An open letter to all Twilight fans

desertcircus

desertcircus wrote: »

From an old thread where people said why they didn't like Twilight, the answer I originally wrote:

It teaches highly impressionable preteens that if your boyfriend ever loses control and hurts you, it's YOUR FAULT. It teaches them that they'll only ever fulfil themselves by getting married. It shamelessly harnesses the confusion that puberty produces and shovels money by doing so. It teaches them that your identity and personality have to be completely subsumed by your boyfriend's. It teaches them that an aggressive control freak who watches someone sleep is being "romantic" rather than "unhinged". It's a thinly-veiled attempt to terrorise teenagers into abstinence and marriage. And it's being targeted at people who are too young to see what's being done.

Teenagers are being terrified into all kinds of things as are the rest of us. While I have a loathing of any kind of victorian abstinence promotion I think this is a real stretch.

krudler wrote: »

I dont disagree with any of that, but it still changed cinema forever, that just cant be argued, some aspects for bad, but mostly good. no star wars= no pixar, think about it.

I'm just pointing out that what we love has been subject to such parallel ridicule (be it horror movies, video games or Star Wars) that we should have appreciation for the mania of others!

foodie66

foodie66 wrote: »

That is a teenage girl, i don't think Dan Brown has the same demographic as Meyers, so it is an irrelevant comparison.

According to her youtube bio she is in fact 24. And I imagine that 24 year olds do at times travel which is the demographic that seems to enjoy Brown's work.

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

I was more annoyed I couldn't go see Snowtown.

Order the DVD or Blu from Australia. It's a great little film and is one of those which is best experienced on your own.

johnny_ultimate

Also: I'm pretty sure every great film ever made has been gender neutral. Pretty much any film tailored to a target demographic or gender has been a piece of crap. Exceptions, maybe, but certainly a rule.

The Sparrow

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

I was more annoyed I couldn't go see Snowtown.

Which could have made an interesting thread about the lack of priority given to niche films. But (to labour the point) instead you started ranting about Twilight and this ridiculous thread was born.

johnny_ultimate

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Also: I'm pretty sure every great film ever made has been gender neutral. Pretty much any film tailored to a target demographic or gender has been a piece of crap. Exceptions, maybe, but certainly a rule.

The Twilight films aren't great films. They're fan films.

foodie66

she looks like a teen, either way.

Maybe Tom Hanks has some fangirls.

Twilight fans laugh at Nutty Madam, she's been on the Alan Carr show and got to meet the cast of the film, she is crazy but FFS where is everyone's sense of humour?

Chi Force

So you are now concerned about the delicate sensibilities of all the "idiot" Twilight fans? That's a bit rich.

It's also interesting that, while one derider says that this "abstinence tale" is ridiculous, another implies that the whole series is morally hazzardous. :rolleyes:

For anyone looking for a vampire film which has a romance story at the heart of it yet does something interesting with the mythos should check out Near Dark.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FiYSirEHS5E

Also check out the Lost Boys

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsv_NQFbQzo

Coriolanus

More fuel for the fire.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4uuGvmAxTI

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

For anyone looking for a vampire film which has a romance story at the heart of it yet does something interesting with the mythos should check out Near Dark.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FiYSirEHS5E

Also check out the Lost Boys

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsv_NQFbQzo

Have to say I thought Stakeland was one of the best of the recent vampire films (aside from the annoying "boss" fight). Near Dark is fantastically grimey and the Lost Boys is one of Joel Schumacher's only redeeming features. I think between Kronos and Blade 2 that Del Toro adds a lot of interest to the wider vampire mythos.

columok

columok wrote: »

Have to say I thought Stakeland was one of the best of the recent vampire films (aside from the annoying "boss" fight). Near Dark is fantastically grimey and the Lost Boys is one of Joel Schumacher's only redeeming features. I think between Kronos and Blade 2 that Del Toro adds a lot of interest to the wider vampire mythos.

I love Stake Land and Cronos, in fact both Blu-Rays are sitting to my right as I type as I've been planning to rewatch both all week.

Sad Professor

I turn my back for a few hours and when I come back… *sigh* You just had to wake the sleeping giant, didn’t ya?

Anyway, I’m fairly indifferent to the whole Twilight craze. Haven’t read any of the books nor seen any of the films. And I’ve been too busy with college and work to notice that the multiplexes have showings starting every 20 minutes. But the amount of rubbish on the cinemas really does annoy me. The summer months are by far the worst - it’s IFI or nothing most of the time. This time of the year isn’t so bad as you’ll always find something decent in the multiplexes.

I can’t really complain about Twilight fans though. My own guilty pleasure is the Underworld films (or the first two anyway). Kate Beckinsale running around in a tight leather outfit while shooting stuff - yes please.

Seriously though, Let the Right One In is one of my favourite films of recent years.

laoch na mona

Sid_Justice wrote: »

Twilight isn't a story about vampires and werewolves

Correct it is the story of a girl who has to chose between bestiality and necrophilia

SVG

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Also: I'm pretty sure every great film ever made has been gender neutral. Pretty much any film tailored to a target demographic or gender has been a piece of crap. Exceptions, maybe, but certainly a rule.

I'm probably dragging the thread off topic but I can't agree with this (or maybe I've misunderstood).

I don't think you could call Fight Club or The Piano or All That Heaven Allows or Dirty Harry gender neutral. I don't think you could say that My Neighbour Totoro or Star Wars weren't made with a target demographic in mind.

Obviously to be great, a film must appeal to more than its target audience but I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with having one.


Back on topic, I've only seen the second film and I wasn't a fan but, hey, each to his own.

Here's a pretty great (and fairly exhaustive) article that details why Twilight is bad but also why there's nothing wrong with enjoying it once you understand what it is.

krudler

Deleted User wrote: »

For anyone looking for a vampire film which has a romance story at the heart of it yet does something interesting with the mythos should check out Near Dark.

look what they did to the blu-ray cover!

from this:




to this in a crappy cashin attempt on the Twilight fad, why they need to cash in a much, much better movie on it is beyond me but hey.

krudler

krudler wrote: »

look what they did to the blu-ray cover!

from this:




to this in a crappy cashin attempt on the Twilight fad, why they need to cash in a much, much better movie on it is beyond me but hey.

First time I saw it in store I thought I'd picked up Twilight. Sadly most people would have no idea what Near Dark is, it's a great idea to rip off the cover of Twilight as it's guaranteed to shift a hell of a lot of extra copies. A lot of casual film a fans will assume its part of the series but then a lot of people will mistake it as a cheap rip off, something like what the Asylum would put out.

johnny_ultimate

columok wrote: »

The Twilight films aren't great films. They're fan films.

Oh, don't get me started on fandom! Don't worry, I'm as bemused with the obsessive sci-fi / Star Wars fans as I am with the Twilight ones!

But I think to be a fan of something you have to recognise the inherent quality of something. Hardcore Twilight (and Star Wars) fans seem intent on ignoring the flaws and blind obsession takes over. Personally, I don't think that's a healthy way to consume art. There's certainly things I consider myself a fan of, but I think its important to understand why while being able to criticise it from a distance. Rabid fandom - especially the mass popularity Twilight enjoys - is not healthy, and should never be used as an excuse for low quality. I think you'll find very few Star Wars fans willing to defend the prequels, for example. Most of the ones who do will (I have come across a handful of genuine, articulate defenders of them) probably do so without much reason or logic

SVG wrote: »

I'm probably dragging the thread off topic but I can't agree with this (or maybe I've misunderstood).

I don't think you could call Fight Club or The Piano or All That Heaven Allows or Dirty Harry gender neutral. I don't think you could say that My Neighbour Totoro or Star Wars weren't made with a target demographic in mind.

Obviously to be great, a film must appeal to more than its target audience but I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with having one.

Kids films are definitely an exception to the rule, I'll allow you that

A great film should transcend the gender themes it focuses on, though. Fight Club and the Piano may deal with, respectively, predominantly masculine and feminine themes, but they're both astonishingly made films and transcend their subject matter to appeal to a universal audience. Ditto with your other examples (except maybe Star Wars - standing back and looking at that minus nostalgia isn't always a pleasant experience). None of them are cynically made with one gender in mind. Ones that use cheap tricks to appeal to a very specific demographic, though, tend to fall apart. Take the Transformers films (teenage boys) or Sex & The City (women - what was once a post-feminist manifesto becoming a sad celebration of shopping). Off the top of my head, I can't think of many blatant films that succeed in spite of their shirtless men / scantily-clad women. Crank, maybe? And that gets by on sheer clarity of stupidity. If you're going to be stupid, never pretend otherwise.

Galvasean

I read the whole thread.

- the whole thread.

:mad:

SVG

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

A great film should transcend the gender themes it focuses on, though. Fight Club and the Piano may deal with, respectively, predominantly masculine and feminine themes, but they're both astonishingly made films and transcend their subject matter to appeal to a universal audience.

Maybe we agree but are using different language? You used the phrase "gender neutral" earlier- I think you're referring to the audience whereas I'm referring to the film.

My point was really that I don't think films should have to be gender neutral in their themes or have to water down their subject matter in an effort to appeal to a universal audience. I like films that are specific, certain films will appeal more to certain demographics and I don't think there's anything wrong with that.

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Crank, maybe? And that gets by on sheer clarity of stupidity. If you're going to be stupid, never pretend otherwise.

I hated Crank (and I like Jason Statham!).:p

OKeeffer

Star Wars is regularly voted the best film of all-time.

This tells you all you need to know about "the great unwashed"'s taste in cinema.

The vast majority of people are unintelligent, have no culture and will lap up whatever they are fed....be it films, music, food or anything else.

The minute you realise this, the more you realise how good it feels not to be part of this mob.

They are born, buy a car, buy a house, get married, have babies, retire and die.
That's as great as their aspirations will ever be. "Movies" are something they do to avoid talking to each other while they eat junk food for two hours, once X-Factor is over.

The bottle-fed, overfed, lazy, self-entitled generation of morons we are all, sadly, part of.

Fishooks12

OKeeffer wrote: »

Star Wars is regularly voted the best film of all-time.

This tells you all you need to know about "the great unwashed"'s taste in cinema.

The vast majority of people are unintelligent, have no culture and will lap up whatever they are fed....be it films, music, food or anything else.

The minute you realise this, the more you realise how good it feels not to be part of this mob.

They are born, buy a car, buy a house, get married, have babies, retire and die.
That's as great as their aspirations will ever be. "Movies" are something they do to avoid talking to each other while they eat junk food for two hours, once X-Factor is over.

The bottle-fed, overfed, lazy, self-entitled generation of morons we are all, sadly, part of.

"Got on the train from Cambridgeshire......moooooved down to an East London Flat" :rolleyes:

What's wrong with Star Wars? I don't think it's often named greatest film of all time either.

johnny_ultimate

SVG wrote: »

Maybe we agree but are using different language? You used the phrase "gender neutral" earlier- I think you're referring to the audience whereas I'm referring to the film.

My point was really that I don't think films should have to be gender neutral in their themes or have to water down their subject matter in an effort to appeal to a universal audience. I like films that are specific, certain films will appeal more to certain demographics and I don't think there's anything wrong with that.

I hated Crank (and I like Jason Statham!).:p

Yeah I think we do agree in there somewhere. Of course some films will predominantly appeal to certain demographics, but they shouldn't be made just to appeal to them, if you get me? A good film is a good film. It's not good just because I'm a guy.

I liked Crank 1, but I think Crank 2 piled on the casual racism and sexism to the point when I think they pushed the joke too far. The those guys made Gamer, and as a Gamer I was seriously pissed off :pac:

OKeeffer

Fishooks12 wrote: »

I don't think it's often named greatest film of all time either.

Don't post a reply until you've at least checked your facts. You could make yourself look like a moron doing that.

In 1989, the U.S. National Film Registry of the Library of Congress selected the film as a "culturally, historically, or aesthetically important" film.[85] In 2002, Star Wars and The Empire Strikes Back were voted as the greatest films ever made on Channel 4's 100 Greatest Films poll.[86] In 2006, Lucas's original screenplay was selected by the Writers Guild of America as the 68th greatest of all time.[87]
American Film Institute Lists:
AFI's 100 Years…100 Movies (1998) - #15[88]
AFI's 100 Years…100 Thrills (2001) - #27[89]
AFI's 100 Years…100 Heroes and Villains (2003):
Han Solo - #14 Hero[90]
Obi-Wan Kenobi - #37 Hero[90]
Princess Leia - Nominated Hero[91]
Luke Skywalker - Nominated Hero[91]
AFI's 100 Years…100 Movie Quotes (2004):
"May the Force be with you." - #8[92]
"Help me, Obi-Wan Kenobi. You're my only hope." - Nominated[92]
AFI's 100 Years of Film Scores (2005) - #1[51]
AFI's 100 Years…100 Cheers (2006) - #39[93]
AFI's 100 Years…100 Movies (10th Anniversary Edition) (2007) - #13[94]
AFI's 10 Top 10 (2008) - #2 Sci-Fi Film[95]
In 2011, ABC aired a primetime special, Best in Film: The Greatest Movies of Our Time, that counted down the best movies chosen by fans based on results of a poll conducted by ABC and People magazine. Star Wars was selected as the #1 Best Sci-Fi Film.

Fishooks12

OKeeffer wrote: »

Don't post a reply until you've at least checked your facts. You could make yourself look like a moron doing that.

now now, quoting some Film Four viewer poll doesn't make your opinion correct. The likes of The Godfather and Apocalypse Now are far more often labelled "The Greatest Film of All Time" than any of the Star Wars Trilogy but that's beside the point.

You're using the popularity of the star wars series to make the point that the general public are generally dimwitted and "unintelligent" . Now while this makes you sound incredibly pretentious, you could have at least picked a worse film than the incredibly solid and meomorable Star Wars Trilogy to illustrate your "point".

How about any of the Saw franchise after the first two? What about the inexplicably popular Titanic or the melodramatic crap fest called the notebook

I'm merely trying to help you improve your argument sir and I don't approve of the passive aggressive tone

Kimia

You know, it's so disappointing to find a thread like this. I mean, the minute I saw 'An open letter to...' I mentally rolled my eyes. Why can't people just like what they like, and other people will like what they like? Why does there always have to be this snobby elitist BS where someone tries to ridicule and shame others for their taste in film/music whatever?

If going to see a Twilight movie makes someone happy, why would you try and ruin that just for the sake of sounding like a movie buff. It's like the moronic bleating of an English lit student going on and on about Catcher in the Rye and how it's the best book ever and if you read Dan Brown you're a moron. Get over yourself!

johnny_ultimate

Kimia wrote: »

You know, it's so disappointing to find a thread like this. I mean, the minute I saw 'An open letter to...' I mentally rolled my eyes. Why can't people just like what they like, and other people will like what they like? Why does there always have to be this snobby elitist BS where someone tries to ridicule and shame others for their taste in film/music whatever?

If going to see a Twilight movie makes someone happy, why would you try and ruin that just for the sake of sounding like a movie buff. It's like the moronic bleating of an English lit student going on and on about Catcher in the Rye and how it's the best book ever and if you read Dan Brown you're a moron. Get over yourself!

I wasn't going to reply to this, but again I feel my opinion has been misunderstood. I can only stress once again that those who enjoy Twilight responsibly are entitled to their enjoyment of the film - I know many extremely cinematically literate people who sensibly enjoy it on a guilty pleasure basis.

I never called anyone a moron. I will never call anyone a moron for having a specific taste in anything. I'm afraid you're the one who has ripped out particularly aggressive language to make a point (and I'm not defending the Twilight bashers who have done it, either). And fine, if I'm a snob, I'm a snob. That's grand, I can see where you got that opinion from.

But in the case of Twilight - over all others - I really think its popularity is down to manipulation. A product so cynically designed to appeal to a certain demographic - who, in many cases, are too young to know better - is something I think is worthy of vitriol.

I simply do not enjoy seeing nonsense enjoying obsession that's significantly out of proportion with what it actually is. On a purely subjective level - filmmaking, acting, storytelling - Twilight is at the butt end quality wise when it comes to vampire narratives. It's obviously popular, and yes obviously people like it. But I genuinely fail to see how anyone obsessed with Twilight couldn't find themselves more enamoured by Let the Right One In or Nosferatu. Except for the fact that it features more shirtless guys. And that it isn't subtitled. And then, if you'll excuse me, my cynicism kicks in. It becomes a case study in peer pressure and marketing.

Mediocrity (or, indeed, outright crap) trumps quality in terms of popularity, financial excess and exposure. We see it everywhere. But, as a film fan, I'd love if more people were exposed to other work so they can make an educated decision over their choices. If people still choose Twilight, I'd have to accept that outcome wouldn't I?

Sad Professor

I just looked at the listings on Vue's website. Twilight has 20 showings today while every other film has 3 or 4 at most!

WTF!!???

I take back my earlier post. F**k Twilight! This sh*t has to stop. I suggest we start firebombing the multiplexes starting tonight.

mikhail

Sad Professor wrote: »

I just looked at the listings on Vue's website. Twilight has 20 showings today while every other film has 3 or 4 at most!

WTF!!???

I take back my earlier post. F**k Twilight! This sh*t has to stop. I suggest we start firebombing the multiplexes starting tonight.

I had a feeling people might start coming around when they noticed that sort of thing.

Greyjoy

krudler wrote: »

look what they did to the blu-ray cover!

When I saw the new cover for Near Dark in hmv it gave me a chuckle. Apart from blatantly trying to cash-in on Twilight it's also slightly underhanded. Caleb never actually appears that way in the film with the grey skin/golden eyes, plus the roles are reversed - Caleb is actually the human while Mae is the vampire.

I don't mind the cover too much as whenever Twilight has come up in conversation I've recommended Near Dark as a much better film. The idea that Twilight fans might pick this up and get exposed to a decent vampire romance pleases me.

phasers

Sad Professor wrote: »

I just looked at the listings on Vue's website. Twilight has 20 showings today while every other film has 3 or 4 at most!

WTF!!???

I take back my earlier post. F**k Twilight! This sh*t has to stop. I suggest we start firebombing the multiplexes starting tonight.

There were also 3 showings in the morning before you checked the site

I'll bring the matches.