|
Anyone else can't stand Twilight? v.4
Go to post
|
16838 |
Books
|
Tue Jul 28, 2009 5:00 am
|
|
Andereirei Animus Inanis exohex Linii shiva6020 moka_cat shiva6020
Quick question to those who have read through Breaking Dawn: Why couldn't they just use a human baby for the Hell Child? Is there something especially inhuman looking about her?
Her movements might be difficult for a human baby. She grabs faces and stares into their eyes intently. I suppose that shouldn't be too difficult but the regulations regarding working with children especially infants would be stressful for the director. Children are only allowed on set for an hour at a time or something like that. She is supposed to be extra pefect and it would take many babies to play her because she grows so fast.
So it's more that she'd be a pain-in-the-a** to portray than that she's abnormal looking?
Pretty much, yeah. A different kid for each day Nessie is alive, or something.. Because at about a month or so, she already looks what, 4?
Something idiotic like that, yes.
I can see the directors/whoever giving up on Breaking Wind because of the pain-in-the-a** that moron-spawn is, as well as the fact that you can polish a turd but it will still be a turd. You can take a piece of crap and make it into a very sparkly (pun not intended, I use 'sparkly' to describe special effects) movie, but it'll still be a piece of crap.
Breaking Dawn would be the epitome of shitiness. In the last half hour of the movie, they'd have to bring in 20 characters who do absolutely nothing and then we'd get that oh-so-fantastic scene where the big battle is ended in a DISCUSSION -_- And then we get to find out that when Reneesmee is seven, she'll have the body of an adult, so Jacob can have her or whatever. Either way, that entire ***** relationship was weird.
Those 20 useless characters shouldn't even existed because they didn't do anything pivotal to the plot and they didn't actually help in the big battle that didn't even happen.
|
|
Anyone else can't stand Twilight? v.4
Go to post
|
16838 |
Books
|
Tue Jul 28, 2009 3:41 am
|
|
exohex Linii shiva6020 moka_cat shiva6020 exohex Linii Makothecrane34
Seriously, CGI has came a long way and it would be easy for a movie studio with money to create a perfect CGI render of Nessie.
Oh, of course. I mean, it should be easy for CGI to recreate a tiny sparkling Loch Ness Monster.
Quick question to those who have read through Breaking Dawn: Why couldn't they just use a human baby for the Hell Child? Is there something especially inhuman looking about her?
Her movements might be difficult for a human baby. She grabs faces and stares into their eyes intently. I suppose that shouldn't be too difficult but the regulations regarding working with children especially infants would be stressful for the director. Children are only allowed on set for an hour at a time or something like that. She is supposed to be extra pefect and it would take many babies to play her because she grows so fast.
So it's more that she'd be a pain-in-the-a** to portray than that she's abnormal looking?
Pretty much, yeah. A different kid for each day Nessie is alive, or something.. Because at about a month or so, she already looks what, 4?
It would take about 7 actresses to portray Nessie. But it would've been easier if they just CGI Nessie and get a voice actress who has a childlike voice.
|
|
Anyone else can't stand Twilight? v.4
Go to post
|
16838 |
Books
|
Tue Jul 28, 2009 2:20 am
|
|
Fujiko Kurokawa Collected Pixel Dust
Also, I believe that Meyer said she wasn't going to let the fourth book turn into a movie. If she sold her rights off, she won't get a say if it gets made or not. Which is very likely the case considering the merchandising for this s**t.
As I recall, she only ever said that because she didn't feel that CGI hasn't come far along enough to accurately render Nessie. But let's be honest, she doesn't know s**t about CGI rendering.
Seriously, CGI has came a long way and it would be easy for a movie studio with money to create a perfect CGI render of Nessie.
|
|
Anyone else can't stand Twilight? v.4
Go to post
|
16838 |
Books
|
Tue Jul 28, 2009 2:12 am
|
|
Collected Pixel Dust Misuki Marishima Collected Pixel Dust .(My Chemical Pancakes). 122796fireballprincess i can't stand twilight either!! it makes me scream stressed evil burning_eyes Care to add to the discussion?
Twilight doesn't make me rage. I know that there are better/worse books out there than Twilight.
But the fandom is really irriating, through. I liked the days back before Twilight got uber popular. It was peaceful and nice, and some of the fans we're pretty cool, and respectful, too. Now it's just a majority of hormonal teenages, indulging themselves towards Edward.
I can't believe all those fans reacted so strongly to Patterson (guy who play's edward in the move, don't really remember the name) getting his hair cut. Quite frankly, he isn't pretty enough to play Edward in the movie... but that's just me.
Also, I believe that Meyer said she wasn't going to let the fourth book turn into a movie.
Wow! No Breaking Dawn then? Hooray! Victoryyyy! Victoryyy! Victoryyy! I think (I read it on Wikipedia one day... can't always trust what is up there) it had to with the fact she thought no child could play ____(baby's name) and that she didn't like cg because it never looked real.
I would have liked to see the 4th movie and see how they attempted to do the baby. Sometimes really bad movies are good in that sense.
Have you ever heard of the Anne Rice's Vampire Chronicles?
Well, CGI would only work because, like you said, no one could play Renesmee. Hell, the cast probably can't even say Renesmee's name.
|
|
Anyone else can't stand Twilight? v.4
Go to post
|
16838 |
Books
|
Tue Jul 28, 2009 1:15 am
|
|
Animus Inanis THANK YOU CAPTIN OBVIOUS ForestOne Makothecrane34 Sylph Makothecrane34
The fanbase will eventually grow up and it won't last but two or three years after the movies finish.
True. Also, I'd say the fans tend to be very 'faddish'. As soon as the next big teed fad comes along, Twilight will be just another dried up cash cow.
Bingo. We'll give it three years top to last because the fad is slowly dying down because the movies are sucking. well, they screwed up movie one and they'll definetly screwe up movie two with their changes. Personally, just based on the subject matter, I think it was a given that the films would suck. You can't exactly give somebody a pile of crap and expect them to make you a masterpiece.
Precisely. I doubt if the fad will really make it to the fourth movie--everything will have died down by then (oh please God let it be so...).
Yep. The fourth movie then will kill the entire Twilight fad.
|
|
Anyone else can't stand Twilight? v.4
Go to post
|
16838 |
Books
|
Tue Jul 28, 2009 12:32 am
|
|
Sylph Makothecrane34 Lapinporokoira Makothecrane34 ninja
Anyone got any topic starters?
Well with me making a miracluous return I have as topic. Twilight's Longevity? Would it withstand the test of time or would it's fanbase flail and die as critics take a look at the books merit (or lackthereof) .
The fanbase will eventually grow up and it won't last but two or three years after the movies finish.
True. Also, I'd say the fans tend to be very 'faddish'. As soon as the next big teed fad comes along, Twilight will be just another dried up cash cow.
Bingo. We'll give it three years top to last because the fad is slowly dying down because the movies are sucking.
|
|
Anyone else can't stand Twilight? v.4
Go to post
|
16838 |
Books
|
Tue Jul 28, 2009 12:13 am
|
|
Lapinporokoira Makothecrane34 ninja
Anyone got any topic starters?
Well with me making a miracluous return I have as topic. Twilight's Longevity? Would it withstand the test of time or would it's fanbase flail and die as critics take a look at the books merit (or lackthereof) .
The fanbase will eventually grow up and it won't last but two or three years after the movies finish.
|
|
Anyone else can't stand Twilight? v.4
Go to post
|
16838 |
Books
|
Mon Jul 27, 2009 11:51 pm
|
|
|
ninja
Anyone got any topic starters?
|
|
Anyone else can't stand Twilight? v.4
Go to post
|
16838 |
Books
|
Mon Jul 27, 2009 9:10 pm
|
|
TempusBliss Makothecrane34 Hotaru-hime Makothecrane34 Hotaru-hime I hate Twilight for making fans that block Hall H for a whole day and stop little kids from seeing a Disney panel.
Idiots...Why did they block the hall?
Twilight panel was at 1pm on Thursday. They were camping on Wednesday. The minute they were allowed to enter Hall H they squatted and no one else could come in. They stayed in there through two or three panels that they would have no interest in (TRON LEGACY OMG!!!!!) and EVERYONE at Comic-Con was badmouthing them.
Wow. I know right? Everyone was making fun of the twitards at Comic-Con because they were acting so idiotic. Yeah... Geekdom tends to frown upon something popular by little girls and has no good effect on them. Hell, there were many people influenced by Dr. McCoy from Star Trek and they became doctors themselves.
That is true. Only thing Twilight has influenced Twitards to be in an abusive relationship with the perfect Edward.
|
|
Anyone else can't stand Twilight? v.4
Go to post
|
16838 |
Books
|
Mon Jul 27, 2009 8:09 pm
|
|
Andereirei I hate Twilight because everyone I know thinks it's the best thing they've ever read, even though they've NEVER read anything else on their own free will. If it's pretty much all you've ever read, how can you give your opinion on whether it's the best?
That's very true. I hate it when the twitards scream that it's the best saga ever (when it's not), but they haven't read any sagas to even determine that Twilight is the best saga ever.
|
