I think he is one of the ugliest mean on the face of the Earth. Every time I see him I want to puke, for the life of me I will never ever see anything that anyone could consider attractive on about him.
So I'm reading the "Twilight" Series (Spoilers)
- Thread starter Brent
- Start date
I think he is one of the ugliest mean on the face of the Earth. Every time I see him I want to puke, for the life of me I will never ever see anything that anyone could consider attractive on about him.
To me he is completely and utterly unattractive.... but ugly? Dunno.
Cute boy Edward. I was looking at the bad guy, Aro, though. Have a thing for evil vanpires. Is my fangirl-self that goes all uuuuuuu!
I liked the films, will keep looking them and will read the books. Maybe I should post it at the dirty-secrets-page, or just keep on liking it and not give a damm. Yep. That's it.
I liked the films, will keep looking them and will read the books. Maybe I should post it at the dirty-secrets-page, or just keep on liking it and not give a damm. Yep. That's it.
Guilty pleasure and dirty secret aren't the same thing....well, sometimes. They sort of blend on the Internet though.
I like Carlisle. He's dead hot.... at least without the blond wig on.
I like Carlisle. He's dead hot.... at least without the blond wig on.
Carlisle in the movie is nothing how I imagined him when reading the books (and that's sad, because Carlisle and Esme--oh, and Mike, YES *Mike*--are just about the only things I liked about the books).
Pattinson isn't REMOTELY how I imagined Edward looking. I imagined him being, well... HOT. I thought Pattinson was rather cute in Harry Potter, but whatever the hell they did to him for Twilight... Damn, it does not work. At ALL.
Pattinson isn't REMOTELY how I imagined Edward looking. I imagined him being, well... HOT. I thought Pattinson was rather cute in Harry Potter, but whatever the hell they did to him for Twilight... Damn, it does not work. At ALL.
I feel sorry for Mike's character, but apart from that I thought they did a good job bringing him to the big screen. The same goes for Jacob. That boy has charisma.
I sort of imagined Carlisle with some sort of English accent, him being a Brit and all, but I suppose it makes sense to ditch your accent if you're trying to blend in....? Hmpf.
I sort of imagined Carlisle with some sort of English accent, him being a Brit and all, but I suppose it makes sense to ditch your accent if you're trying to blend in....? Hmpf.
I can't think of a single attractive man in Twilight (Jacob is nice looking but he's a boy). Maybe the guy who played the bad vampire in the first one--he wasn't bad looking. The rest are some of the most amazingly unattractive guys to make it onto the big screen. It doesn't help that they are all basically "dipped in flour" (that's great--a perfect analogy 
), though.
), though.
J
Jetfire
Guest
After seeing The Vampire Diaries on TV, I wouldn't mind checking out those books...which came out before Twilight...which I can't stand.
For some very strange reason, the entire time I read the four books, I kept imagining Edward as English... I have no clue why. Apparently his "origin" story did stay in my brain enough that I'd remember he was from America. LOL
The Vampire Diaries are o.k. books, but the series goes on a whole 'nother tangent than the books do. It works though, and I like the series.
I liked the Twilight series. I thought they were entertaining, written in nice prose that didn't strike me funny anywhere. Unlike Pao-Pao, Meyer follows the golden "show, don't tell rule" of writing.
As for the attractiveness of the actors.... I think the guy who plays Carlisle is very good-looking, especially without the wig and the flour. Jacob is a cute boy, but a boy nonetheless. Edward....hmpf. My mum loves him.
I'm starting to watch the Vampire Diaries now, and I'm not sure I like it. Let's wait and see.
As for the attractiveness of the actors.... I think the guy who plays Carlisle is very good-looking, especially without the wig and the flour. Jacob is a cute boy, but a boy nonetheless. Edward....hmpf. My mum loves him.
I'm starting to watch the Vampire Diaries now, and I'm not sure I like it. Let's wait and see.
Were we reading the same books? Meyer is totally guilty of "tell, don't show." That's the whole problem with the conclusion of Twilight — it happens while the heroine is unconscious! Edward tells her about it in the hospital!
I don't know about that. I just remember buying the first book at Asda at some point because I needed to pass the time, as work sucked and...well, Corby sucks. It was a nice distraction and made me want to know what was going to happen next.
As far as I remember, Meyer wouldn't do the classic telling not showing bit Pao-Pao loves so much, such as "she felt sad", which makes it impossible to really get into the book. I didn't have that problem whilst reading the Twilight series.
As far as I remember, Meyer wouldn't do the classic telling not showing bit Pao-Pao loves so much, such as "she felt sad", which makes it impossible to really get into the book. I didn't have that problem whilst reading the Twilight series.
Who is this Pao-Pao? 
Christopher Paolini. It's a nickname he's earned himself from people on the internet who take pleasure in picking apart his books. It's fun.
^A worthy activity, except that I've got better stuff to do than slog through 400+ pages of his drivel. 
Ah, the Eragon guy.
The movies are a cinematic train wreck the same way the books are a literary train wreck. They're utter shite, but I can't look away!
I actually enjoyed the first one.
TOP, sorry for digging this old thread up but I actually saw the first movie recently on DVD. Dennis and Trekker4747 both told me on a recent thread that it was halfway decent and that I could watch it (I hate teen angst
so I was staying far away from the entire Twilight schtick -- movies AND books -- these last few years). re the books -- I've got to say I agree with you. the first book is actually okay, even with the teen angst -- which is, actually, kinda the point lol. to me, it's a pretty self-contained tome on the inability of most teens to take no for an answer
either way, I breezed through it and enjoyed it. so sue me in the second book (I bought Twilight and downloaded the other three via the 'net), she tries to overreach herself and fails miserably. it's got some broad, rich brushstrokes and she brings in a few interesting questions (do monsters have souls?) and complex dynamics. none of them get resolved, btw but I don't know. she's writing something called Midnight Sun -- from Edward's pov. maybe she'll tackle them in there.
but the triangle, ugh ugh ugh. I'm sorry, triangles written well can be enjoyable. this was just plain torture. the other two books are absolute crap. sorry. I hate leaving books unfinished so I'm still slogging through Breaking Dawn. ugh.
anyway, the movie (I haven't seen New Moon). judging from the RT ratings, Twilight was halfway decent, and NM was shite. well, I quite like Twilight. I think it's mostly because the cinematography -- quite beautiful -- reminds me of the X-Files. those deep, dark forests of Vancouver beckon me still... and I kept waiting for Pusher to come out and kidnap Bella
come to think of it, in the movie, Bella and Edward had a bit of a Mulder/Scully vibe going in the scene when they're on the run from James and then show up at Edward's house and are met by Laurent and Carlisle
in terms of the dynamics, the chemistry between the cast is okay, nothing earthshaking. but Pattinson and Stewart do have sparks. I especially liked the slightly askew take on the whole vampire thing. Pattinson, surprisingly, was excellent. I had no idea that he could actually act. I'd pretty much dumped him with that Zac guy or maybe Orlando Bloom. I am a total newb where his fame is concerned. haven't watched any of his movies, including HP stuff. I don't read or watch HP. it's crap, IMO.
anyway, you know, the thing about Vampires onscreen is that there is an old overacting tradition. think of all the actors down the pike. from Lugosi to Cushing to Cruise. ALL of them overact like there's no tomorrow. that is, in effect, what the entire genre is about. it's all about over the top reactions and actions. Pattinson turned in a performance that's the polar opposite of that, at least, in Twilight. that alone was interesting to watch. don't know what happens in NM and on... how he handles the character there. I guess it'd depend on the director.
oh, another thing, I loved the music on Twilight. and I found out that Pattinson actually sings two songs that I loved as soon as I heard them in the background. I kept thinking who's the guy singing... sounds familiar but can't place him. then I found out that it was actually Pattinson.
he has an interesting voice -- kinda raw and soulful. I really liked Let Me Sign. anyway sorry 'bout the long post, guys. suffice to say, I'll watch NM when it comes out in DVD. and might also watch the rest of the movies when they're done. but, to all intents and purposes, I might be watching a trainwreck here. ugh.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Poll
