Why the newest Twilight movie doesn't suck.
14 years ago
No. This wasn't a ploy title to get you to read about my personal problems or some art contest. I'm being legit. So, for those of you who aren't interested in this go ahead and teal deer below, say "you're retarded, twilight sucks!" and rage quit this journal because this is about to get lengthy.
This isn't going to be a rant about team Jacob or why Bella didn't do blank from blank book in blank movie. This is me having a conversation with you over why people try and seriously review ANY movie from the Twilight series and others like it.
I believe movies come in a many types with many subjects but ultimately fall into three categories:
Pander films
Historical Pander films
Abstract
Pander films have one goal in mind. Find their target audience and make what they want to see. They're not trying to win any awards or write the best scripts. These movies are generally met with praise by those targeted and strong hatred by those who aren't. Here are some perfect examples of pander films: Twilight, Harry Potter, Devil wears Prada, Kung Fu Panda, Snakes on a Plane, and SAW.
Historical Pander films are just like the above but have that pesky: based on a true story bit. How can history pander? By skewing it just enough to get the angle you want. Titanic? Romance movie because Jack and Rose were never on that boat. Then again the graphics were sweet so I guess there was something for the guys as well. Pearl Harbor? Guy flick with a bit of romance for the ladies.
That third category is for films that are trying to say something. They're made to teach or reveal some injustice in the world. These are the documentaries. Indie films. The movies made because someone wanted to. Not because their intention was to get rich. Sometimes they get off track and TRY to LOOK indie while they are actually pandering to the indie hipsters. I haven't quite figured out where Napoleon Dynamite lands. :/
Twilight falls neatly into that pander film slot. The Twilight objective is to make money off it's target audience by giving THAT audience EXACTLY what it wants. Now, mind you, if I was to pick it apart on it's visuals I certainly could but Twilight's concentration lies in dialogue dripping in teen longing, indecisiveness and the forbidden. If it was going for visual and no story it would just be Transformers.
The reason Twilight doesn't suck is that it did what it set out to do. It wasn't trying to make people better or end world hunger. It was making money. The reason most people say it sucks is because it wasn't made for them. While Twilight is hotly debated about it's suck-a-tude or lack there of many other movies are guilty of being a pander film. Kid's movies pander to them. Usually there's a fart joke or two, slime or something messy and lots of noise. Guy movies have stuff blowing up, a hot chick and probably some sweet cars. What I'm getting at here is that no one is going to try and do a serious review of a kid's or guy's movie because those things aren't meant to be taken seriously. So why do people get so bent out of shape over Twilight?
Pander films are just like candy. There's no real substance but we crave it anyways. It gives us our emotional fix. Young girls like Twilight because of the real desire teens have to want and be wanted. And with a choice between hot guy #1 and hot guy #2 it's win-win really. People watch SAW because we like death and destruction and have limited outlets to enjoy it. Women like romantic comedies because the main characters live happily ever after.
Do you see where I'm going with this?
Just because someone doesn't like "blank" movie doesn't make it bad no more than you hating pepsi means it's suddenly not delicious.
If these movies are like candy, Twilight is definitely like those creepy face ice cream bars you get from the local ice cream man. Most people won't buy it...it wasn't made for them. But for that kid who likes bubblegum eyes on their "sorta looks like spiderman" popsicle? It's the best thing ever and who are we to tell him he's wrong? Nor will you see a world renown food critic report that the bubblegum eyes were too pretentious.
Twilight was good TO ME.
And spiderman popsicles are alot tastier than they look. :p
This isn't going to be a rant about team Jacob or why Bella didn't do blank from blank book in blank movie. This is me having a conversation with you over why people try and seriously review ANY movie from the Twilight series and others like it.
I believe movies come in a many types with many subjects but ultimately fall into three categories:
Pander films
Historical Pander films
Abstract
Pander films have one goal in mind. Find their target audience and make what they want to see. They're not trying to win any awards or write the best scripts. These movies are generally met with praise by those targeted and strong hatred by those who aren't. Here are some perfect examples of pander films: Twilight, Harry Potter, Devil wears Prada, Kung Fu Panda, Snakes on a Plane, and SAW.
Historical Pander films are just like the above but have that pesky: based on a true story bit. How can history pander? By skewing it just enough to get the angle you want. Titanic? Romance movie because Jack and Rose were never on that boat. Then again the graphics were sweet so I guess there was something for the guys as well. Pearl Harbor? Guy flick with a bit of romance for the ladies.
That third category is for films that are trying to say something. They're made to teach or reveal some injustice in the world. These are the documentaries. Indie films. The movies made because someone wanted to. Not because their intention was to get rich. Sometimes they get off track and TRY to LOOK indie while they are actually pandering to the indie hipsters. I haven't quite figured out where Napoleon Dynamite lands. :/
Twilight falls neatly into that pander film slot. The Twilight objective is to make money off it's target audience by giving THAT audience EXACTLY what it wants. Now, mind you, if I was to pick it apart on it's visuals I certainly could but Twilight's concentration lies in dialogue dripping in teen longing, indecisiveness and the forbidden. If it was going for visual and no story it would just be Transformers.
The reason Twilight doesn't suck is that it did what it set out to do. It wasn't trying to make people better or end world hunger. It was making money. The reason most people say it sucks is because it wasn't made for them. While Twilight is hotly debated about it's suck-a-tude or lack there of many other movies are guilty of being a pander film. Kid's movies pander to them. Usually there's a fart joke or two, slime or something messy and lots of noise. Guy movies have stuff blowing up, a hot chick and probably some sweet cars. What I'm getting at here is that no one is going to try and do a serious review of a kid's or guy's movie because those things aren't meant to be taken seriously. So why do people get so bent out of shape over Twilight?
Pander films are just like candy. There's no real substance but we crave it anyways. It gives us our emotional fix. Young girls like Twilight because of the real desire teens have to want and be wanted. And with a choice between hot guy #1 and hot guy #2 it's win-win really. People watch SAW because we like death and destruction and have limited outlets to enjoy it. Women like romantic comedies because the main characters live happily ever after.
Do you see where I'm going with this?
Just because someone doesn't like "blank" movie doesn't make it bad no more than you hating pepsi means it's suddenly not delicious.
If these movies are like candy, Twilight is definitely like those creepy face ice cream bars you get from the local ice cream man. Most people won't buy it...it wasn't made for them. But for that kid who likes bubblegum eyes on their "sorta looks like spiderman" popsicle? It's the best thing ever and who are we to tell him he's wrong? Nor will you see a world renown food critic report that the bubblegum eyes were too pretentious.
Twilight was good TO ME.
And spiderman popsicles are alot tastier than they look. :p
FA+

The book's pages may as well have been completely blank.
1: goodie goodie vampires that sparkle
2: bella is a total bitch...
yea sorry but idea of any vampire being truely good is absurd. You can walk the line between the two, even hate having to feed but idea of a vampire living on animals doesn't work through all of literature and history vampires have had one driving feature. The absolute NEED to live on human blood, so this idea just didnt set well with me. I suppose at end of the day i'm an old school vampire fan and new take on vampires didnt go over and so yea i had a distaste in my mouth over the whole affair.
The second thing is bella, from get go she basically isn't in love with edger, she's just attracted by the pharamones, she is in love and doesn't know why. Then when he leaves... she basically goes batshit ok i can buy this much. Here is where things start to go south... see bella obviously has a thing for the lycan kid whose name eludes me... likes him does all this stuff for him and leads him on, then drops him on his face and snaps her fingers and is all " BITCH PLEASE VAMPY IS ONLY THING FOR ME! LAWL!" no seriously she is total bitch in movies...way they portrayed her, how she treated people yea how can i support a character like that?
But all things i hate aside, books and movies themselves are good for what they are. They are a girl chick flick kind of story written with a sci-fi/fantasy flair and presented in a way that women can get into. Heck even some guys were deeply into twilight series BUT as an old guy, and older vampire fan, and frankly some one is a huge novel reader i didnt care for books nor the movies they just fell flat. However same could be said for dark elf trilogy ie drizzit books which many loved and i didnt.
At the end of the day liking a book or movie is a personal preference and just my feelings on it as a whole.
on a random side note, it amuses me that whenever i explain some things about the books that are different-in-a-bad-way from the movies, they're responce is "hmm...yeah, that makes a lot of sense. why didn't the film do that?" the mooaaaarrr you knooowwww, lol
I can list several things right off the top of my head that are more engaging and entertaining that will probably NEVER get the credit they deserve, and meanwhile Stephanie Meyer's drivel gets a Hollywood movie series made out of it. THAT is what infuriates the living fuck out of me.
If you want to sit back and praise cash grabs for being cash grabs, that's your business. But don't expect for a second that we aren't going to call a spade a spade, and that we're going to quiet our outrage.
There is a much bigger point I'm trying to make that transcends films into most artistic fields. I've seen so much artwork that I personally think sucks a fatty but it sells so well and for the longest time I just didn't understand. I could pick them apart, piece by piece, about why I thought these quickly mass produced art were crap at best and that's when I realized. I was trying to grade it on a completely wrong scale.
I'm not sure if you're aware of a site called Etsy.com. Basically, it's like an ebay for arts and crafts. A little while ago someone made a very simple necklace involving a small bird charm and a leaf charm. They sold like crazy and soon EVERY "jewelry" maker had one in their shop. Personally, the necklace is cute I guess but that's about it. It's a generic cute necklace that people who aren't looking for something serious will buy without thinking much about it. People who are serious about jewelry and craftmanship won't buy those sorts of things unless they too are just looking for a cheap consumable. Those etsy sellers, like Twilight, are working smarter not harder. They figured out what sells and sell it. All creativity is lost...along with originality. That's why every romantic comedy is predictable as heck, all guy movies will have a boob joke and all teen movies will have angst.
that said they do pander to a certain kind of people. sadly i'm that kind of people but the fact of the matter is the movie's acting was soo poorly played out it wasn't even funny. I guess i like to see people actually be the roles and not play them.
And lol something you may find amusing. :D : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vlQd9w0w_4
Really though i think it's mostly fame, because twilight movies are getting awards they don't deserve in my opinion. Both rob and kristen need to go back to acting classes and learn the difference between becoming the role and reading the lines.
I don't think it's the dynamic of the film. again though, just my opinion.