Maybe if that fan was heavily wasted at the time to enjoy Twilight. I have no experience with watching it, as I ain't interested.
BUFFY Fans: Can a Buffy fan watch Twilight?
- Thread starter ReadyAndWilling
- Start date
Can a Buffy fan watch Twilight? Sure, but why would they want to?
ReadyAndWilling
Fleet Captain
Pattinson is certainly a more appealing and talented actor to play the male lead than, oh, David Boreanaz (who isn't?). That said, I prefer James Marsters.
you think so? i dunno, i always thought boreanaz was great. good looking and can act decently.
I don't mean that as an attack on the Buffy character - but she certainly wasn't thinking with her head when it came to Spike.Buffy would "Arm wrestle Spike for Top" and win everytime, then she'd throw him down and have her way with him, often degrading him in return. Compare this to Bella who spreads her Carotid at the slightest compliment
And I haven't seen all of any of the the Twilight films, but have seen plenty of reviews. So I believe you about the Bella character. From what I have heard, she behaves like a sociopath in the later films.
My favorite Twilight review!
I don't mean that as an attack on the Buffy character - but she certainly wasn't thinking with her head when it came to Spike.Buffy would "Arm wrestle Spike for Top" and win everytime, then she'd throw him down and have her way with him, often degrading him in return. Compare this to Bella who spreads her Carotid at the slightest compliment
And I haven't seen all of any of the the Twilight films, but have seen plenty of reviews. So I believe you about the Bella character. From what I have heard, she behaves like a sociopath in the later films.
My favorite Twilight review!
Sure, Buffy often thought with her libido or her emotions, but, I would never call her weak
Heh, and while I enjoy the Vampire Diaries TV Series, the Lead Elena is only barely more tolerable than Bella in Twilight, however, at least the actress plays a second character periodically that I really enjoy.
My biggest problem with THE VAMPIRE DIARIES is that Elena is so willing to be culpable to so many horrible crimes. "Oh, Damon ate live babies in front of their mothers? It's okay...he feels really bad about it. Let's give him a second...errr...tenth chance."
I'm not really sure this is an accurate or entirely relevant question to be asking (I'll get to why in a second), but, at least in my case, the answer is 'yes, a Buffy fan can read/watch and enjoy the Twilight series'.
Now, back to what I said about being unsure whether or not this is an accurate or entirely relevant question to be asking: Twilight and Buffy really have very little in common other than that they both feature vampires and women protagonists. Buffy is primarily an action-adventure series that also deals with very prevalent feminist issues (due to Joss Whedon being an admitted supporter of said issues), whereas Twilight is a very idealized (some might argue TOO idealized) fantasy romance meant to echo, reflect, and utilize all of the trappings of the traditional romance genre. It's not particularly exceptionally-written, but is fairly enjoyable for what it is.
Now, back to what I said about being unsure whether or not this is an accurate or entirely relevant question to be asking: Twilight and Buffy really have very little in common other than that they both feature vampires and women protagonists. Buffy is primarily an action-adventure series that also deals with very prevalent feminist issues (due to Joss Whedon being an admitted supporter of said issues), whereas Twilight is a very idealized (some might argue TOO idealized) fantasy romance meant to echo, reflect, and utilize all of the trappings of the traditional romance genre. It's not particularly exceptionally-written, but is fairly enjoyable for what it is.
Pattinson is certainly a more appealing and talented actor to play the male lead than, oh, David Boreanaz (who isn't?). That said, I prefer James Marsters.
you think so? i dunno, i always thought boreanaz was great. good looking and can act decently.
He's a decent actor, but when half of his screentime is spent side-by-side with Alexis Denisof he can come off pretty bad in comparison. I think Angel is the only character in the Buffyverse where I could imagine someone else in the role.
Next to Alec Guinness Mark Hamill looked pretty bad. I wouldn't want anybody else to play Luke Skywalker though.
The main characters in the OT have become so iconic that it is impossible to see them played by any other actors.
What's wrong with being teen-angsty? Angst is an inevitable part of adolescence, I wouldn't believe a movie/show about teenagers without angst.
Season 6, Spike.
Maybe not as weak as Bella, but she was always teen-angsty, with entire episodes revolving around her and Angel's romance.
Twilight doesn't have teen angst. More like, teen boredom. I admit I never actually sat down and watched the whole movie from start to finish, but from what I've seen, it is incredibly boring and barely anything ever happens, Bella and Edward are both totally bland and dull characters, and Bella is a total Mary Sue: the moment she appears at her new school, everyone is mad about her, girls are desperate to be her friends and boys are all crushing on her, despite her being lifeless and dull and not even especially attractive (though that's a matter of taste) and generally not standing out in any way. Yeah, like that normally happens. Total wish fulfillment.
By contrast, when we meet Buffy, she was confident, witty, smart, warm, bubbly and full of energy, not to mention hot, and it is far more believable why Xander would fall for her immediately and why Cordelia would at first want to be friends with her - but that doesn't help her not become incredibly unpopular as soon as she does something 'freaky' (i.e. slay vampires) and Cordelia spreads the rumors about her being a crazy freak. It wouldn't say that Buffy was 100% realistic in its depiction of high school life (it wasn't even trying to not have everyone in high school look attractive and in their 20s and witty), but most of the time it was very true to high school experience and its less pleasant sides - like bullying, being an outcast, kids being pushed too much and abused by their ambitious parents or coaches, etc.
I can see why one would compare Bella/Edward to Buffy/Angel - because the former at moments seems like a parody of the latter, like early Bangel misunderstood and devoid of any sense or depth or poignancy or ambiguity: a teenage girl falls in love with a mystery guy who turns out to be a vampire; he acts stalkery, he says he likes to watch her sleep (Angel says he likes watching Buffy sleep in season 1 'Angel' when they happen to spent a platonic night together); Bella says she isn't bothered by him being a monster, while Buffy was trying to convince Angel in mid-season 2 that she wasn't bothered by him being a vampire. But that was after Buffy had known Angel for several months and after he had proven himself to be a good guy and helped her and her friends several times, she wasn't saying it to a guy she had met mere hours before. When Buffy first met Angel, she was first quite annoyed by him, because he would appear out of nowhere to warn her of some danger and then disappear, and she was snarky and hostile. And if Angel had told her that he had been watching her sleep for months before she even knew him, I imagine she would have been freaked out. She actually does call him a stalker once, even if it was in her 'bitchy' PTSD phase. Bottom line, Buffy may have acted like a swoony teenage girl at times, but she was never a complete idiot or weak like Bella. Her falling for Angel was far more convincing, as was Angel falling for her. Buffy is not just a girl with 100 more strength and personality than Bella, she's also the Slayer, which makes her extraordinary in any case, and we later learn that Whistler showed her to Angel and told him to help her, which all explains his obsession with her. Edward, on the other hand, is obsessing over Bella just because. And while there were schmaltzy aspects to B/A (which, however, were only taken to silly levels by shippers and media like Entertainment Weekly that started calling B/A "soulmates", "one true love", "forever love" etc. that the shows never did, except in a satirical way), there was also a lot of subversion (there are lots of times when Angel could be seen as a romantic hero or a creepy older guy stalking a teenage girl, and after he loses his soul in S2, many of his earlier actions like watching Buffy sleep or following her around are seen in a much darker way) which must have gone over the heads of people like Stephenie Meyer. The whole Bella/Edward romance happens out of the blue and is completely unbelievable, the two of them don't even know each other, but we're supposed to think that they love each other just because.
Buffy is vulnerable and can be affected by her emotions, especially when it comes to romance/sex, but that's not the same as being weak. She wouldn't be an interesting character if she didn't have believable human weaknesses and if she didn't struggle between duty and her feelings, but every time she displays a weakness (being scared of dying at the hands of the Master, wanting to be more traditionally 'feminine' in order to be more attractive to Angel in Halloween, not being able to kill Angelus in Innocence, falling for a manipulative jerk like Parker, Dracula's thrall, her depression, getting involved with Spike despite her better judgment...) the outcome of the storyline is her overcoming it and taking the power back. She certainly wasn't anything like Bella with Spike; if she had been like Bella, she would have been more than happy to continue their relationship and would have been cooing about what a wonderful guy he was and how she didn't mind him being an unrepentant mass murderer. Buffy is never like that, unless there are magical influences involved in addition to despair and being in a bad emotional place. *cough season 8 cough* And when Buffy does have her weak and stupid moments, it is unambigiously shown to be a very bad thing - season 8 was described as Buffy betraying herself.
Bella doesn't have any strengths that would make her vulnerability interesting. And her behavior doesn't even make sense, she barely seems human. I wouldn't mind it that much that she was weak if the narrative portrayed it as a bad thing, if it was supposed to be a warning how women can let themselves be victimized because of romantic cliches that the society has taught them. Maybe if Bella was portrayed as a girl who was a lonely outcast and deeply insecure about herself, someone who thought nobody could find her attractive (like season 1 Willow), and maybe if her father paid no attention to her, if she was a girl desperate for someone to pay attention to her, then it would be a lot more believable why she could find Edward's stalking attractive. But as it is, everyone in the school is swooning over her and she doesn't even care. So why is she like that with Edward? And what's the worst is that it seems we're supposed to believe that Bella and Edward are twu wuv and find all this incredibly romantic, rather than really creepy.
And of course, there's the fact that the movie itself, as far as I was able to bear watching it, is incredibly boring, with barely any plot, not to mention the lack of any good dialogue, humor or wit. Compare it to any BtVS episode and the difference is startling.
I prefer James Marsters to David Boreanaz, too, but I certainly prefer DB to Robert Pattinson (or at least to Pattinson playing Edward; I don't know what he's like in other roles). Yes, DB was quite wooden in season 1 and part of season 2 of BtVS, but he got much better later on, especially on his own show.The first movie had an interesting directorial tone to it, so it's a memorable film. As soon as it was a big success the studio dumped the director. I have no idea what the later movies are like.
Pattinson is certainly a more appealing and talented actor to play the male lead than, oh, David Boreanaz (who isn't?). That said, I prefer James Marsters.
Pattinson is certainly a more appealing and talented actor to play the male lead than, oh, David Boreanaz (who isn't?). That said, I prefer James Marsters.
I was never terribly impressed with Boreanaz's acting when playing Angel. He just doesn't do angsty, guilt-ridden, layered characters well at all. Probably due to the fact that he's actually a pretty funny and charming guy in real life. It felt like he was cast for one reason - his looks, or at the very least his hair.
Thanks for the lengthy response and analysis!
However, my original point was that there is no reason why Buffy fans of a certain sort couldn't enjoy Twilight since they do deal with many of the same themes, namely teenage angst and love. I agree that Twilight pales in comparison to how well Buffy deals with these issues, but many people don't care.
This is quite apparent when you look at what a huge worldwide phenomenon Twilight has become. Sadly, even at the height of it's popularity, Buffy didn't get nearly as much attention.
This is what bothers some people more than anything else, that Twilight is so popular.
It is what kinda bothers me, I understand that people have different likes and dislikes but it is somewhat disheartening to think so many people have this particular "like".
It also probably wouldn't be so bad if the 'vampires' in twilight weren't called vampires, because they certainly only appear to have a superficial similarity to traditional vampires.
I think the original trilogy are three of the best films ever made, but I'd be cool with changing any or all of the actors. The main actors did a great job, but they never defined their roles the way a Bruce Campbell or Patrick Stewart does. Harrison Ford comes close, but he's still replaceable.
Listen me: Don't EVER, EVER, EVER watch Twilight.
It is nothing like Buffy in any way.
The acting is wooden and when it isn't wooden, it's melodramatic at times. There are a few moments of levity in the series but emphasis on a FEW.
The romance between Edward and Bella barely has the emotionality of Angel/Buffy or the fierce passion of Buffy/Spike.
The vampires are very white which makes me wonder why the town has never caught on that as a clue that there may be something off about them. The werewolves are okay.
Bella seems to caught in an endless romantic triangle with vampire Edward and werewolf Jacob who never takes the hint that Bella is in love with Edward. It is the triangle you wish the series just puts in its coffin.
I am beyond amazed and stunned that Twilight even became a movie series. I thought it would stop after the one movie like Eragon. I have no clue why other people love Twilight so much. Really, I don't.
In my opinion, popularity doesn't mean crap to me if the source of that popularity lacks substance.
It is nothing like Buffy in any way.
The acting is wooden and when it isn't wooden, it's melodramatic at times. There are a few moments of levity in the series but emphasis on a FEW.
The romance between Edward and Bella barely has the emotionality of Angel/Buffy or the fierce passion of Buffy/Spike.
The vampires are very white which makes me wonder why the town has never caught on that as a clue that there may be something off about them. The werewolves are okay.
Bella seems to caught in an endless romantic triangle with vampire Edward and werewolf Jacob who never takes the hint that Bella is in love with Edward. It is the triangle you wish the series just puts in its coffin.
I am beyond amazed and stunned that Twilight even became a movie series. I thought it would stop after the one movie like Eragon. I have no clue why other people love Twilight so much. Really, I don't.
In my opinion, popularity doesn't mean crap to me if the source of that popularity lacks substance.
i've always gotten a kick out of this stupid buffy vs. twilight stuff...
who cares? they arent in the same universe... everyone's got their own taste, check it out and see if it's for you... worst case, you waste about 2 hours of your life.
the one sticking point that annoys me is the idea that buffy would kill edward... really? buffy would kill a good vampire?
maybe after she slept with him and he turned evil... but even then, i bet if the vampire came back and was good, most things would be forgiven... until another good vampire showed up... really, as a fan of buffy (and having never seen twilight) i cannot imagine she would kill the sparkle vamp... unless all the talk of her spiking edward is innuendo that has gone over my head...
who cares? they arent in the same universe... everyone's got their own taste, check it out and see if it's for you... worst case, you waste about 2 hours of your life.
the one sticking point that annoys me is the idea that buffy would kill edward... really? buffy would kill a good vampire?
maybe after she slept with him and he turned evil... but even then, i bet if the vampire came back and was good, most things would be forgiven... until another good vampire showed up... really, as a fan of buffy (and having never seen twilight) i cannot imagine she would kill the sparkle vamp... unless all the talk of her spiking edward is innuendo that has gone over my head...
Similar threads
