Twilight Bondage

The cast of TwilightThanksgiving and Christmas time usually means I'm going to rack up some miles on the ol' Jetta. This year was no exception as Ashlee and I packed up the car and headed south for Fayetteville, Fort Smith and Hot Springs. We usually listen to a smattering of music, podcasts and NPR, but this time we decided that an audio book might be better fare. Having no real desire to hear anything in particular, Ash suggested a book that she and millions of other girls are hopelessly addicted to – "Twilight."

We weren't even 20 minutes outside of KC before we began listening, and it was only a minute later that I breathed my first "sigh."

It was only a mere 13 hours later that we were back in KC and had finished listening to the book. We actually finished it in the parking lot of the movie theater and then went inside to see the on-screen adaptation. The movie was much quicker paced than the book, which I appreciated, but there are some fundamental things that I truly dislike about "Twilight" thus far and don't know if I'll enjoy the rest of the series (Warning: spoilers present):

First-Person Girl Romance Novels
Guys, don't be fooled. First and foremost, this series is written for girls in high school. It's not an action flick. It's not a mystery. It's a romance. Worse yet, it's a teenage romance. Ever since I've NOT been a teenager, the worst kind of romance ever is the teenager variety. I don't care about how god-like this boy is. I don't care about what it felt like to touch his arm or even kiss him for the first time. I don't care about how annoyed he becomes with all of your questions. I think that over half the book takes place in about a 5-hour time frame where Edward and Bella are laying in a field together. That's boring. Vampires = evil. Evil = trouble. Trouble = action. You can pin a love story around action, it happens all the time. The movie was better about this than the book, but damn.

Re-Written Rules for Vampires
I'm not a stickler on carrying on traditional rules for this and that. In fact, I don't mind the occasional variance if it's well-done – "True Blood" does it well and also the zombies that can run in "28 Days Later" come to mind. But changing the rules to make your story work as a romance is pushing it. Here's a list of de-bunked vampires myths, according to Stephenie Meyer:

Can you see how these rules were changed for the romance? They're not all evil (aka monsters) and they don't shine in daylight. That means that they're capable of free-will and they can hang out in the daytime. This was strictly done for romance purposes because if the vampires couldn't come out during the day, then how would Bella fall in love with Edward? Maybe they both work a late shift together?

Hating What You Are
Poor Edward doesn't like being a "monster." He and his family have made the choice of being civilized vampires and the townspeople appreciate it (even though they don't know that they do). But man, does he HATE that he's a vampire and has the desire to just eat people. Know what I say (and this goes for any vampire that complains about it)? You don't HAVE to be immortal. Just off yourself. You had your chance to be human a long time ago. You're not doing us any favor by sticking around.

I'm sure there are more, like how mention that Robert Pattinson (Edward) has all the makings of a future db. But in all actuality, it's not that bad of a story. If you remove the lame high school drama from it, the series might actually flourish for both girls AND guys. I've heard the series gets worse from here, though, so I'm not sure what to expect. Maybe I'll just let Ash read them and tell me what happens.

We also finally took the time to watch the latest James Bond movie, "Quantum of Solace," this weekend. My two-second review: Chase scenes on land, sea and air hardly match up to a high-stakes poker game. The stunts were pretty bad ass, but the franchise started to slip back into the Bond of old. That's not necessarily bad, and it could be worse, but like we saw with "Casino Royale," it could be so much better.

+ original post date: December 1, 2008 02:10 PM
+ categories: Movies


(comments rss feed)

Don't lie. You want to hear about Edward's icy, yet electric touch and taut, muscular physique just as much as the next guy

+ author: Ashlee
+ posted: December 1, 2008 03:31 PM

Saw both of these movies - didn't think Twilight was bad, though all the changes from normal vampire rules were odd. It was far better than lots of teen romance movies though, I'll give it that.

Interesting short review of Casino Royale, especially this line: "the franchise started to slip back into the Bond of old." Would love to hear why you came to that conclusion. I thought it was good, but hard to follow with terrible audio quality. Not as good as I'd hoped for and not as good as Casino Royale. And though I appreciate that the current movie team is doing their best to eliminate the Roger Moore-cheesiness of the past, they've taken so much of the Bond DNA out that its been reduced to an almost-generic action flick. No Q, hardly any gadgets, no Moneypenny, no "Shaken Not Stirred", no "Bond James Bond" and no pithy one-liners. Too much of that is cheesy, a little bit of it is Bond. Quantum felt like a Bourne movie.

+ author: Kyle
+ posted: December 1, 2008 05:05 PM

Ash -- Barf. I wonder how sex-deprived Meyer is in real-life. She had close to 1,000 sex metaphors in that book.

Kyle -- I KNEW you liked teenage romance novels. Sick bastard. As for Bond, while you're right there is a lack of Q, shaken/stirred and Bond/James Bond -- there were quite a few one-liners and some interesting gadgetry.

Some things we have to keep in mind is that the writers are finally trying to tell a cohesive story. Also, we're not really in the spy vs. spy era anymore. Bond flourished in the Cold War era and we're so far removed from that, now.

You're right, though, it's feeling more and more like a Bourne-type flick, which isn't surprising since that franchise is a successful one.

I felt like Quantum was a good version of the old Bond stuff. It came no where near the level of Casino Royale, which is a shame. And yes, it was pretty hard to follow what the hell was going on at times.

+ author: seth
+ posted: December 1, 2008 05:05 PM

Come on people! I'm not sure what everyone's hang-up with Roger Moore bashing is these days but that dude was slick! Those were Bond movies and although he was very (very, very) old for "A View to a Kill", it was still entertaining with a plot. "Quantum", although pretty good, lacked in this one sense. I got up to go to the can and came back (two minutes - tops) to find that I'd missed the entire purpose of the villans master plan. It was only mentioned in passing and never repeated! So much for having much bearing on the story line. It also gets a bit annoying that Bond has become a blunt instrument of unabashed murder. "Hi, time to die. Luckily I asked the front desk if you had any packages that might lead to the next clue". Sheesh, the only thing that might have been more believable is if Nick Cage showed up and switched the title to "National Treasure 3: Case of Bullsh#t". Some gadgets would be nice but I did like how the story tied up with the previous one nicely. Overall it was pretty good, but time to get back to some classic Bond. I'd die to see one of those classic stunts (no freaking CGI!) that were once the corner stone of a Bond movie.

+ author: Nik
+ posted: December 1, 2008 10:38 PM

No fangs and day-walking? That's dumb.

I can live with the rest.

+ author: jones
+ posted: December 2, 2008 11:23 AM

Bond is just a real life inspector gadget. that's right i said

+ author: shaun Crockett
+ posted: December 3, 2008 08:38 AM

post a comment



 Remember Me?

* (you may use HTML tags for style)

* Denotes required field