Harry Potter has some merit to it. Twilight does not, at the very least Twilight sends some bad messages to teen girls.
Do we hate Harry Potter and Twilight?
- Thread starter Extrocomp
- Start date
Well, considering his "mystery" was information that's been around in feminine spirituality circles for, oh, 30 years or so, it wasn't exactly an earth-shattering revelation...
Potter no, Twilight yes. I generally like to divide media that I don't grok into two categories: subjective, aesthetic dislike, and objective, technical dislike. Harry Potter, to me, falls into the first category. I read the first two books and had no desire to continue reading. It wasn't that they were necessarily bad, it's just that they weren't interesting; pretty much everything in there had been done before, and this was just a new combination thereof, and while I liked the large cast of characters, none of them were particularly intriguing. Plus, for books that are designed, at least in part, as mysteries, there's something really cheap about having a character whose name is an anagram of your villain, but which is impossible to guess because you don't reveal his ridiculously unlikely middle name (Marvolo?) until revealing the anagram itself. That bugged me. To a large extent, I've enjoyed the films more than I have the books; this kind of relatively superficial action-adventure is well suited to that medium, much more so than literature is. Basically, I don't care for it, but I can understand how others, particularly if it's the first exposure to this type of mythology and story format, might.
Twilight, on the other hand, is crap. By which I don't mean, "I think this is crap"; I mean: "This is crap. Existentially." I glanced at the book at the store, and the writing was quite bad; like someone in high-school tried translating their diary fantasies into prose form. The film was terrible, or at the least the first hour of the first film was, because that was all I could support. I've gone over, elsewhere, all the technical faults that exist there. It's just a low-quality product, and the ravening enthusiam for it is puzzling and, yes, somewhat contemptible.
Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman
Twilight, on the other hand, is crap. By which I don't mean, "I think this is crap"; I mean: "This is crap. Existentially." I glanced at the book at the store, and the writing was quite bad; like someone in high-school tried translating their diary fantasies into prose form. The film was terrible, or at the least the first hour of the first film was, because that was all I could support. I've gone over, elsewhere, all the technical faults that exist there. It's just a low-quality product, and the ravening enthusiam for it is puzzling and, yes, somewhat contemptible.
Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman
Well, considering his "mystery" was information that's been around in feminine spirituality circles for, oh, 30 years or so, it wasn't exactly an earth-shattering revelation...
No, no - not that "mystery" (although I guessed that, too, even though I am not particularly familiar with feminine spirituality circles - I more or less know what the term "feminine spirituality circles" refers to, but I don't read their literature or anything). The mystery I was referring to was whodunit.
Sorry if this is considered thread-jacking but just guessing the whodunit in a whodunit doesn't mean that the book is no good. eg. I have guessed the whodunit in a few books (some Agatha Christie too - but never guessed in The Murder of Roger Ackroyd! I wonder whether anybody has?) including Dan Brown's latest - both questions - who is the bad guy and also the location of the mystery. But that isn't really the point of the book - the point of the book is to make high-grade addictive page-turning "pulp".
I'm with the other posters that can't really fathom condemning Harry Potter & Twilight in the same breath. Granted, I've only seen the movies, but here's my take:
Harry Potter isn't quite The Lord of the Rings or Star Wars but it is pretty fun. It's a series that has grown on me as it has gone on. I've enjoyed seeing these child performers mature into very skilled adult actors. The cast is also chock full of mesmerizing adult character actors-- Richard Harris, Michael Gambon, Maggie Smith, Imelda Staunton, Jim Broadbent, Gary Oldman, David Thewlis, Kenneth Brannagh, Ralph Fiennes, Robbie Coltrane, John Hurt, Alan Rickman, Brendan Gleeson, Jason Isaacs, etc.
On the other hand, I was very leery of Twilight from the get-go, partly because it lacked any decent, well-known character actors to elevate what might otherwise be somewhat dodgy material. New Moon seems to have rectified that slightly by adding Michael Sheen. But it's still probably too little too late.
Twilight is one of the most painful movies I've ever sat through. It has no redeeming features whatsoever. The writing is absolutely atrocious. The acting is often worse, although I'm willing to give some of these actors a pass because they were much better in other things. (Robert Pattinson was pretty good as Cedric Diggery in Harry Potter & the Goblet of Fire. Kristen Stewart was... inoffensive in Adventureland. And while Michael Welch mostly just blends into the background as another of Bella's obnoxious, unbelievable classmates, we must remember how good he was playing young Jack O'Neill on Stargate SG-1.) Furthermore, when I watched some of the making of documentaries, the actors, especially Pattinson, seemed very embarassed about being in these movies and being unable to make any of this crap sound believable. These are actors cripped by the incompetance of the film's core creative team. Stephanie Meyer is probably the worst hack to stumble into the teen fantasy genre in the last decade. (At least Christopher Paolini had the excuse of only being 16 when he wrote Eragon.)
But ultimately, perhaps what is so irking about Twilight is that, far from containing any artistic merit, it seems to exist only to allow teen girls to fulfill some primal romantic fantasies. It's emotional pornography. Twilight is chaste, Mormon emo-porn. That's a fine goal but it's not art. Girls screaming & fainting over Twilight is the equivalent of men slobbering over Maxim photos of Megan Fox. Neither is "wrong" but both are... unseemly. Perhaps we should keep our emotional masturbation as private the other kind.
Harry Potter isn't quite The Lord of the Rings or Star Wars but it is pretty fun. It's a series that has grown on me as it has gone on. I've enjoyed seeing these child performers mature into very skilled adult actors. The cast is also chock full of mesmerizing adult character actors-- Richard Harris, Michael Gambon, Maggie Smith, Imelda Staunton, Jim Broadbent, Gary Oldman, David Thewlis, Kenneth Brannagh, Ralph Fiennes, Robbie Coltrane, John Hurt, Alan Rickman, Brendan Gleeson, Jason Isaacs, etc.
On the other hand, I was very leery of Twilight from the get-go, partly because it lacked any decent, well-known character actors to elevate what might otherwise be somewhat dodgy material. New Moon seems to have rectified that slightly by adding Michael Sheen. But it's still probably too little too late.
Twilight is one of the most painful movies I've ever sat through. It has no redeeming features whatsoever. The writing is absolutely atrocious. The acting is often worse, although I'm willing to give some of these actors a pass because they were much better in other things. (Robert Pattinson was pretty good as Cedric Diggery in Harry Potter & the Goblet of Fire. Kristen Stewart was... inoffensive in Adventureland. And while Michael Welch mostly just blends into the background as another of Bella's obnoxious, unbelievable classmates, we must remember how good he was playing young Jack O'Neill on Stargate SG-1.) Furthermore, when I watched some of the making of documentaries, the actors, especially Pattinson, seemed very embarassed about being in these movies and being unable to make any of this crap sound believable. These are actors cripped by the incompetance of the film's core creative team. Stephanie Meyer is probably the worst hack to stumble into the teen fantasy genre in the last decade. (At least Christopher Paolini had the excuse of only being 16 when he wrote Eragon.)
But ultimately, perhaps what is so irking about Twilight is that, far from containing any artistic merit, it seems to exist only to allow teen girls to fulfill some primal romantic fantasies. It's emotional pornography. Twilight is chaste, Mormon emo-porn. That's a fine goal but it's not art. Girls screaming & fainting over Twilight is the equivalent of men slobbering over Maxim photos of Megan Fox. Neither is "wrong" but both are... unseemly. Perhaps we should keep our emotional masturbation as private the other kind.
Was that really how it went down in the book? In the movie, although he's usually just referred to as "Tom Riddle," his full name is given when Harry first finds the diary. We get a clear shot of "Tom Marvolo Riddle" stamped right on the front.
I am tempted to enter comical nerd rage at the very thought that Star Wars bears any similarity to Twilight. The nerve! As if a trilogy with action-adventure, epic explosions and a scantily clad girl was in any sense a fulfilment of my adolescent male fantasies! ...um.
Though seriously, doesn't Star Wars have more crossover appeal to females than Twilight does, even if it's more male-oriented than, say, Harry Potter?
Novels about teenagers set in a fantasy setting - wizards, vampires, whichever - that are exceptionally popular with today's youth, and which further have smash hit films to their name. I get that Twilight has by far the more vemonous hatedom while Potter has acquired a degree of respect, but the association is, shall we say, fairly fathomable.
19, though supposedly 15 when he started it.
I've watched some of the HP movies. Not my cup of tea, but I see the "merit" in them and see why they're liked.
Twilight was damn painful, and only bearable thanks to Rifftrax. If not for them I would've blown my own brains out -or ejected the DVD.
That movie was the very definition of teenage emo angst.
Their "merits" dramaticly also are very different. In Twilight, it's perfectly OK for a teenage girl to pine over a man who treats her indifferently and pretty much like shit and knows only people who want to kill her. The "messages" in Twilight movies/books speak volumes about the people who read -and enjoy- them and think that the "rommance" in them is teh greatest thing eva!!!!
Twilight was damn painful, and only bearable thanks to Rifftrax. If not for them I would've blown my own brains out -or ejected the DVD.
That movie was the very definition of teenage emo angst.
Their "merits" dramaticly also are very different. In Twilight, it's perfectly OK for a teenage girl to pine over a man who treats her indifferently and pretty much like shit and knows only people who want to kill her. The "messages" in Twilight movies/books speak volumes about the people who read -and enjoy- them and think that the "rommance" in them is teh greatest thing eva!!!!
I've been in SF/F geek circles since about the time Star Wars premiered, and I am the prime generation (7 when it came out) that had their imagination captured by it, and I can tell you definitively that - no, SW has very little crossover appeal to females. While Leia had some weight in the original, by Empire she was merely Han Solo's love interest (and was demoted from leader of a major rebel attack to princess in need of rescuing), and in RotJ she had essentially no role other than the gold bikini and for her vulnerability to motivate Luke. Amidala goes through a not unsimilar retrogression in the PT. And there aren't any other female characters of note in either trilogy. The stories are completely boy coming of age tales - so what's interesting for a girl in them?
Some chicks chiming in to tell me how wrong I am, how much they love Star Wars and how meaningful it has been to their whole life in 3...2...1...
Does Star Wars need to have prominent female characters in order to appeal to women? Is Casablanca any less of a movie becuase Ric is the dynamic character instead of Ilsa?
For that matter, if gender representation is all that is needed, there are far more prominent men in Twilight than there are prominent women in Star Wars. So shouldn't Twilight have more crossover appeal?
And what about all those women who love Harry Potter? That story is a boy hero's journey. What's in it for the ladies?
For that matter, if gender representation is all that is needed, there are far more prominent men in Twilight than there are prominent women in Star Wars. So shouldn't Twilight have more crossover appeal?
And what about all those women who love Harry Potter? That story is a boy hero's journey. What's in it for the ladies?
For me, the first main appeal of Star Wars was Leia. Then through ESB and into ROTJ, it became the "eye candy" that was Han Solo, though Leia was still pretty damn AWESOME. When I got into the EU, I found many more strong women that I really enjoyed, like Mara Jade and, especially, Tenel Ka.
As for Harry Potter, the appeal has been almost solely Snape, and to a lesser degree Ron, Neville, and the awesome, awesome Luna. Though I also have to point out that I find a lot of things in common with Hermione, so that is another appeal.
As for Twilight? Bella is DUMB DUMB DUMB. I almost connected with her in the first book, but her absolute empty-headedness in New Moon completely threw me out. If there is anything in those books that appeal to me, it is Carlisle, Alice, and Esme.
Joy
As for Harry Potter, the appeal has been almost solely Snape, and to a lesser degree Ron, Neville, and the awesome, awesome Luna. Though I also have to point out that I find a lot of things in common with Hermione, so that is another appeal.
As for Twilight? Bella is DUMB DUMB DUMB. I almost connected with her in the first book, but her absolute empty-headedness in New Moon completely threw me out. If there is anything in those books that appeal to me, it is Carlisle, Alice, and Esme.
Joy
Yes, so totally unlike some ST / SW fans...
Be glad. Now they have the public's attention and we can finally wear our uniforms in peace.
I'm totally repulsed by Twilight and I don't get the Potter hype.
Erm... see above.
Don't know. How often do you get laid?
Except starships are a likelihood given enough time, the types of stardrives drives notwithstanding. That's the point of science fiction - it's based somewhere in reality.
Another thought. Maybe one day we'll be able to cast spells after a fashion. Say, "Computer, detain that man," and a forcefield appears around him. Or you could put the whole system in a device resembling a magic wand. Or in a subdermal speck in the palms of one's hands. After all, isn't a phaser basically "Expecto Patronis" (sp?)? There's an appeal to the ease of magic, so perhaps one day we'll build it.
Still, Twilight is basically about fetish-izing in stunted growth, and that is why it "sucks," heh heh heh.
I may have been to harsh on Fantasy overall though. I'm not a big fan, but I imagine its real appeal is the themes and emotions it touches on, using the fantastical aspects for spectacle or shorthand.
Even Twilight. I suppose a mere two hours...no, forget it. It's two hours in the theater or even two weeks with the books, but though perhaps they are momentary indulgences for most of its casual fans, the worldview they present is entirely distorted. Someone else should tap into Twilight's appeal and write something better. I don't hate it, but I do pity us for needing it in place of something better.
Last edited:
S
Stone_Cold_Sisko
Guest
I don't think harry potter is that hated here. I certainly don't hate it but hate Twilight.
Dusty Ayres
Commodore
So I take it you also hate most of Joss Wheedon's work as well?
And this would be my point, why not. I've certainly heard of and seen female Star Wars fans. The same doesn't seem to be true for Twilight (or if there are any guy fans out there... not as many?).
I'd wildly guess the basic reason such crossover exists to the extent it doesn't is that Twilight is, or so I've been repeatedly told by internet pundits, a girl's dream of the perfect guy. Bo-ring, who wants to know what girls want? (Er, wait. I wasn't the brightest adolescent light-bulb, but you get the idea.)
On the other hand, Star Wars is action-adventure. People shoot other people. Things explode. The fantasy for the hero isn't about any male romantic wish-fulfilment, he's even desexualised. While stuff blowing up is typically the purview of boys, it isn't inherently so.
I remember playing Star Wars on the school playground when I was about 8, but that's the extent of my love for Star Wars. However, it's more common and socially acceptable for a girl to read and enjoy stories with male heroes than it is for a boy to read and enjoy stories with female heroes. So, Star Wars probably has a larger appeal to both genders than Twilight will ever have.
I adore Harry Potter, both the books and the movies. I've not read Twilight, though I saw the first movie. I wasn't impressed enough to seek out the books. But I will give Twilight props for one thing -- it's created a group of people (mostly girls) who are reading. While I never attended a midnight release, I loved them because people wanted the books immediately. Both HP and Twilight have made reading exciting again, and that is a very good thing.
Similar threads
