|
[14 Mar 2009|02:17pm] |
Okay.
I've been holding back on updating until I actually have something of value to discuss, but this certain topic is irritating and pissing me off so much that I think it's time for a post. And, moreso, a public post.
Twilight.
So the whole concept is a vampire who becomes obsessed with a "plain" (a.k.a. Mary Sue) teenage girl, and for her, he goes vegan? Now I assume there's much more to it than that, but that alone, the fact that a century-something year old guy is obsessing over a teenage girl, was enough alone to make me gag. Add to the fact that the writing style of the author is laughable and it only took her six months to come up with this medicated piece of crap, and you have all the reasons why Twilight was avoided at all costs by moi.
1. It's been done before. Watch Buffy. Fortunately for fans, Angel did not stop feeding on humans because he was so in love with Buffy and more because of that whole pesky soul business, but still. He followed her, he pretty much stalked her for a time; a.k.a., it's been done before. Not to mention in Interview with the Vampire, Louis only feeds on the blood of rats and chickens, not for a chick, but in order to save his immortal soul. Yeah, been there, done that. Edward's not the newest vampire "hero", so just can it with that crap.
2. It's a new take on vampires. Newsflash: those of us who grew up in the vampire culture, for the most part, are perfectly content with the state of vampires. Otherwise known as: if it ain't broke, don't fix it. So what if they can go outside and that's supposed to be a new take, so what? I read someone who claimed that these all powerful, unstoppable creatures were pathetic because they were stopped by sunlight, and that's why Twilight should be considered the number one vampire movie of all time... well, check it out: vampires are creatures of darkness. Always have been, always will be. It's a play on a taboo, it was a means of comfort back in the day. I'm sorry the villagers didn't ask you your opinion on their folklore, I'm sorry Bram Stoker didn't believe your take was of relevance, but that's simply the way it is.
Really, if Count Orlok hadn't tried to hide and flee from the sun in the final scene of Nosferatu, and had instead started sparkling as he skipped away after drinking Ellen's blood... can you imagine what that would have been like? The first vampire film, one of the first films ever made, with a sparkling vampire. Come on.
I'm not attacking the film for simply existing, I'm irritated because I frequent a list entitled "The Top 70 Vampire Movies of All Time". At this place, we have dozens upon dozens of Twilight fans who decide to name themselves "Mrs.EdwardCullen" and inform us all that Twilight should be the number one vampire movie. Now, the list itself has some bad choices, but overall, it's not so terrible. The number one film is the previously mentioned Nosferatu. These people are claiming that Twilight is so good, is such a riveting vampire film, that it should be number one over that.
These are people who admit that they didn't even like vampires, weren't even in on the vampire culture, before this stupid, piece of tween trash hit the shelves. And they're claiming they have some right to decide for the rest of the vampire fandom what the number one vampire film should be? I don't fucking think so.
The intelligent ones even admit that Twilight shouldn't even be considered a vampire film or apart of the vampire genre, so what I'm saying is: what the hell gives? Stop coming to our boards and claiming Twilight is the best vampire film of all time, because there's no way in hell you would know. You didn't bother to watch Dracula because it was "too boring", "too black and white", "too old". You didn't watch Nosferatu for the same reasons, not to mention that, "oh, my God, it was SILENT. What the fuck?". You've never heard of the film "Vampire Circus" made by Hammer House of Horror Studios. You never watched Christopher Lee's take of Dracula, you only watched Bram Stoker's Dracula because "Gary Oldman was hot", the same with Interview with the Vampire. You think "Queen of the Damned" is a great film, despite the fact that you've probably never read a page of the Vampire Chronicles in your entire fucking life. If you had, you would know how horrible and quick-edited the movie is comparatively, how it shouldn't even be considered a Vampire Chronicles film. But oh, my God, let's throw all that aside just because Stuart Townsend was so hot as Lestat, just like Edward Cullen!
Well, I have seen those films, I've read the original Dracula, I forced myself to read Blackwood Farm and Blood Canticle. I've loved vampires since I was five years old. I'm not about to see the whole genre become a laughable parody of itself because you think some new trend flick should be considered the "best".
Alright, maybe we'll consider it... if you can give me some good reasons as to why that should be number one, instead of the flick that made it possible for your sparkling fandom to exist on screen. Oh, you can't? That's what I thought.
And from what I've heard from fans who liked the book, the movie isn't even good. They're all hoping this new director will put it in a better direction. But that's okay for you, right? Because Robert Pattinson is just so goddamn sexy as the lead vampire.
Shut up and get the hell off my list. Go to a Twilight board and discuss how "great" it is there, because you know nothing about the genre, you know nothing about the myth and how it started, and even declaring this statement of yours proves as much.
Don't come back until you've gained some creditability (a.k.a., seen some REAL vampire films) in the genre. 'Kay? Thanks.
P.S. If we were to decide what new generation vampire series wins as "the best", True Blood/The Sookie Stackhouse series would beat the Twilight series, period.
|
|