RE: =PROSE= Why do people hate Twilight that much?


	Home \| Login \| Register \| Help \| Play

RE: =PROSE= Why do people hate Twilight that much?

Logged in as: Guest

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Gaming Community] >> [Legends and Lore] >> Writers of Lore >> [The Workshop] >> Craft Discussion >> RE: =PROSE= Why do people hate Twilight that much?

Page 3 of 5

Forum Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

7/4/2009 13:52:45

Firefly
Lore-ian

I admit I haven't read Gone with the Wind completely but I've remember enough about the movie to be perplexed at the comparison between Bella and Scarlett. Sure, they have some similar motivations, but their personalities are extremely different. Scarlett (from what I remember) was a temperamental if misled person. The fact that she /was/ selfish enough to care only about her own desires gives her a strength that the Bella "I Suck" Swan does not have.

Technically, if they were real, Bella would be a better /person/ than Scarlett, but Scarlett is the superior /character/ not for anything she has done, but simply because she has a more distinctive attitude. I don't think the largest component of Scarlett's personality is "I love X." Unfortunately, that's what Bella's personality became from New Moon onwards (honestly, she was okay in Twilight. But by Eclipse...)

AQ	Post #: 51

7/4/2009 14:46:23

Helixi
Member

I like to point out: Jocob and the others aren't actually werewolves. They are shapeshifters; the true werewolves were driven to extinction by the Volturi. (all explained in the second and fourth books).

Post #: 52

7/5/2009 12:52:34

Prator the Legendary
Member

Bella and Scarlett do have one thing in common: they both have aggravating personality disorders. What exactly that disorder is distinguishes them greatly, but the initial point that I was trying to make was that they are both essentially worthless to anyone but themselves. That brings another such woman to mind: Tess "D'urberville" Durbeyfield.

Anyway, back on topic, my core beef with Twilight is that the main characters are all really annoying. I don't care how beautiful they are.

AQ	Post #: 53

7/5/2009 14:44:51

Firefly
Lore-ian

Hmm, from what I remember about Scarlett (/really/ fuzzy memory), she was actually quite resourceful and determined, unlike Bella who is a complete burden for the entire story. Yeah, Scarlett is aggravating, but she's much... /stronger/ than Bella. Hmm, have you heard of Neon Genesis Evangelion? I'm probably going to get bitten, dragging an anime into this, but two of the main characters (Shinji and Asuka) are both rather whiny and aggravating. However, Asuka scores higher points in my book as a character (even if I hate her) because she's fiestier and more willing to take control of her own future than Shinji. Which is the case with Scarlett vs. Bella.

I'm still perplexed about the comparison, because half the characters in the world annoy me and shoving them all in the same catagory might make said catagory explode.

AQ	Post #: 54

7/5/2009 16:40:09

Prator the Legendary
Member

quote:

I'm still perplexed about the comparison, because half the characters in the world annoy me and shoving them all in the same catagory might make said catagory explode.

Hmmmm... Okay, let me try explaining this a different way.

If you've ever read anything by Ayn Rand (I hate her so much...), you'll notice that every book she writes includes a sizable cast of people whose only function is to hamper the efforts of her golden protagonists, generally by being deliberately useless or unhelpful out of spite or laziness. When they AREN'T being deliberately useless or unhelpful, they are generally trying to justify their lack of talent or ability with some ideology or another ("Love for Our Fellow Man" is popular; so is "Equality" and "Equal Opportunity."). They don't have the drive and energy and vision that the protagonists have, and so they become barriers in the protagonists' way. They can be big or small, male or female, rich or poor, but whatever shape they appear in, they are set up as obstacles to be overcome.

Now, imagine what a story might be like if it were told from the perspective of one of these annoying barrier-people. They'd be their own worst enemies.

I think of Bella as an obstacle that Edward must overcome on a regular basis. Scarlett is her own obstacle more often than not, because she recklessly creates problems for herself wherever she goes; if you think about it, most of the problems in her life that aren't a direct consequence of the Union invasion are entirely her fault.

AQ	Post #: 55

7/5/2009 17:54:36

Firefly
Lore-ian

Yes, Scarlett ends up creating her own problems. But the fact that she is, well, active enough to create problems puts her above Bella who simply does nothing.

Meh, maybe I don't classify people the same way. I think it's not only someone's "role" in a story that classifies them (because that is influenced a lot by the plot), but rather the kind of person they are: personality, in other words. Pulling another example out of the blue here: In A Song of Ice and Fire, both Cersei Lannister and Catelyn Stark are heavily motivated by the will to protect their children--and neither of them do a good job of it. However, there's no way they can be grouped together just due to the similar results of their efforts because Cersei is a power-hungry maniac while Catelyn dutiful woman who is one of the few sane characters in the series.

My point: I do see what you're getting at, but I think Bella is a passive character whereas Scarlett makes a vigorous attempt (successful or not) at being active. And trying to take hold of one's own destiny gets a character out of my "useless" box--whether they succeed or not, they had the will to try.

AQ	Post #: 56

7/6/2009 9:03:54

Prator the Legendary
Member

Hmm. Can't argue with that, I guess. Although I would like to point out that people who try and fail end up in the same place as people who just plain fail.

AQ	Post #: 57

7/6/2009 9:38:12

Abiogenist
Member

It depends upon your preference. I appreciate characters for their hardwork, and results matter less to me. I guess for you it's the other way around.
Like what Firefly said, at least Scarlett had done something in her life, not like cardboard Bella.
That's why don't compare Scarlett to Bella. XP

Post #: 58

7/6/2009 13:19:45

Albino Slug
Member

Why do people hate anything so much?
There are two reasons.

1: People tell them to.
2: They just don't like it.

As for why I don't like it, I believe I can say 'Renesme', and that describes why I don't like it.

Post #: 59

7/6/2009 17:38:46

Winnie
Member

I don't hate twilight, I just hate the fandom. There are people at my school that say "OME" instead of "OMG", which is just one of many things they do. I read the first book, and about a quarter of the second, and then It just got boring and I stopped. I really don't see what people love edward for, I mean, he sparkles, whoo.

Another annoying thing is the movies. People love edward so much they go see the movies 20 billion times. Movies always ruin books, and The book wasn't great, the movies was worse.

>:l

AQW

Post #: 60

7/6/2009 21:57:08

15cman
Member

I think people hate one,two,three,four,five, or all 6 major things about Twilight:

1.The fanbase.Some guys and girls are really annoyed by how people fawn over Edward.
2.A sort of romantic, noble, sparkle twist on vampires, which would probably annoy any horror movie lover(and there are a lot of those, myself included).
3.There is such a perfect ending to the book, and there aren't that many tragedies in the series.Well, other than Bella's twisted love triangle between Jacob and Edward.
4.The story was supposed to be really good, but the author made it straightforward and kind of predictable(some unexpected moments though.).An example of it's straightforwardness is how Bella ALWAYS finds out about everyone.She knew what Edward was after some small amount of research, and just a little bit longer to find out with Jacob.How it's predictable is that it has a picture perfect happy ending.Bella gets a kid, becomes a vampire, married Edward, and they are all one big happy family, until something happens and they unite together against the big bad guys/girls and prevail...once again.
4.5.The movie was almost exactly the same as the book.Most of the script was word for word, like with the little Bella voiceover when she describes how her day and other days went.If the book had a great story, but was written poorly, and you make a movie on it almost exactly like that, then it'll be less appealing.
5.Edward and Bella, sitting in a tree.K-I-S-S-I-N--...What?What do you mean he's too perfect for her to kiss him?Edward can't be that perfect!...Oh really?*looks at the book*.Oh...I suppose he can.

I think you can catch the drift of number 5.

6.Twilight was made for frilly pre-teens hoping for perfection and peace with the universe.Some guys read/watched the movie and thought:"That's messed up."

Post #: 61

7/7/2009 1:16:30

marvin_the_robot
Member

quote:

1.The fanbase.Some guys and girls are really annoyed by how people fawn over Edward.
2.A sort of romantic, noble, sparkle twist on vampires, which would probably annoy any horror movie lover(and there are a lot of those, myself included).
3.There is such a perfect ending to the book, and there aren't that many tragedies in the series.Well, other than Bella's twisted love triangle between Jacob and Edward.
4.The story was supposed to be really good, but the author made it straightforward and kind of predictable(some unexpected moments though.).An example of it's straightforwardness is how Bella ALWAYS finds out about everyone.She knew what Edward was after some small amount of research, and just a little bit longer to find out with Jacob.How it's predictable is that it has a picture perfect happy ending.Bella gets a kid, becomes a vampire, married Edward, and they are all one big happy family, until something happens and they unite together against the big bad guys/girls and prevail...once again.
4.5.The movie was almost exactly the same as the book.Most of the script was word for word, like with the little Bella voiceover when she describes how her day and other days went.If the book had a great story, but was written poorly, and you make a movie on it almost exactly like that, then it'll be less appealing.
5.Edward and Bella, sitting in a tree.K-I-S-S-I-N--...What?What do you mean he's too perfect for her to kiss him?Edward can't be that perfect!...Oh really?*looks at the book*.Oh...I suppose he can.

I think you can catch the drift of number 5.

6.Twilight was made for frilly pre-teens hoping for perfection and peace with the universe.Some guys read/watched the movie and thought:"That's messed up."

I agree with most of that, although the majority of people aren't as bothered by the literary aspects as people here. I DON'T agree with number 2, though. Vampire romance is an existing genre; it was around before Twilight ever graced the shelves of bookstores everywhere. The overall concept was quite different from the unconventional premise of Twilight, but they all still fall under the same category. I wouldn't exactly call the vampires in Twilight "noble" either. I mean, they're not the traditional "Count Dracula-esque" vampires of old, nor are they the demonic gargoyles portrayed in more modern times. And any "horror movie lover" wouldn't really be bothered so much by it, IMO.

DF	Post #: 62

7/7/2009 3:31:15

awesomeness1997
Member

I reckon it's the fact that everyone talks about it. I actually liked it which is surprising for a guy. Half of my clas go '' You're a noob* 'cos you read twilight and it's a girls book''. Which to I usually reply '' Just because your mind lacks the quantity to be able to read, it doesnt mean mine does.'' Edward is actually pretty cool and the vamps are awesome too, though the way all girls love him makes me sick. I mean seriously, he is fictional! Though there is a Team Jacob which my sister is in. She spends all day, everyday telling me how hot he is. Jeez, thats just disturbing (the fact that she thinks a fictional character is hot, not that she thinks that someone is hot)!

quote:

I like to point out: Jocob and the others aren't actually werewolves. They are shapeshifters; the true werewolves were driven to extinction by the Volturi. (all explained in the second and fourth books).

But technically they still are were-wolves. And the volturi are noobs.

* We would probably say something else instead of noob, but I wouldnt say that on this forum...

< Message edited by awesomeness1997 -- 7/7/2009 3:33:42 >

_____________________________

Post #: 63

7/7/2009 7:46:24

Xirminator
Member

I have to agree with what many people here said. The fan-base is extremely annoying, not because they like it, but because they can't tolerate anyone not liking it. The idolization of the characters probably arises from the fantasies they can fulfill, since they've been painted so perfectly in the book that... well, they're just perfect.

The convenience of the whole story seems to be a little stretched. But I already took a whole post talking about earlier that, so I digress.

Post #: 64

7/7/2009 13:03:50

Firefly
Lore-ian

I'm sometimes annoyed by the fanbase since I volunteer at my school library, but I'm sometimes annoyed by the haters, too. Especially when either group compares Meyer to Rowling. *headdesk* There is /nothing/ alike about their writing. Nothing. Other than the fact that they are both female, fantasy, and write for teens (and Rowling started off writing for kids in the first few books, so even that doesn't really count). Their target audience is different, their styles are almost polar opposites, their characters, plot, theme... gah, people who make this comparison might as well as compare /all/ popular authors, since the only thing they share is their popularity.

Saying that guys shouldn't/couldn't like it is dumb. I'm a girl, and I started reading it because two /guys/ recommended it to me.

AQ	Post #: 65

7/7/2009 18:20:54

Lazo
Member

I personally like the books. I like them but they're not worth reading again. NO ONE in my school has read it except for one or two girls so I can't really give the opinion of the others. The only think I didn't like about the books was the fourth book's ending: Happily ever after. It killed me, brought me back to life, tortured me and killed me again. All the tension, ready to kill each other and then Alice pops up and saves the day without so much as a scratch. I had to read the ending several times to see if I hadn't missed anthing until I realised that nothing, NOTHING had happened.

Post #: 66

7/7/2009 18:25:38

Xirminator
Member

Yep, the ending was very unsatisfying. After so many pages introducing new vampires and their abilities and Bella practicing with her own, what did we get? Nothing. All expectations were shattered, and that was a mistake.

Post #: 67

7/7/2009 18:27:22

hhhhx
Member

In my opinion you can't mix fantasy and realistic fiction. Twilight counts as realistic fiction. but w/ all the vampires which are weird it makes it fantasy.

Thats another thing vampires aren't supposed to be handsome.

_____________________________

Cats make good fertilizer

Post #: 68

7/7/2009 18:36:05

Xirminator
Member

quote:

In my opinion you can't mix fantasy and realistic fiction. Twilight counts as realistic fiction. but w/ all the vampires which are weird it makes it fantasy.

Thats another thing vampires aren't supposed to be handsome.

Without realism, fantasy is a load of crap. They have to be mixed together if you want good fantasy.

And about the vampire thing, it's the author who chooses how things are in his or her story. If they want them to be handsome: fine. If they want them to sparkle: fine. (Typically, vampires are alluring, seductive, suave.)

Post #: 69

7/8/2009 13:51:50

Firefly
Lore-ian

Hmm, are you implying that all fantasy must be in a secondary world setting? In that case, every single piece of urban fantasy shouldn't be existing. That's... not a good idea... And that's all I'll say without listing every piece of prominent urban fantasy.

Whether vampires are supposed to look good or bad is personal opinion, not fact.

AQ	Post #: 70

7/10/2009 12:32:59

Xirminator
Member

I wasn't referring to urban fantasy, if you were addressing the first comment in your last post to me, Firefly. Rather, I meant that even if it is fantasy it still has to be realistic. There have to be rules and other things that define to the reader what's possible in your story, and what isn't.

Post #: 71

7/10/2009 17:43:55

Firefly
Lore-ian

I was directing my statement at hhhhx, not you, Xirmi. I assumed he meant that fantasy shouldn't have the "urban" feeling; you assumed that he meant fantasy shouldn't have any realism at all. I thought your interpretation of his statement was a little overboard, so I interpreted it as simply that fantasy must all the in the vein of Lord of the Rings or Wheel of Time rather than lower-stake stories set on earth.

Of course fantasy worlds have rules too. For one, I think most of them have gravity, 'cause their characters aren't floating, eh?

AQ	Post #: 72

7/16/2009 15:30:21

Randomnity
Member

quote:

BTW, in terms of raw power, I think Edward Cullen = Adrian Farenheight Tepes AKA Alucard AKA Genya Arikado.

It maybe the fan side of me talking, but what? Alucard is a lot stronger and cooler than Edward. If Edward was God-Modding, then Alucard was Epic God-Modding. He couldn't die, nothing could really affect him, he could shapeshift, create an entire army et cetera. He was a LOT stronger than Edward. But enough about anime. The reason I disliked Twilight is because of well, pretty much why mostly everyone posting here seems to dislike it. The main characters seemed a bit too perfect. It would have been alright before the Renaissance, but in modern times...

AQ	Post #: 73

7/26/2009 0:28:14

Falerin
Legendary Loremaster

quote:

ORIGINAL: hhhhx

Thats another thing vampires aren't supposed to be handsome.

Tell that to Sheridan LeFanu, Anne Rice, and Francis Ford Coppola. Handsome vampires that are seductive in their twisted darkness is a staple of vampire fiction going back in LeFanu's case hundreds of years.

Post #: 74

7/26/2009 1:48:16

khalim456
Member

Adding onto what Falerin said, Vampires were actually meant to be handsome, at least to some extent.

In Bram Stoker's case they were attractive in a more "slick, dark, formal, exotic and Aquiline way."

Anne Rice had Lestat and Louis, played by Tom Cruise and Brad Pitt. 'Nuff said.

The only times when Vampire's weren't handsome were when they were hidden in the depths of vague folklore.

AQ	Post #: 75

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

All Forums >> [Gaming Community] >> [Legends and Lore] >> Writers of Lore >> [The Workshop] >> Craft Discussion >> RE: =PROSE= Why do people hate Twilight that much?

Page 3 of 5

Jump to:

Icon Legend

New Messages	No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages	Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages	Locked w/o New Messages

Post New Thread

Reply to Message

Post New Poll

Submit Vote

Delete My Own Post

Delete My Own Thread

Rate Posts

Forum Content Copyright © 2018 Artix Entertainment, LLC.

"AdventureQuest", "DragonFable", "MechQuest", "EpicDuel", "BattleOn.com", "AdventureQuest Worlds", "Artix Entertainment"
and all game character names are either trademarks or registered trademarks of Artix Entertainment, LLC. All rights are reserved.
PRIVACY POLICY