|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Wed Oct 07, 2009 1:48 pm
When I first saw the trailer for Jennifer's body, I wanted to see it because it looked like... for once... only oversexed boys were going to be monster fodder.
Even when I presented it that way to a fellow female, she thought I was totally off the wall in wanting to see it. No one would go with me! D:
I really don't like going out in public much at all, and fully endorse living under a rock at times. So I won't go see a movie by myself unless I REALLY REALLY REALLY need to see it. e.e I had to do this for Harry Potter a few times.
A second trailer came out, where Megan Fox's character says she will make an exception and go for girls too, and it was a bit of a turn off as well. More so, then I REALLY couldn't convince that friend to see it with me.
Going back to the earlier topic, I have to wonder how much of Supernatural's sexualized violence is actually put there by the creative team. Who wanted Amy Acker naked in a bath tub? Was it someone who wanted to boost ratings or the person who actually wrote the episode? The person who directed it?
I feel like there are a surprising amount of retards who are given an amazing amount of control.
And something that has been bothering me for some time, and is kinda sorta related: Can someone tell me why Carol Ferris still dresses like a space hooker, now that she is in control of the star sapphire (and not the other way around) and presumably able to control what her outfit looks like?
When she is suited up as a GL, via Hal, she isn't wearing the space hooker outfit, but a green version of her Silver Age one. We've seen Miri wearing that outfit for her Star Sapphire uniform-- why isn't Carol choosing to at least wear that?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 07, 2009 6:45 pm
I can't argue anymore because I am on vacation... sweatdrop
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 07, 2009 7:54 pm
Chris Powell Bart also did a good job showing that women did not die every episode of Season 1. Bart listed episodes and named weither a female was killed in them or not, so he did show that not every episode kills a female character - what that list does not show is how many female characters were almost killed and/or where useless and how they where portrayed through editing, casting, and dialogue. Chris Powell You really think the point of the plot is MALE suffering?? No. I think male suffering makes up the bulk of Supernatural's story, not the entire "point" (ie theme) of the series. Chris Powell I bet I could make a nice edited video with music that proves Supernatural must hate men. Please do. The original video showed women suffering at the hands of male/female monsters/people a like; but you sir are making the argument that the show has equal purpose suffering, that it is "bullshit" to argue other wise. I'm saying that women suffer in Supernatural almost strictly for the male derived plot and character development. So: Without using Sam and Dean over, and over, and over again suffering in direct relation to a female monster, a female character who they are working to save/help, or a female character whose death has affected them greatly (which, considering their mother; good luck), by all means make a video. If you do use any clips like the ones listed above you shall only work towards proving my point; Sam and Dean's suffering (" Supernatural must hate men") is built on a pile of dead, evil, helpless female characters. Be sure to try to match the same amount of gore, eroticism, and a variety of male characters other then the brothers too. Chris Powell Actually, the victims in Supernatural usually die in particular way to each creature. A wendigo would kill it's victims the same way every time no matter the sex of the victim. The same goes for a whole host of creatures. I fail to see how this is entirely relevant given that such monsters are not actual creatures. "A wendigo will kill either a man or a woman in the same way" is a nice statement, but a wendigo is not real. Supernatural is a TV show where every second of screen time is created by the people telling the stories. The creatures are created to kill repetitively and "equally"; but that doesn't mean their acts of killing are portrayed equally - but OK I get what you're saying. Bloody Mary killing off a man in the opening sequence and then killing a female character in the same literal way is nice; I've got my DVDs here, lets examine that. The male character is wearing pants and a polo shirt and goes into the bathroom to pop some pills. He notices something weird happening to his eye. Cut away to his daughters talking, the oldest walks up stairs and finds blood on the floor. Opens the bathroom door; cut to her screaming face - commercial break. We see the fathers dead body only later, from the neck up in a morgue, his eyes are all gone and gross. Fast forward to the death of the female character: After saying Bloody Mary in the mirror three times she quickly de-pants her self and prepares for bed in her underwear, going over to a mirror. She starts to bleed from the eyes, her own reflection looking at her in disgust. She falls over in pain. Cut to commercial. Again: How something happens when discussing gender issues in film is more often then not the culprit of "misogynistic" tendencies then why things happen within a narrative plot (although with Supernatural I am of the personal opinion this is a two for one combo). A character could be a kick a** tough ninja assassin with a IQ of a thousand billion; if she runs around in bikini with 90% of the camera angles giving you a look at her packages and goods then what the hell does it matter she is a kick a** tough ninjas assassin with a IQ of a thousand billion? Like your show, enjoy it. Love it, think the world of it, and discuss it. But I have just as much right to dislike it and be irritated with it. I bought these DVDs and got my face beat on with p***s. Refund please.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 07, 2009 8:41 pm
I think everyone, including whoever made that video is reading into things WAY too far. The show isn't making any kind of statement, it isn't trying to make any kind of statement, it's guys s**t kicking evil stuff. Its funny as hell, has cool special effects and some really tasty brutal fight scenes. If you ain't into it, that's cool, but this debate is silly. It's fluff television.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 07, 2009 9:10 pm
Newscaster Billy Batson Chris Powell Bart also did a good job showing that women did not die every episode of Season 1. Bart listed episodes and named weither a female was killed in them or not, so he did show that not every episode kills a female character - what that list does not show is how many female characters were almost killed and/or where useless and how they where portrayed through editing, casting, and dialogue. Um, I did try to in my best capacity to do that. If someone attempted to kill a female character, I did try to mention that, and I also mentioned specific examples of female characters that did not just wait around to be saved, or when they were given the option, facilitated their rescue. I don't have the physical time to go through and dissect an entire season just for the sake of an argument, though, so I am limited on that. Quote: I'm saying that women suffer in Supernatural almost strictly for the male derived plot and character development. What do all the men who die suffer for? Is it any different than this? If there was no plot or character development from a death, why kill a character at all? If the main issue here is that girls die in "Sexier" ways than the males do, yes, that happens, but it does not happen *every* episode. I think there was the highest amount of this in the first season, and as the show progresses, we see it less and less. I think you would be hard pressed to find a TV show that has never exploited the sexuality of a female character. It's a problem with the entertainment industry as a whole (hey! For an example in comics, please see my sig! We are to believe that Carol Ferris now *willingly* wears this horrible space hooker outfit??), and not a problem exclusive to Supernatural. What I don't understand is the argument that female characters exist solely to make Sam and Dean suffer, and that a female character has never existed who has not been dead, evil, or helpless. Jo: Not helpless, dead or evil. When Jo has found herself in trouble, she has done everything in her power to help herself. Ellen: Not helpless, dead, or evil. The stewardess from the plane episode: Not helpless, dead, or evil. The girl in the Harvest episode: Not helpless, dead, or evil. She is not saved by Dean, anymore than she helps to save him from the situation they find themselves in. What are the male victims of the show, who are not Sam and Dean? Is it something different than what the female characters are to the show? And actually, the main characters themselves... have had times when they are dead, evil (or acting with ambiguous morality), or helpless. One of the reasons I really like Supernatural, I will admit, is that I find the main characters really, really hot. I will also say the first season of Supernatural, I wasn't entirely sure if I liked it because of the story, or because of how much I liked looking at Jensen Ackles sitting in an Impala. I also like to see Dean cry, and I like it not when he's crying over a girl, but when it's related to Sam (which is why he is suffering 99% of the time). So.. e.e it's not like the girls are the only ones getting exploited for their sexuality in this show. crying
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 07, 2009 9:30 pm
Carol Ferris One of the reasons I really like Supernatural, I will admit, is that I find the main characters really, really hot. I will also say the first season of Supernatural, I wasn't entirely sure if I liked it because of the story, or because of how much I liked looking at Jensen Ackles sitting in an Impala. I also like to see Dean cry, and I like it not when he's crying over a girl, but when it's related to Sam (which is why he is suffering 99% of the time). So.. e.e it's not like the girls are the only ones getting exploited for their sexuality in this show. crying Hawtness of characters was consistently impaired by poor lighting. mad I couldn't even add it to my eyecandy pile of entertainment fluff. Though to be fair, I really don't watch horror themed shows for that appeal. I have Japan for that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 07, 2009 11:14 pm
Jaeger_Ayers I think everyone, including whoever made that video is reading into things WAY too far. The show isn't making any kind of statement, it isn't trying to make any kind of statement, it's guys s**t kicking evil stuff. Its funny as hell, has cool special effects and some really tasty brutal fight scenes. If you ain't into it, that's cool, but this debate is silly. It's fluff television. I can't be irritated with fluff television because it is fluff television? And I don't see any of this reading far into the series as I feel the series wears it on its sleeve. I'm not digging to find what it is I see. I'd be digging if I said Supernatural is intentionally portraying women badly; that isn't what I think, or what I'm saying at all. I think because the series features two male leads in a horror genre show that wants to be sexy, scary, and long lasting we are having the discussion we are having now. Carol Ferris What do all the men who die suffer for? Is it any different than this? If there was no plot or character development from a death, why kill a character at all? If the main issue here is that girls die in "Sexier" ways than the males do, yes, that happens, but it does not happen *every* episode. I think there was the highest amount of this in the first season, and as the show progresses, we see it less and less. No, male characters suffer and die for plot just as the female ones; but perhaps the main issue is that women (thin, young, pretty women) die overtly sexual ways while male characters often times get shadowdy, cut away deaths. Carol Ferris I think you would be hard pressed to find a TV show that has never exploited the sexuality of a female character. It's a problem with the entertainment industry as a whole (hey! For an example in comics, please see my sig! We are to believe that Carol Ferris now *willingly* wears this horrible space hooker outfit??), and not a problem exclusive to Supernatural. And I'm not saying it is exclusive. There are other shows/films that have this same issue, and even "worse". I am, however, talking exclusively about Supernatural (although I suppose horror in general too) in this discussion. Carol Ferris What I don't understand is the argument that female characters exist solely to make Sam and Dean suffer, and that a female character has never existed who has not been dead, evil, or helpless. Jo: Not helpless, dead or evil. When Jo has found herself in trouble, she has done everything in her power to help herself. Ellen: Not helpless, dead, or evil. The stewardess from the plane episode: Not helpless, dead, or evil. The girl in the Harvest episode: Not helpless, dead, or evil. She is not saved by Dean, anymore than she helps to save him from the situation they find themselves in. I've only seen the first season. I recognize that the stewardess helped Sam and Dean on the plane with a exorcism. Most episodes have a female character aiding the boys who will never be heard of again. I, personally, just see them as macking fonder who asks questions for the audience's sake and to have some vaggo present on screen. Seriously; I'm totally agreeing with Powell on the statement that the show inserts females to insert females. Carol Ferris What are the male victims of the show, who are not Sam and Dean? Is it something different than what the female characters are to the show? Guy killed in a tent with no death shown, the death is alluded to with screaming and some blood. Girl killed by shown decapitation. I'm going to say yes? Would a "it depends" go over better? Male or female victim; they are not different in the sense of their purpose in the over all scheme of the episode (death occurs, brother investigate). I do see a difference in why a female is chosen over a male to be killed in the script, and a difference, often times, it how it is done on screen for the viewers to see. Carol Ferris And actually, the main characters themselves... have had times when they are dead, evil (or acting with ambiguous morality), or helpless. God, I would hope so. What a boring show otherwise. Carol Ferris One of the reasons I really like Supernatural, I will admit, is that I find the main characters really, really hot. I will also say the first season of Supernatural, I wasn't entirely sure if I liked it because of the story, or because of how much I liked looking at Jensen Ackles sitting in an Impala. I also like to see Dean cry, and I like it not when he's crying over a girl, but when it's related to Sam (which is why he is suffering 99% of the time). So.. e.e it's not like the girls are the only ones getting exploited for their sexuality in this show. crying As stated; I know why it is a popular show among women. The two male leads are "exploited" as eye candy. Heroic, funny, worthy of sympathy and huggles eye candy. We can stop now. Again: enjoy and love whatever it is you want. I just want my money back. crying
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 08, 2009 1:03 am
Bart_Allen When I first saw the trailer for Jennifer's body, I wanted to see it because it looked like... for once... only oversexed boys were going to be monster fodder. Quote: A second trailer came out, where Megan Fox's character says she will make an exception and go for girls too, and it was a bit of a turn off as well. More so, then I REALLY couldn't convince that friend to see it with me. Quote: Going back to the earlier topic, I have to wonder how much of Supernatural's sexualized violence is actually put there by the creative team. Who wanted Amy Acker naked in a bath tub? Was it someone who wanted to boost ratings or the person who actually wrote the episode? The person who directed it? Quote: I feel like there are a surprising amount of retards who are given an amazing amount of control. Quote: And something that has been bothering me for some time, and is kinda sorta related: Can someone tell me why Carol Ferris still dresses like a space hooker, now that she is in control of the star sapphire (and not the other way around) and presumably able to control what her outfit looks like? When she is suited up as a GL, via Hal, she isn't wearing the space hooker outfit, but a green version of her Silver Age one. We've seen Miri wearing that outfit for her Star Sapphire uniform-- why isn't Carol choosing to at least wear that?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 08, 2009 1:18 am
Just some food for thought here. How many of y'all watch Fringe and Supernatural (other than Marty)? Compare the first seasons of both shows. It's apt because they're both freak of the week shows with considerable violence. Compare how, why, and the number of female deaths. The only fridging in Fringe is a man, in the pilot. Fringe is pure Hollywood; created by dude what did Alias, Lost, M:I3, and Star Wars along with his writing buddies that most recently farted out the screenplay to Transformers 2: Revenge of The Fallen in addition to Star Trek. The writers include the guy who wrote Batman Forever and Batman & Robin, yet somehow it's a mostly gender inoffensive show, completely benign compared to misogynist train wrecks like Heroes (emphasis on seasons two and three). What's the variable that makes the difference there?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 08, 2009 1:54 am
Bart_Allen When Angel attempts rehabilitation of Faith, Buffy is incredulous that he would even consider that an option for someone of Faith's character. This seems particularly unfair when compared with how other characters are treated. Quote: Again, this is all specifically why I labeled her status as a "Big Bad" as being a complicated. In Supernatural the antagonists are far more simple, and easy to sort into jars of good and bad. The main characters themselves are the ones who are riffed with moral ambiguity.
Ahem. Five by five. I 'unno if the mayor was manipulating her or he was an enabler. Seemed to me like he just presented her an opportunity to do what she was looking for an excuse to do, but that one is hugely open to conjecture. I could write a book about Faith. 8DQuote: ...it's okay for Sam to end the life of a woman who finds out she is a werewolf, after they find her condition is "uncurable"? They couldn't just leave her with the responsibility of NOT SLEEPING DURING NIGHTTIME for three days out of every month?? Quote: What man do you mean here? I am confused D: Joss Whedon, and an explanation for why it would be counter productive to have that type of antagonist present? Quote: And is the earlier paragraph in regard to Twilight, the Sookie Stackhouse mysteries, back to Supernatural, or a completely different example of vampire fiction?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 08, 2009 3:45 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 08, 2009 4:30 am
Newscaster Billy Batson Jaeger_Ayers I think everyone, including whoever made that video is reading into things WAY too far. The show isn't making any kind of statement, it isn't trying to make any kind of statement, it's guys s**t kicking evil stuff. Its funny as hell, has cool special effects and some really tasty brutal fight scenes. If you ain't into it, that's cool, but this debate is silly. It's fluff television. I can't be irritated with fluff television because it is fluff television? And I don't see any of this reading far into the series as I feel the series wears it on its sleeve. I'm not digging to find what it is I see. I'd be digging if I said Supernatural is intentionally portraying women badly; that isn't what I think, or what I'm saying at all. I think because the series features two male leads in a horror genre show that wants to be sexy, scary, and long lasting we are having the discussion we are having now. You're completely fine in saying "hey, I checked it out, and I didn't like it, so I'm out." The person who made the video is picking on an easy target. It's horror, and brutal horror at that, so people die and people include women, and over enough time a fair amount of women are going to die. To say it's some kind of statement against women or masochistic or anything, and I'm not referring to your statements but there seems to be some kind of scent of it in the entire debate, is pretty lame. As for bringing in Fringe: this another show where people, men and women die horribly and people try to stop it from happening again. Same subject, different style. Both have quality, but neither are for everyone.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 08, 2009 4:37 am
I really can't add much to the conversation about Supernatural here, because while I am a fan of the show, I didn't start watching until late in the 3rd season. I've also never bothered to go back and watch the episodes I've missed.
That said, I think the article is a bit off, if only because their only exposure to the show is a music video that had a very specific topic focus. Their point would carry more weight with me if they actually watched the whole show, and then said what they did. The problem here is that they haven't done that, the person quoting them hasn't, and various other people that are agreeing with the music video haven't sat down and watched the show from front to back.
Does that mean they're all automatically wrong? Of course not. But not having watched the show... how can they know for sure? The show could theoretically be drastically different to what they've seen in that music video; it's akin to watching the first episode or so of Shuffle! and writing it off as a generic romantic comedy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 08, 2009 5:42 am
Newscaster Billy Batson Jaeger_Ayers I think everyone, including whoever made that video is reading into things WAY too far. The show isn't making any kind of statement, it isn't trying to make any kind of statement, it's guys s**t kicking evil stuff. Its funny as hell, has cool special effects and some really tasty brutal fight scenes. If you ain't into it, that's cool, but this debate is silly. It's fluff television. I can't be irritated with fluff television because it is fluff television? And I don't see any of this reading far into the series as I feel the series wears it on its sleeve. I'm not digging to find what it is I see. I'd be digging if I said Supernatural is intentionally portraying women badly; that isn't what I think, or what I'm saying at all. I think because the series features two male leads in a horror genre show that wants to be sexy, scary, and long lasting we are having the discussion we are having now. It's a worthwhile discussion. Pop culture is the mirror of our society, it reflects our mores and sensibilities. Romance movies may not be how romance actually happens, but it is about how people want it to happen. Why do we keep watching people marry their childhood sweethearts? Why is country love better than city love? Why is Colin Firth the ideal man? Action movies aren't how the real world works, but they are a comment on how society views masculinity. Why does the hero so often start as chafing against society? Why is there a damsel in distress? Why does the clearly evil guy always own cats? Do the directors, writers and actors think of these things while the show/film/book is happening? Generally no, of course not. They're just making a show/film/book. Horror has a lot to say about how society views sexuality (because it's about the body), who deserves to be punished and for what, who deserves to be saved and why, what redemption is and what is irredeemable. In the larger context of our world, rarely is something is ever just anything. Even Leave it to Beaver was part of a larger cultural backlash against the war, a sort of fantasy forced normalization. It's not wrong to watch and enjoy it on a completely superficial level. In that case, Leave it Beaver is just a show about a stupid kid and Supernatural is just (sort of) scary teen drama. There are lemonade stands and werewovles, these things happen in their respective genres, end of story. But enjoying it that way doesn't strip it of its cultural reflexiveness. So when I read Quote: I honestly never noticed only super pretty girls were dying in the show in hyper sexualized ways until we had them all edited together. I didn't think, "oh it's not important," I thought, "Oh it's been normalized to the point where we don't even notice it. This is just how women die in this genre and we have accepted it. Because it's supposed to be scary, women are supposed to die like this." We can try to be "fair" and say that the plot isn't written to sexualize their deaths, that they're supposed to be competent, strong women right up until the die/survive attack, but the radical shift in imagery are still there. To refer back to Billy's argument: Quote: Bloody Mary...[:] The male character is wearing pants and a polo shirt and goes into the bathroom to pop some pills. He notices something weird happening to his eye. Cut away to his daughters talking, the oldest walks up stairs and finds blood on the floor. Opens the bathroom door; cut to her screaming face - commercial break. We see the fathers dead body only later, from the neck up in a morgue, his eyes are all gone and gross. Fast forward to the death of the female character: After saying Bloody Mary in the mirror three times she quickly de-pants her self and prepares for bed in her underwear, going over to a mirror. She starts to bleed from the eyes, her own reflection looking at her in disgust. She falls over in pain. Cut to commercial. However strong the female character is supposed to be, however Grrr she's written, however helpful she is, it doesn't change the fact that she died in her panties and the guy got to keep his pants on. The fact that people aren't noticing it in Supernatural says a couple possible things to me. - It's not there. This is just a fluke, a couple pretty girls die in sexualized ways but there's also that episode where the hot shirtless bartender was impaled nude on a tree. No one here is really saying this, but I could cherry pick a quote or two that heads into this direction. - It's there, but it's subtle. The writers are moving away from the trope without knowing that's what they're doing (exorcising clichés from the story), but they're still steeped in the influences of the genre. Even the fans don't notice it because it's normalized so totally. It's takes an intentionally reflective eye to see it. - They aren't noticing it because it's not important to them all. "Well men die too so it's unfair to complain at all that women die or how, and it's horror so it's supposed to happen that way" screams warning bells. This is trying to completely gloss it over by saying that the means aren't relevant to the ends. But again, I haven't really seen the show. I'm arguing about arguing, because what we talk about and how we talk about it is also important.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 08, 2009 11:42 am
Ms. Karen Starr Oh totally. Buffy's my Scooby, but I'm not going to lie and pretend that it wasn't hypocritical of her. It was. Buffy dropped the ball many many times when it came to Faith, I yelled at the TV a few times while she let Faith slip away. Buffy you know fronts like she has this immovable moral code and Faith is under that mistaken belief as well. The dynamic between Faith and Angel is great, because he understands her, he's been in the same exact place except that Buffy has constructed these blocks in her head that won't let her look at them the same way.Quote: Ahem. Five by five. I 'unno if the mayor was manipulating her or he was an enabler. Seemed to me like he just presented her an opportunity to do what she was looking for an excuse to do, but that one is hugely open to conjecture. I could write a book about Faith. 8D I think it was probably a combination of the two. He knew where to hit her, to be this twisted daddy figure, and lead her into believing she was doing the right thing. He frequently validates her actions, giving her all that approval she never got from anyone. In the Season 8 comic (in the first very awesome Faith/Giles adventure not the second which was totally just people who looked like Faith and Giles~), I like how the Mayor was addressed, and how she liked how he made her feel, even though she knows it was all pretty wrong. Buffy's trust issues look like nothing next to Faith's (since it seems she can't meet someone without wanting them to press their own agenda on her)-- I'm glad she finally has more than just Angel in her corner. Quote: In the Buffy world that is WRONG. Evil is never predicated on your condition, it's predicated by your choices (much like how World of Warcraft operates). I would ******** hate Supernatural for that part alone.I love Supernatural, but my friends all told me that this episode was going to be the "hottest" ever. Sam gets naked in it. He also cries a lot when he "puts her down." However, it just made me SO mad, at both Dean and Sam. This is one episode I can't defend. Quote: And is the earlier paragraph in regard to Twilight, the Sookie Stackhouse mysteries, back to Supernatural, or a completely different example of vampire fiction? I think the books are way better than the show. Sookie is ALL about not taking the easy way out and getting on that white horse in the books. She is constantly offered things that would make it so she wouldn't need to work for herself, or would never get attacked again (at the cost of her independence), and she stubbornly refuses every time. Also, I think it's great she would rather be a waitress than be in a position where she didn't work at all, or was paid for an ability she doesn't like to use. Who wants to hear what everyone is really thinking? A lot of people like to think the career choice of a waitress is a demeaning one, and something someone only becomes because they have no other choice. People have said this to my friend who is a waitress in her own restaurant that she owns. To her face, and not meaning to insult her at all, but as small talk! gonk Regarding Twilight...I read them all. mad Train reading! I consider it to be a young adult harlequin romance book, with vampires. And judge it as such. It was an easy read. And I kinda liked Bella (but did find her whiny in the first few chapters). It was implied several times that a good part of her zombie-like devotion to Edward was some weird vampire pheromone effect, originally intended to make victims want to be around their prey (cellular level Glamour?). For a genre that is so packed with sex, the fact that the first three books didn't even have a single scene of that was kinda impressive to me. e.e; Insisting she marry him was Edward's initial way of trying to delay things, because he figured she'd never agree to something like that. Kristin Stewart's Bella... I cannot stand. D: I totally didn't think she was this emo girl with no personality when I read the books. She doesn't even seem to like her dad in the movies. She doesn't even seem to like Edward. Or have the ability to smile. Only smirk if at all. Or eat. I will read ANY HORRIBLE VAMPIRE CRAP OUT THERE. I say this because... now I'm reading the Vampire Diaries. All the problems people have with Twilight are here, in full force.This book was originally published in 1991, but is now being reprinted because of the the recent vampire high everyone is on, and that CW chose to make it into a show. The main character is, blond, very pretty, and social queen of her high school. Yet, she is so tired of being so popular, and all the work that means for her. I guess this is what would happen if Buffy had just...stayed Buffy, and not have a huge responsibility placed on her shoulders that made her ditch the immature valley girl life (and also realize how pointless and superficial that life was). Then this new pale boy moves in, and she is utterly offended that he does not instantly want her. The sole reason she wants him... is because he does not want her. She breaks up with her boyfriend (who is apparently the best boyfriend in the world, and who's only flaw seems to be that he loves her already), so she can devote herself to getting this guy to notice her. And on top of that... You get the broody vamp boy's POV too, at the end of every chapter. It reminds me a lot of when Cordelia and Wesley made fun of how things go down with Angel and Buffy, at least in Stephan's point of view. Everything is so DIRE, oh woe, he cannot control his vampire urges (SO WHY IS HE IN A HIGHSCHOOL?), he must not even look at that girl he loves instantly, because she looks just like another girl he used to love. Woe woe woe. And finally, he saves her once (she got mad Stephan showed up with a date who wasn't her, ruining her plan that as Homecoming Queen he couldn't say no to a dance, so she left the dance with a rude and crude football player, who surprise, gets drunk and tries to rape her, actual chapter summary), takes her back to his room, and they start making out. This is literally the first time they have talked for longer than one minute. I think everything that people complain about in Twilight is present in this book, but just so much worse. ...and I will keep reading it. e.e It actually makes me laugh, and I've considered highlighting choice quotes to twitter or something. It really reads like a fan fic from a 12 year old. Actual metaphor: "Katherine was a white kitten, Elena was a white snow-tigress." Anyway. e.e Who can tell someone is having a slow work week?!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
![[Gothic_Lolita]'s avatar](https://a1cdn.gaiaonline.com/dress-up/avatar/ava/7c/78/57bbd0c526787c_flip.png?t=1288631043_6.00_00)