so it looks like twilight will be no. 1

[TromboneMan]

Twilight is literary tright. That is all.

[Dynamic Dude Johnny]

I do not care to see these movies or read these books ever, but if what I am reading on this thread is the way it is in the book/movies these "vampires" deserve to lose their status as vampires. Vampires dont Glisten in the light, Hell a few of male vampires in the Anne Rice books were somewhat afeminet but at least she did not go as far as having glistining vampires. As for the idea of "vegetarian " vampires, A vampire needs blood to drink, it is its only form of meaningfull nurishment. A vampire may enjoy other foods but if a vampire does not drink blood somehow it would die of starvation. That is unless there is a vegtable with blood in it and I do not think a vegtable like that exist.

[erisi236]

Why do are these fellows even called Vampires I wonder, reading this thread it sounds like they're just random mystical pretty boys. Couldn't the author think of something new to call them?

[Deleted]

This is possibly the nerdiest thread I've ever seen.

Its completely awesome, don't get me wrong, but the arguing over whether or not vampires "Glisten" is priceless.

That being said, I haven't read the books (nor did I read Harry Potter - its wizard predecessor), but I'm just not in to books aimed at 14 year old girls.

What cracks me up is when I see adult women on the subway or at work reading these books. I'm like, [Jimmy]"Come on,"[/Jimmy]

If you're older than 16 and want to read a modern book about vampires that has substance -try reading Night Watch or Let the Right One In.

I guess my real issue is just people willingly gobbling down garbage because looking for anything better is just too hard and being part of the crowd justifies a 34 year old woman reading literature written for a middle school girl.

[hollywood]

Nov 24, 2008 12:20:06 GMT -5 @personman01 said:

This is possibly the nerdiest thread I've ever seen.

Its completely awesome, don't get me wrong, but the arguing over whether or not vampires "Glisten" is priceless.

That being said, I haven't read the books (nor did I read Harry Potter - its wizard predecessor), but I'm just not in to books aimed at 14 year old girls.

What cracks me up is when I see adult women on the subway or at work reading these books. I'm like, [Jimmy]"Come on,"[/Jimmy]

If you're older than 16 and want to read a modern book about vampires that has substance -try reading Night Watch or Let the Right One In.

I guess my real issue is just people willingly gobbling down garbage because looking for anything better is just too hard and being part of the crowd justifies a 34 year old woman reading literature written for a middle school girl.

Or maybe...and stay with me here, because this is REALLY far out...maybe those 34-year-old women just enjoy them?

[LARIATOOO!]

Let the right one in >>> Twilight
Better film adaptation
Better Plot
Logic something of which Sephanie Meyer's Glistenfest lack.

[Deleted]

Nov 24, 2008 12:24:15 GMT -5 hollywood said:

Nov 24, 2008 12:20:06 GMT -5 @personman01 said:

This is possibly the nerdiest thread I've ever seen.

Its completely awesome, don't get me wrong, but the arguing over whether or not vampires "Glisten" is priceless.

That being said, I haven't read the books (nor did I read Harry Potter - its wizard predecessor), but I'm just not in to books aimed at 14 year old girls.

What cracks me up is when I see adult women on the subway or at work reading these books. I'm like, [Jimmy]"Come on,"[/Jimmy]

If you're older than 16 and want to read a modern book about vampires that has substance -try reading Night Watch or Let the Right One In.

I guess my real issue is just people willingly gobbling down garbage because looking for anything better is just too hard and being part of the crowd justifies a 34 year old woman reading literature written for a middle school girl.

Or maybe...and stay with me here, because this is REALLY far out...maybe those 34-year-old women just enjoy them?

Your ideas confound me. I'm going to the village elder now and letting him know that you are clearly in congress with the devil. We shall see how you're caustic wit fares then!

But seriously, I'm not saying its out of the realm of possibility, but if that many grown adults enjoy a book meant for someone a biscuit past puberty - well then that's just a little unsettling to me. To each their own.

I do think that people gravitate to what's most popular and therefore most convienent when it comes to the books they read (if at all) and the music they listen to, rather than make the effort to find something more substanitive.

[Tigerlily]

I'm a 14 year old female and I've had absoulutely no urges to read the books or go see the film.

[Deleted]

Nov 24, 2008 12:52:02 GMT -5 Tigerlily said:

I'm a 14 year old female and I've had absoulutely no urges to read the books or go see the film.

Yeah, but you're British - so its different.

[hollywood]

Nov 24, 2008 12:30:29 GMT -5 @personman01 said:

Nov 24, 2008 12:24:15 GMT -5 hollywood said:

Or maybe...and stay with me here, because this is REALLY far out...maybe those 34-year-old women just enjoy them?

Your ideas confound me. I'm going to the village elder now and letting him know that you are clearly in congress with the devil. We shall see how you're caustic wit fares when then!

But seriously, I'm not saying its out of the realm of possibility, but if that many grown adults enjoy a book meant for someone a biscuit past puberty - well then that's just a little unsettling to me. To each their own.

I do think that people gravitate to what's most popular and therefore most convienent when it comes to the books they read (if at all) and the music they watch, rather than make the effort to find something more substanitive.

And I take it that you, unlike so many others, have made that effort? And found that precious "something more substantive?" Pray tell, dear friend, where may the rest of us commoners find this beacon of entertainment truth that you've sought and strived to find?

Not to be a prick, but that argument just comes across a bit snobbish. And I felt it deserved that.

In all seriousness, I think you're over-generalizing people a bit there. Sure, some people stick to what's popular. But, and this is especially true with books as they demand so much time, they're not going to subject themselves to something if they don't enjoy it at least a little.

And, I have to ask, how exactly does one watch music, as you say?

[Deleted]

Nov 24, 2008 13:05:33 GMT -5 hollywood said:

Nov 24, 2008 12:30:29 GMT -5 @personman01 said:

Your ideas confound me. I'm going to the village elder now and letting him know that you are clearly in congress with the devil. We shall see how you're caustic wit fares when then!

But seriously, I'm not saying its out of the realm of possibility, but if that many grown adults enjoy a book meant for someone a biscuit past puberty - well then that's just a little unsettling to me. To each their own.

I do think that people gravitate to what's most popular and therefore most convienent when it comes to the books they read (if at all) and the music they watch, rather than make the effort to find something more substanitive.

And I take it that you, unlike so many others, have made that effort? And found that precious "something more substantive?" Pray tell, dear friend, where may the rest of us commoners find this beacon of entertainment truth that you've sought and strived to find?

Not to be a prick, but that argument just comes across a bit snobbish. And I felt it deserved that.

In all seriousness, I think you're over-generalizing people a bit there. Sure, some people stick to what's popular. But, and this is especially true with books as they demand so much time, they're not going to subject themselves to something if they don't enjoy it at least a little.

And, I have to ask, how exactly does one watch music, as you say?

Yeah I saw that typo and realized what I was thinking and what I was typing didn't match up. The burden of having faster fingers than mind. Or something like that.

I'll admit, it does come off snobbish and yes it is a broad generalization, but I think there is some justification to the fact that generally people don't think very deeply about what they watch, read, listen to, etc. And I'm not saying they don't enjoy it, but they simply don't want to be challenged to engage themselves in anything that requires more effort.

Sure they enjoyed Twilight, but there's a good chance they'd enjoy something more thoughtful even more, but are reticent to give anything more obscure a try as it won't be a "safe bet."

As to where I find things of more substance, the first place I look is not right in front of my face and/or not what is marketed ad nauseum.

I think if people did a little more research they'd find things that were both thoughtful and entertaining. Its not that I'm giving too little credit in terms of thier capacity to enjoy thoughful material, I just think that we're lazy and enjoy being served something palatable on a silver platter rather than cook something great ourselves.

[hollywood]

Nov 24, 2008 13:31:59 GMT -5 @personman01 said:

Nov 24, 2008 13:05:33 GMT -5 hollywood said:

And I take it that you, unlike so many others, have made that effort? And found that precious "something more substantive?" Pray tell, dear friend, where may the rest of us commoners find this beacon of entertainment truth that you've sought and strived to find?

Not to be a prick, but that argument just comes across a bit snobbish. And I felt it deserved that.

In all seriousness, I think you're over-generalizing people a bit there. Sure, some people stick to what's popular. But, and this is especially true with books as they demand so much time, they're not going to subject themselves to something if they don't enjoy it at least a little.

And, I have to ask, how exactly does one watch music, as you say?

Yeah I saw that typo and realized what I was thinking and what I was typing didn't match up. The burden of having faster fingers than mind. Or something like that.

I'll admit, it does come off snobbish and yes it is a broad generalization, but I think there is some justification to the fact that generally people don't think very deeply about what they watch, read, listen to, etc. And I'm not saying they don't enjoy it, but they simply don't want to be challenged to engage themselves in anything that requires more effort.

Sure they enjoyed Twilight, but there's a good chance they'd enjoy something more thoughtful even more, but are reticent to give anything more obscure a try as it won't be a "safe bet."

As to where I find things of more substance, the first place I look is not right in front of my face and/or not what is marketed ad nauseum.

I think if people did a little more research they'd find things that were both thoughtful and entertaining. Its not that I'm giving too little credit in terms of thier capacity to enjoy thoughful material, I just think that we're lazy and enjoy being served something palatable on a silver platter rather than cook something great ourselves.

Maybe. Still, I think it's unfair to consider everything that's popular that way. Harry Potter--which I read--was more than just a simple wizards-and-dragons children's story. It was actually a clever story extolling the virtues of tolerance wrapped up in a wizardry setting.

I can't speak for Twilight, but, just based on its reviews, I doubt it's quite as deep. Plus, I loathe romantic vampire stories.

[Deleted]

Nov 24, 2008 13:42:34 GMT -5 hollywood said:

Nov 24, 2008 13:31:59 GMT -5 @personman01 said:

Yeah I saw that typo and realized what I was thinking and what I was typing didn't match up. The burden of having faster fingers than mind. Or something like that.

I'll admit, it does come off snobbish and yes it is a broad generalization, but I think there is some justification to the fact that generally people don't think very deeply about what they watch, read, listen to, etc. And I'm not saying they don't enjoy it, but they simply don't want to be challenged to engage themselves in anything that requires more effort.

Sure they enjoyed Twilight, but there's a good chance they'd enjoy something more thoughtful even more, but are reticent to give anything more obscure a try as it won't be a "safe bet."

As to where I find things of more substance, the first place I look is not right in front of my face and/or not what is marketed ad nauseum.

I think if people did a little more research they'd find things that were both thoughtful and entertaining. Its not that I'm giving too little credit in terms of thier capacity to enjoy thoughful material, I just think that we're lazy and enjoy being served something palatable on a silver platter rather than cook something great ourselves.

Still, I think it's unfair to consider everything that's popular that way.

Agreed. Not everything, but a lot.

[erisi236]

Just remember age doesn't always mean wisdom. ;D

Really though I never really bought into the "Recommended Age" thing for most things, except maybe if you're a 40 year that plays Yu-Gi-Oh..... well unless you think it's really cool

[Jiren]

This is what I think of when I think of Vampires



Brutal, Vicious mothersnorkers from the start.

OR



Seductive Vamps that become vicious mofos when going for the kill.

[hollywood]

Nov 24, 2008 13:46:49 GMT -5 @personman01 said:

Nov 24, 2008 13:42:34 GMT -5 hollywood said:

Still, I think it's unfair to consider everything that's popular that way.

Agreed. Not everything, but a lot.

For whatever it's worth...

My teenage sister's boyfriend loves the series. (My sister, ironically, couldn't be less interested.) And I never fail to remind him, in some way or other, that Twilight is absolutely gay.

"Yea, so I was listening to the Bob & Tom Show this morning on my way to work? And they were interviewing Sir Elton John. You know him, right? He sang 'Rocket Man' and 'Candle in the Wind?' Yea, anyway, at the end of it all, he said, 'Oh yea, and that American film, what is is? Twilight? Yea...that movie's totally gay.'"

[erisi236]

Nov 24, 2008 13:58:31 GMT -5 Jiren said:

This is what I think of when I think of Vampires

Brutal, Vicious mothersnorkers from the start.
OR

Seductive Vamps that become vicious mofos when going for the kill.

How bout a sexy vicious one.



I sure love me some Vampire gals.

[hollywood]

Nov 24, 2008 13:58:31 GMT -5 Jiren said:

Seductive Vamps that become vicious mofos when going for the kill.

Fright Night remains one of my favorite vampire movies ever.

[Jiren]

Nov 24, 2008 14:29:06 GMT -5 erisi236 said:

Nov 24, 2008 13:58:31 GMT -5 Jiren said:

This is what I think of when I think of Vampires

Brutal, Vicious mothersnorkers from the start.
OR

Seductive Vamps that become vicious mofos when going for the kill.

How bout a sexy vicious one.



I sure love me some Vampire gals.

Ahh true.

Especially in Vampire the Masquerade, Vamp Chick in schoolgirl outfit = Win

[Koda, Master Crunchyroller]

Nov 24, 2008 14:29:06 GMT -5 erisi236 said:

Nov 24, 2008 13:58:31 GMT -5 Jiren said:

This is what I think of when I think of Vampires

Brutal, Vicious mothersnorkers from the start.
OR

Seductive Vamps that become vicious mofos when going for the kill.

How bout a sexy vicious one.



I sure love me some Vampire gals.

Ah, one of the saving graces of Van Helsing. The other being Kate Beckinsale in skin tight leather....