I just got back from the cinema and I did not enjoy it really :( I thought it was predictable, childish, cheesy, badly acted... infact, apart from the attractive cast, I don't really have anything good to say about it. There were so many laughs in the cinema at moments which we meant to be serious or powerful... which just goes to show that the film doesn't pull any of it off with conviction.

 

I don't agree that you need to know anything about vampire fiction to enjoy this film btw. I don't see a problem for liking a film for what it is, there's absolutely no need to cast it aside because there are so many other better films of that "genre" out there. The average teen doesn't know or care about vampire fiction and vampire history or care about Twilight not adding anything new to the genre, they will be like the majority of the general public and will like a film purely on its own merits, and I don't see why that's a problem.

Really loved it. :) Much better than the first film for me which I also enjoyed. I thought everyone acted well to be honest. Jacob has always been quite annoying in the books IMO so Taylor impressed me as he actually made him likeable. I liked all the action scenes and the Volturi were fantastic too.

 

As with the first film, I probably wouldn't enjoy it half as much without reading the books because seeing them come to life (and done so well) is part of the appeal for me I guess. The adaptations of both Twilight and New Moon have been brilliant in sticking to what the book layed out and I hope it continues for Eclipse and Breaking Dawn.

 

On a side note, I'm still gutted Victoria has been re-cast and the great Rachelle Lefevre won't be reprising the role to finish her story arc off. I know she's not majorly important compared to some characters and most people won't notice the change but it's a real shame as Rachelle wanted to continue and Summit's reasons are ridiculous.

I don't agree that you need to know anything about vampire fiction to enjoy this film btw. I don't see a problem for liking a film for what it is, there's absolutely no need to cast it aside because there are so many other better films of that "genre" out there. The average teen doesn't know or care about vampire fiction and vampire history or care about Twilight not adding anything new to the genre, they will be like the majority of the general public and will like a film purely on its own merits, and I don't see why that's a problem.

 

Sorry, but I completely disagree... It's marketed as "Vampire Fiction", it revolves mainly around.... a Vampire, funnily enough.... So, would you say that Buffy and Angel were not part of Vampire Fiction just because it happened to involve a love story as a side-plot...? What about "Interview With the Vampire", is that just a melodrama about a dysfunctional family who just happen to be Vampires then....?

 

I think you have to compare it to other types of its genre, and it's obvious that when compared to others of its type, it is inferior, in more or less the same way that the Spoof film "Disaster Movie" is inferior to other spoofs like "Airplane!", "Blazing Saddles" or "Hot Shots".... It's all the same genre, like it or not....

 

Twilight has practically no merits either as a film or as literature (in general, not just in terms of Vampire Fiction, it's so POORLY written as to be insulting to a five year old...) as far as I'm concerned....

It's marketed as "Vampire Fiction", it revolves mainly around.... a Vampire, funnily enough...

 

Yet another misinformed comment. You haven't (illegally) watched this yet have you? Because if so you would know that vampires only make up about half an hour of this film. It's a supernatural romance, not vampire fiction.

i have read a lot of reviews about this movie and its a box office....^_^ im going to watch new moon this coming Sunday, i have already watched the trailer several times... and i liked it...

Sorry, but I completely disagree... It's marketed as "Vampire Fiction", it revolves mainly around.... a Vampire, funnily enough.... So, would you say that Buffy and Angel were not part of Vampire Fiction just because it happened to involve a love story as a side-plot...?

 

I wouldn't call the love story in Twilight a side plot. It's the main plot (heck most of the time the characters are loved up with each other), it's what the whole series is based on really. Edward could be a werewolf or a fairy or an alien instead of a vampire and it wouldn't really matter. The whole premise of the series is love......just with a supernatural edge.

 

I watched this the other night, it was alright

Edited November 25, 200915 yr by Sabrewulf238

I wouldn't call the love story in Twilight a side plot. It's the main plot (heck most of the time the characters are loved up with each other), it's what the whole series is based on really. Edward could be a werewolf or a fairy or an alien instead of a vampire and it wouldn't really matter. The whole premise of the series is love......just with a supernatural edge.

 

Well, you could say that about Buffy as well mate, couldn't you....? I mean, you had Buffy/Angel, Buffy/Spike, Spike/Drusilla, Willow/Oz, Willow/Tara, Xander/Anya, Xander/Cordelia.... I mean, I could go on, but you get the point, yeah....? Does this mean that "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" was all about love and relationships with a hint of "supernatural" edge to it....? Of course not..... The romance, while important to the overall plotting, was more a "side dish" to the main course.... Here, it's exactly the same, say what you like mate.... And, frankly, the relationships in "Buffy" I feel were far better defined and seemed more "real" than the relationships in "Twilight", which just come across as rather cliched and hackneyed tbh.....

 

 

Yet another misinformed comment. You haven't (illegally) watched this yet have you? Because if so you would know that vampires only make up about half an hour of this film. It's a supernatural romance, not vampire fiction.

 

So....??? There aren't many "big battle" scenes in "Inglorious Basterds", I take it you dont think that's a 'War Film' then...... :rolleyes:

 

Oh, so, the main character (Edward) isn't a vampire then....??? Well, bugger me, I obviously got the completely wrong idea when watching the first film, I was under the impression that he was... I mean, clearly he's revealed in the sequel as being an Emo kid pretending to be a Vampire, then, yeah.... Is that the twist then Jark.....? Well, bugger me.... :lol:

Okay, I just want to contextualise all this criticism I have for Twilight...

 

I was once a 15-year old lad... And, back in this time, we had our own "Twilight", it was called "The Lost Boys", and it was, and still remains, an absolutely excellent film, absolutely wallowing in its gloriously enjoyable trashiness... And, hard to imagine now I know, but Kiefer Sutherland was probably the Robert Pattinson of his day, young, cool, hip and sexy, teenage girls went incredibly moist over him, you better believe it guys :lol: .... You also had a young Jason Patric as well in this film, and, er, Alex Winter (aka the one who wasn't Keanu Reeves in Bill and Ted):lol: Not to mention a totally KICK ASS soundtrack including the likes of Roger Daltrey, INXS and Echo and the Bunnymen.... You better believe that this film was a BIG DEAL.... But, even so, how ridiculous would I be if I were to claim that "The Lost Boys" was the be all and end all of Vampire Fiction or indeed "Teen Movie" genre in general... That would be blatantly stupid wouldn't it.... Yes, I like "Lost Boys" still even to this day, and frankly, I think it absolutely PISHES on this film... From a MASSIVE height.... "Twilight" is pretentious, stale, humourless, cliched bollocks... It just doesn't have a fraction of the fun and thrill factor that Lost Boys had for my generation.... You lot have a right to feel slightly aggrieved that you've been fobbed off with an inferior product.... But, hey dont take my word for it, next time it shows up on Cable or Terrestrial TV, check it out.... Ignore the 80s fashions and affectations, those are simply pop culture artefacts from that age, watch it as a FILM, and I simply dont think you can argue.... What seriously cracks me up about you "Twilight" fans is your absolutely pathological insistence that "Twilight" should be held apart from its place in Popular Vampire Fction, I mean, seriously, do you actually realise how ridiculous you sound....? That would be like me saying that Lost Boys is just like a John Hughes movie with a slight vampire sub-text..... How ridiculous..... :rolleyes:

 

Also, I seriously wonder if any of you actually have any idea of the Vampire's place in Popular culture.... The Vampire is a metaphor for sexual awakening in a lot of popular culture, and particularly in regards to feminine sexuality, well funnily enough, the sub-text of Twilight is a girl who is becoming sexually aware and awakened by ......a VAMPIRE..... Jesus, I know more about this sh!t than some of you so-called "avid fans" of this stuff it seems..... :rolleyes: This is not some secret knowledge all locked away in an ivory tower of academia, this is PRETTY EASILY ACCESSED....There have been many popular non-fiction books on Vampires in modern culture, there's really good one written on Buffy and Angel actually... As well as many documentaries over the years.. You really, really dont have to be a genius or a member of fukkin' Mensa to absorb this stuff...This goes all the way back to Byron, Polidori, Stoker..... Yes, I know I've mentioned this before, but it seems like absolutely NONE of you Twilight fans even know the facts..... Well, you should, just as I came out of Lost Boys as an excited 15 year old, eager to see and experience more of the same with an instatiable desire for Vampires, then I think you should have similar feelings and a similar desire to seek more if you indeed ARE the fans you claim to be....

 

In short, stop being so lame and actually do a bit reading and viewing.... Call me a "snob" or whatever.. But I know that I'd rather be a well-read snob than a barely-literate ignoramus any day......

Oh, so, the main character (Edward) isn't a vampire then....??? Well, bugger me, I obviously got the completely wrong idea when watching the first film, I was under the impression that he was... I mean, clearly he's revealed in the sequel as being an Emo kid pretending to be a Vampire, then, yeah.... Is that the twist then Jark.....? Well, bugger me.... :lol:

Edward is not the main character. Bella is. Edward is only in this film for half an hour. Bella is in this film for two hours. Edward is a vampire. Bella isn't. Storylines revolving around vampires take up little of this film. Do you understand yet? Am I being clear enough?

Edward is not the main character. Bella is. Edward is only in this film for half an hour. Bella is in this film for two hours. Edward is a vampire. Bella isn't. Storylines revolving around vampires take up little of this film. Do you understand yet? Am I being clear enough?

 

Okay, I probably should have wrote that Edward is the main male character... My bad for that.....

 

...But YOU'RE still missing the inescapable point that there is STILL a whole bloody VAMPIRE CLAN in the film and book..... :rolleyes:

 

The Lost Boys doesn't have a huge amount of full-on Vampire action either, but it's obvious that it's not a bloody "Coming of Age" Teen Drama like "Stand By Me" isn't it.....? :rolleyes:

 

So, I take it you dont think "The Vampire Diaries", "Buffy" or "True Blood" are much about vampires either, even though they're virtually identical stories, you know, young teenage girls falling in love with VAMPIRES and all that..... :rolleyes:

 

Who's the main character in True Blood, Sookie Stackhouse - NOT a vampire

Who's the main character in Vampire Diaries, Elena - NOT a vampire

Who was the main character in Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Buffy - NOT a vampire.....

 

There really is no logic whatsoever in your argument mate....

I'm afraid there is! The main plotlines in Buffy (and in True Blood thus far, I'm watching at UK pace) revolve around vampires. Both shows are less dominated by a central character and have plenty of sub-plots and the like. The romances come second. Twilight simply isn't like that - it's all about Bella and who she loves and who she isn't sure if she loves and all that jazz. They're completely different types of programmes. I haven't read The Vampire Diaries but the show, much as I enjoy it, basically is Twilight (with a little added plot outside of the central relationship).

Well, you could say that about Buffy as well mate, couldn't you....? I mean, you had Buffy/Angel, Buffy/Spike, Spike/Drusilla, Willow/Oz, Willow/Tara, Xander/Anya, Xander/Cordelia.... I mean, I could go on, but you get the point, yeah....? Does this mean that "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" was all about love and relationships with a hint of "supernatural" edge to it....? Of course not..... The romance, while important to the overall plotting, was more a "side dish" to the main course.... Here, it's exactly the same, say what you like mate.... And, frankly, the relationships in "Buffy" I feel were far better defined and seemed more "real" than the relationships in "Twilight", which just come across as rather cliched and hackneyed tbh.....

 

No you couldn't, Buffy fans got the majority of their thrills from her running around slaying monsters. Which she did alot. Bella tries to live a normal life and when she is involved in Vampires it's not all stakes, garlic and crosses.

 

The characters in Twilight don't spend ages planning on how to kill the head vampire and whatever.

 

and whether the relationships feel cliched or hackneyed doesn't change the fact that it's still based around romance.

 

If you can't see that then you really mustn't care about the movie enough to know what it's about properly.

No you couldn't, Buffy fans got the majority of their thrills from her running around slaying monsters. Which she did alot. Bella tries to live a normal life and when she is involved in Vampires it's not all stakes, garlic and crosses.

 

The characters in Twilight don't spend ages planning on how to kill the head vampire and whatever.

 

and whether the relationships feel cliched or hackneyed doesn't change the fact that it's still based around romance.

 

If you can't see that then you really mustn't care about the movie enough to know what it's about properly.

 

Sorry, but you and Jark are just really clutching at straws now.... Even if you DO take Buffy out of the equation (which, frankly I dont feel you should, because even when she was fighting all the Monsters and Demons, she was still simultaneously living a more typical home/school life for much of the time... Did any of you lot even SEE the original film, Buffy was a CHEERLEADER FFS!!!. There was always a frisson between her life as a typical teenager and her nocturnal life as a "Slayer".. Way to just miss the ENTIRE point of the show guys..... :rolleyes: ), that still leaves us with Sookie Stackhouse and Elena..... So, er, tell me what amazing, supercharged, Kung Fu, martial arts "Slayer" skills either of those have then........?

 

I know EXACTLY what this film is "about" guys, it's you and Jark who clearly dont understand the first thing about Vampires in popular fiction.... It matters not ONE JOT the length of screen time Edward has in this film, the fact is that the Vampire is such a powerful Totem in Popular Culture it kind of overshadows all other concerns... When you put a Vampire into the equation, it then takes on a totally different meaning, say what you like, a Vampire brings in certain themes, imagery, sub-texts which are totally INSEPERABLE from the rest of the text.... Just to take another example... "Moonlight", the (now cancelled) show about the Vampire PI... Do you reckon you could just see that as being "only" about the character being a Private Investigator...?? No, it's kind of important to look at him as a VAMPIRE as well.......

 

And, if you dont think that a character can have a lasting impression overall on a film even when he/she isn't there, well, I refer you to The Joker in "Dark Knight" and Tim Burton's original "Batman" film, Keifer Sutherland's character in "The Lost Boys" (very little actual screen time, but the "essence" of the character is felt all throughout the film) and Hannibal Lector in "Silence of the Lambs" (ditto).. Who do you think that "Twilight's" core audience is....? I rather assumed teenage girls.... Do you think they're actually going to see the film for Bella.....???? :lol:

 

it's all about Bella and who she loves and who she isn't sure if she loves and all that jazz. [/size]

 

...and it's all just a total coincidence that she just happens to maybe, maybe not fancy a VAMPIRE then...... :lol:

 

Why even write the character as a Vampire then, if it's not "that important"...?? This is utter bollocks Jark, the author surely had her reasons for making Edward a Vampire as opposed to some sad-fukk "goffick" or "Emo kid" in a My Chemical Romance hoodie who just thinks he is, or is she really just THAT MUCH of a talentless hack that she doesn't even understand the rather powerful imagery and themes she's playing around in.....?

 

 

Look, you aren't going to agree with us because you haven't read the Twilight saga and ultimately you don't understand what it's about, and I'm fine with that. I'm happy for you to think I'm "clutching at straws" or whatever. Let's move on now and allow other people to give their reviews of the film.

Look, you aren't going to agree with us because you haven't read the Twilight saga and ultimately you don't understand what it's about, and I'm fine with that. I'm happy for you to think I'm "clutching at straws" or whatever. Let's move on now and allow other people to give their reviews of the film.

 

I asked you earlier in this thread why would he be a vampire if its got nothing to do with the story, but you just said I was just trying to start an arguement with you so you 'wont waste your time', scott has basically just asked the same thing, and yet again you give up, so why dont you just admit it is a vampire story, it doesnt matter how much bella cares he is a vampire, he isnt going to be a vampire if him being a vampire is irrelevant (it may be irrelevant to bella but not the story), its not like Stephanie Meyer when writing Twilight was writing a romance novel and was just like, I know, i'll make Edward a vampire, why the f*** not? she obviously didnt do that (if she did then those novels must be awfully written), obviously she put some thought into making him a vampire, if it isnt relelvant to the story, then why would he be a vampire? What Twilight is, is a hybrid, just because it is mainly a romance flick doesnt mean it isnt vampire fiction, it is both.

 

And if you reply to this just like 'im not gonna waste my time with you because you are just trying to start a fight', i'm not trying to start a fight, sorry for debating on an internet forum, you may find it interesting to know that the whole reason forums exist is to share opinons and debate, so dont give me some half arse reply about not wasting your time on me, because that will just tell me you admit to being wrong but your head is too far up your own arse to admit it.

Actually I just didn't see you ask that, but me and Grimly are going round in circles and I'm sure other people have decided they can't be arsed coming in here because of it.

 

To answer you, I actually (kind of) agree - it is a hybrid of genres, but it focuses so much more on the romance side of things and Bella's feelings for Jacob and Edward than it does on the supernatural side of things. Most of the storylines which revolve around the Cullen clan and other vampires exist because they're going to have an effect on Bella and Edward's relationship.

 

I'm not saying that Edward being a vampire isn't relevant to the story, but Bella makes it clear that it's a fact which has no bearing on her feelings for him, and she's already developed feelings for Jacob before she finds out he's a werewolf (and that doesn't affect them) - the whole point is that the love outweighs any one character's circumstances or situation. It just isn't comparable to Buffy in terms of being a work supernatural fiction, because as much as the supernatural plays a part of it, it's a romance.

you basically just described why twilight is a vampire story, she doesnt care he is a vampire, it is irrelevant to their love, not the story, it is relevant to the story that she doesnt care he is a vampire, his vampireness is irrelevant to her, that is what the story is about. otherwise why even write in the story that he is a vampire, why just not have vampires if its irrelevant? might aswell just write a story about a guy and a girl who loved each other.

 

 

Actually I just didn't see you ask that, but me and Grimly are going round in circles and I'm sure other people have decided they can't be arsed coming in here because of it.

 

To answer you, I actually (kind of) agree - it is a hybrid of genres, but it focuses so much more on the romance side of things and Bella's feelings for Jacob and Edward than it does on the supernatural side of things. Most of the storylines which revolve around the Cullen clan and other vampires exist because they're going to have an effect on Bella and Edward's relationship.

 

I'm not saying that Edward being a vampire isn't relevant to the story, but Bella makes it clear that it's a fact which has no bearing on her feelings for him, and she's already developed feelings for Jacob before she finds out he's a werewolf (and that doesn't affect them) - the whole point is that the love outweighs any one character's circumstances or situation. It just isn't comparable to Buffy in terms of being a work supernatural fiction, because as much as the supernatural plays a part of it, it's a romance.

 

OK reading back I didnt ask it quite as directly, but did basically ask it.

 

anyway, one could argue that romance is a convention of the supernatural genre (like 90% of supernatural films/novels/tvshows/whatever involve romance in some way), just obviously it is more dominant in Twilight than the majority of supernatural stories.

 

but obviously like I said before, the fact that Edward being a vampire doesnt have an effect on Bella's feelings for him, is why it is vampire fiction, because without him being a vampire, she still loves him the same, basically he is a vampire to show that Bella doesnt care about something as major as him being a vampire because she loves him, which is what makes it a supernatural/romance hybrid, although we agree its a hybrid.

 

I'm not a massive Buffy person anyway, but thats what Scott is debating (although i'm pretty sure with Buffy romance does pay quite a part, like hasnt she dated a fair few vampires? and also, what i most remember about Buffy [probaly due to me being a man] is that she once had a lesbian relationship [in the comics that is] but yeah, i'm no Buffy expert so i'll leave that to Scott) so yeah I dont know how comparable Buffy is to Twilight.

 

But yeah I feel we have sort of come to a conclusion that everyone is right in this thread (well apart from those who say it is good http://www.instantrimshot.com/ ) as it is both supernatural and romance (a.k.a is a genre hybrid), although as i did say you could argue that romance is a convention of the supernatural genre, so in which case it is supernatural because it has a theme of romance, although perhaps the romance element is too strong/dominant in the twilight series that it makes romance not just an element of the genre, but part of the actual genre.

 

LOL this movie omg

 

Taylor Lautner is HOT though.

 

And the soundtrack was nice.