because the monster did not have any speaking lines. Lugosi would don heavy makeup in 1933s Island of Lost Souls, 1939s Son of Frankenstein and 1943s(?) Ghost of Frankenstein. Clearly he had no problem with makeup by the time he did The Wolfman. Once again your made up reasons don't hold water.

Now here I wanted to touch on the statements ZeroVX has made about fiction writing. Lame_Excuse pretty much shot down ZeroVX's arguement as well as I could, and perhaps more harshly. I however want to examine what ZeroVX has been saying to show how wrong it is.

First he states that Twilight is bad fiction. He then goes on to say that bad fiction will not sell. These two statements contradict each other. All the books in the Twilight Saga have been best sellers and award winners. Clearly twilight has sold. So, going with ZeroVX's logic either...bad fiction sells and he is wrong about that or Twilight is not bad fiction and he was wrong about that. Either way he was wrong.

You want to know why J.R.R. Tolkien is praised so highly for his work? Not only did he practically invent the fantasy genre, but he described everything down to the last detail. Unless you're a bit of a speed reader, you can easily suspend your disbelief when reading his stories. He's gone above and beyond meticulousness to the point that some believe that he attempted to create a mythology. Obviously, I don't expect everyone to adhere to detail at that level, but SOME explanation for the drastic changes would be extremely appreciated! You can't just say "the author changed it because they felt like it" and expect everyone to just nod their heads and accept it.

Ok...Why do the Trolls turn to stone in the sunlight? Why didn't Elrond and the Elves just take the ring from Isildor and destroy it? Why didn't Saruman take the Ring of Fire he coveted from Gandolf when he had him prisoner? Why didn't Gollem just kill Sam and Frodo while they slept instead of coming up with the ellaborate plot to kill them with Shelob? Why didn't the Ringwraithes fly the fell beasts from the begining and get to the shire quicker? And why didn't the Eagles at least carry the Fellowship from Rivendell to the border of Mordor?

ZeroVX said- Theater and fiction in general was still in its infancy in the Shakespeare days, so they were more general and less logical so that the viewers would be able to suspend their disbelief a little easier.

Actually theatre had been around since 550 BC, so calling it in its infancy is a little farfetched. Also, Romeo and Julliet meet on a Sunday night; are married Monday afternoon( less then 24 hours ); and kill themselves because they can't be together about two days later. So all in all they knew each other about 4 days. This was in a day of arranged marriages, chapperoned meetings and parental concent. I think it was just as far fetched then as it is now. People then and now just accept the timeline and enjoy the story.

ZeroVX said- You know, giving examples of other pieces of love fiction doesn't serve as an answer to "Why do Edward and Bella fall in love". That's a cop-out and you know it.

No it is not a cop out but rather illustrates that quick love/romances have been a staple of movies forever. I sited movies covering different times. However since you ignore romeo and the others I have a movie that will show how people today don't mind quick romances in a movie.

Titanic. Jack and Rose meet briefly on the ships first night and in the course of the next two days fall madly in love so that Rose is willing to give up her fiance and a life of luxery and actually put her life at risk twice by first going below deck to rescue jack while the ship is sinking and by getting off of a life raft and returning to the ship to be with Jack. All this in less time that Romeo knew Juliet and Edward knew Bella.

ZeroVx said-Why do the Pack only get their powers near vampires? and Why are they natural enemies?

i stated that these questions were answered in Eclipse. ZeroVX asked how, further proving that he did not read the books or see the movies. So to placate him I will state how. Again I warn of spoilers.

In the tribal fire scene the elders tell the tale of the history of the tribe. The tribe were spirit warriors and one day a warrior was trapped out of his body by treachery. He found a wolf and asked if he could share its body. The wolf agreed and the warrior came back to get his vengence. as it turned out the spirit of the warrior and wolf merged and from then on the warriors of the tribe could take the form of a great wolf when the tribe was in danger.

One day some warriors found some dead tribe members and a figure standing over them. The figure was pale and cold. the warriors became wolfs and killed the 'cold one'. But the cold one's mate came for vengence and killed many warriors. At last it was down to her and the tribes leader. He was losing so his third wife stabbed herself to distract the cold one and the wolf won. from then on everytime a cold one came near the tribe some of the warriors would get the ability to become the wolf.

So if you figure the timeline the cullens move down from Alaska a few years before Bella gets there. This would then be when Sam gets his powers. Since the tribe has a treaty with the Cullens there is no danger so it is just Sam. Enter James, Laurant and Victoria and then we get Paul and Jared. Laurant and Victoria skulk around the town and res so add Embry and Jacob. As Victoria makes her army we add Quil, Seth and Leah. When the Volturi come with there army we find that the Pack has swelled to 18 members.

So yes, it is all explained in the books and movies.

So if Victoria is trying to kill Bella, why isn't she appearing more to attempt to do so?

yet another question showing the ignorance of the thread starter. Victoria can't get near bella because she is being guarded by both the Cullens and the Pack. That is why Victoria makes the army of newborns to attack and hopefully get her near Bella.

In closing I would like to state that I am not saying The Twilight Saga is a perect story. Of course it has holes. It is a young adult romance made for young adults with a fantasy element. They are in essence kids books. The romance in them has made them popular with young girls and their mothers alike. It just seems to me that people go way out of their way to pick at or critises the series. One could find a flaw or two if you nit-pick in any movie.

Also, I am certainly not saying that anyone who dislikes the series is wrong. Different tastes for different people. Twilight can be hated as much as loved. but when we have the nonsence that is this thread I feel the need to comment.

So I am done. Unless something worth responding to is put down i will stop posting in this thread. I would implore that any who take the time to read this respond. As I said over 600 veiws but only 15 or 16 replies. If this was in the bar room and the title was ' Twilight @#$%ing sucks' there would be 5 pages on inane responces. Post a well thought out answer here.