“The vampires are playing baseball” would be a great spy code-word.
What’s it called when you want something awesome and terrible to happen to the characters in a movie like this? Have Spike just show up and smack people or something?
That’s fair enough, but I’d argue that a vampire, by definition, subsists on the blood of humans. The hero of Twilight apparently does not.
I come to you Dopers out of desperation. I need to know what breed of dog is used in the scene where Bella’s dad is tracking the bad vampire. She says it’s a German Shepherd and I say it doesn’t matter at all. Either my google-fu is weak, or no one on the entire internet cares. (I’m leaning towards the latter)
So, if anyone could settle this, that’d be great!
Apparently a lot of parents like the books because there’s no premarital sex in them. Spoiler, just in case: I was reading the synopsis on Wikipedia, and apparently Bella and Edward get married in the fourth book, after which time they presumably have the freaky sex and she gets pregnant. I guess even Mormon authors are okay with rough sex and giving birth to vampire-human hybrids, as long as you’re married first.
I didn’t even see any dogs. I was so absorbed by the angst .
I normally notice things like that and say stupid things really loud like, " Oooooh, Doggie!" in the show. reducing my friends to giggles.
This excludes Angel and in the latter days of the Buffyverse, Spike.
I realized I never commented on the movie itself, I enjoyed. It was fluff, but it was enjoyable fluff. And just like the book, the movie gets much better once they stop staring at each other and Edward brings Bella to meet his family.
It was definitely a German Shepherd. They’re the de facto police dogs in movies.
Forever Knight also had a subtype of vampires that fed exclusively on animals; and a fair number of vampires in modern fiction can restrict themselves to animal blood if needed.
Okay, it excludes them then. I never cared for (or about) “Buffy the Vampire Slayer”, and I have no interest in defending whatever questionable decisions the writers may have made. I stick to my above statement: if it doesn’t subsist on human blood, it isn’t a vampire. It’s a superhero with a disgusting diet.
I consider this sort of thing writers wanting to have their cake and eat it too. They want to have a character with all the vampire symbolism but wimp out when it comes to the defining characteristic of the vampire. If you can’t handle writing about a character who kills people to “survive”, don’t write about a vampire.
How about vampire bats?
I think it’s sufficient to say that vampires drink blood, not where it comes from.
So, what about Succubi/Incubi? They subsist on human “life force” (be it fear, love, lust…whatever) and are technically, vampires.
And the author DOES write vampires who “kill people to survive”. It’s just that these particular vampires have decided not to do so. shrug I’m guessing it’s called “artistic license”.
In what technical sense would that be? If you want to call various supernatural beings vampires then you’re free to do so, but there’s nothing “technical” about it. Neither folklore nor later literature are consistent in their depictions of vampires, but “drinks the blood of living humans” was always present until pretty recently. Both Merriam-Webster and the OED include the drinking of human blood in their primary definition for vampire. (The secondary definitions apply to vampires in the metaphorical sense, people who prey on others or exploit their lovers). To the extent that there can be a strict technical definition for an imaginary being, a vampire is a reanimated human corpse that drinks living people’s blood.
But my real objection to the idea of a vampire who only drinks animal blood is not a semantic one. It’s that it’s pointless, overdone, lazy, and boring. A guy who drinks animal blood is only mildly more interesting than a guy who really likes rare steaks. It’s nothing worth writing a book about. I’m willing to grant a pass to Terry Pratchett because he’s played the notion of “temperance vampires” for humor and seems to have thought things through more than a lot of other authors, but even he’s milked (bled?) the idea a little too much. In Meyer’s case, it strikes me as an obvious case of “hey teen girls, here’s your perfect fantasy guy: he’s a bad boy, but not really!” Bleh.
*My personal guess would be “hack writing”.
In her defense (?), Meyer couldn’t have realized she was using an overdone cliche of contemporary vampire fiction because she’s almost wholly unfamiliar with vampire fiction. In her brief interview with Amazon, she admits that Anne Rice’s The Vampire Lestat is “one of the only” (possibly THE only) vampire books she’s ever read, and says she’s never even seen a vampire movie. Which is fine if she doesn’t like that sort of thing, but it seems odd that someone uninterested in the idea of vampires would write four books about them. It seems to me that she could just as easily have made her hero an elf, or an alien, or even a misunderstood young musician who’s recovering from a drug problem.
Casts “resurrect thread” spell
Just saw this film with three friends whilst I was in Sweden on Monday.
What. A. Fucking. Pile. Of. Shit.
If I’d not been with people I probably would have walked out. The plot made no sense. NO FUCKING SENSE. I agree with the OP that the best part of this movie was professional dissing afterwards (and that “Twilight in 15 minutes” link that someone posted above - I laughed until I cried reading that :D).
I don’t understand how anyone who has completed puberty and doesn’t have two X chromosomes could like this film. I’m gay and I loves me some boy eye candy but no amount of it could make up for the drek that was this film.
So, you’re a vampire, and the one thing you crave the most is blood. You meet someone who is so intoxicating and tempting to you it’s almost painful so you decide to go out with her. That makes as much sense as a movie about a dry heroin junkie who starts going out with a syringe, or an alcoholic going out with a vodka bottle. It’s completely ridiculous to project human desire and thinking onto creatures that aren’t human (and make the point of actually saying that). As for the bad tracker vampire, couldn’t he have been given some motivation to hunt Bella beyond “just because”? No doubt there will be sequels - my GOD the sequels! - but I shall not in any way be contributing to this monstrosity of a franchise in the future and will do everything I can to warn people of the horror that awaits them if they watch it.
Cracked has a hilarious parody of the movie.
I was a horrific Anne Rice fan when I was fourteen, so I can kind of grok the Twilight phenomenon. Less homoeroticism, more teenage wuvs.
Not that I didn’t find it benightedly distractingly bad. I just also think it’s excellent teen-girl pr0n. It’s crack for fourteen year olds. I have to say though that I was really charmed by vampire baseball. I also liked the badpires a lot more than the good ones. I would watch a movie about Evil Barefoot Redhead Vampire flouncing around angrily.
You guys! You guys! Rifftrax did Twilight!
Um, since vampires aren’t real, I think anyone can make up any rules about them they like.
Too bad the 70s only lasted a decade.
Yeah, but I think the point is, they should have a weakness, and non-vampire characters should be taking a risk by associating with them. Without that, no tension.
Thanks for that - gotta get it to show my husband this movie.
I watched the sample and I loved that the guys said the same thing I did when Edward goes on about how he can read everyone’s mind, and then with Bella, nothing: “Oh, you can read it, there just isn’t anything!”
Also, when Kevin goes, “Whoa - mood swing!” I just about lost it!