misyou2
Student
Jake is hot
Posts: 15
|
Post by misyou2 on Dec 25, 2009 8:45:46 GMT -5
I don't like twilight, maby is it when you like amDrag
|
|
|
Post by dragonuproductions on Dec 25, 2009 8:51:43 GMT -5
I'm voting a little because the movies are good but it got the wrong kind of audience.
|
|
|
Post by dazzled on Dec 28, 2009 15:59:35 GMT -5
I Love the books. The movie wasn't so great though.
|
|
|
Post by charles finley. on Dec 28, 2009 19:58:54 GMT -5
Ahh, Twilight. It's something I'm very bi-polar with and am on the fritz about it. I used to love it - like no tomorrow... And then everyone loved it and it lost it's value.
I just, I can't stand Edward. I hate Edward so much. I was rereading Breaking Dawn and it made me realize how much I dislike him. And Bella - who the hell goes through such a stupid depression phase after a breakup? It's like ... really?! Ugh, I don't know.
Plus, now that I've taken a good look at the books, I just can't stand their relationship. It's insanely controlling and actually pretty abusive. I get the whole mortal enemies thing with the werewolf, but ... but really? I dunno.
I really only like Jasper, cause Jasper is the sex. And Alice, because I can see a lot of her in me, and Jasper's kinda like, my ideal guy. xD; It's not saying I'm going to watch the movies and all, it's just ... It's something that you either love or you hate - and then you get those incredibly rare fans like me who don't really care what you think and may hate the two main characters. Rare fans ftw.
|
|
|
Post by The Italian Dragon on Jan 14, 2010 11:49:00 GMT -5
same of notyourbro. I like it a little but that's all. I don't wanna to go to theaters to see it >.>
|
|
Clone
Maturing Dragon
That one dragon with no name
Posts: 2,243
|
Post by Clone on Apr 24, 2010 17:12:45 GMT -5
There are two types of successful books. The first type is the type that's worth something; a good book will change how you view the world, how you interpret any form of art. It has depth, and it has meaning. It is elaborate but strong. The Lord of the Rings, for example, I find incredibly dreary and monotonous but it's a defining work of modern epic fantasy, so although it's not to my tastes I can't deny that it's a good book. Douglas Adams' The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is not a defining work so much, but definitely changes how one reads Fantasy/Sci-fi comedy, and his narrative voice was quite unique at the time he wrote, so we can judge the comic voice of others against this standard; are they less direct in humour, more directed?. Some of the classics, like Harper Lee's 'To Kill a Mockingbird' are just truly unique works of art; they're yardsticks by which to judge other works. Any of the works of Isaac Asimov are 'Science Fiction' embodied, as well as defining a particular narrative voice which you can recognise in other works, and they're deep works besides that. Etc. The other type is epitomised by Twilight. In fact, this is so much the case that I would almost even put Twilight in the first category, despite my hatred for it. Almost. Books like Twilight are panderers. You can almost hear the author thinking, for example, "and a little extra romantic dialogue over here doesn't really further the plot, but I know that it's the sort of thing that I just love, so the readers will love it as well". They care about what the reader wants. They justify it by the knowledge that the readers will enjoy it, they even enjoy it themselves. So, to the 'mindless' reader (not necessarily unintelligent, but not equipped to analyse the book on its artistic merits), the book is good. But it has no artistic merit. It's patronising to the readers, although the author rarely intends it in that way. It assumes that they bought the novel because they wanted to feel good, not because they appreciate the art of writing. 'The Host' by the same author is actually rather good. I think that she may have learned from her mistakes with the first series, at least on a subconscious level. talk about a nice summery of it. that would explain why my friends liked it but i didn't. they read for the hell of it and i read for something deep. i like your wording too, mind if i use this? going to send this off to a few people if your fine.
|
|
Clone
Maturing Dragon
That one dragon with no name
Posts: 2,243
|
Post by Clone on Apr 26, 2010 0:09:54 GMT -5
im actually sending this off to my sister who happens to be a rather big reader and writer. shes planning on majoring in writing during college so shes going to get your verbatim one because she hates Twilight to begin with and doesn't under stand how one can like it.
|
|
|
Post by The Italian Dragon on May 2, 2010 7:35:08 GMT -5
I had a look at it too and well if I have to use a word to fescribe it I'll use "crap". There's no depth at all,i t just looks like silhouettes cutted from paper and putted up. As a hardcore reader ( I read over 200 books per year ) this is the summum of the crap. Instead ofthis kind of crap I prefer Ray Gaqrton's Crucifax. It might be quite violent in some part, amoral too, but it has na hidden truth in it that can freak out some people. Clone I suggest that you have a look at it
|
|
|
Post by charles finley. on May 2, 2010 13:16:21 GMT -5
I love how Twilight is still the new ~hot-topic to debate about even though it's so old now. :D
Also, the reason why The Host was good? Cause it was written for adults. js.
|
|
|
Post by Lucille Bluth on May 2, 2010 21:43:50 GMT -5
I just don't understand why anyone would want a relationship like Bella and Edward's. It's literally an abusive relationship. I am losing faith in this generation and humanity in general.
|
|