So the Twilight movie...
Oct. 27th, 2012 08:24 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkatSo, I'm watching the film Twilight based on the Stephanie Meyer's Books of the same name...to figure out the appeal? (courtesy of F/X).
It's an odd film. Has a sort of home-made video quality to it. The dialogue also has that home-made low-rent indie flick feel to it. There's lots of pauses between words. Simple words are used. And it is in a style that is reminiscent of Bram Stoker's Dracula actually.
In some respects it reminds me of that style. No humor though. Not that Stoker's Dracula has any either. Which is a definite problem, because it makes the tone somewhat omnious, I keep expecting Jason Vorhees to pop out with a meat cleaver.
Also the acting is too awkward. Sort of like an amateur film or high school production, where people are trying too hard? (Makes me miss the actors in The Lost Boys who were a lot better...) The best actor so far is Billy Burke as the Dad. Everyone else looks like they are reading their lines off of teleprompters.
I was going to say I don't understand the appeal, but I actually do. It's the fantasy of having a guy who wants you - who is just a little bit dangerous, but willing to give up everything for you, do anything to be with you. The heady feeling of romantic love.
It's a bit like heroine - an endorphin rush. And the character of Bella - is a cypher, she can be anyone, so the female fan can just fall inside the character in their head. The appeal is the same as well Spuffy or Bangle or any other series..such as Vamp Diaries.
Most people watching this won't see the indoctrination or the creepy family bits. Just the romance between a clutzy girl, who can't dance, and this dangerous boy who can do anything.
And the appeal is in some respects similar to X-Men and The Avengers. I'm not sure the movie is any worse or better than those. Well, the dialogue, acting and special effects are actually better in the Avengers. The Avengers didn't feel like a home movie. I like Vamp Diaries and True Blood a lot better, not to mention the Lost Boys, which while far too campy in places at least had a sense of humor. This takes itself too seriously.
The flick Buffy the Vampire Slayer that was made in the 1990s, prior to the tv series of the same name, was a lot better and far more entertaining - which I guess says a lot right there.
I wonder if the reason these books took off like gangbusters, as did the films, is like Harry Potter, they addressed a need. Not unlike the Frankie and Annette Beach flicks in the 1950s or those old Sandre Dee movies. Or the far better written and directed John Hughes films of the 1980s - that starred Molly Ringwald and other denizens of the Brat Pack (who are all in their 40s now). I haven't seen any teen films that come close to the ones made in the 1980s - the 1980s and early 1990s were the height of the teen film genre.
21st Century reminds me a bit too much of either the 1950s or the 1970s take on the genre.
At any rate, people, mainly the female audience, crave a story about a girl surrounded by men, who has power through their desire for her and desire to protect her. I don't know.
It's hard to explain. But I think I understand the appeal and the appeal is on a subconscious or unconscious level. That's what people don't understand - often the things that appeal to us the most are things that hit a chord, emotional, and aren't rational or make sense. That's why it is so hard to figure out what will sell and what won't. Things that you can't explain rationally, that appeal on an emotional level...can't be discussed or understood by those who don't feel the same. It's the problem with politics and religion too - I think - both are emotionally charged topics. And fandom...if you LOVE Joss Whedon - if his stories speak to you on a visceral emotional level, for example, you can't deal with criticism of them - because it is like someone is criticizing you.
If you found something in his stories that turns you off, that you despise or hate on that same visceral emotional level - you also can't rationally discuss it at least not without cutting into those who love it. Twilight is not any different. Nor is Doctor Who. Or Star Trek. And I think in depressed times, when you crave chocolate or a drink to take away the stress - these things have even more power. They provide a way to escape the daily worries of things like hurricanes and bad economies. Human beings need that I think. We give each other that means of escape, no matter how brief.
So just because the Twilight series isn't my cup of coco or my drug of choice...I sort of get why it might be someone else's. And you sort of have to respect that? Right? Otherwise how do you expect people to respect yours?
Don't know. Just trying to understand why people love this incredibly silly and poorly acted movie. It's not even hilariously bad. Just...sort of lamely bad. Cheesy dialogue.
Cheesy plot. And cliche. Feels like a bad parody of a low-rent indie horror film. Not funny. Just sort of melodramatic and silly.
Guess it's just one of those Your Mileage Varies things. Sort of like why people like Mitt Romney and brussle sprouts (yes, I've had them roasted, still hate them), and Call Me Maybe (which is a song that grates on my nerves like nails on chalkboard).
Rating? F
It's an odd film. Has a sort of home-made video quality to it. The dialogue also has that home-made low-rent indie flick feel to it. There's lots of pauses between words. Simple words are used. And it is in a style that is reminiscent of Bram Stoker's Dracula actually.
In some respects it reminds me of that style. No humor though. Not that Stoker's Dracula has any either. Which is a definite problem, because it makes the tone somewhat omnious, I keep expecting Jason Vorhees to pop out with a meat cleaver.
Also the acting is too awkward. Sort of like an amateur film or high school production, where people are trying too hard? (Makes me miss the actors in The Lost Boys who were a lot better...) The best actor so far is Billy Burke as the Dad. Everyone else looks like they are reading their lines off of teleprompters.
I was going to say I don't understand the appeal, but I actually do. It's the fantasy of having a guy who wants you - who is just a little bit dangerous, but willing to give up everything for you, do anything to be with you. The heady feeling of romantic love.
It's a bit like heroine - an endorphin rush. And the character of Bella - is a cypher, she can be anyone, so the female fan can just fall inside the character in their head. The appeal is the same as well Spuffy or Bangle or any other series..such as Vamp Diaries.
Most people watching this won't see the indoctrination or the creepy family bits. Just the romance between a clutzy girl, who can't dance, and this dangerous boy who can do anything.
And the appeal is in some respects similar to X-Men and The Avengers. I'm not sure the movie is any worse or better than those. Well, the dialogue, acting and special effects are actually better in the Avengers. The Avengers didn't feel like a home movie. I like Vamp Diaries and True Blood a lot better, not to mention the Lost Boys, which while far too campy in places at least had a sense of humor. This takes itself too seriously.
The flick Buffy the Vampire Slayer that was made in the 1990s, prior to the tv series of the same name, was a lot better and far more entertaining - which I guess says a lot right there.
I wonder if the reason these books took off like gangbusters, as did the films, is like Harry Potter, they addressed a need. Not unlike the Frankie and Annette Beach flicks in the 1950s or those old Sandre Dee movies. Or the far better written and directed John Hughes films of the 1980s - that starred Molly Ringwald and other denizens of the Brat Pack (who are all in their 40s now). I haven't seen any teen films that come close to the ones made in the 1980s - the 1980s and early 1990s were the height of the teen film genre.
21st Century reminds me a bit too much of either the 1950s or the 1970s take on the genre.
At any rate, people, mainly the female audience, crave a story about a girl surrounded by men, who has power through their desire for her and desire to protect her. I don't know.
It's hard to explain. But I think I understand the appeal and the appeal is on a subconscious or unconscious level. That's what people don't understand - often the things that appeal to us the most are things that hit a chord, emotional, and aren't rational or make sense. That's why it is so hard to figure out what will sell and what won't. Things that you can't explain rationally, that appeal on an emotional level...can't be discussed or understood by those who don't feel the same. It's the problem with politics and religion too - I think - both are emotionally charged topics. And fandom...if you LOVE Joss Whedon - if his stories speak to you on a visceral emotional level, for example, you can't deal with criticism of them - because it is like someone is criticizing you.
If you found something in his stories that turns you off, that you despise or hate on that same visceral emotional level - you also can't rationally discuss it at least not without cutting into those who love it. Twilight is not any different. Nor is Doctor Who. Or Star Trek. And I think in depressed times, when you crave chocolate or a drink to take away the stress - these things have even more power. They provide a way to escape the daily worries of things like hurricanes and bad economies. Human beings need that I think. We give each other that means of escape, no matter how brief.
So just because the Twilight series isn't my cup of coco or my drug of choice...I sort of get why it might be someone else's. And you sort of have to respect that? Right? Otherwise how do you expect people to respect yours?
Don't know. Just trying to understand why people love this incredibly silly and poorly acted movie. It's not even hilariously bad. Just...sort of lamely bad. Cheesy dialogue.
Cheesy plot. And cliche. Feels like a bad parody of a low-rent indie horror film. Not funny. Just sort of melodramatic and silly.
Guess it's just one of those Your Mileage Varies things. Sort of like why people like Mitt Romney and brussle sprouts (yes, I've had them roasted, still hate them), and Call Me Maybe (which is a song that grates on my nerves like nails on chalkboard).
Rating? F
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2012-10-28 12:45 am (UTC)a) every single actor, but especially Kristen Stewart, is very very very stoned, or
b) the director rebelled at having to make a 2 1/2 hour movie out of 45 minutes of story, and simply had everyone act at half speed.
no subject
Date: 2012-10-28 02:06 am (UTC)LOL! So true. It's actually true of New Moon too - I'm trying watch it now and the acting is exactly the same. They all seem very very stoned.
Although there's no blue light this round.
the director rebelled at having to make a 2 1/2 hour movie out of 45 minutes of story, and simply had everyone act at half speed.
As good an explanation as any.
So how do we explain the audience? Were/Are they stoned too? (I just gave up on New Moon - the half-speed acting and excruciatingly slow dialogue is driving me crazy. Can we all talk any slower? People don't talk that slow.)
And you are right about the story - they could have combined some of the books into one movie. There's not much there.
no subject
Date: 2012-10-28 12:59 am (UTC)Young women/girls who are not satisfied with today's offer of young and date-able men/boys.
In a way, the story doesn't change the (patriarchal) dynamics between the genders - but exchanges the male part of the equation with a more thrilling version who is actually interested in the woman-in-question.
Which is a fair demand, i think. Just, the patriarchal gender roles are actually the root of the problem.
no subject
Date: 2012-10-28 02:20 am (UTC)I could be misreading it. I admittedly know very little about the Mormon faith and have not read the Twilight books (I couldn't make it past the first 50 pages) and only seen the Twilight film.
The insanely popular 50 Shades of Grey, which started life as a Twilight fanfic, feels like a witty satire of many of the tropes in Twilight, it pokes gentle fun at them. In much the same way oddly that some Buffy fanfic did at the ships and pairings. So, I think many woman are aware of the absurdity of these ingrained roles - where they are given less power based on anatomical differences - and are challenging that in these...over-the-top BDSM romance novels? Or maybe I'm just reading far too much into it? I don't know.
no subject
Date: 2012-10-28 11:11 am (UTC)Only when the sparkling started, I knew all was lost.
I never made it through the movies, though without her narrative they are bound to be at least a bit less annoying.
no subject
Date: 2012-10-28 05:54 pm (UTC)Bella has got to be the most passive character on the planet. She barely speaks. Or has any expression. And looks really stoned.
I do not understand the appeal of these books at all. Or the films or the leads...for that matter. Bewildering.