Very true.. the new fanbase has killed this series for me.
Not a very big fan of the movie.. it was mediocre at best. Nothing near and very far from amazing!
This I believe will become the new Harry Potter craze.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Watching 240 guys talk trash about cavaliers is like two retards having a slapfight over a sippy cup.
My girlfriend is looking forward to this movie, she's read all the books. I was instantly turned off when I heard it's about vampires that sparkle like diamonds in the sunlight.
I like how this vampire trait is beat to death online, yet it's only mentioned about 3 times in all 4 novels. I guess that's ignorance for you.
I also find it interesting that people are so concerned with holding on to the traditional vampire archetype. I'm sorry but I'm rather sick of the monotony in the vampire genre prior to this series. Granted that the movie was hardly a good portrayal of the book, I think people are afraid to read it because they might like it. Like... perhaps they are less manly to read a book that hundreds of thousands enjoy. It's good to read them just to understand what you're rejecting.
And I agree with several of the posts about how this got over-exposed. Something has a unique flare and the media and pop-culture world tramples it to death. A shame, really.
I have to say that, although I've never read twilight, it looks absolutely horrible and i never intend to read the books or see the movie.
I mean, a sparkly vampire?!?!
T_T twilight totally makes vampires not cool!!
Vampires are supposed to be afraid of the sun and suck peoples blood ruthlessly, not pathetic love-sick puppies.
What happened to the awesome, evil, bestial vampire?
Vampires used to be fun and interesting, now they're lame preppy boys who have odd sparkling skin disorders.
I have to say that, although I've never read twilight, it looks absolutely horrible and i never intend to read the books or see the movie.
I mean, a sparkly vampire?!?!
T_T twilight totally makes vampires not cool!!
Vampires are supposed to be afraid of the sun and suck peoples blood ruthlessly, not pathetic love-sick puppies.
What happened to the awesome, evil, bestial vampire?
Vampires used to be fun and interesting, now they're lame preppy boys who have odd sparkling skin disorders.
that's just my opinion though
I truly mean no offense by this, but it's absurd to base your opinions on fabricated assumptions. This is a perfect example of opinions based on misinformation and, in all honesty, is rather upsetting.
People are so quick to jump on anything they hear - they're fickle at best. There is plenty of what people see as the basic archetype for vampires in the novels with a few twists that make it unique. This, perhaps, is a bit more of a trivial thing that most people don't give a lot of thought about, but the opinion you've made about the series isn't even based on what the series is actually about or what it has in it.
Just according to fiction. It's like saying Tyrael is suppose to..
The comparison is incorrect. Tyrael is a specific character in a specific universe, even so, the name Tyrael can be used to describe some other totally unrelated char just fine.
Vampires are characters that are not defined any farther than "a guy who sucks blood".
Do you know that Tolkien totally messed up the elves when he took them from mythology and made his tall pointy-eared guys? I don't see anyone harping on Tolkien.
Fictional constructs are not set in stone and may be used in whatever way the author wants in a given fictional world, because it's HIS/HER world, and just because someone somewhere used the word Vampire means squarely nothing.
1:That vampire is sparkling.
2:That is not how I think vampires should look.
Fixed.
Blackwing, if you're refusing to read this book because you think the Twilight world revolves around this pivotal factor then you really should stop arguing. I'm not trying to instigate anything, but the point that that is even in the book is to show the dichotomy of reality and myth. I would also like to point out that the vampire only shines in sunlight. This story is located in the wettest place in the continental US where it is under constant cloud-cover, so there is just about zero sparkling in the entire series.
You don't like how an archetype is tweaked? Well that's narrow-mindedness for you. The argument "I don't like this one aspect so the entire series sucks" is ludicrous. I don't see you harping on how Underworld tweaked Vampires or Blade. There is no one "end-all be-all" of anything. The limits to these fictional characters are limited only by one's imagination.
No, pretty sure it didn't need fixing. People understand that this is an opinion.
The pivotal factor of him shining during daylight has nothing to do with it. I expressed that I didn't want to read the book, and that is that.
It is not arguing when I made that statement. I was explaining my point. Make sure you realize that next time.
No, that is incorrect. You clearly stated that:
people know vampires are not usually depicted as 'sparkling'
You are not claiming that "only I think this." When you start including "people" in your opinions they become statements - and false ones when it is based on faulty information. When this happens I will clearly point it out as I did here in this thread. The rest of what you have said were statements based on your own opinions, that's great. I was also remarking on the fact that you're so willing to berate a series which you know nothing about. And yes, "sparkly vampires" is the factor that you bring up as to why you don't like this series and everything else you have mentioned has no great significance in the books themselves. This dynamic makes me skeptical and aggravated because you don't even bother to understand what you're rejecting.
The point is this: do whatever the hell you want. I'll just continue to shake my head because people are so quick to assume, to judge, and to act. If you want to not like something because of what you've heard other people say then that's fine. Do what you want.
Okay, I am going to stop here. Obviously you are both too concerned with this, and it is only leading to a flame war. You have your opinions, and I have mine.
Just as there are many variations of humans there are also many variations of vampires I would assume.
Every culture has their own depiction of what a vampire looks like.
If you have the DVD for "Queen of the Damned" it shows you all the worlds "Vampires".
I still don't like how the Vampires are depicted in Twilight, but I don't really care either.
Everyone will have their own ways of describing what something means/looks/sounds like to them.
Doesn't mean it is wrong or right; because in the end opinions are like assholes.. and we all know how that goes.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Watching 240 guys talk trash about cavaliers is like two retards having a slapfight over a sippy cup.
Not much interest in Twilight. I am not interested in real vampires, let alone fake ones. Watching with a girlfriend is probably the best way to watch this movie, although not neccesarily a good way still.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Cards and flowers on your window, your friends all plead for you to stay,
sometimes beginnings aren't so simple, sometimes goodbye's the only way."
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Not a very big fan of the movie.. it was mediocre at best. Nothing near and very far from amazing!
This I believe will become the new Harry Potter craze.
I like how this vampire trait is beat to death online, yet it's only mentioned about 3 times in all 4 novels. I guess that's ignorance for you.
I also find it interesting that people are so concerned with holding on to the traditional vampire archetype. I'm sorry but I'm rather sick of the monotony in the vampire genre prior to this series. Granted that the movie was hardly a good portrayal of the book, I think people are afraid to read it because they might like it. Like... perhaps they are less manly to read a book that hundreds of thousands enjoy. It's good to read them just to understand what you're rejecting.
And I agree with several of the posts about how this got over-exposed. Something has a unique flare and the media and pop-culture world tramples it to death. A shame, really.
People can't help what they like.
Some like the traditional and some do not.
I for one didn't like that.. but it is none-the-less a unique twist to the Vampires not liking to be out in the sunlight theory.
He just keeps that side of him calm..
I mean, a sparkly vampire?!?!
T_T twilight totally makes vampires not cool!!
Vampires are supposed to be afraid of the sun and suck peoples blood ruthlessly, not pathetic love-sick puppies.
What happened to the awesome, evil, bestial vampire?
Vampires used to be fun and interesting, now they're lame preppy boys who have odd sparkling skin disorders.
that's just my opinion though
I truly mean no offense by this, but it's absurd to base your opinions on fabricated assumptions. This is a perfect example of opinions based on misinformation and, in all honesty, is rather upsetting.
People are so quick to jump on anything they hear - they're fickle at best. There is plenty of what people see as the basic archetype for vampires in the novels with a few twists that make it unique. This, perhaps, is a bit more of a trivial thing that most people don't give a lot of thought about, but the opinion you've made about the series isn't even based on what the series is actually about or what it has in it.
Vampires don't exist.
If Mary Shelly was alive today, she would puke at the sight of Twilight!
Vampires are characters that are not defined any farther than "a guy who sucks blood".
Do you know that Tolkien totally messed up the elves when he took them from mythology and made his tall pointy-eared guys? I don't see anyone harping on Tolkien.
Fictional constructs are not set in stone and may be used in whatever way the author wants in a given fictional world, because it's HIS/HER world, and just because someone somewhere used the word Vampire means squarely nothing.
My main point is that vampires or not, whatever you are talking about will have a reputation of doing something, fiction or not. So for example:
1:That vampire is sparkling.
2:That is not how vampires look.
Because people know vampires are not usually depicted as 'sparkling'.
Fixed.
Blackwing, if you're refusing to read this book because you think the Twilight world revolves around this pivotal factor then you really should stop arguing. I'm not trying to instigate anything, but the point that that is even in the book is to show the dichotomy of reality and myth. I would also like to point out that the vampire only shines in sunlight. This story is located in the wettest place in the continental US where it is under constant cloud-cover, so there is just about zero sparkling in the entire series.
You don't like how an archetype is tweaked? Well that's narrow-mindedness for you. The argument "I don't like this one aspect so the entire series sucks" is ludicrous. I don't see you harping on how Underworld tweaked Vampires or Blade. There is no one "end-all be-all" of anything. The limits to these fictional characters are limited only by one's imagination.
The pivotal factor of him shining during daylight has nothing to do with it. I expressed that I didn't want to read the book, and that is that.
It is not arguing when I made that statement. I was explaining my point. Make sure you realize that next time.
Tyrael has spiky wings. That's not how angels are supposed to look.
Blizzard fails.
Tolkien?
That's not how Bram Stocker vampires are supposed to look. But that's how Twilight vampires are supposed to look.
People know angels are supposed to have feathers.
No, that is incorrect. You clearly stated that:
You are not claiming that "only I think this." When you start including "people" in your opinions they become statements - and false ones when it is based on faulty information. When this happens I will clearly point it out as I did here in this thread. The rest of what you have said were statements based on your own opinions, that's great. I was also remarking on the fact that you're so willing to berate a series which you know nothing about. And yes, "sparkly vampires" is the factor that you bring up as to why you don't like this series and everything else you have mentioned has no great significance in the books themselves. This dynamic makes me skeptical and aggravated because you don't even bother to understand what you're rejecting.
The point is this: do whatever the hell you want. I'll just continue to shake my head because people are so quick to assume, to judge, and to act. If you want to not like something because of what you've heard other people say then that's fine. Do what you want.
Every culture has their own depiction of what a vampire looks like.
If you have the DVD for "Queen of the Damned" it shows you all the worlds "Vampires".
I still don't like how the Vampires are depicted in Twilight, but I don't really care either.
Everyone will have their own ways of describing what something means/looks/sounds like to them.
Doesn't mean it is wrong or right; because in the end opinions are like assholes.. and we all know how that goes.
"Cards and flowers on your window, your friends all plead for you to stay,
sometimes beginnings aren't so simple, sometimes goodbye's the only way."