I keep forgetting how well-written our beloved transformers characters are...oh, wait, nevermind. Seriously guys, this is someone else's thing like transformers is ours. You can laugh at and nitpick any story especially if you don't read it. And since when were vampire rules written in stone. Before they were just interpreted as zombies until writers and the like took them into new directions. As others have pointed out, it may be poorly written but it's for little pre-teens. The characters may be one-dimensional, but a lot of that can be said of many popular books, shows, and movies and they do not have threads outpouring dislike at them. Transformers is full of them. The story isn't even half bad. I would be agreeing with the rest of you if my friend's girlfriend hadn't dragged me to go see it. It's just a rehashed coming of age story with puberty, lust, the loss of innocence, etc... Just like Transformers was the rehashed story of a boy and his dog/car. Although Twilight has enough metaphors, myths, allegories that I could write a college paper on it. The arguments here lost to me. I see posts that seem to imply the author is writing about herself in some type of self-fulfilling fantasy of her youth. This seems a weird argument coming for a forum based around a toy franchise. It is a pretty unfair assumption. The other argument is the chemistry between the characters-there is none. Sure, I'll agree. But I'll say the say of Romeo and Juliet and no one gives Shakespeare grief. The story is about high school. How many kids find true romance in high school? For those who have endured my post this far thank you. I just fail to see where all this negativity is going from.
I´d put some Hollywood Vamps abouve Twilight in terms of strengh. Angel and Blade for example. One fell out of a very tall building and had no damage and once was able to grab a crossblow arrow that was fired at him from behind fro example.
I hate the book and the movie since day one and try having a sister who talks about it daily. Not fun.
Really....lets examine your "so called rules" to vampires. I'll admit thats a new one. Has been done with other vampires...most recently in Queen of the Damned. Fright Night had a vampire like this Buffy,Angel,Blade...I can go on and on Angel and Buffy both had examples of this as well as other Vampire films Thats a given. So far you only you only listed 1 new "rule" Again a given Not always and definitely not in the most famous of the Vampire stories Bram's Stoker's Dracula Again not always. The Buffy/Angel universe only had 1 vampire that could turn into any animal and it turns out it was their version of Dracula. None of the vampires in the underworld serries [at least the films] were capable of doing that [except the first vampire in the line] None in the Blade serries either....again I could go on and on Nonsense 85% of the time vampires are dipicted as being stronger then normal humans. Again not always. There have been vampires that were quite comical,fat and lazy,and some quite stupid Example can be found in Blade,True Blood,Fright Night,Underworld,Buffy/Angel Again I can keep going......... Again not always The Lost Boys for example Again not always as I sighted above the most well known vampire story had its vampires having no issues with sunlight or any light for that matter Shall I say it again????? Maybe you need to broaden your Vampire viewing and reading Or try to do some research on the topic because you one listed 1 universal rule for vampires and that was to suck blood. And truth be told there are vampires that dont even do that. So where are your "so called rules" to vampires???? Because so far you have failed to provide any.
You don't want to get into the Whedon vampires with me. I can accept undead things being stronger/faster than a baseline human. Or more durable, they are dead things animated by a supernatural force after all. But the bullshit way he used stakes really irked (and still irkes) me. The myths about staking a vampries aren't for killing it, just stopping it. You staked a vampire to nail it to the ground so it couldn't move from it's grave (and the heart wasn't nessiary, the groin or stomach were perfectly valid too). Whedon turned that into you poke a vampire with a stick near their heart and they disintegrates.
Just so's we're clear, you do understand that internet comment death threats (which, incidentally, you can't reference) are so far removed from "people are getting bruttaly beaten" and "people are getting attacked because of a BOOK," as to be completely incomparable, don't you? I have, and I can't believe I'm admitting this aloud, actually read the first book in the series. It's tripe, yeah. But I imagine it's entertaining enough for the intended demographic, and while some of your criticisms are spot on ("[t]he main character is nothing short of a blank slate, devoid of any depth or flaws, aside from her clumsiness"), others are...well, it doesn't seem like you've read the book. I don't recall any outright abuse, beyond the psychological games and foolishness I'd expect from any teenage 'romance,' nor do I remember any hint of suicidal ideation, much less gestures or attempts, by the erstwhile protagonist. Finally, kudos to you for having read "The Taming of the Shrew," which I'm aware you did because of your clumsy offhand mention of having done so. Regardless, noting the chauvinism in a Shakespearean play in order to criticize a modern novel is ridiculous. Y'know, on account of the fact that Bill wrote that particular piece hundreds of years ago, when society's attitude towards gender roles was as different from contemporary views as, say, internet comment death threats and actual assaults.
I do believe the killing a vampire with a stake method existed before Whedon's vampires. But right now I cant remember where I saw it before then.
Yeah, traditionally a vampire hunter has to cut off the head after staking. But when you're doing a television show, the line has to be drawn somewhere and cutting human heads off is pretty much it. People need to remember that is entertainment, not gospel and that the mediums (tv, film, radio, literature) have to be taken into account when judging a certain interpretation.
Bram Stroker was the first. "Killing" a vampire involved stuffing wolfsbane into their mouth while they are in the coffin, dismembering them , and then pinning them down into the coffin with a wooden stake. Or at least thats the story in the comic I read based on bram stroker's novel.
First: yeah, vampire lore is kinda flexible. My understanding goes roughly like this: they're strong, immortal (unless slain), and drink blood. They're allergic to garlic, religious symbols, sunlight, fire, and silver. They can be slain with religious stuff, silver, a wooden stake (I've heard of oak, ash, and aspen in some cases), or decapitation. Only über-vampires like Dracula possess abilities like flight or transfiguration. Second: I'm reading Twilight right now. I'm taking a class in Resources for Young Adults (I'm a grad student working on getting a Masters in Library and Information Science - I wouldn't be reading it otherwise.) Yes, Bella is a Mary Sue. A lot of the book is predictable. However, the author does write well otherwise - it's oddly very engrossing despite the failings. I haven't quite put my finger on why just yet...I'm working on it. Right now my theory is that it's because she writes dialogue pretty well. (One of my favorite authors, Robert B. Parker, isn't so hot with dialogue, IMO.) She must be doing something right, because if I really hate a book I usually can't make myself read it.
Thank you. Dark Shadows had to be one of the ones I was thinking of because I remembered the poor film qt. Even the things you just listed differ from one vamp lore to the next. They're "NOT" all allergic to garlic, religious symbols, sunlight, or fire and silver was more of a Werewolf thing but was adopted in the 70's I believe into the list of Vampire weaknesses. Even drinking blood is not a universal aspect of vampires nor is having an aversion to religious paraphernalia.