Twilight Saga: New moon

Twilight saga=shi*. Right, i thought ok, I really dont want to see Twilight EVER, but I'll watch it to see what al lthe fuss is about.

Jesus. What a joke. The whole beginning and middle is so dull, I was watching in amazement as NOTHING happened and hardly anyone was talking.

The colour grading.......tried to give it such an emo look. GAY.

Just like Harry Pothead and alot of other shi* thats suppposed to be 'great' out today, I couldnt stand Twilight.

The acting was mediocre at best.

Im sure the books suck as well.

Vampires...zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.......like ive never seen a vampire film before.

God I hate Twilight.
 
Yeah, we sat down and watched a loaner copy of 'Twilight' for the same reason - want to see what the fuss is about.

As is often the case, the fuss turned out to be about...

...not very much, at all.
 
Twilight is absolutely massive and a cultural phenomenon, but it has nearly *zero* appeal to the male half of the population. It's aimed at teenage girls, but has found ravenous acceptance with housewives/moms up to at least 45.

Twilight is an example of directly scoring a bullseye hit on your target market. It's just that it turns out to be incomprehensible to those of us who have the Y chromosome. It's like we're trying to evaluate a rainbow, but we're completely color blind -- we can't see the appeal, but they sure do.
 
Zero appeal to the straight male half of the population, anyway. Most of my gay friends seem to find what's-his-name (the male lead) very appealing.

Even if he tends to glitter in full sunlight. Or maybe that's part of his appeal.
 
Londude said:
Twilight saga=shi*. Right, i thought ok, I really dont want to see Twilight EVER, but I'll watch it to see what al lthe fuss is about.

Jesus. What a joke. The whole beginning and middle is so dull, I was watching in amazement as NOTHING happened and hardly anyone was talking.

The colour grading.......tried to give it such an emo look. GAY.

Just like Harry Pothead and alot of other shi* thats suppposed to be 'great' out today, I couldnt stand Twilight.

The acting was mediocre at best.

Im sure the books suck as well.

Vampires...zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.......like ive never seen a vampire film before.

God I hate Twilight.
Click to expand...

can't do the Euro, Romantic Vamps

I want 30 Days of Night feral beast creatures
 
Barry_Green said:
Twilight is absolutely massive and a cultural phenomenon, but it has nearly *zero* appeal to the male half of the population. It's aimed at teenage girls, but has found ravenous acceptance with housewives/moms up to at least 45.

Twilight is an example of directly scoring a bullseye hit on your target market. It's just that it turns out to be incomprehensible to those of us who have the Y chromosome. It's like we're trying to evaluate a rainbow, but we're completely color blind -- we can't see the appeal, but they sure do.
Click to expand...


Get this, some new genius at a major studio just gave Taylor Lautner a big contract to star in an SUPER HERO ACTION movie, yes, a SUPER HERO ACTION movie. Hello, his audience is teen girls, gay men and older cougars. What normal straight guy is going to want to go see a SUPER HERO ACTION movie with him in it? Not me. Ohh yea, there are actually two different studios making them, Universal's Stretch Armstrong and Paramount's Max Steel. And now for the really bad part, these both are FRANCHISES. Ha ha ha, no joke. I'll bet his dance movie does really well though.
 
Okay, as a guy, I'm going to chime in and say that I actually see some of the appeal. Not in the films, but in the books, which are the real source of the phenom. The films are successful by default. I think if it had originated with these movies they would have tanked, but they had an audience ready for them already.

I listened through all the unabridged books on audio to and from work last year and enjoyed them. I hated the first film (really didn't capture the book at all). It was poorly directed, there were several miscasts IMO, and Carter Burwell's musical score was JUNK.

I haven't seen the second one. Reportedly it is better. I'll catch it at some point. At least Desplat's score is better. That is a huge deal to me. A poor film score can spoil a film for me. Or at least it can really hurt it (like Michael Kamen's first X-MEN score).
 
Galleddrim said:
and Carter Burwell's musical score was JUNK.
Click to expand...

That was the only redeeming feature of the entire film for me. The book was absolutely designed for 13 year old girls, period.

Once your intellectual sophistication is adequately reversed, the rest of the series didn't hurt so bad. Reading the books was what I think a lobotomy must be like.
 
well the taylor kid knows martial arts and he has a following sound like they know what they are doing. it just the same as we see why shia leboff they are trying to make him the new tom cruise.

heres taylor lautern when he was younger doing martial arts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8SSl8JkUXA&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_xnmg7Eo40

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WqdrVdLlAbk&feature=related


not to defend him im just saying i rather see a guy know how to fight then someone else get a super hero part lol. and he's young, he could develop into a good actor with time who knows.

ChipG said:
Get this, some new genius at a major studio just gave Taylor Lautner a big contract to star in an SUPER HERO ACTION movie, yes, a SUPER HERO ACTION movie. Hello, his audience is teen girls, gay men and older cougars. What normal straight guy is going to want to go see a SUPER HERO ACTION movie with him in it? Not me. Ohh yea, there are actually two different studios making them, Universal's Stretch Armstrong and Paramount's Max Steel. And now for the really bad part, these both are FRANCHISES. Ha ha ha, no joke. I'll bet his dance movie does really well though.
Click to expand...
 
Ohh I'm aware of his backgroung and also his fan base. It'll be interesting to see what happens, both franchises are big $ productions.
 
Sad Max said:
Not like us clever discerning superior types, that's for sure.
Click to expand...


LOL I wasnt implying I was superior, I was simply saying the majority of mainstream film goers seem happy and content with the movie they've paid to see, without really taking a moment to analyze it.

I.e, there are some really bad movies out there that have made millions, The Dark Knight being one of them.
 
Londude,

I'm curious to know what kind of films you see as good. By the way, it's not an accident that the kind of movies that make millions and millions of dollars are not films that filmmaker types and scarf covered college students like to talk about. It seems the studios are very nervous about these kinds of films making enough money - so obviously they can't take too many risks. It makes sense.

I will say that I wouldn't want to see Twilight again. But think about where the majority of money is coming from. Film students? I doubt it. 44 year old single males? Probably not.13-18 year old (mainly) girls? Bingo. And their mothers. And their friends. And that's a big audience. I say good on them for hitting the right target. If you and I loved the twilight film, then maybe they aren't doing it right. (Either that or they're doing an incredible job -- that is if the girls still love it!) By the way, making mainstream movies is probably insanely hard. I wouldn't know. Hopefully one day I'll get to know all about it. It's all good and well to piece together an indpendant film or a small budget studio film, but if you're sitting on a budget of 100 mill or more, and you've got producers shouting down your neck, publicists hanging around, tired crew, angry studio bosses, egos to clash fists with, I mean, it's gotta be damn tough.

This audience doesn't want to sit down and talk about how interesting the shots were, how compelling the characters were, what the sound design was like and how they crossed the line of action in the most important love scene in the film, or whatever else have you. They don't care. They're more interested in seeing good looking footage with characters their young minds can relate to -- hot guys, girls they see themselves as. The list goes on. And of course a story. Try telling a 13 year old girl to analyse the "film" she just watched. She'd be like, what? Umm edward's hot...

I.e, there are some really bad movies out there that have made millions, The Dark Knight being one of them.
Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong. I like talking about Casablanca as much as the next guy. But I loved Spiderman. I loved the Dark knight. I think these kinds of films really nail what cinema is all about. The secret is pleasing the masses and making something awesome -- which is very, very rare, and if you can master that, all the power to you. Every now and then you get a Star Wars, and an Indiana Jones. To me that's just crazy inspiring. I mean, look at that. Pleasing all those people, making loads of money, but at the end of the day you're making the kind of movies you want to make. Unbelievable. Epic.
 
Last edited:
Twilight et all are narrowly and precisely targeted to a particular audience in the same way that Saw or Love Actually are targeted at their specific respective audiences.

Bitching that these (for example) are "bad" movies is about as rational as insisting that a screwdriver is a "bad" instrument because it's unsuited to your personal preferred activity of driving nails.

Did I enjoy Twilight? No. Does that make it a 'bad' movie? No, it was consciously developed and produced to appeal to someone in a very different demographic with very different tastes. If anything that makes it a study in good media development and marketing, if not in how to make a film with broad timeless appeal to everyone that might encounter it.
 
Sad Max said:
Twilight et all are narrowly and precisely targeted to a particular audience in the same way that Saw or Love Actually are targeted at their specific respective audiences.

Bitching that these (for example) are "bad" movies is about as rational as insisting that a screwdriver is a "bad" instrument because it's unsuited to your personal preferred activity of driving nails.

Did I enjoy Twilight? No. Does that make it a 'bad' movie? No, it was consciously developed and produced to appeal to someone in a very different demographic with very different tastes. If anything that makes it a study in good media development and marketing, if not in how to make a film with broad timeless appeal to everyone that might encounter it.
Click to expand...

I sort of disagree. I think the first Twilight is bad on a level of basic craftsmanship. There are many aspects of the writing that I think are weak and don't work, and performances issues as well. I think the first film succeeded solely based on the strength of the book's popularity. Can't speak for the sequel because I haven't seen it.
 
I haven't read the book but I suspect that whatever flaws one might find in the screenplay are inherent in the source material.

I think Twilight is about a B/B- on basic craftsmanship. The subjects of shots are in focus and the glitter is evenly applied.
 
Sad Max said:
I haven't read the book but I suspect that whatever flaws one might find in the screenplay are inherent in the source material.
Click to expand...

But there are things that work better in novel form than in screenplay form. You can have a passive protagonist in a book because you hear their internal monologues, and there is drama in that, especially when told in the first person as Twilight is. A book can just be about what people think. Movies are about what people DO.
 
There's the argument regarding how well an adaptation has been executed, and there's the argument over whether or not the adaptation should have been attempted, to begin with. I think those are two separate matters.

Anyway, people *do* stuff, in the 'Twilight' movie. They moan, they obsess, they stop skidding cars with their bare hands, they scowl, they sparkle attractively.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top