Vampire Diaries vs Twilight
Debate Rounds (5)
Neither Twilight nor Vampire Diaries bare any positive values at all. It is a misfortune that either exist at all, and I would like to suggest that the language in Arabella's query is loaded. It suggests that one is good, and one is more good. I contend that both are bad, and that both are equally bad.
Now, I must give this to my opposition - to suggest that anything is worse than Twilight is to suggest a self-evident falsehood. There is clearly nothing worse than Twilight, and so it is not possible to say that Vampire Diaries is an inferior show.
I contend, therefore, that both are equally virtueless. Neither can be thought of in positive integer form. They are bottom barrel bad.
But I am not undecided on this issue - indeed, I am in strong opposition of Arabella's own position that Twilight is superior to Vampire Diaries, because I contend that both are equally bad, and that her position is therefore wrong.
Poor, helpless Bella shows young girls that she is nothing without a man. Without Edward or Jacob, who is Bella? A self-absorbed pushover who doesn't try to make friends with anyone and who consistently puts herself before her family, namely her concerned father, Charlie.
Elena, on the other hand, has depth to her character. Unlike Bella, she didn't go looking for trouble; fanged trouble time after time again comes after her and her friends - yes, Elena has friends with actual personalities. While Bella basically curls into a fetal position for months wallowing in pity when Edward leaves her in "New Moon," Elena sucks it up when her parents die so she can take care of her younger brother, Jeremy. She always sacrifices her own well-being for her loved ones, and stands up against conniving vampire ex-girlfriends, werewolves, ancient bloodsuckers, and even her own boyfriend - gasp - for what she believes in.
Real vampires (and werewolves and witches)
No, they don't sparkle. They turn others into vampires by feeding them vampire blood, then killing them. They burn in the sunlight, they are vulnerable to vervain, they can compel other people to do as they please, they drink human blood, they desiccate when starved and shrivel up when staked - real vampires aren't made of marble, they're made of flesh and blood like we are. "The Vampire Diaries" stays true to this traditional portrayal, but modernizes it with tantalizingly sympathizing vampire characters. They cry, they scream, they are faced with moral dilemmas, they are so very human, yet clearly not. "The Vampire Diaries" doesn't romanticize the vampire life - it's shown to be painful, lonely, and flawed, and unlike Bella, Elena doesn't beg her boyfriend, Stefan, to change her into a vampire, and rejects the idea of becoming one.
The werewolves turn only at the full moon, according to folklore, and undergo immense pain, unable to even remember who they are. The witches aren't all powerful either, but are the only supernatural forces able to subdue powerful creatures of the night, sometimes only at great personal cost. Time after time, "The Vampire Diaries" delivers intriguing supernatural characters instead of the empty, two-dimensional vampires and werewolves in the Twilight series.
We live in a world obsessed with the supernatural, and always have. "Twilight" changed the way that the world saw vampires, attaching a negative stigma of teenager angst and romanticism to the word "vampire." "The Vampire Diaries" is a truer-to-life representation that will compel you every step of the way.
Elena stands for something more than her own feelings, and this is clearly a character trait superior to practically any that can be found in the Stephanie Meyer saga.
I argue, however, that this concession does not in any way prove that "Vampire Diaries" is at all superior to "Twilight". I am here to demonstrate that both are equally bad.
I firstly remind you of the axiom that nothing is worse than Twlight. This thing is true.
I now remind you that Vampire Diaries only exists as a DERIVATIVE of Twlight. By nature of the fact that Twilight was written due to the author's inspiration, it has a better excuse to exist than Vampire Diaries does.
Vampire Diaries, on the other hand, exists as a parasite. It was only made to exploit the success of the worst book ever.
I think there will have to be some difficulty on your part explaining why a show is superior to a book that you deem poor, when the show is indeed a derivative of that book.
Secondly, I would like to make the mere point that both works sell raunchy romance. In your opinion, it is a good thing that Elena is not all about boys and her own feelings, and has standards which she clings to. If this really is a good thing, then it supports Elena as a good character, but condemns the show as a bad show, since the purpose of the show in the first place is to market the relationship between her and a vampire. Therefore, while Elena may not be about romance, the show largely is, and I consider this a significant point against the show - especially given the nature of the vampires in Vampire Diaries, which I will further address in the following section.
"Real vampires (and werewolves and witches)"
I will dismiss this entire section as invalid, since there are neither real vampires, real werewolves, or even real witches (in the sense that you generally mean the word in fiction). Therefore, to choose sparkly and angsty vampires or werewolves over morbid ones is not an invalid choice.
Furthermore, even if such creatures did exist, the book (Twilight) is fictional, and is therefore permitted to portray them however it likes.
Finally, there is a fine case to be made that sparkly vampires are even preferable to morbid ones. This is especially true in the case of Vampire Diaries. While Twilight celebrates the relationship between a girl and a sparkly vampire, you are now admitting that Vampire Diaries celebrates the relationship between a girl and a morbid vampire. Which seems better?
Vampire Diaries is a derivative of Twilight, and both exist to market raunchy romance. While nothing is worse than Twilight, I fail to see how Vampire Diaries can be called "better", even if it does contain better aspects.
Bella's heart stops when Edward kisses her in the hospital. She's on a monitor, and when the nurse comes in five or ten minutes later to check on her, she looks at the readout and says, "Are you feeling anxious, honey? Your heart rate got a little high there." Okay, I'll let the heart stopping thing go in respect for the needed suspension of belief that it takes to even get through this book; that being said, she's on a heart monitor because they're monitoring her heart. Her going into tachycardia and then momentary arrest would have set off the alarm and sent hordes of nurses instantly running in there. Second, since when is "arrest" equivalent to "heart rate got a little high"? You don't need medical training to know that that's literally incredible nonsense.
Meyer's attempts or, rather, lack thereof are severely disappointing. So much could have been done with these characters, but they're the same filler characters that can be used in any book.
Bella, the main character, is entirely unbelievable as a person.
She claims to be ordinary and second-rate, and that not a single boy in her big-town school was interested in her; but the minute she moves suddenly all the boys want her, as if they're a sub-breed of human or something and she's their goddess. I know that the main character is supposed to be the best of the best and I know that it supposedly gives her a kind of appeal, to be the innocently na"ve beauty who is bewildered as to why so many guys like her. But, seriously every young male character she comes across? All that tosses any sense of realism straight out the window.
Bella has been referred to by critics as an empty shell, more or less, onto which the reader imprints his or her own personality. But to a reader who expects characters to have their own personalities (gasp! I ask too much!), Bella is a severe disappointment as the protagonist.
Every time Bella doesn't get the response she likes, or doesn't get a response fast enough, she "glares" at the person. Apparently, this is the only reasonable facial expression to do when you're not getting exactly the answer you want exactly when you want it.
Bella is timid, meek, and not terribly bright. She latches onto a guy she barely knows because of how pretty he is, and then she proceeds to crumble in New Moon. She lets him do everything for her: drive her, cook for her, save her life, tuck her into bed, sing her to sleep, even carry her places on his back (and while there is a plot connection to this that speaks to a need for him to do these things because of his vastly greater strength and skill in all areas, the image is a demeaning one). She has no actual interests or hobbies outside of "loving" him. She looks at him like she's a whipped puppy and he's the human who's come to feed her, if she agrees to behave.
Edward was meant to be perfect... and so he is. In every way. Not only is he drop-dead, "mind-scramblingly" gorgeous but he's a good person. He has no weaknesses, except for Bella's" love." He has no moral scruples. He's always insanely polite and always says the exact right thing at the exact right time. His IQ must be through the roof. He speaks multiple languages and plays the piano, and his only concerns are to make the girl he loves happy and to protect his family.
How about a flaw or two just something to bring him to life.As it is, he's a cardboard cutout of [insert your favorite male daydream here]. Perfection does not make a character feel real.
The "love" that Bella and Edward share is nothing more than shallow attraction ,despite the fact that his instinctual drive to drink her blood might at any point override his physical desire, resulting in her death. Because there is nothing concrete to either character, there is nothing concrete on which true love might be built. They don't share any interests, because neither of them have any interests.
Also, they say that Edward loves Bella a lot but if he did he would have never left her just to "protect" her. And as smart as he is he should have known that that was a stupid idea. Also in TVD it shows us just how much Stephen and Damon are willing to do to protect Elena.
As a writer, and someone who makes his living writing, I must say that I share your vehement disgust of the wretched book by Stephanie Meyer. It is a cheap thrill for teens, intended to market raunchiness.
I acknowledge that she is a wretched character, and that the dynamics of the book are unrealistic, immoral, and highly improbable. I furthermore accept your accusations against Edward Cullens, though I certainly have better feelings for him than I do for Bella. To begin with, he is a fictional creature with alternative capacities than those belonging to humans, so he need not be as empathetic as a human character. And yet, he still has weaknesses which he struggles to overcome, and that makes him a better character than Bella in my book.
Now allow me to complain that, in the beginning, you failed to correctly define "The Vampire Diaries". While there may be a book series by the same name, and same plot, I refer to the show that you reference in your first post, and nothing more.
I cite as evidence of your original definition: "just by watching the first episode you are captivated by it like you wanna continue watching it"
You are clearly referring to television material here, and so please understand that for the remainder of the debate, I refer to the show and the show alone, unless I specifically mention the books.
At the same time, I admit that the existence of TVD books is a valid objection to my point that TVD TV series is a derivative of Twilight. However, I maintain that it was a derivative. Twilight began a trend in Y/A fiction that has not been conquered since the wretched book"s release. Since then, there has been a disturbing excess of literature related to monsters and dark, supernatural romance. I know that literary agents in the publishing field have gotten sick of it, as have I. I tire of seeing all these blatant ripoffs making big bucks, when people who truly have talent are rejected time and time again.
Now consider TVD " it debuted in September of 2009, not long after the release of the original Twilight film, and only two months before the theatrical release of the second. Let"s assume for a moment that TVD books are actually better than Twilight, and contain significant literary virtue (an assumption that I do not necessarily accept). Even so, do you think a television adaptation would have been made were it not for the success of the Twilight franchise?
I think not. In fact, I am sure of it, and I think you can see that I am right. Thus I maintain that TVD is a derivative: a second class show that has more virtue than Twilight, but still has precious little, and remains just as bad because it only exists because of the former.
ArabellaPhoenixox forfeited this round.
Noogah forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.