Hi guys, im doing a study on vampire movies, and twilight is the main focus. I was hoping you would comment on the twilight movies, whether you like them or hate them?
thank you.
Twilight and FDTD have completely different vampires. The ones in Twilight are really toned down from traditional vampires. They're 'pretty' and extremely overdramatic. But the ones in FDTD are disgusting, almost zombie-like and one even turns into this feral rat thing. It's also an extreme, going further than the traditional vampire, but personally, the FDTD vampires are WAY better, but the context of the films are different. In Twilight they're main characters but in this film they are just a whorde to be killed.
I hate twilight, but not because of the actual film/text, because of the fanbase. It is built up SO much, it doesn't deserve it's status whatsoever and is extremely overrated. Also, Stephanie Meyer is not a good writer at all, Twilight is very cliche and unoriginal.
Is that enough ?
"*beep* you, Mr. Bitey!"
[deleted]
i think dusk till dawn is a brilliant movie and also the first twilight movie.
i'm disappointed by new moon, eclipse is ok but both aren't on level with the first film.
it's funny to compare DUSK to the first twilight because there actually are some similarities (other than both being great movies) for example i think the pace is great at both. both are really slow and take a lot of time before any action or life threatening drama appear then they end in a dangerous violent situation. i love it in both films.
Hugh Jackman + Patrick Wilson
http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=7846412
dusk till dawn will always be one of the best if not the best vamp movie, twillight and anything fails in comparison. Except underworld.
shareTwlight sucks, but Ashley Greene is hot.
shareThe actual movies, love story, Bela, the Cullens, the Vampires sparkling in sunlight, and all the angst and drama= AWFUL!
The fact that Vampires become extremely beautiful upon turning= I don't hate it, but I don't like it either.
All the Vampires (The ones that actually feed on human blood) and their powers, characteristics, weaknesses, etc.= Actually pretty nice. Their powers are cool, and they would actually be able to go toe to toe against Vampires from several other series that are much cooler and badass than Twilight (i.e. Blade, Underworld, Angel, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Nitara from Mortal Kombat, 30 Days of Night, Blood: The Last Vampire (the original movie, not Blood +), The Lost Boys, Charmed, Supernatural, and the original version of Dracula. However, the Vampires from Hellsing, True Blood, World of Darkness, Dmitri from Darkstalkers, Castlevania, Legacy of Kain, Tsukihime, Touhou, Vampire Hunter D, and Anne Rice's The Vampire Chronicles would rip the Twilight Vampires a new one though.). I did enjoy the fact that they got the part about Vampires NOT dying or being harmed in sunlight right, because that is part of the original folklore. The being harmed/killed by sunlight factor only became popular from the movie Nosferatu. Too bad they ruined the sunlight factor with the sparkling. Now THAT was dumb.
Speaking of sparkling, that does NOT disqualify them from being Vampires. There are Vampires in mythology and folklore that are a lot lamer than the ones in Twilight and if Stephanie Meyer used one of those rather than the ones she made up, Twilight would be even stupider than it already is.
Welcome to my Nightmare- Freddy Krueger
comparing twilight to from dusk til dawn is like comparing apples and oranges. a better comparison would be twilight and interview with the vampire. both are books based are based on the romantic point of view of the vampire. but calling twilight a good book or movie is just bad taste. go read interview with the vampire. that's a wonderful book with real emotion. the movie is also way better then twilight.
shareI'm sorry, but Twilight doesn't even count as vampire fiction in my eyes. You cannot take a mythological creature that has existed for thousands of years, change every commonly accepted facet of the myth, and claim that they're the same creatures. Putting your own spin on the myth is fine, but completely changing what the creatures are is ridiculous. If Meyer had come up with her own name for supernatural creatures that can spark off impromptu disco parties, then fair enough. Quality aside, that would be her creation.
What she writes about are not vampires. It would be like if I wrote a story about people who, if caught in the headlights of a specific year model of Honda Civic for exactly 14 seconds, transform into insect people wearing fruit hats, then claiming it was a story about werewolves.
If judged as vampire stories, Twilight is pure garbage. If judged as romantic fiction, it's still on the low end of the spectrum because the characters are all one-dimensional and hollow.
"I am Jack's smirking revenge."
Actually, what people "traditionally" see as Vampires are quite different from ones that you'd find in mythology, which come in all sorts of varieties. In fact, the Twilight Vampires are actually more like a fictional version of the MANY variations of Mythological Vampires (worldwide) rather than "traditional" Vampires. The Mythological Vampires that are closest to "traditional" ones would be Eastern European Vampires, and even then, there are several differences between them. Here are many examples of these differences, using JUST the Eastern European Vampire as a template for "Mythological" Vampires, and using fictional supernatural Vampires (no biological Vampires like the ones from Blade and Underworld) made after the 1922 movie "Nosferatu" as a template for "traditional" Vampires:
Stake in the heart- It kills "traditional" Vampires, but Mythological ones are stabbed while they are in their coffin and it merely serves to keep them from escaping their grave. Also, Mythological Vampires weren't originally stabbed in the heart but rather stabbed into the abdomen.
Sunlight- "Traditional" Vampires usually die when exposed to sunlight, but Mythological Vampires don't.
Fangs- "Traditional" Vampires have them, but Mythological ones don't. The fangs actually originated with "Varney the Vampire", which came long before Nosferatu but is not displayed at all in Mythology.
Becoming a Vampire- "Traditional" Vampires either take just a bite or a transference of blood to turn the victim, while Mythological Vampires have a whole entire slew of ways of turning into one. These ways include (asides from being bitten by a Vampire) dying and having a cat jump over your corpse, dying as a Werewolf or Witch and not having your corpse cremated, having a wound that is not treated with boiling water, being excommunicated from the church, and many other ways.
Choice of Victims- "Traditional" Vampires can always go after anybody they want, but Mythological ones usually just go after blood relatives and occasionally go after strangers in some tales.
Looks- "Traditional" Vampires are always shown to be handsome, beautiful, or just normal, while Mythological ones sometimes look like decaying corpses (think Romero-style Zombies), but often look like "healthier" looking corpses that are plump. Also, while both types are shown with pale skin, Mythological Vampires are often shown with ruddy skin.
Weaknesses to certain plants- While both types are vulnerable to garlic, Mythological ones are also weak to ash (the tree, not burnt remains), hawthorn, wild rose, and onions.
Other peculiar weaknesses- Mythological Vampires have a type of OCD where if you spill a bunch of seeds on the ground, they'd have to count the seeds while you can escape them. Most "traditional" Vampires lack this weakness. Also, putting a brick in a Vampire's mouth while it sleeping in its coffin would slay it. "Traditional" Vampires lack this weakness. As for mirrors, most "traditional" Vampires have no reflection, while only some Mythological Vampires have no reflection. The rest of the Mythological Vampires DO have a reflection. Also, some Mythological Vampires lack shadows, whereas "traditional" ones are never portrayed as such.
Transformation into a small flying creature- Most "traditional" Vampires turn into bats, while most Mythological Vampires don't. In fact, they turn into birds, most often owls.
Variety- Even if we limit the template of Mythological Vampires to Eastern European Vampires, there's a lot of variety between them, all with their own different names, characteristics, and stuff. Also in mythology, there are Vampire animals such as cats, chickens, dogs, etc., and there are even cases of plants, such as pumpkins and watermelons, and non-living things such as sickles, axes, and other such tools coming to life as Vampires and feeding off blood. With "traditional" Vampires, we almost exclusively have human Vampires who are made up of just ONE type of Vampire in a story, not multiple types of Vampire.
Dhampirs- Mythological Vampires often have offspring with human women, which work as Vampire Hunters who are able to see "invisible" Vampires which nobody else is able to see, and possess the powers of their Vampire fathers, but without the weaknesses. Also like with Vampires, Dhampirs come in many varieties depending on what kind of Vampire fathered them. With the exception of the "being able to see invisible Vampires" aspect, most "traditional" Dhampirs fit this perfectly.
If you look at this, you'd see that "Traditional" Vampires are about as different from Mythological Vampires as Twilight Vampires are, so I don't see what anybody's complaining about except for the story and the "skin sparkles in sunlight" aspect.
Welcome to my Nightmare- Freddy Krueger
get off the board no one will accept you, I already know you must be a twillight fan to right that big ass paragraphs defending it. FDTD is a different beast in a different league then twillight. Do not even bother.
shareI never said I was fan of Twilight. I in fact hate the story and the characters and wish that there was no love story at all. I'm a big fan of Vampires and I'm actually just stating that what people traditionally call "Vampires" are actually about as different from Eastern European Vampires from Mythology as Twilight's Vampire's are. Personally, I think Twilight's Vampires are stupid because of the frail excuses of characters they're portrayed as in the story and because of the "Skin sparkling in sunlight" aspect. However, almost everything else about the Vampires (super strength, super speed, lack of fangs, immunity to sunlight, the NEED TO DRINK BLOOD and BEING UNDEAD, unusual eye color, pale skin, immortality, being immune to usual Vampire weaknesses, and even the trait of having some sort of venom) are traits shared with various Vampire types from both Fiction and Mythology to a certain degree. The traits I'm neutral about are the rock-like flesh of the Vampires, the "Vampire-zed victims are turned beautiful" aspect, and the fact that can't grow back hair or nails.
I also agree that From Dusk Til Dawn is way better than Twilight and am glad you're condescending towards what you perceive to be a fan of Twilight. It's just that you made the mistake of being condescending towards a fellow hater of Twilight rather than an actual fan. In fact, I'd join you in ripping a new one in Twilight fans but I do accept Twilight's Vampires as "Vampires".
Welcome to my Nightmare- Freddy Krueger
Great post, Dream Demon! Practically every culture you can think of has some vampiric-like creature in its mythology -- it's weird that so many think the Dracula-type of vampire are the only ones.
shareHail Eris!
Becoming a Vampire- "Traditional" Vampires either take just a bite or a transference of blood to turn the victim, while Mythological Vampires have a whole entire slew of ways of turning into one. These ways include (asides from being bitten by a Vampire) dying and having a cat jump over your corpse, dying as a Werewolf or Witch and not having your corpse cremated, having a wound that is not treated with boiling water, being excommunicated from the church, and many other ways.
[deleted]
they are for kids im too old for them. twilight is not cool
shareThe Twilight films are great.
You can buy them om DVD and use the discs as coasters, then the covers can be used to wipe your arse after taking a dump.
Though I admit I've not found a use for the cases other that slamming them closed really hard on your nads as this is less painful and more entertaining than watching the films.
The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he is God.
Twilight films are great. They make you think FDTD vampires should wipe out every single person who likes them out of the face of the Earth.
Twilight Films eliminate the need for IQ tests. Anyone who likes them probably has a low IQ.
Twilight Films can make you vomit in case of indigestion.
Twilight Films can end racism, sexism, homophobia and any other form of hatred, for you can learn tolerance just by focusing all your hatred on Twilight Films.