Total Posts:68|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

1000 Reasons Harry P. is Better than Twilight

jdog2016
Posts: 93
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2013 12:58:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
1. It has a more realistic ending

2. It has a PLOT!

3. It has Subplots

4.It has several characters with depth.

5. JK is not afraid to sacrifice the good guys

6. The characters aren't one dementional

7. JK researches her material, has good use of Latin and history within her books. Spells are named after Latin words and do what the Latin words do. Names of soem characters give hints as to what that character is such as Sirius which means Dog Star for more Albus which means White.

8. You can relate Harry Potter to WWII because of similarities you could learn some history from the books.

9. Reason 8 being said some characters are loosly based off real life people Dumbledoor=Winston Churchill and VOldemort=Hitler Death eaters=Nazi's

10. Harry Potter teaches a good deal about prejudice and slavery with the use of different imaginative creatures (Which also required research to create)

11. JK wrote a whole imaginative world that goes further then her 7 books. She thought about more then writing a story but created a whole world with information that never actually made it into the books. Similar to JRR Tolkien (author who wrote Lord of the Rings, if you don't bother to read classics.)

12. Twilight WILL fad out it is a fad and many fans are on it because of the Bandwagon effect and because Robert Patterson is good looking But Harry Potter will be around forever.

13. The writing is just better.

14. Twilight is too predictable and thrown clumsily together. Harry potter is not predictable and JK Rowling ties all knots and answers all questions.

15. Harry Potter teaches good values and relationships. There are no controlling abusive relationships and the hero can go one without their partner.

16. The female characters are strong and intelligent. Hermione doesn't NEED a boyfriend to be a strong good role model for girls everywhere.

17. Harry Potter can be read by any age group. Twilight is geared more towards angst 15 year olds.

18. The characters in Harry Potter GROW, they grow with you as you read. The first books start out fairly tame but mature as you mature. I had the pleasure of growing with Harry.

19. A story about a teenage wizard facing off against a dark lord beats one about a sparkling, lovesick vampire anyday.

20. Even Rob Pattison says he hates Edward Cullen and played him like a depressed maniac.
JDoG
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2013 1:15:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/9/2013 12:58:07 PM, jdog2016 wrote:
1. It has a more realistic ending

2. It has a PLOT!

3. It has Subplots

4.It has several characters with depth.

5. JK is not afraid to sacrifice the good guys

6. The characters aren't one dementional

Ginny Weasely is most certainly one dimensional. This is an issue that has been pointed out by many fans before me.


7. JK researches her material, has good use of Latin and history within her books. Spells are named after Latin words and do what the Latin words do. Names of soem characters give hints as to what that character is such as Sirius which means Dog Star for more Albus which means White.

The majority of spells are crappy Latin, if Latin at all.


8. You can relate Harry Potter to WWII because of similarities you could learn some history from the books.

9. Reason 8 being said some characters are loosly based off real life people Dumbledoor=Winston Churchill and VOldemort=Hitler Death eaters=Nazi's

I disagree with the Dumbledore= Churchill. They are nothing alike. And the real Hitler of the book was Grindelwald.


10. Harry Potter teaches a good deal about prejudice and slavery with the use of different imaginative creatures (Which also required research to create)

11. JK wrote a whole imaginative world that goes further then her 7 books. She thought about more then writing a story but created a whole world with information that never actually made it into the books. Similar to JRR Tolkien (author who wrote Lord of the Rings, if you don't bother to read classics.)

12. Twilight WILL fad out it is a fad and many fans are on it because of the Bandwagon effect and because Robert Patterson is good looking But Harry Potter will be around forever.

13. The writing is just better.

14. Twilight is too predictable and thrown clumsily together. Harry potter is not predictable and JK Rowling ties all knots and answers all questions.

I disagree with this. While JK did a better job of the former, and I am not willing to read the books to find out if she did a better job of the later, the Harry Potter series still has these failings. Albeit in lower quantities then a lot of books.

15. Harry Potter teaches good values and relationships. There are no controlling

Dumbles/Harry

abusive relationships

Dursleys/Harry

and the hero can go one without their partner.

Meh.


16. The female characters are strong and intelligent.

Lavender Brown and Parvarti Patil, off the top of my head, do not fit these. But I don't think you really meant all of the female characters were.

Hermione doesn't NEED a boyfriend to be a strong good role model for girls everywhere.

17. Harry Potter can be read by any age group. Twilight is geared more towards angst 15 year olds.

18. The characters in Harry Potter GROW, they grow with you as you read. The first books start out fairly tame but mature as you mature. I had the pleasure of growing with Harry.

Agreed in respect to certain characters. Mainly, the three main ones. But for some, this does not ring true. Like, again, Ginny Weasely.


19. A story about a teenage wizard facing off against a dark lord beats one about a sparkling, lovesick vampire anyday.

20. Even Rob Pattison says he hates Edward Cullen and played him like a depressed maniac.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2013 2:45:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/9/2013 12:58:07 PM, jdog2016 wrote:
1. It has a more realistic ending


I don't think you get a win on this. One story is about magic, the other is about vampires.

2. It has a PLOT!

3. It has Subplots

And so does Twilight. Some people just don't get it because the subplots are arguably more important than the "story" (and arguably the same is true with HP, with its overtly Christian overtones and its focus on the inevitably and acceptance of death, etc).

4.It has several characters with depth.

This point is nonsense. Pretty much the whole twilight story is about the introspection and development of the central character, with all the books written in first person narrative.

5. JK is not afraid to sacrifice the good guys

This might be a legit criticism, although it's not entirely correct. Also, reading both, each of the central characters were in danger, IMO.

6. The characters aren't one dementional

See above.

7. JK researches her material, has good use of Latin and history within her books. Spells are named after Latin words and do what the Latin words do. Names of soem characters give hints as to what that character is such as Sirius which means Dog Star for more Albus which means White.

Dude, its magic and vampires. Research, in any kind of sense, is pushing it. Although things like veritaserum and such were undoubtedly great little touches.

8. You can relate Harry Potter to WWII because of similarities you could learn some history from the books.

What?

9. Reason 8 being said some characters are loosly based off real life people Dumbledoor=Winston Churchill and VOldemort=Hitler Death eaters=Nazi's

And Twilight is loosely based off Shakespeare and other things. So what?

10. Harry Potter teaches a good deal about prejudice and slavery with the use of different imaginative creatures (Which also required research to create)

Any novel will have subtle themes running throughout the book, personified by certain characters. Twilight is no different. Indeed, one of the central themes is the books is how the good characters continuously choose the Good, overcoming their "sinful" (for lack of a better word) nature.

11. JK wrote a whole imaginative world that goes further then her 7 books. She thought about more then writing a story but created a whole world with information that never actually made it into the books. Similar to JRR Tolkien (author who wrote Lord of the Rings, if you don't bother to read classics.)

Meyer did the same thing, with a novella, a rewritten Twilight (from Edward's perspective) and an encylopedic type book referencing finer points of the saga.

12. Twilight WILL fad out it is a fad and many fans are on it because of the Bandwagon effect and because Robert Patterson is good looking But Harry Potter will be around forever.

I doubt it.

13. The writing is just better.

Agreed. The films aren't though.

14. Twilight is too predictable and thrown clumsily together. Harry potter is not predictable and JK Rowling ties all knots and answers all questions.

HP is more expansive in that sense, I agree. It doesn't have the same character development though, so you're comparing apples and oranges.

15. Harry Potter teaches good values and relationships. There are no controlling abusive relationships and the hero can go one without their partner.

Twilight is a love story. I'm not sure it gets any better, in terms of value, than that.

16. The female characters are strong and intelligent. Hermione doesn't NEED a boyfriend to be a strong good role model for girls everywhere.

I've heard this criticism before and it's nonsense. People who think that Bella isn't the strongest character in Twilight haven't read it.

17. Harry Potter can be read by any age group. Twilight is geared more towards angst 15 year olds.

Pretty much the only difference between Twilight and HP is one is (arguably) directed at boys, the other at girls. That it's seen as cool, hip and trendy to like the latter and hate the former is maybe partly an indictment of society. Of course, there are many people who dislike Twilight for other reasons. But again, so what?

18. The characters in Harry Potter GROW, they grow with you as you read. The first books start out fairly tame but mature as you mature. I had the pleasure of growing with Harry.

Yes. As in Twilight.

19. A story about a teenage wizard facing off against a dark lord beats one about a sparkling, lovesick vampire anyday.

Both are awesome.

20. Even Rob Pattison says he hates Edward Cullen and played him like a depressed maniac.

I'm not aware of that and I doubt it. Regardless, he's a pretty talented guy and his portrayal of Edward was bang on. Coincidentally, the HP film he was in was probably the best, barring the last one.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2013 2:50:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/9/2013 2:45:23 PM, unitedandy wrote:

19. A story about a teenage wizard facing off against a dark lord beats one about a sparkling, lovesick vampire anyday.

Both are awesome.

I disagree.


20. Even Rob Pattison says he hates Edward Cullen and played him like a depressed maniac.

I'm not aware of that and I doubt it. Regardless, he's a pretty talented guy and his portrayal of Edward was bang on. Coincidentally, the HP film he was in was probably the best, barring the last one.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2013 2:59:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/9/2013 2:50:07 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/9/2013 2:45:23 PM, unitedandy wrote:

19. A story about a teenage wizard facing off against a dark lord beats one about a sparkling, lovesick vampire anyday.

Both are awesome.

I disagree.

Lol. I think Daniel Radcliffe said similar things about HP. And to be fair, like HP, I think the end of Twilight shouldn't be messed with.

I have to say though, the point Rob Pattinson made about google images constituting research did make me smile.


20. Even Rob Pattison says he hates Edward Cullen and played him like a depressed maniac.

I'm not aware of that and I doubt it. Regardless, he's a pretty talented guy and his portrayal of Edward was bang on. Coincidentally, the HP film he was in was probably the best, barring the last one.

muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2013 3:13:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/9/2013 2:59:15 PM, unitedandy wrote:
At 4/9/2013 2:50:07 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/9/2013 2:45:23 PM, unitedandy wrote:

19. A story about a teenage wizard facing off against a dark lord beats one about a sparkling, lovesick vampire anyday.

Both are awesome.

I disagree.

Lol. I think Daniel Radcliffe said similar things about HP. And to be fair, like HP, I think the end of Twilight shouldn't be messed with.

Here is a video of Harry potter talking about his time playing Daniel Radcliffe.

I don't get what you mean by the second comment.


I have to say though, the point Rob Pattinson made about google images constituting research did make me smile.


20. Even Rob Pattison says he hates Edward Cullen and played him like a depressed maniac.

I'm not aware of that and I doubt it. Regardless, he's a pretty talented guy and his portrayal of Edward was bang on. Coincidentally, the HP film he was in was probably the best, barring the last one.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2013 3:16:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/9/2013 3:13:08 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/9/2013 2:59:15 PM, unitedandy wrote:
At 4/9/2013 2:50:07 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/9/2013 2:45:23 PM, unitedandy wrote:

19. A story about a teenage wizard facing off against a dark lord beats one about a sparkling, lovesick vampire anyday.

Both are awesome.

I disagree.

Lol. I think Daniel Radcliffe said similar things about HP.


Here is a video of Harry potter talking about his time playing Daniel Radcliffe.

No, but seriously, Daniel Radcliffe has never said he hated he character of Harry Potter. In fact, in every interview about it that I have seen, he has espoused the exact opposite opinion.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2013 3:29:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/9/2013 3:13:08 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/9/2013 2:59:15 PM, unitedandy wrote:
At 4/9/2013 2:50:07 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/9/2013 2:45:23 PM, unitedandy wrote:

19. A story about a teenage wizard facing off against a dark lord beats one about a sparkling, lovesick vampire anyday.

Both are awesome.

I disagree.

Lol. I think Daniel Radcliffe said similar things about HP. And to be fair, like HP, I think the end of Twilight shouldn't be messed with.

Here is a video of Harry potter talking about his time playing Daniel Radcliffe.

He has mentioned before about certain aspects he disliked about filming HP. The example that spring to mind are the Quidditch stuff (which was apparently uncomfortable) and so on.

I don't get what you mean by the second comment.

The way Twilight ended was perfect.


I have to say though, the point Rob Pattinson made about google images constituting research did make me smile.


20. Even Rob Pattison says he hates Edward Cullen and played him like a depressed maniac.

I'm not aware of that and I doubt it. Regardless, he's a pretty talented guy and his portrayal of Edward was bang on. Coincidentally, the HP film he was in was probably the best, barring the last one.

muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2013 3:38:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/9/2013 3:29:34 PM, unitedandy wrote:
At 4/9/2013 3:13:08 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/9/2013 2:59:15 PM, unitedandy wrote:
At 4/9/2013 2:50:07 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/9/2013 2:45:23 PM, unitedandy wrote:

19. A story about a teenage wizard facing off against a dark lord beats one about a sparkling, lovesick vampire anyday.

Both are awesome.

I disagree.

Lol. I think Daniel Radcliffe said similar things about HP. And to be fair, like HP, I think the end of Twilight shouldn't be messed with.

Here is a video of Harry potter talking about his time playing Daniel Radcliffe.

He has mentioned before about certain aspects he disliked about filming HP. The example that spring to mind are the Quidditch stuff (which was apparently uncomfortable) and so on.

There is a difference between not liking parts of filming because they are uncomfortable, and hating the character you are playing along with the story itself.


I don't get what you mean by the second comment.

The way Twilight ended was perfect.

That's your opinion, and without even knowing the ending I disagree. Also, this still doesn't explain your comment about changing endings of both.



I have to say though, the point Rob Pattinson made about google images constituting research did make me smile.


20. Even Rob Pattison says he hates Edward Cullen and played him like a depressed maniac.

I'm not aware of that and I doubt it. Regardless, he's a pretty talented guy and his portrayal of Edward was bang on. Coincidentally, the HP film he was in was probably the best, barring the last one.

"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2013 3:38:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/9/2013 3:28:45 PM, jdog2016 wrote:
21. The only reason twilight became popular initially, was because of Rob.

That's just blatantly untrue......
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2013 3:45:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/9/2013 3:16:51 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/9/2013 3:13:08 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/9/2013 2:59:15 PM, unitedandy wrote:
At 4/9/2013 2:50:07 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/9/2013 2:45:23 PM, unitedandy wrote:

19. A story about a teenage wizard facing off against a dark lord beats one about a sparkling, lovesick vampire anyday.

Both are awesome.

I disagree.

Lol. I think Daniel Radcliffe said similar things about HP.


Here is a video of Harry potter talking about his time playing Daniel Radcliffe.

No, but seriously, Daniel Radcliffe has never said he hated he character of Harry Potter. In fact, in every interview about it that I have seen, he has espoused the exact opposite opinion.

There are 3 issues. One is context. Second, I'm pretty sure most of the comments by Rob P were in jest. He's a funny guy. Second, Edward Cullen is, in some ways, far more flawed than Harry Potter's character. Edward is a murderer and is battling against his base nature throughout to restrain from killing his true love. Playing the character as a happy-go-lucky smile-awhile type wouldn't cut it.

It would be like criticising Christian Bale because his character in American Psycho is detestable.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2013 3:52:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/9/2013 3:45:32 PM, unitedandy wrote:
At 4/9/2013 3:16:51 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/9/2013 3:13:08 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/9/2013 2:59:15 PM, unitedandy wrote:
At 4/9/2013 2:50:07 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/9/2013 2:45:23 PM, unitedandy wrote:

19. A story about a teenage wizard facing off against a dark lord beats one about a sparkling, lovesick vampire anyday.

Both are awesome.

I disagree.

Lol. I think Daniel Radcliffe said similar things about HP.


Here is a video of Harry potter talking about his time playing Daniel Radcliffe.

No, but seriously, Daniel Radcliffe has never said he hated he character of Harry Potter. In fact, in every interview about it that I have seen, he has espoused the exact opposite opinion.

There are 3 issues. One is context.

The context is that of an interview on his time playing the character Edward Cullen.

Second, I'm pretty sure most of the comments by Rob P were in jest. He's a funny guy.

You don't get to make that determination......

Second, Edward Cullen is, in some ways, far more flawed than Harry Potter's character. Edward is a murderer and is battling against his base nature throughout to restrain from killing his true love. Playing the character as a happy-go-lucky smile-awhile type wouldn't cut it.

It would be like criticising Christian Bale because his character in American Psycho is detestable.

The difference between the two is that Bateman was written quite well, and American Psycho is an amazing piece of literature.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2013 4:02:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/9/2013 3:38:16 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/9/2013 3:29:34 PM, unitedandy wrote:
At 4/9/2013 3:13:08 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/9/2013 2:59:15 PM, unitedandy wrote:
At 4/9/2013 2:50:07 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/9/2013 2:45:23 PM, unitedandy wrote:

19. A story about a teenage wizard facing off against a dark lord beats one about a sparkling, lovesick vampire anyday.

Both are awesome.

I disagree.

Lol. I think Daniel Radcliffe said similar things about HP. And to be fair, like HP, I think the end of Twilight shouldn't be messed with.

Here is a video of Harry potter talking about his time playing Daniel Radcliffe.

He has mentioned before about certain aspects he disliked about filming HP. The example that spring to mind are the Quidditch stuff (which was apparently uncomfortable) and so on.

There is a difference between not liking parts of filming because they are uncomfortable, and hating the character you are playing along with the story itself.

Again, I'm not sure how serious we should take these snippets, especially with absolutely no context.

Also, I'm pretty sure JK Rowling has mentioned characters she hated in HP, like Snape. Edward has (to use a phrase from Dexter) a dark passenger and the ending of the story sees him shed this outlook.


I don't get what you mean by the second comment.

The way Twilight ended was perfect.

That's your opinion, and without even knowing the ending I disagree. Also, this still doesn't explain your comment about changing endings of both.

Seriously? That's just silly. You're essentially judging something you admit to having no idea about.

As for the ending, as I said, I'm happy that HP and Twilight are finished, in the sense that the story has nowhere else to go.



I have to say though, the point Rob Pattinson made about google images constituting research did make me smile.


20. Even Rob Pattison says he hates Edward Cullen and played him like a depressed maniac.

I'm not aware of that and I doubt it. Regardless, he's a pretty talented guy and his portrayal of Edward was bang on. Coincidentally, the HP film he was in was probably the best, barring the last one.

muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2013 4:13:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/9/2013 4:02:01 PM, unitedandy wrote:
At 4/9/2013 3:38:16 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/9/2013 3:29:34 PM, unitedandy wrote:
At 4/9/2013 3:13:08 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/9/2013 2:59:15 PM, unitedandy wrote:
At 4/9/2013 2:50:07 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/9/2013 2:45:23 PM, unitedandy wrote:

19. A story about a teenage wizard facing off against a dark lord beats one about a sparkling, lovesick vampire anyday.

Both are awesome.

I disagree.

Lol. I think Daniel Radcliffe said similar things about HP. And to be fair, like HP, I think the end of Twilight shouldn't be messed with.

Here is a video of Harry potter talking about his time playing Daniel Radcliffe.

He has mentioned before about certain aspects he disliked about filming HP. The example that spring to mind are the Quidditch stuff (which was apparently uncomfortable) and so on.

There is a difference between not liking parts of filming because they are uncomfortable, and hating the character you are playing along with the story itself.

Again, I'm not sure how serious we should take these snippets, especially with absolutely no context.

We see Rob get asked a question, then answer it. What more context do you want?


Also, I'm pretty sure JK Rowling has mentioned characters she hated in HP, like Snape.

Incorrect. While I personally hate the character Snape, as a character he is still well written. And JK has never made any comments to the contrary.

Edward has (to use a phrase from Dexter) a dark passenger and the ending of the story sees him shed this outlook.

Yes, but unlike Dexter, he is portrayed as an abusive pretty boy stalker.



I don't get what you mean by the second comment.

The way Twilight ended was perfect.

That's your opinion, and without even knowing the ending I disagree. Also, this still doesn't explain your comment about changing endings of both.

Seriously? That's just silly. You're essentially judging something you admit to having no idea about.

Incorrect. I have an idea about it, I'v just never read it. I have read the first 100 or so pages of the first twilight, and seen the first 20 minutes of the movie. Based on this sample, and various clips from commercials and such, I have made, what I believe to be, a reasonable presumption about the ending.


As for the ending, as I said, I'm happy that HP and Twilight are finished, in the sense that the story has nowhere else to go.

I don't know about Twilight, but the ending of Harry Potter had somewhere to go.




I have to say though, the point Rob Pattinson made about google images constituting research did make me smile.


20. Even Rob Pattison says he hates Edward Cullen and played him like a depressed maniac.

I'm not aware of that and I doubt it. Regardless, he's a pretty talented guy and his portrayal of Edward was bang on. Coincidentally, the HP film he was in was probably the best, barring the last one.

"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2013 4:21:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/9/2013 3:52:47 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/9/2013 3:45:32 PM, unitedandy wrote:
At 4/9/2013 3:16:51 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/9/2013 3:13:08 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/9/2013 2:59:15 PM, unitedandy wrote:
At 4/9/2013 2:50:07 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/9/2013 2:45:23 PM, unitedandy wrote:

19. A story about a teenage wizard facing off against a dark lord beats one about a sparkling, lovesick vampire anyday.

Both are awesome.

I disagree.

Lol. I think Daniel Radcliffe said similar things about HP.


Here is a video of Harry potter talking about his time playing Daniel Radcliffe.

No, but seriously, Daniel Radcliffe has never said he hated he character of Harry Potter. In fact, in every interview about it that I have seen, he has espoused the exact opposite opinion.

There are 3 issues. One is context.

The context is that of an interview on his time playing the character Edward Cullen.


Playing a mashup of quotes doesn't give context to the particularl point he was making. Pick just one comment where I can see the whole interview and I'll respond.

Second, I'm pretty sure most of the comments by Rob P were in jest. He's a funny guy.

You don't get to make that determination......

Right, because there's no context.

Second, Edward Cullen is, in some ways, far more flawed than Harry Potter's character. Edward is a murderer and is battling against his base nature throughout to restrain from killing his true love. Playing the character as a happy-go-lucky smile-awhile type wouldn't cut it.

It would be like criticising Christian Bale because his character in American Psycho is detestable.

The difference between the two is that Bateman was written quite well, and American Psycho is an amazing piece of literature.

The point had nothing to do with literary merit, just the silliness of indicting a story because the character an actor plays is flawed. It's the same point if it's Raskolnikov from C&P or if it's Bison from that awful Street Fighter film.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2013 4:34:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/9/2013 4:21:26 PM, unitedandy wrote:
At 4/9/2013 3:52:47 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/9/2013 3:45:32 PM, unitedandy wrote:
At 4/9/2013 3:16:51 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/9/2013 3:13:08 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/9/2013 2:59:15 PM, unitedandy wrote:
At 4/9/2013 2:50:07 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/9/2013 2:45:23 PM, unitedandy wrote:

19. A story about a teenage wizard facing off against a dark lord beats one about a sparkling, lovesick vampire anyday.

Both are awesome.

I disagree.

Lol. I think Daniel Radcliffe said similar things about HP.


Here is a video of Harry potter talking about his time playing Daniel Radcliffe.

No, but seriously, Daniel Radcliffe has never said he hated he character of Harry Potter. In fact, in every interview about it that I have seen, he has espoused the exact opposite opinion.

There are 3 issues. One is context.

The context is that of an interview on his time playing the character Edward Cullen.


Playing a mashup of quotes doesn't give context to the particularl point he was making. Pick just one comment where I can see the whole interview and I'll respond.

Ummmmm, no.

You don't have to see an entire interview for a quote from it to make sense, or else quotes wouldn't work, ever. If you can give me one example of any of those where showing the full interview makes any real difference in presenting my point, then I will concede that Robert Pattinson does not hate the character Edward Cullen.


Second, I'm pretty sure most of the comments by Rob P were in jest. He's a funny guy.

You don't get to make that determination......

Right, because there's no context.

No. Because you don't know what he is thinking. He has espoused this opinion in many interviews, and has never said that any of it was in jest.


Second, Edward Cullen is, in some ways, far more flawed than Harry Potter's character. Edward is a murderer and is battling against his base nature throughout to restrain from killing his true love. Playing the character as a happy-go-lucky smile-awhile type wouldn't cut it.

It would be like criticising Christian Bale because his character in American Psycho is detestable.

The difference between the two is that Bateman was written quite well, and American Psycho is an amazing piece of literature.

The point had nothing to do with literary merit, just the silliness of indicting a story because the character an actor plays is flawed. It's the same point if it's Raskolnikov from C&P or if it's Bison from that awful Street Fighter film.

When did I do that. I don't hate Edward Cullen because simply because his character is flawed. I hate him because he isn't a real character, he is a two dimensional masturbatory fantasy.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2013 4:55:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/9/2013 4:34:10 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/9/2013 4:21:26 PM, unitedandy wrote:
At 4/9/2013 3:52:47 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/9/2013 3:45:32 PM, unitedandy wrote:
At 4/9/2013 3:16:51 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/9/2013 3:13:08 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/9/2013 2:59:15 PM, unitedandy wrote:
At 4/9/2013 2:50:07 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/9/2013 2:45:23 PM, unitedandy wrote:

19. A story about a teenage wizard facing off against a dark lord beats one about a sparkling, lovesick vampire anyday.

Both are awesome.

I disagree.

Lol. I think Daniel Radcliffe said similar things about HP.


Here is a video of Harry potter talking about his time playing Daniel Radcliffe.

No, but seriously, Daniel Radcliffe has never said he hated he character of Harry Potter. In fact, in every interview about it that I have seen, he has espoused the exact opposite opinion.

There are 3 issues. One is context.

The context is that of an interview on his time playing the character Edward Cullen.


Playing a mashup of quotes doesn't give context to the particularl point he was making. Pick just one comment where I can see the whole interview and I'll respond.

Ummmmm, no.

You don't have to see an entire interview for a quote from it to make sense, or else quotes wouldn't work, ever. If you can give me one example of any of those where showing the full interview makes any real difference in presenting my point, then I will concede that Robert Pattinson does not hate the character Edward Cullen.

Quotes obviously can be taken to representative some of the time. Whether or not they can be here is doubtful, first because it contradicts things he's said before and second because he's prone to having a laugh. As for giving an example, I don't have the full interviews and thus can't check the context - that's my point.


Second, I'm pretty sure most of the comments by Rob P were in jest. He's a funny guy.

You don't get to make that determination......

Right, because there's no context.

No. Because you don't know what he is thinking. He has espoused this opinion in many interviews, and has never said that any of it was in jest.

Right. And if what he says in these videos contradicts other things he says which I've seen, I'd be crazy to draw the conclusion you did.


Second, Edward Cullen is, in some ways, far more flawed than Harry Potter's character. Edward is a murderer and is battling against his base nature throughout to restrain from killing his true love. Playing the character as a happy-go-lucky smile-awhile type wouldn't cut it.

It would be like criticising Christian Bale because his character in American Psycho is detestable.

The difference between the two is that Bateman was written quite well, and American Psycho is an amazing piece of literature.

The point had nothing to do with literary merit, just the silliness of indicting a story because the character an actor plays is flawed. It's the same point if it's Raskolnikov from C&P or if it's Bison from that awful Street Fighter film.

When did I do that. I don't hate Edward Cullen because simply because his character is flawed. I hate him because he isn't a real character, he is a two dimensional masturbatory fantasy.

Many of the things in the video are about his brooding persona in playing a tortured soul, as he puts it. Again, 'tis part of the story. As for Edward being two dimensional, again it's telling you've barely engaged with the stuff, because it's such a generic criticism. In terms of emotional depth and so on, Edward is a far more realistic and holistic character than Voldemort, for example. Is this a criticism of HP? No, because Voldemort is purposefully a character with no redeeming qualities.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2013 5:10:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/9/2013 4:55:26 PM, unitedandy wrote:
At 4/9/2013 4:34:10 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/9/2013 4:21:26 PM, unitedandy wrote:
At 4/9/2013 3:52:47 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/9/2013 3:45:32 PM, unitedandy wrote:
At 4/9/2013 3:16:51 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/9/2013 3:13:08 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/9/2013 2:59:15 PM, unitedandy wrote:
At 4/9/2013 2:50:07 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/9/2013 2:45:23 PM, unitedandy wrote:

19. A story about a teenage wizard facing off against a dark lord beats one about a sparkling, lovesick vampire anyday.

Both are awesome.

I disagree.

Lol. I think Daniel Radcliffe said similar things about HP.


Here is a video of Harry potter talking about his time playing Daniel Radcliffe.

No, but seriously, Daniel Radcliffe has never said he hated he character of Harry Potter. In fact, in every interview about it that I have seen, he has espoused the exact opposite opinion.

There are 3 issues. One is context.

The context is that of an interview on his time playing the character Edward Cullen.


Playing a mashup of quotes doesn't give context to the particularl point he was making. Pick just one comment where I can see the whole interview and I'll respond.

Ummmmm, no.

You don't have to see an entire interview for a quote from it to make sense, or else quotes wouldn't work, ever. If you can give me one example of any of those where showing the full interview makes any real difference in presenting my point, then I will concede that Robert Pattinson does not hate the character Edward Cullen.

Quotes obviously can be taken to representative some of the time. Whether or not they can be here is doubtful, first because it contradicts things he's said before

Examples?

and second because he's prone to having a laugh.

Is he prone to having a laugh by exclaiming that he hates the character he plays. often.

As for giving an example, I don't have the full interviews and thus can't check the context - that's my point.


Second, I'm pretty sure most of the comments by Rob P were in jest. He's a funny guy.

You don't get to make that determination......

Right, because there's no context.

No. Because you don't know what he is thinking. He has espoused this opinion in many interviews, and has never said that any of it was in jest.

Right. And if what he says in these videos contradicts other things he says which I've seen, I'd be crazy to draw the conclusion you did.

Give me an example of some of these contradictory statements.



Second, Edward Cullen is, in some ways, far more flawed than Harry Potter's character. Edward is a murderer and is battling against his base nature throughout to restrain from killing his true love. Playing the character as a happy-go-lucky smile-awhile type wouldn't cut it.

It would be like criticising Christian Bale because his character in American Psycho is detestable.

The difference between the two is that Bateman was written quite well, and American Psycho is an amazing piece of literature.

The point had nothing to do with literary merit, just the silliness of indicting a story because the character an actor plays is flawed. It's the same point if it's Raskolnikov from C&P or if it's Bison from that awful Street Fighter film.

When did I do that. I don't hate Edward Cullen because simply because his character is flawed. I hate him because he isn't a real character, he is a two dimensional masturbatory fantasy.

Many of the things in the video are about his brooding persona in playing a tortured soul, as he puts it. Again, 'tis part of the story. As for Edward being two dimensional, again it's telling you've barely engaged with the stuff, because it's such a generic criticism.

Wow, thats a 'no true scotsman' if I'v ever seen one.

In terms of emotional depth and so on, Edward is a far more realistic and holistic character than Voldemort, for example.

How so?

Is this a criticism of HP? No, because Voldemort is purposefully a character with no redeeming qualities.

Isn't Edward supposed to be a character with redeeming qualities? All he has is pedophilic lust and murderous tendencies. In real life, we put people like that in jail or a mental hospital.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,285
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2013 5:50:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I think that the problem with Twilight is that it started out as a typical teenage fantasy, where a handsome, sophisticated man falls in love with an average girl with no heroic or grand qualities whatsoever, out of the blue. Bella is a vessel, an empty character into which any angst-ridden teenager can pour their troubled little soul and live vicariously. The formula is a-dime-a-dozen, and no matter how much it was improved it will always have that cloud hanging over it, that air of infeasibility brought about by a cheap and shallow hook.

Harry Potter was, before anything else, a story. Is it the best story ever written? No. But it's a pretty decent one, and it isn't haunted by the sophomoric gimmick employed by Twilight.

It makes me sad that the more spectacular fantasy novels are so often overlooked. Kingkiller Chronicles, anyone?
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2013 5:50:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/9/2013 5:10:56 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/9/2013 4:55:26 PM, unitedandy wrote:
At 4/9/2013 4:34:10 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/9/2013 4:21:26 PM, unitedandy wrote:
At 4/9/2013 3:52:47 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/9/2013 3:45:32 PM, unitedandy wrote:
At 4/9/2013 3:16:51 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/9/2013 3:13:08 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/9/2013 2:59:15 PM, unitedandy wrote:
At 4/9/2013 2:50:07 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/9/2013 2:45:23 PM, unitedandy wrote:

19. A story about a teenage wizard facing off against a dark lord beats one about a sparkling, lovesick vampire anyday.

Both are awesome.

I disagree.

Lol. I think Daniel Radcliffe said similar things about HP.


Here is a video of Harry potter talking about his time playing Daniel Radcliffe.

No, but seriously, Daniel Radcliffe has never said he hated he character of Harry Potter. In fact, in every interview about it that I have seen, he has espoused the exact opposite opinion.

There are 3 issues. One is context.

The context is that of an interview on his time playing the character Edward Cullen.


Playing a mashup of quotes doesn't give context to the particularl point he was making. Pick just one comment where I can see the whole interview and I'll respond.

Ummmmm, no.

You don't have to see an entire interview for a quote from it to make sense, or else quotes wouldn't work, ever. If you can give me one example of any of those where showing the full interview makes any real difference in presenting my point, then I will concede that Robert Pattinson does not hate the character Edward Cullen.

Quotes obviously can be taken to representative some of the time. Whether or not they can be here is doubtful, first because it contradicts things he's said before

Examples?

and second because he's prone to having a laugh.

Is he prone to having a laugh by exclaiming that he hates the character he plays. often.

I think he's prone to having a laugh at pretty much everything, which is obvious if you watch his interviews.

As for giving an example, I don't have the full interviews and thus can't check the context - that's my point.


Second, I'm pretty sure most of the comments by Rob P were in jest. He's a funny guy.

You don't get to make that determination......

Right, because there's no context.

No. Because you don't know what he is thinking. He has espoused this opinion in many interviews, and has never said that any of it was in jest.

Right. And if what he says in these videos contradicts other things he says which I've seen, I'd be crazy to draw the conclusion you did.

Give me an example of some of these contradictory statements.


Based on a quick search:

On playing a brooding character

"I've never met someone who has completely no conflict within themselves. It was nice character to explore that type of part of your brain."


Second, Edward Cullen is, in some ways, far more flawed than Harry Potter's character. Edward is a murderer and is battling against his base nature throughout to restrain from killing his true love. Playing the character as a happy-go-lucky smile-awhile type wouldn't cut it.

It would be like criticising Christian Bale because his character in American Psycho is detestable.

The difference between the two is that Bateman was written quite well, and American Psycho is an amazing piece of literature.

The point had nothing to do with literary merit, just the silliness of indicting a story because the character an actor plays is flawed. It's the same point if it's Raskolnikov from C&P or if it's Bison from that awful Street Fighter film.

When did I do that. I don't hate Edward Cullen because simply because his character is flawed. I hate him because he isn't a real character, he is a two dimensional masturbatory fantasy.

Many of the things in the video are about his brooding persona in playing a tortured soul, as he puts it. Again, 'tis part of the story. As for Edward being two dimensional, again it's telling you've barely engaged with the stuff, because it's such a generic criticism.

Wow, thats a 'no true scotsman' if I'v ever seen one.

It's kind of legit. Anyone who wants to review X has to engage with it first.

In terms of emotional depth and so on, Edward is a far more realistic and holistic character than Voldemort, for example.

How so?

Voldemort is absolutely evil with no redeeming qualities. How realistic is that? Also, what's his other dimension, beyond the acquisition of immortality, power and domination?

And again, I say this as a fan of HP. If realism is what I wanted, I wouldn't be reading fantasy.

Is this a criticism of HP? No, because Voldemort is purposefully a character with no redeeming qualities.

Isn't Edward supposed to be a character with redeeming qualities? All he has is pedophilic lust and murderous tendencies. In real life, we put people like that in jail or a mental hospital.

Ultimately, he does, but he still has flaws. Part of the story is an exploration of seeing these redeeming qualities within himself. Being a murderer is an occupational hazard for being a vampire (in most cases). And I'm pretty sure he's the same age as Bella.
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2013 6:13:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/9/2013 5:50:18 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
I think that the problem with Twilight is that it started out as a typical teenage fantasy, where a handsome, sophisticated man falls in love with an average girl with no heroic or grand qualities whatsoever, out of the blue. Bella is a vessel, an empty character into which any angst-ridden teenager can pour their troubled little soul and live vicariously. The formula is a-dime-a-dozen, and no matter how much it was improved it will always have that cloud hanging over it, that air of infeasibility brought about by a cheap and shallow hook.

I don't get this criticism at all. The character of Bella really is a far stronger character than this. Indeed, a large subplot underlying the Saga is Bella's acceptance of who she is as a character and who she loves, rather than meeting some pre-determined mould of what her role should be. Indeed, the character's progression and choices is in contrast to the typical heroine archetype.

Even if the metaphor of too subtle, the strength of this character actually becomes tangible, in the shape of her unique ability as a vampire. By that point, Bella is overwhelmingly the dominant character in the story, in pretty much every sense. Lastly, the relationship isn't unequal at all. From her perspective, she obviously thinks she's won the lottery and sees herself as unworthy. Edward's perspective is completely as self-conscious. It isn't until the end of book 2 where each character overcomes this and accept the person they are.


Harry Potter was, before anything else, a story. Is it the best story ever written? No. But it's a pretty decent one, and it isn't haunted by the sophomoric gimmick employed by Twilight.

It makes me sad that the more spectacular fantasy novels are so often overlooked. Kingkiller Chronicles, anyone?
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2013 6:17:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I've read Twilight.......and I will say the book was ok, but the ending was by no means perfect. It was an ending, not horrible, but not all that great either.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2013 6:29:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/9/2013 6:17:33 PM, OberHerr wrote:
I've read Twilight.......and I will say the book was ok, but the ending was by no means perfect. It was an ending, not horrible, but not all that great either.

I think the ending of the last film was far more inventive and it really did close the story.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2013 12:50:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/9/2013 5:50:24 PM, unitedandy wrote:
At 4/9/2013 5:10:56 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/9/2013 4:55:26 PM, unitedandy wrote:
At 4/9/2013 4:34:10 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/9/2013 4:21:26 PM, unitedandy wrote:

Playing a mashup of quotes doesn't give context to the particularl point he was making. Pick just one comment where I can see the whole interview and I'll respond.

Ummmmm, no.

You don't have to see an entire interview for a quote from it to make sense, or else quotes wouldn't work, ever. If you can give me one example of any of those where showing the full interview makes any real difference in presenting my point, then I will concede that Robert Pattinson does not hate the character Edward Cullen.

Quotes obviously can be taken to representative some of the time. Whether or not they can be here is doubtful, first because it contradicts things he's said before

Examples?

and second because he's prone to having a laugh.

Is he prone to having a laugh by exclaiming that he hates the character he plays. often.

I think he's prone to having a laugh at pretty much everything, which is obvious if you watch his interviews.

As is every actor who does interviews, because its good entertainment. That does not change the fact that he has stated that he hates the character of Edward, he hates the books, and he disliked playing the role. And he has done all of this quite often, with no signs, that I have seen, that he actually doesn't feel these things.


As for giving an example, I don't have the full interviews and thus can't check the context - that's my point.

Right, because there's no context.

No. Because you don't know what he is thinking. He has espoused this opinion in many interviews, and has never said that any of it was in jest.

Right. And if what he says in these videos contradicts other things he says which I've seen, I'd be crazy to draw the conclusion you did.

Give me an example of some of these contradictory statements.


Based on a quick search:

On playing a brooding character

"I've never met someone who has completely no conflict within themselves. It was nice character to explore that type of part of your brain."

Source?



Second, Edward Cullen is, in some ways, far more flawed than Harry Potter's character. Edward is a murderer and is battling against his base nature throughout to restrain from killing his true love. Playing the character as a happy-go-lucky smile-awhile type wouldn't cut it.

It would be like criticising Christian Bale because his character in American Psycho is detestable.

The difference between the two is that Bateman was written quite well, and American Psycho is an amazing piece of literature.

The point had nothing to do with literary merit, just the silliness of indicting a story because the character an actor plays is flawed. It's the same point if it's Raskolnikov from C&P or if it's Bison from that awful Street Fighter film.

When did I do that. I don't hate Edward Cullen because simply because his character is flawed. I hate him because he isn't a real character, he is a two dimensional masturbatory fantasy.

Many of the things in the video are about his brooding persona in playing a tortured soul, as he puts it. Again, 'tis part of the story. As for Edward being two dimensional, again it's telling you've barely engaged with the stuff, because it's such a generic criticism.

Wow, thats a 'no true scotsman' if I'v ever seen one.

It's kind of legit. Anyone who wants to review X has to engage with it first.

How is it 'kind of legit'?

I have engaged with it, I then promptly disengaged.


In terms of emotional depth and so on, Edward is a far more realistic and holistic character than Voldemort, for example.

How so?

Voldemort is absolutely evil with no redeeming qualities. How realistic is that?

Very......

Also, what's his other dimension, beyond the acquisition of immortality, power and domination?

A: I didn't say he isn't badly written, as such, regardless of what my opinion might be, I refuse to defend said proposition.

B: Why do you keep comparing characters from Harry Potter with Edward?

And again, I say this as a fan of HP. If realism is what I wanted, I wouldn't be reading fantasy.

Neither would I. But I never made the criticism of either being unrealistic. Beyond, of course, my statement that in real life people with the same personality and tendencies as Edward are confined for life. But this is more a criticism of the character itself, rather then the unrealistic nature that exists in the novel.


Is this a criticism of HP? No, because Voldemort is purposefully a character with no redeeming qualities.

Isn't Edward supposed to be a character with redeeming qualities? All he has is pedophilic lust and murderous tendencies. In real life, we put people like that in jail or a mental hospital.

Ultimately, he does,

For example......

but he still has flaws. Part of the story is an exploration of seeing these redeeming qualities within himself.

Based on what I have read, it didn't do a very good job.

Being a murderer is an occupational hazard for being a vampire (in most cases).

Not in this one. He doesn't drink human blood, he drinks animal blood. So, why did he murder so many people?

And I'm pretty sure he's the same age as Bella.

According to the wiki, he was born in 1901. That makes him a pedophile by any definition.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2013 1:02:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/9/2013 6:13:22 PM, unitedandy wrote:

I don't get this criticism at all. The character of Bella really is a far stronger character than this. Indeed, a large subplot underlying the Saga is Bella's acceptance of who she is as a character and who she loves, rather than meeting some pre-determined mould of what her role should be. Indeed, the character's progression and choices is in contrast to the typical heroine archetype.

Even if the metaphor of too subtle, the strength of this character actually becomes tangible, in the shape of her unique ability as a vampire. By that point, Bella is overwhelmingly the dominant character in the story, in pretty much every sense. Lastly, the relationship isn't unequal at all. From her perspective, she obviously thinks she's won the lottery and sees herself as unworthy. Edward's perspective is completely as self-conscious. It isn't until the end of book 2 where each character overcomes this and accept the person they are.

This is an explanation of how the character Bella Swan is a Mary Sue.

"What is a Mary Sue? The definition of a Mary Sue, according to Wikipedia, is, "a fictional character with overly idealized and hackneyed mannerisms, lacking noteworthy flaws, and primarily functioning as a wish-fulfillment fantasy for the author or reader. Perhaps the single underlying feature of all characters described as 'Mary Sues' is that they are too ostentatious for the audience's taste, or that the author seems to favor the character too highly." Now, how does Bella fit this description, you ask? Let me explain.

"A fictional character with overly idealized and hackneyed mannerisms"
This basically means that she is supposed to be the authors picture of perfection. How many people tell Bella that she is "so mature for her age" and she is "so beautiful" and she is "so selfless" and she is "so intelligent" and she is just an amazing person in general? Of course, we know better, but this is in SMeyer's point of view.

"Lacking noteworthy flaws"
No, clumsiness is NOT a character flaw. I think I went over this already? What flaw did SMeyer purposely give to Bella? Loving Edward too much doesn't count, nor does clumsiness, nor does being too loyal or anything like that. I mean a REAL flaw. Examples of real personality flaws in real characters include...
Implusive and disregard to the rules for Harry in Harry Potter
Shallow for Tally in Uglies
Selfish for Lestat in The Vampire Chronicles
Thoughtless and selfish for Ralph in Lord of the Flies
Ungrateful for Coraline in Coraline
...and plenty more. Bella possesses no such flaw (on purpose, at least).

"Primarily functioning as a wish-fulfillment fantasy for the author or reader"
Come on. SMeyer even said so herself; in fact, she's said it directly to her husbands face. If Edward or Jacob walked up to the door, she would leave her husband in an instant. Boy, do I feel sorry for that man for having to put up with that woman. Take a look at Bella's physical description. Then take a look at a picture of SMeyer. Similar? Maybe a bit too similar.

"Too ostentatious for the audience's taste"
We are told she gets top grades. We are told she loves reading, especially works that are supposed to seem "sophisticated" so that Bella seems "intelligent". However, do we ever see any proof of her intelligence? Nope. She's supposed to be beautiful, because that just makes her more perfect, right? Then, she tries to be modest about it. She's supposed to be so "selfless" (though we know she's quite selfish). She's supposed to be absolutely perfect, to a point where it's fake. She's not truly perfect; she's a Barbie doll.

"The author seems to favor the character too highly"
Yes. Absolutely yes. She gets the man of her dreams without even trying. She gets the "perfect" family without even trying. She is admired by all without even trying. She becomes the most popular girl in school by the end of lunchtime without even trying. She becomes a vampire, which is exactly what she wants, without working for it at all. She doesn't have to struggle through her newborn phase; she's a natural! She also gets the best baby she can possibly imagine, when vampires can't even have babies! Lucky her! She becomes the most graceful vampire ever! She becomes the most "powerful" vampire ever! And she doesn't have to lift a finger to get what she wants! Isn't that great?

Not really, no."

http://www.fanpop.com...
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2013 2:53:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/10/2013 12:50:03 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/9/2013 5:50:24 PM, unitedandy wrote:
At 4/9/2013 5:10:56 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/9/2013 4:55:26 PM, unitedandy wrote:
At 4/9/2013 4:34:10 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/9/2013 4:21:26 PM, unitedandy wrote:

Playing a mashup of quotes doesn't give context to the particularl point he was making. Pick just one comment where I can see the whole interview and I'll respond.

Ummmmm, no.

You don't have to see an entire interview for a quote from it to make sense, or else quotes wouldn't work, ever. If you can give me one example of any of those where showing the full interview makes any real difference in presenting my point, then I will concede that Robert Pattinson does not hate the character Edward Cullen.

Quotes obviously can be taken to representative some of the time. Whether or not they can be here is doubtful, first because it contradicts things he's said before

Examples?

and second because he's prone to having a laugh.

Is he prone to having a laugh by exclaiming that he hates the character he plays. often.

I think he's prone to having a laugh at pretty much everything, which is obvious if you watch his interviews.

As is every actor who does interviews, because its good entertainment. That does not change the fact that he has stated that he hates the character of Edward, he hates the books, and he disliked playing the role. And he has done all of this quite often, with no signs, that I have seen, that he actually doesn't feel these things.

That's because you've not looked at context. Just take the example of one of the clips in the mashups. Rob says the book is like an unpublished manuscript, or something to that effect. Look at the clip in isolation, it looks like a huge slight on Meyer. If you actually watch the video, it's clear he's referring to the ultra-personal nature of the booking, reading more like a journal than a work of fiction.


As for giving an example, I don't have the full interviews and thus can't check the context - that's my point.

Right, because there's no context.

No. Because you don't know what he is thinking. He has espoused this opinion in many interviews, and has never said that any of it was in jest.

Right. And if what he says in these videos contradicts other things he says which I've seen, I'd be crazy to draw the conclusion you did.

Give me an example of some of these contradictory statements.


Based on a quick search:

On playing a brooding character

"I've never met someone who has completely no conflict within themselves. It was nice character to explore that type of part of your brain."

Source?

3:20



Second, Edward Cullen is, in some ways, far more flawed than Harry Potter's character. Edward is a murderer and is battling against his base nature throughout to restrain from killing his true love. Playing the character as a happy-go-lucky smile-awhile type wouldn't cut it.

It would be like criticising Christian Bale because his character in American Psycho is detestable.

The difference between the two is that Bateman was written quite well, and American Psycho is an amazing piece of literature.

The point had nothing to do with literary merit, just the silliness of indicting a story because the character an actor plays is flawed. It's the same point if it's Raskolnikov from C&P or if it's Bison from that awful Street Fighter film.

When did I do that. I don't hate Edward Cullen because simply because his character is flawed. I hate him because he isn't a real character, he is a two dimensional masturbatory fantasy.

Many of the things in the video are about his brooding persona in playing a tortured soul, as he puts it. Again, 'tis part of the story. As for Edward being two dimensional, again it's telling you've barely engaged with the stuff, because it's such a generic criticism.

Wow, thats a 'no true scotsman' if I'v ever seen one.

It's kind of legit. Anyone who wants to review X has to engage with it first.

How is it 'kind of legit'?

I have engaged with it, I then promptly disengaged.

Yes, 20 minutes worth of engagement with the film and about 1/4 through the first book. It doesn't really enable you engage with pretty much the most important aspect of the story - character growth.



Voldemort is absolutely evil with no redeeming qualities. How realistic is that?

Very......

Also, what's his other dimension, beyond the acquisition of immortality, power and domination?

A: I didn't say he isn't badly written, as such, regardless of what my opinion might be, I refuse to defend said proposition.

I don't agree he is badly written. But you could make the same point with Patrick Bateman. My point is first Edward has far more dimensions that these characters (he has to, he's very much a mixed bag, unlike these other 2, who have no redeeming qualities). Second, there are uses for such characters, even by the best writers.

B: Why do you keep comparing characters from Harry Potter with Edward?

Maybe it has something to do with the title of the forum.

And again, I say this as a fan of HP. If realism is what I wanted, I wouldn't be reading fantasy.


Neither would I. But I never made the criticism of either being unrealistic. Beyond, of course, my statement that in real life people with the same personality and tendencies as Edward are confined for life. But this is more a criticism of the character itself, rather then the unrealistic nature that exists in the novel.

All these extreme personality traits essentially stem from supernaturalism, except the sense of pessimism, which is pretty common.


Is this a criticism of HP? No, because Voldemort is purposefully a character with no redeeming qualities.

Isn't Edward supposed to be a character with redeeming qualities? All he has is pedophilic lust and murderous tendencies. In real life, we put people like that in jail or a mental hospital.

Ultimately, he does,

For example......

Overcoming his most basic primal drive as a vampire to be with the person he loves, even though her scent causes him physical pain. Refraining from satisfying his blood lust to live as a "vegetarian". Most importantly, as seen in the second book, a willingness to give up his soul mate because it's the right thing to do. There are more, but these are pretty big virtues.

but he still has flaws. Part of the story is an exploration of seeing these redeeming qualities within himself.

Based on what I have read, it didn't do a very good job.

Character development takes the best part of 4 books. Not a quarter of the first one.

Being a murderer is an occupational hazard for being a vampire (in most cases).

Not in this one. He doesn't drink human blood, he drinks animal blood. So, why did he murder so many people?

To drink human blood. The diet of the Cullens is depicted as unsatisfying and incredibly difficult to maintain (there's a parallel with alcoholism in one of the books). Also, the people he did end up killing were murderers and such.

And I'm pretty sure he's the same age as Bella.

According to the wiki, he was born in 1901. That makes him a pedophile by any definition.

Vampires don't age.
TheAntidoter
Posts: 4,323
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2013 2:57:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
22. Over 20 minutes of stares in twilight. Nuff Said. (Although this criticism is pretty much worthless in the context of the book)
Affinity: Fire
Class: Human
Abilities: ????

Nac.

WOAH, COLORED FONT!
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2013 3:15:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/10/2013 1:02:23 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/9/2013 6:13:22 PM, unitedandy wrote:

I don't get this criticism at all. The character of Bella really is a far stronger character than this. Indeed, a large subplot underlying the Saga is Bella's acceptance of who she is as a character and who she loves, rather than meeting some pre-determined mould of what her role should be. Indeed, the character's progression and choices is in contrast to the typical heroine archetype.

Even if the metaphor of too subtle, the strength of this character actually becomes tangible, in the shape of her unique ability as a vampire. By that point, Bella is overwhelmingly the dominant character in the story, in pretty much every sense. Lastly, the relationship isn't unequal at all. From her perspective, she obviously thinks she's won the lottery and sees herself as unworthy. Edward's perspective is completely as self-conscious. It isn't until the end of book 2 where each character overcomes this and accept the person they are.


This is an explanation of how the character Bella Swan is a Mary Sue.

"What is a Mary Sue? The definition of a Mary Sue, according to Wikipedia, is, "a fictional character with overly idealized and hackneyed mannerisms, lacking noteworthy flaws, and primarily functioning as a wish-fulfillment fantasy for the author or reader. Perhaps the single underlying feature of all characters described as 'Mary Sues' is that they are too ostentatious for the audience's taste, or that the author seems to favor the character too highly." Now, how does Bella fit this description, you ask? Let me explain.

"A fictional character with overly idealized and hackneyed mannerisms"
This basically means that she is supposed to be the authors picture of perfection. How many people tell Bella that she is "so mature for her age" and she is "so beautiful" and she is "so selfless" and she is "so intelligent" and she is just an amazing person in general? Of course, we know better, but this is in SMeyer's point of view.

"Lacking noteworthy flaws"
No, clumsiness is NOT a character flaw. I think I went over this already? What flaw did SMeyer purposely give to Bella? Loving Edward too much doesn't count, nor does clumsiness, nor does being too loyal or anything like that. I mean a REAL flaw. Examples of real personality flaws in real characters include...
Implusive and disregard to the rules for Harry in Harry Potter
Shallow for Tally in Uglies
Selfish for Lestat in The Vampire Chronicles
Thoughtless and selfish for Ralph in Lord of the Flies
Ungrateful for Coraline in Coraline
...and plenty more. Bella possesses no such flaw (on purpose, at least).

"Primarily functioning as a wish-fulfillment fantasy for the author or reader"
Come on. SMeyer even said so herself; in fact, she's said it directly to her husbands face. If Edward or Jacob walked up to the door, she would leave her husband in an instant. Boy, do I feel sorry for that man for having to put up with that woman. Take a look at Bella's physical description. Then take a look at a picture of SMeyer. Similar? Maybe a bit too similar.

"Too ostentatious for the audience's taste"
We are told she gets top grades. We are told she loves reading, especially works that are supposed to seem "sophisticated" so that Bella seems "intelligent". However, do we ever see any proof of her intelligence? Nope. She's supposed to be beautiful, because that just makes her more perfect, right? Then, she tries to be modest about it. She's supposed to be so "selfless" (though we know she's quite selfish). She's supposed to be absolutely perfect, to a point where it's fake. She's not truly perfect; she's a Barbie doll.

"The author seems to favor the character too highly"
Yes. Absolutely yes. She gets the man of her dreams without even trying. She gets the "perfect" family without even trying. She is admired by all without even trying. She becomes the most popular girl in school by the end of lunchtime without even trying. She becomes a vampire, which is exactly what she wants, without working for it at all. She doesn't have to struggle through her newborn phase; she's a natural! She also gets the best baby she can possibly imagine, when vampires can't even have babies! Lucky her! She becomes the most graceful vampire ever! She becomes the most "powerful" vampire ever! And she doesn't have to lift a finger to get what she wants! Isn't that great?

Not really, no."

http://www.fanpop.com...

I can answer each of these in turn if you want, but first let me make the general point which is that you seem to be contradicting yourself. You're criticising Edward for being too flawed, and then criticising Bella for being perfect. It sounds a bit like the 3 bears and porridge here.

Also, just to take Harry Potter, sure he has flaws. He's impulsive, he gets angry and he even resorts to using an Unforgivable curse.

In the scheme of things though, he's intelligent, very brave, incredibly kind, resourceful, and capable of magical feats which surpass the most powerful wizard in the series. The point? Main characters generally tend to be special in some way. This is just manifestly the case with Harry. Even the flaws he has are either understandable (in the case of resentment and anger) and mastered (as shown by his restraint in the last book regarding the Hallows).

Trust me, Bella has similar short-comings. But, like Harry, she's portrayed in an overwhelmingly positive light.