Welcome to Gaia! ::

Minerva de Sade's avatar

Charitable Conversationalist

12,950 Points
  • Magical Girl 50
  • Jack-pot 100
  • Battle: Rogue 100
Countess K
I don't think Meyer was actually trying for how Renee comes off (given that Renee is supposed to be a nice, scatterbrained mom) - more like she went with the first thing she thought of. Although, I don't really understand why the parents had to be divorced anyway. Charlie could have transferred somewhere else and then took a position as Chief at Forks because he and Renee wanted to move back home or something. Then, Bella really would have been new to Forks, and that part of the story would have actually been true (the summer-long visits didn't end until she was 14 - did she never play with any of the neighborhood kids? - and she was 16/17 in Twilight - how did no one remember her? I'd never forget that moodiness!).

And, no, not a good reason for divorce (so glad that aunt wasn't actually related to me!). Charlie has never been presented as anything other than kind, nice, loving, and he did not deserve that. Seriously, the two of them could have talked it out. Maybe moved out of Forks if it was sooo bad for her.

Renee and Meyer seriously are blind if they think Bella is a "middle-aged" teenager. She is the most whiney, self-absorbed, manipulative, self-destructive, depressed, self-hating, sexist, entitled teen I have ever encountered. I want to slap her so many times - for how she treats her dad, her mom, Jake, Angela, Jessica, etc. etc.

Me likey rants.


caligulasAquarium
_______________________________________


            I totally agree with you there. None of this tripe makes any sense.User Image
books always tell more then movies.
Probably the books but the movies are good too
haunting heaven's avatar

Fanatical Firestarter

supervamp78
books always tell more then movies.

Telling more isn't necessarily a good thing.
haunting heaven
supervamp78
books always tell more then movies.

Telling more isn't necessarily a good thing.



You get more detail on the backstory and more of the story and you get to see the story in full view.
I call that a good thing.
haunting heaven's avatar

Fanatical Firestarter

supervamp78
haunting heaven
supervamp78
books always tell more then movies.

Telling more isn't necessarily a good thing.

You get more detail on the backstory and more of the story and you get to see the story in full view.
I call that a good thing.

What if all that extra detail doesn't actually contribute to the story, and it's just there to make the book excessively long? Superfluous detail often gets cut in movies. I call that a good thing.
Minerva de Sade's avatar

Charitable Conversationalist

12,950 Points
  • Magical Girl 50
  • Jack-pot 100
  • Battle: Rogue 100
supervamp78
haunting heaven
supervamp78
books always tell more then movies.

Telling more isn't necessarily a good thing.



You get more detail on the backstory and more of the story and you get to see the story in full view.
I call that a good thing.


caligulasAquarium
_______________________________________


            Except in Twilight's case, it's not.

            In every character backstory, there's some inherit holes in Meyer's logic. For example: Jasper didn't need to lie about his age to get into the Civil War, Rosalie's family shouldn't have been rich during the Great Depression because her father was a banker, and there weren't any sewers in London at the time Carlisle turned for him to hide in.

            When Meyer tried to explain the backstory, she showed off exactly how little she knew about each of those periods of history.

            In Meyer's case, less would have been a HELL of a lot more. I don't need to know every little detail of Bella's life, or anybody else's for that matter. I just need to know enough detail to tell what's going on to keep the story moving, or enough that the information is relevant. You keep your story stagnant like Meyer does for too long, and it will turn a lot of readers off.

            In fact, there are several chapters of her books where pretty much NOTHING HAPPENS. It's a waste of book, and a waste of a reader's time.
            User Image
Minerva de Sade
supervamp78
haunting heaven
supervamp78
books always tell more then movies.

Telling more isn't necessarily a good thing.



You get more detail on the backstory and more of the story and you get to see the story in full view.
I call that a good thing.


caligulasAquarium
_______________________________________


            Except in Twilight's case, it's not.

            In every character backstory, there's some inherit holes in Meyer's logic. For example: Jasper didn't need to lie about his age to get into the Civil War, Rosalie's family shouldn't have been rich during the Great Depression because her father was a banker, and there weren't any sewers in London at the time Carlisle turned for him to hide in.

            When Meyer tried to explain the backstory, she showed off exactly how little she knew about each of those periods of history.

            In Meyer's case, less would have been a HELL of a lot more. I don't need to know every little detail of Bella's life, or anybody else's for that matter. I just need to know enough detail to tell what's going on to keep the story moving, or enough that the information is relevant. You keep your story stagnant like Meyer does for too long, and it will turn a lot of readers off.

            In fact, there are several chapters of her books where pretty much NOTHING HAPPENS. It's a waste of book, and a waste of a reader's time.
            User Image
I'm Stephenie Meyer, I don't give s**t about doing research because I'm SPESHUL!
Minerva de Sade
supervamp78
haunting heaven
supervamp78
books always tell more then movies.

Telling more isn't necessarily a good thing.



You get more detail on the backstory and more of the story and you get to see the story in full view.
I call that a good thing.


caligulasAquarium
_______________________________________


            Except in Twilight's case, it's not.

            In every character backstory, there's some inherit holes in Meyer's logic. For example: Jasper didn't need to lie about his age to get into the Civil War, Rosalie's family shouldn't have been rich during the Great Depression because her father was a banker, and there weren't any sewers in London at the time Carlisle turned for him to hide in.

            When Meyer tried to explain the backstory, she showed off exactly how little she knew about each of those periods of history.

            In Meyer's case, less would have been a HELL of a lot more. I don't need to know every little detail of Bella's life, or anybody else's for that matter. I just need to know enough detail to tell what's going on to keep the story moving, or enough that the information is relevant. You keep your story stagnant like Meyer does for too long, and it will turn a lot of readers off.

            In fact, there are several chapters of her books where pretty much NOTHING HAPPENS. It's a waste of book, and a waste of a reader's time.
            User Image


ill say it again every book is better then the movie because it gives afull view of the story.
i like both the movies and the books
so i would say its also a tie for me heart
supervamp78
Minerva de Sade
supervamp78
haunting heaven
supervamp78
books always tell more then movies.

Telling more isn't necessarily a good thing.



You get more detail on the backstory and more of the story and you get to see the story in full view.
I call that a good thing.


caligulasAquarium
_______________________________________


            Except in Twilight's case, it's not.

            In every character backstory, there's some inherit holes in Meyer's logic. For example: Jasper didn't need to lie about his age to get into the Civil War, Rosalie's family shouldn't have been rich during the Great Depression because her father was a banker, and there weren't any sewers in London at the time Carlisle turned for him to hide in.

            When Meyer tried to explain the backstory, she showed off exactly how little she knew about each of those periods of history.

            In Meyer's case, less would have been a HELL of a lot more. I don't need to know every little detail of Bella's life, or anybody else's for that matter. I just need to know enough detail to tell what's going on to keep the story moving, or enough that the information is relevant. You keep your story stagnant like Meyer does for too long, and it will turn a lot of readers off.

            In fact, there are several chapters of her books where pretty much NOTHING HAPPENS. It's a waste of book, and a waste of a reader's time.
            User Image


ill say it again every book is better then the movie because it gives afull view of the story.
Don't you mean "awful"?
Minerva de Sade's avatar

Charitable Conversationalist

12,950 Points
  • Magical Girl 50
  • Jack-pot 100
  • Battle: Rogue 100
supervamp78
ill say it again every book is better then the movie because it gives a full view of the story.


caligulasAquarium
_______________________________________


            And I will say this again:

            That's your opinion, but mine is that Twilight has too many irrelevant details that drag the book's pace down, and have no real importance to the story. If a story is in "full view" (Which I'm assuming you mean you can see everything the author wants you to), and all the details are irrelevant to the plot, it makes the story boring. There's no point for a story to be in "full view" if it's boring. The movie cut out a LOT of unimportant details. I don't need to know how Bella made chicken enchiladas step by step one night.

            My other point was that if the story was in "full view", Meyer also showcases her mistakes more. You can see all the grammatical, biological, geographical, historical, and other errors. Everything she did wrong is in plain view. They're in the spotlight in the book. The movie gives Meyer a way to correct those mistakes, or omit them completely.

            Way to completely ignore everything I just said.
            User Image
Minerva de Sade
supervamp78
ill say it again every book is better then the movie because it gives a full view of the story.


caligulasAquarium
_______________________________________


            And I will say this again:

            That's your opinion, but mine is that Twilight has too many irrelevant details that drag the book's pace down, and have no real importance to the story. If a story is in "full view" (Which I'm assuming you mean you can see everything the author wants you to), and all the details are irrelevant to the plot, it makes the story boring. There's no point for a story to be in "full view" if it's boring. The movie cut out a LOT of unimportant details. I don't need to know how Bella made chicken enchiladas step by step one night.

            My other point was that if the story was in "full view", Meyer also showcases her mistakes more. You can see all the grammatical, biological, geographical, historical, and other errors. Everything she did wrong is in plain view. They're in the spotlight in the book. The movie gives Meyer a way to correct those mistakes, or omit them completely.

            Way to completely ignore everything I just said.
            User Image



So you think books don't hold more information then movies? I thought it was a known fact that movies usually shorten and cut out details.
supervamp78
Minerva de Sade
supervamp78
ill say it again every book is better then the movie because it gives a full view of the story.


caligulasAquarium
_______________________________________


            And I will say this again:

            That's your opinion, but mine is that Twilight has too many irrelevant details that drag the book's pace down, and have no real importance to the story. If a story is in "full view" (Which I'm assuming you mean you can see everything the author wants you to), and all the details are irrelevant to the plot, it makes the story boring. There's no point for a story to be in "full view" if it's boring. The movie cut out a LOT of unimportant details. I don't need to know how Bella made chicken enchiladas step by step one night.

            My other point was that if the story was in "full view", Meyer also showcases her mistakes more. You can see all the grammatical, biological, geographical, historical, and other errors. Everything she did wrong is in plain view. They're in the spotlight in the book. The movie gives Meyer a way to correct those mistakes, or omit them completely.

            Way to completely ignore everything I just said.
            User Image



So you think books don't hold more information then movies? I thought it was a known fact that movies usually shorten and cut out details.
There are some books that were better than it's movie counterpart. There are some movies that outshine the books. In her opinion, the Twilight movies are the ones that are better than the books. What part of what she is is saying isn't getting though to you?
haunting heaven's avatar

Fanatical Firestarter

supervamp78
So you think books don't hold more information then movies? I thought it was a known fact that movies usually shorten and cut out details.

Reading comprehension. Get some.

Books usually do hold more information than movies, but in some cases--such as with Twilight--that information is not relevant to the actual story and it simply causes the book to drag on with superfluous detail.

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games