Re: Vampires Suck

by Maeve Thu Jul 15, 2010 12:23 am

Divine Virus wrote:A Twilight debate on TCF?

I thought I'd never see the day...

Thursday July 15, 2010 1:23 AM (Iowan time) marks the pentacle of that are debates on the strangest one yet! Razz

by Maeve Thu Jul 15, 2010 12:24 am

Angatar wrote:
Maeve wrote:
I'm just fucking sick of people that when they hear any wisp of Twilight they're all over you like a fucking starving wolf to meat.
WOLF!
THERE'S A WOLF IN TWILIGHT!
OMGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG IT'S BRAINWASHING YOU!

-_-

I said wolf not a fucking werewolf >.>

by tiny tim Thu Jul 15, 2010 12:24 am

This isn't a debate, it's Maeve responding to flames from Ruski. I guess that is what passes for a debate here though.

by **Angatar** Thu Jul 15, 2010 12:25 am

Maeve wrote:
Angatar wrote:
Maeve wrote:
I'm just fucking sick of people that when they hear any wisp of Twilight they're all over you like a fucking starving wolf to meat.
WOLF!
THERE'S A WOLF IN TWILIGHT!
OMGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG IT'S BRAINWASHING YOU!
-_-

I said wolf not a fucking werewolf>.>

YOU DID IT TWICE IN ONE POST! IT'S GETTING WORSE!

by Divine Virus Thu Jul 15, 2010 12:28 am

At this point Tim, it's a debate. It always is.

by Ukurse Thu Jul 15, 2010 6:32 am

I'm not watching "Vampires Suck" specifically because it is made by Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer. I can already see from the trailer that they are reusing jokes, jokes that were not funny the first time. This one will probably be shit and completely unfunny just like all their other movies.
Eg: Disaster Movie, the 24th worst movie ever rated on IMDb, (Was Rated 1.6 after 33,000 votes), 22nd worst movie of all time by Rotten Tomato, worst movie of 2008 by Times Newspaper, with a Metascore of 15/100 based on 12 reviews, and nominated by the Raspberry awards for worst director(s), worst picture, worst screenplay, worst sequel, and 2 worst supporting actresses.

by **Vigil** Thu Jul 15, 2010 6:40 am

Well their movie careers have been on a long spiral downwards since Scary Movie 1.

They have got to the point now I don't think they even have an audiance anymore.

by Ukurse Thu Jul 15, 2010 6:46 am

tiny tim wrote:This isn't a debate, it's Maeve responding to flames from Ruski. I guess that is what passes for a debate here though.

Sometimes I watch this late Night TV debate show, and flaming at one another is all they ever do.
Partially why I watch it.

by **BBJynne** Thu Jul 15, 2010 8:16 am

Of course Vampires suck. It's how they eat. ;)

by **KrAzY** Thu Jul 15, 2010 8:44 am

I hate these movies.... Scary Movie was kinda funny... but now these parody things are midless drivel filled with unfunny pop culture references

just because something is popular, doesn't mean that its automatically funny when its shown out of context... all of these stupid as hell parody movies, and anything by seath macfarlane... they don't seem to understand how to do anything funny...

I am not going to waste my money on this and support these talentless hacks from creating any more of the worst comedy movies ever made...

JUST BECAUSE ITS IN POP CULTURE DOEN'T MEAN ITS FUNNY... LEARN TO WRITE JOKES YOU TALENTLESS HACKS

by **CivBase** Thu Jul 15, 2010 9:04 am

Ruski wrote:Halo is fictional and can be a leisure-type thing. But at the same time, it sticks by established canon.

But w/e. Just liked to correct you on that.

While I don't like Twilight and I'm not entirely convinced that I didn't loose half my brain cells after watching the first one... it isn't wrong. You can't put cannon behind vampires any more than you can behind aliens. They don't all have to be little green guys sporting heads the size of watermelons and carrying laser guns everywhere they go. I respect that Twilight can change the definition of vampire or any other creature within its story so long as that change remains constant throughout the story (just like in Halo). Canon is a definition of rules for a story that are set in stone and, to my knowledge, Twilight does not break its own canon. I don't necessarily think the changes that they've made to vampires are good ones, but they're not wrong.

I think some of you are irreversibly stuck in HWF mode.

by **KrAzY** Thu Jul 15, 2010 9:19 am

actually civ, there is a distinct set of rules for vampires, werewolfs and other established paranormal beings

aliens are a different entity, because no limit is placed on them, they are aliens because they are unknown, so they can be anything

vampires, on the other hand, have an established tradition of what classifies as a vampire....

if you change the canon of a vampire, it is not a vampire any more... so technically speaking twilight doesn't have vampires, it has vampireesque beings...

vampire = historically defined canon
alien = undefined canon

by Ukurse Thu Jul 15, 2010 5:48 pm

KrAzY wrote:I hate these movies.... Scary Movie was kinda funny... but now these parody things are midless drivel filled with unfunny pop culture references

just because something is popular, doesn't mean that its automatically funny when its shown out of context... all of these stupid as hell parody movies, and anything by seath macfarlane... they don't seem to understand how to do anything funny...

I am not going to waste my money on this and support these talentless hacks from creating any more of the worst comedy movies ever made...

JUST BECAUSE ITS IN POP CULTURE DOEN'T MEAN ITS FUNNY... LEARN TO WRITE JOKES YOU TALENTLESS HACKS

Well put.

by Rasq'uire'laskar Thu Jul 15, 2010 6:26 pm

KrAzY wrote:
vampires, on the other hand, have an established tradition of what classifies as a vampire....

if you change the canon of a vampire, it is not a vampire any more... so technically speaking twilight doesn't have vampires, it has vampireesque beings...

You do realize that Bram Stoker altered the "Vamp ire" as much as Stephanie Meyer did, hein? Only difference is the popularity. Dracula was universally (Or as close to universally as a novel can get) acclaimed, and became a trend-setter for later vampires. Stoker is to Vampire literature as Tolkein is to fantasy literature at large.

However, Maeve, I have to disagree with you here, although I'll try to be nicer about it than some of the other guys here.

Stephanie Meyer's biggest problem is her inability to characterize. To my recollection, from discussions with my sister and some friends, she never actually says what Bella looks like. She doesn't spend time characterizing Edward and Jacob, she talks about "How perfect they look" and "How the sun glints off their fair hair in that special way".
I guess that ties in with what Meyer has done with, or as some would say, done to Vampires and Werewolves. Part of the appeal of what they were centers on their strengths and weaknesses. Both are strong as a mother whose only child is trapped beneath a fallen tree, both prey upon humanity with near impunity, both draw upon their savage instincts and arcane knowledge, but they have their flaws. Vampires cannot go out into the day, cannot wear silver, go near garlic, and cannot be in the presence of a cross (Perhaps Islamic vampires cannot go in the presence of the eight-sided star?). Werewolves are mindless, or nearly mindless, and are the victims of their curse.

You can understand, I think, that it doesn't quite sit right with some readers that Stephanie Meyer made Vampires and Werewolves into, practically speaking, perfect soul-mates with no real flaws. It just takes away a lot of the meat that could go into the story.

And Edward's stalker undertones are, well, rather creepy.

There! I went through that without bringing up "Breaking Dawn"! I'm so proud of me!

by Maeve Thu Jul 15, 2010 9:08 pm

Thank you for putting your view in a way that wasn't being mean. I respect that.

Now...to correct you on this statement:

Rasq'uire'laskar wrote:Werewolves are mindless, or nearly mindless, and are the victims of their curse.

The clan are not "werewolves" in the sense of Van Helsing style. They are simply put, "Shape-shifters". They can come and go as a wolf whenever they please with a "werewolf", they can not. A "werewolf" can only change on a full moon like in the third Harry Potter with Professor Lupen (lol, Lupe means "Wolf"...Go figure =P) and with Van Helsing when he changes on the full moon and fights Dracula.

Now KrAzY:

KrAzY wrote:vampire = historically defined canon
alien = undefined canon

We have never seen a vampire. Vampires are as open to interpretation as aliens and werewolves are as well. You don't see vampires stalking in the middle of the night sucking the blood from helpless virgins in order to make them their slaves and whatnot. Vampires are not historically defined. They were only interpenetrated as such by Stoker who made them seem as blood thirsty, man-hunting, crazies that lived in giant castles in Transylvania and had crazy hair-dos that slept in coffins...I think you get my point. Myers had an interpretation of what a vampire was in her mind. So, she gave what her thought about vampires was.

Rasq'uire'laskar wrote:Vampires cannot go out into the day, cannot wear silver, go near garlic, and cannot be in the presence of a cross.

Oh really? Then watch Van Helsing and tell me what you think then. Because it looks like that Dracula is just fine with being in the sun, wearing silver (for the fact he had to kill a werewolf with it if needed), and could tolerate garlic. Now, with the Cullens, they HATE garlic. They don't like it a bit. But...they tolerate it.

by Ruski Thu Jul 15, 2010 9:36 pm

Maeve wrote:Thank you for putting your view in a way that wasn't being mean. I respect that.

Now...to correct you on this statement:
Rasq'uire'laskar wrote:Werewolves are mindless, or nearly mindless, and are the victims of their curse.
The clan are not "werewolves" in the sense of Van Helsing style. They are simply put, "Shape-shifters". They can come and go as a wolf whenever they please with a "werewolf", they can not. A "werewolf" can only change on a full moon like in the third Harry Potter with Professor Lupen (lol, Lupe means "Wolf"...Go figure =P) and with Van Helsing when he changes on the full moon and fights Dracula.

Werewolves, mind you, have their traces back to the medieval times and evidence suggests that they also may have been in Ancient Greek writings. Shape-shifters are one thing. If I remember correctly, they are still refered to as werewolves in the Twilight series, but as you said change at will. As this maybe her interpretation of a werewolf, there is still plenty of historical backing with the moon-changing.

Now KrAzY:
KrAzY wrote:vampire = historically defined canon
alien = undefined canon

We have never seen a vampire. Vampires are as open to interpretation as aliens and werewolves are as well. You don't see vampires stalking in the middle of the night sucking the blood from helpless virgins in order to make them their slaves and whatnot. Vampires are not historically defined. They were only interpenetrated as such by Stoker who made them seem as blood thirsty, man-hunting, crazies that lived in giant castles in Transylvania and had crazy hair-dos that slept in coffins...I think you get my point. Myers had an interpretation of what a vampire was in her mind. So, she gave what her thought about vampires was.

Althought we may not have seen a vampire or for that matter, a werewolf, we can tell as much from historically defined canon, as KrAzY said. Stoker also was not the only person to interperate a vampire. Traditionally, vampires are thirsty for blood and must hunt man for a "feast". One could define them as crazy because of this though. The Transylvania-setting dates back with Vlad the Impaler(also known as Dracula), a very much real person, who lived in Romania and was a very horrible person, fighting in the name of Christianity at first, but later was driven insane. He also performed horrible methods of execution. The reason his name was chosen by Stoker, was because legends of vampires in that region were strong and being the horrible person Dracula was, it fit with lore for the most part.

Rasq'uire'laskar wrote:Vampires cannot go out into the day, cannot wear silver, go near garlic, and cannot be in the presence of a cross.
Oh really? Then watch Van Helsing and tell me what you think then. Because it looks like that Dracula is just fine with being in the sun, wearing silver (for the fact he had to kill a werewolf with it if needed), and could tolerate garlic. Now, with the Cullens, they HATE garlic. They don't like it a bit. But...they tolerate it.

Also, just because others interperate a certian way, doesn't always mean it agrees with a canon. I am not saying I support these over Twilight, I am just simply stating that intereptations do not always agree with the "canon". With is bothersome at times I must admit, but I really don't want to start a fight like yesterday Maeve. I just wanted to point out this time around a few things you said with miminal damage down, if any. No hard feelings?

by Maeve Thu Jul 15, 2010 9:52 pm

Ruski wrote:
Maeve wrote:Thank you for putting your view in a way that wasn't being mean. I respect that.

Now...to correct you on this statement:
Rasq'uire'laskar wrote:Werewolves are mindless, or nearly mindless, and are the victims of their curse.
The clan are not "werewolves" in the sense of Van Helsing style. They are simply put, "Shape-shifters". They can come and go as a wolf whenever they please with a "werewolf", they can not. A "werewolf" can only change on a full moon like in the third Harry Potter with Professor Lupen (lol, Lupe means "Wolf"...Go figure =P) and with Van Helsing when he changes on the full moon and fights Dracula.

Werewolves, mind you, have their traces back to the medieval times and evidence suggests that they also may have been in Ancient Greek writings. Shape-shifters are one thing. If I remember correctly, they are still refered to as werewolves in the Twilight series, but as you said change at will. As this maybe her interpretation of a werewolf, there is still plenty of historical backing with the moon-changing.

Now KrAzY:
KrAzY wrote:vampire = historically defined canon
alien = undefined canon

We have never seen a vampire. Vampires are as open to interpretation as aliens and werewolves are as well. You don't see vampires stalking in the middle of the night sucking the blood from helpless virgins in order to make them their slaves and whatnot. Vampires are not historically defined. They were only interpenetrated as such by Stoker who made them seem as blood thirsty, man-hunting, crazies that lived in giant castles in Transylvania and had crazy hair-dos that slept in coffins...I think you get my point. Myers had an interpretation of what a vampire was in her mind. So, she gave what her thought about vampires was.

Althought we may not have seen a vampire or for that matter, a werewolf, we can tell as much from historically defined canon, as KrAzY said. Stoker also was not the only person to interperate a vampire. Traditionally, vampires are thirsty for blood and must hunt man for a "feast". One could define them as crazy because of this though. The Transylvania-setting dates back with Vlad the Impaler(also known as Dracula), a very much real person, who lived in Romania and was a very horrible person, fighting in the name of Christianity at first, but later was driven insane. He also performed horrible methods of execution. The reason his name was chosen by Stoker, was because legends of vampires in that region were strong and being the horrible person Dracula was, it fit with lore for the most part.

Rasq'uire'laskar wrote:Vampires cannot go out into the day, cannot wear silver, go near garlic, and cannot be in the presence of a cross.
Oh really? Then watch Van Helsing and tell me what you think then. Because it looks like that Dracula is just fine with being in the sun, wearing silver (for the fact he had to kill a werewolf with it if needed), and could tolerate garlic. Now, with the Cullens, they HATE garlic. They don't like it a bit. But...they tolerate it.

Also, just because others interperate a certian way, doesn't always mean it agrees with a canon. I am not saying I support these over Twilight, I am just simply stating that intereptations do not always agree with the "canon". With is bothersome at times I must admit, but I really don't want to start a fight like yesterday Maeve. I just wanted to point out this time around a few things you said with miminal damage down, if any. No hard feelings?

Of course no hard feelings. Smile

I may act like a bitch but I'm not one all the time =P

I know this may sound dumb but can someone explain to me what a "canon" is really? I guess I don't quite understand that word and that's probably why I'm getting really frustrated.

by Ringleader Thu Jul 15, 2010 9:59 pm

Well, movies and TV had originally shaped these creatures into what we now recognize as a werewolf or vampire, but at least they were shaped in the right direction. The thing with Vampires is that they had some kind of vulnerability that could be exploited and the same went for werewolves, but not anymore now that they're the good guys. It's sort of a giant middle finger to the decades of development of these film instruments.

by Ruski Thu Jul 15, 2010 10:01 pm

Canon is a word for like............established lore.

by Rasq'uire'laskar Thu Jul 15, 2010 10:07 pm

Maeve wrote:
The clan are not "werewolves" in the sense of Van Helsing style. They are simply put, "Shape-shifters". They can come and go as a wolf whenever they please with a "werewolf",

So, are there any alt-forms, or are they limited to wolves?
Admittedly, the ORIGINAL werewolf wasn't limited to wolves, but I may be confusing that with the Eastern European version of the Skin-walker.
And even in contemporary fiction, the 'transform only on the full moon' has been abandoned in favor of more freedom, as the werewolf is less often used as a terror and more often as a character. I should have realized this, but I'm somewhat reluctant to admit it because... because werewolves, vampires, elves, faekind, etc, are more often being portrayed as 'noble savages' who live without the petty bitterness and Evil Bad Technology that is the hallmark of Mankind. As an author, I can't help but feel that's an escapist fantasy, and as a cynic (I prefer realist, but w/e) I dislike that trope because it's far too idealistic.

That's not the problem that Twilight is suffering from, though.

Maeve wrote:they can not. A "werewolf" can only change on a full moon like in the third Harry Potter with Professor Lupen (lol, Lupe means "Wolf"...Go figure =P)

That's Rowling's signature style. Sirius Black (Why so Sirius?), Mundungus Fletcher, Professor Umbridge...

Maeve wrote:
Rasq'uire'laskar wrote:Vampires cannot go out into the day, cannot wear silver, go near garlic, and cannot be in the presence of a cross.
Oh really? Then watch Van Helsing and tell me what you think then. Because it looks like that Dracula is just fine with being in the sun, wearing silver (for the fact he had to kill a werewolf with it if needed), and could tolerate garlic. Now, with the Cullens, they HATE garlic. They don't like it a bit. But...they tolerate it.

True, but you can understand our discomfort that such a creature could be turned into an... idealized mate, right?

by Maeve Thu Jul 15, 2010 10:22 pm

Rasq'uire'laskar wrote:
Maeve wrote:
The clan are not "werewolves" in the sense of Van Helsing style. They are simply put, "Shape-shifters". They can come and go as a wolf whenever they please with a "werewolf",
So, are there any alt-forms, or are they limited to wolves?
Admittedly, the ORIGINAL werewolf wasn't limited to wolves, but I may be confusing that with the Eastern European version of the Skin-walker.
And even in contemporary fiction, the 'transform only on the full moon' has been abandoned in favor of more freedom, as the werewolf is less often used as a terror and more often as a character. I should have realized this, but I'm somewhat reluctant to admit it because... because werewolves, vampires, elves, faekind, etc, are more often being portrayed as 'noble savages' who live without the petty bitterness and Evil Bad Technology that is the hallmark of Mankind. As an author, I can't help but feel that's an escapist fantasy, and as a cynic (I prefer realist, but w/e) I dislike that trope because it's far too idealistic.

That's not the problem that Twilight is suffering from, though.

Maeve wrote:they can not. A "werewolf" can only change on a full moon like in the third Harry Potter with Professor Lupen (lol, Lupe means "Wolf"...Go figure =P)
That's Rowling's signature style. Sirius Black (Why so Sirius?), Mundungus Fletcher, Professor Umbridge...

Maeve wrote:
Rasq'uire'laskar wrote:Vampires cannot go out into the day, cannot wear silver, go near garlic, and cannot be in the presence of a cross.
Oh really? Then watch Van Helsing and tell me what you think then. Because it looks like that Dracula is just fine with being in the sun, wearing silver (for the fact he had to kill a werewolf with it if needed), and could tolerate garlic. Now, with the Cullens, they HATE garlic. They don't like it a bit. But...they tolerate it.
True, but you can understand our discomfort that such a creature could be turned into an... idealized mate, right?

They are just limited to wolves. In fact, Jacob explains that his family (tribe) descended from wolves so you can see why they can ONLY be wolves.

That is really creepy even to me but I do believe there is a person out there for everyone in this world, and even before Twilight I believed it, so I guess if you want your lover to be a blood sucking crazy then be my guest. I do find it as weird as the sparkly business.

by Toaster Thu Jul 15, 2010 10:25 pm

Also, Stephanie Meyer is a Mormon.

-.-

by Maeve Thu Jul 15, 2010 10:26 pm

ReconToaster wrote:Also, Stephanie Meyer is a Mormon.

-.-

I did not know that lol

by Toaster Thu Jul 15, 2010 10:27 pm

Maeve wrote:
ReconToaster wrote:Also, Stephanie Meyer is a Mormon.

-.-
I did not know that lol

Your mind is changed now, no?

by **Lord Pheonix** Thu Jul 15, 2010 10:37 pm

Both Vampires and Werewolves have been pre-defined in most Major aspects for hundreds if not thousands of years(at least until the middle ages I know for a fact)

Something that has been told for hundreds of years is Set as what it is, now changing small things like if the Vampires hate garlic, or if they can't walk/cross over water is one thing as they are minor details that aren't set in stone. But Sun Light killing them and Stake through the Heart are things KNOWN WITHOUT A DOUBT for hundreds of years and then just spit upon in this movie.

The Werewolves in this series I do not really have a problem with as for all intents and purposes they are pretty close to what a Werewolf is. They turn into a wolf thing: check. The Full moon thing is skipped on I believe, but that functions as a core to the story as him being a Werewolf that changes once or twice a month kinda fucks with the story progression when needing to defend ol'what the fucks her face.

by Sponsored content