By Anonymous - 26/12/2009 19:46 - United States
Add a comment - Reply to : #
mercedeslove, are you seriously arguing that Twilight is better than Star Trek, Star Wars, Lost, and Lord of the Rings? I'm not a fan of Lost; I saw part of the first season and didn't like it, but I'd rather sit through a marathon of every show than re-read or watch even one of the Twilight novels/movies. Tolkien went to new heights to create the world of Middle-Earth. Races, languages, locations, history, mythology, geography; Lord of the Rings, and its companion novels, read like the richest of history books. There are classes devoted solely to Tolkien at universities across the world. To put this in perspective, the other classes devoted to single authors at my alma mater have titles such as Homer, Dostoyevsky, and Shakespeare. Star Wars is a classic hero's journey. Characters grow, mature, and change. The story arcs are fantastic. It is a story of good vs. evil and the triumphs and pitfalls along the way. Star Trek is replete with wonderful characterization. Though the special effects and costumes in the original series may have been cheesy, Star Trek was an innovative show that dealt with heavy issues under the guise of science fiction. Again, the relationships between characters are intricate; Gene Roddenberry created languages, worlds, and history; and it has proved to have incredible staying power. Twilight? Twilight is a story about a naive teenager falling in "love" with a jealous, creepy stalker. Not only does Edward try to shelter her from her other friends, she becomes suicidal when he leaves. Growth in characters? Not really. Bella remains a whiny, insecure girl throughout the entire series. Every other page, we get an avalanche of purple prose about how perfect Edward is. It's Stephenie Meyer's wet dream in print, no better than a common romance novel. And if we want to get into the academics of it, let's take a look at the nonexistent climax in Breaking Dawn. The novels are poorly written and, if taken to heart, could be a thorn in society's side. Do we really want our daughters growing up with Edward as the model for an "ideal boyfriend?" The Twilight novels may be fine for entertainment, but please don't make the ridiculous claim that Twilight is better than Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, or Star Trek. OP: FYL. I'm sorry.
I agree with The_Dod. The movies of Twilight might not be to everyone's preference, but the books were fantastic. They made you cry, made you angry, made you happy, and the last book, was brilliant. I'd rather read Twilight, New Moon, Eclipse, and Breaking Dawn over and over compared to say, the Harry Potter series, where it just got darker and darker, eventually evolving into a horror/angst. Star Wars, I hated. I turned it over after 5 minutes of watching it. It's boring, hard to understand, and from what my cousin has told me, confusing. Because, after having like 7 movies, we find out the first isn't the actual beginning of the story? No thanks, I'd rather stick with Twilight. Star Trek, I've avoided watching at all costs, seeing as it looks like another Star Wars/Harry Potter rerun. So, sorry. But I'd probably be quite happy with them saying it looked like a Twilight fanart. Stephanie deserves all the credit she gets tbh, because even people who hated romance, could actually relate, or were captured by her descriptions and plot lines of Twilight. xx
Sexist how? Because a HUMAN, couldn't overpower a vampire ? Hmm, now, if she COULD overpower him, I'd find that a little strange. Aswell, it's a classic romance. If you don't like romance, why the fuck did you read/watch it? Surely, the intro on the back of the book/movie should have given you enough info to decide whether or not you wanted to watch it?
Firesprite2009: Stephenie Meyer has one talent, and that's making you care about her characters. I only began to read these books when Breaking Dawn had been out for a while, and I was engaged enough to read them one after the other. She is quite talented at ensnaring the reader. I will give her that. However, this does not mean that the writing was good. This does not mean that the story arcs were solid. This does not mean that the characters grew. And, quite frankly, when I reached the end of Breaking Dawn, it was a fantastic letdown. She had no idea how to write a proper climax; she built all this tension, then did nothing with it. I can't see how anyone with any background in literature could say that Breaking Dawn was "brilliant." Harry Potter, while not quite up to Tolkien's level, was also a good series. The first book may have been simplistic, but as Rowling evolved as a writer, she began to thread intricate complications and connections into her plot. Not only that, the mythology is very good. Stephenie Meyer, while creative, was nowhere near as innovative and thorough as Rowling was in her novels. Not to mention the fact that Rowling knew how to create a proper epic. She brought her beloved characters through trials designed to make them grow. One of my favorite aspects of the Potter novels is watching how the characters grow; Draco Malfoy and Percy Weasley are both redeemed, Harry matures by leaps and bounds, even Dudley Dursley experiences a small change of heart. Rowling is also not afraid to kill off some characters to bring fear and realism into her stories. Though I cared about the Twilight characters while reading those novels, I learned early on that Meyer would never dare kill off a Cullen; there was no suspense. But by the time I reached Deathly Hallows, I feared for the lives of all the main characters, knowing that she'd killed both Sirius and Dumbledore. (If you're familiar with the "heroic journey" format, usually the mentor dies in order for the protagonist to prove he can be a hero on his own.) Rowling took away two of three father figures in Harry's life. If Stephenie wanted Bella to truly grow, she would have taken Charlie and perhaps Carlisle out of the picture, leaving Edward and Bella to stand alone and prove their strength. (theatregrl2, I believe colleges have Harry Potter classes because this series has the potential to be a fantasy classic, just like Lord of the Rings.) And though I don't particularly love the first three Star Wars movies (terrible scripts, and Hayden Christensen cannot act), they're not confusing. If you only follow the movies, the most recent ones are prequels. It's not that difficult to understand. At the risk of sounding like a rabid Trekkie, Star Trek deserves more respect than it gets. I'm not sure about anything past Voyager, but the original series was more than just a sci-fi adventure show. Gene Roddenberry set it up to be an outlet for social commentary and hoped to be able to change people's perceptions. In a time when prejudice ran rampant against people of other races and nations, a multiracial crew worked together as one unit on the bridge of the Enterprise. Kirk and Uhura shared the first nationally televised interracial kiss. In an interview, Roddenberry admitted that they set up the relationship between Kirk and Spock to be friends... or lovers. There's really nothing wrong with Twilight as a guilty pleasure to sit on your shelf beside Danielle Steele. I still don't think young girls should be reading it unless they understand that they shouldn't be searching for a boyfriend like Edward Cullen. Meyer does deserve praise for her ability to engage the reader. But that's all. No one with any background in literature would put Twilight on the same pedestal as these other works. Also, Firesprite2009, there are plenty of well-written romances I do enjoy. (By the way, did you know that Lord of the Rings is considered a romance?) I picked up Twilight because I'd heard a lot about it, both bad and good, and wanted to read it for myself. Thanks, darthrant, lawlipop. :)
I do actually enjoy watching/reading Lord Of The Rings, haven't seen it in a while though D: &, I appreciate your opinion, and in not taking my head off for voicing my own opinion. :] Just incase you might actually wonder why I liked Breaking Dawn the best, probably because of the way Jacob and Edward got on with each other, to please Bella/Renesmee, or the unity of everyone to save Renesmee and the rest of the Cullens. Although, I agree with you that hardly any of the characters progressed, there was one. Rosalie. Maybe just in my eyes though, she went from a selfish, vain barbie doll into someone where you could actually understand why she was so angry and unable to trust easily.
firesprite: Good point about Rosalie. And I did like the fact that Edward and Jacob grudgingly put aside their differences for the safety, sanity, and well-being of Bella and the child. Again, not everyone likes the same things, and I'm glad that a couple of us can agree to disagree and have an adult discussion about it. Again, there's nothing wrong with reading/liking/being a fan of Twilight. It only irks me when people mistake popularity for artistic merit. I mean, I enjoyed the hell out of "Wedding Crashers," but that doesn't mean it's Oscar-worthy. :)
Are you kidding? Twilight was terribly written in both the common person's perspective and from a literary perspective. The characters are either angsty, whiny, or feel nothing, and are horribly unbalanced. The writing itself is terrible, and the plot construction is absurd. Meyer has no idea how to foreshadow or build to a climax (She almost did in BD, but then the climax DIDN'T HAPPEN. WHAT THE FUCK?).
Thanks. My point was: Bella remains the damsell in distress, which is a basic sexual behavior. (A lady in trouble, handsome guy who she is in love with comes to rescue). Which in neither Star Trek, Star Wars, LOTR and Harry Potter happen (Unless you count Ginny, who by the way was UNCONCIOUS and was not crying for help [i.e. Help ! Help! I need the guy I'm in love with!!!!!!!!1])