PluggedIn.com's Bob Waliszewski says the new Twilight movie, New Moon, can be summed up with this: Guys on film take their shirts off and elicit screams from movie going girls. Does Cheryl Wilhelmi agree? Watch to find out. Bob and Cheryl also discuss The Blind Side, which promises to be an inspiring movie.
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
I have major issues with the Twilight series that goes beyond shirtless guys and mindless fans, but I digress.
Eh, New Moon the movie. I have not seen it, nor do I plan to, but it does what it was made to do: make money, entertain, and provide eye candy. I can't argue with it because that's what it is. *shrug*
Im 26 and I will probably go see this movie. A guy at church asked me if I would pretend to be his daughter so he could see it w/out being the creepy guy alone in a movie theatre full of young girls. lol
I had to laugh out loud as he was describing hot young guys being shirtless and the teenagers that screamed....
Do we not remember being silly and only seeing movies because some hot guy was in it when we were oh 13-21 years of age????? LOL
I personally have issues with anything having to do with vampires and such but teenage girls will always swoon over guys on the screen...
The Twilight mania is troubling in more ways than just shirtless males. Young girls' fantasy literature has long been a source of empowerment for women. Yet, as the Atlantic points out, Twilight stands as a narrative stunningly regressive in its feminism. Consider the following quotation from the book:
“I would probably never be able to do anything interesting or special like Edward, Alice, and Jasper could do,” she muses. “Maybe I would just love Edward more than anyone in the history of the world had ever loved anyone else."
Female passivity and male domination is no help to our young women.
I actually think Twilight is an amazing book for young girls to read!
It's all about waiting until marriage to have sex, virtue, doing "good" things even when your nature makes you want to do bad etc. I'm 30 and I absolutely loved every book.
Amen to #5!
I wonder how Edward’s personality would translate into a real, rather than fictional character? I haven’t seen the new movie yet but let’s review Edward from the first film/book: 1) constantly checks up on Bella’s whereabouts; 2) invades Bella’s personal space (bedroom) and personal conversations prior to obtaining her permission; 3) takes over for Bella in rather mundane tasks such as buckling her seat belt and carrying her through the woods due to her perceived inability to accomplish either of these things without breaking something or hurting herself; 4) has no close male friends outside of immediate family; 5) has very little moral accountability for his actions; 6) hints at and alludes to an uncontrolled temper and a deep desire to hurt those that may pose a threat to Bella; 7) performs no noticeable service to anyone other than Bella at any point; 8) displays no compassion for others.
To me, the character of Edward translates directly into "future controlling and manipulative wife beater."
I know it’s JUST fiction, but still, hat exactly makes Edward a quality BF? So far as I can tell, he’s good looking… but in every other character traits is scary dangerous…
Goes back to the earlier conversation about women being “damaged” by making poor choice with their early relationships... look no further than "Edward" as bad decision #1.
I'm hoping that I will get to see New Moon. I like the Twilight books. Not great literature by any means, but just fun, light reading.
I have serious concerns about the whole Twilight series. Besides the fact that vampires are very occultic, the story line encourages a predatorial type relationship.
The author is Morman, which is where some of the more "virtuous" qualities of the plot might come from. Just as Mormanism wraps up a false doctrine with certain biblical principles, Twilight pulls in an audience unwilling to seriously examine the problems in light of the positives. If you're a reader, don't be deceived by the abstinence message. This series is bad news and has potential to be highly destructive to young women.
Hmm.... critics of Twilight movies should NEVER go on the first weekend, if they want an accurate viewing. I'm sorry, but the screaming gals just ruins it. I haven't seen it yet for that reason (hope to see it soon though). Maybe for Eclipse and Breaking Dawn, pluggedin reviewers should go after several days, in the morning, with no one else, because eventually the screaming in the audience dies down, later in the week, and then the movie is a little easier to take seriously.
@ Jeremiah,
There's an article that echoes what you've said:
"Edward Cullen Ruins Dating for Average Guys"
Not that you are an average guy, but that someone else wasn't thrilled with the character.
I read Twilight, and it was a special kind of bad: I could barely finish the book.
I too would like to think it was only swooning teenage girls that went to see Twilight, but sadly that was not the case -- New Moon set an all-time opening day box office record, and had the 2nd biggest opening weekend of all time, despite terrible reviews. Amazing.
To me the books were ok. The first movie was horrible (every single thing about it) - so that is the main reason why I'm not seeing this one. Also, I'm not paying $8 to watch a 17-year-old take his shirt off as that is the main part of the movie.
I'm not going to see "New Moon," even though nearly everyone at my workplace was all excited and went to see it together. I have read most of the books (all except "New Moon," actually). Now, I have an extremely high tolerance for nearly all types of literature (all except romance, actually), but a very low tolerance for movies. Since I thought the books were ridiculous (though I really enjoyed "Breaking Dawn"; the logic was so bad and the situations so unnatural that I couldn't help reading it almost as a parody of itself), mostly because the total obsession of the girl with the not-so-healthy-for-her guy very obnoxiously reminded me of a friend that I was really worried about, I know that it would not be a good idea for me to go see a movie of a book that stretched my limits of endurance as it was.
I went to see The Blind Side based on this and other recommendations, and it was very good. I live in Arkansas, and I found Bullock's character's accent and actions truly believable, unlike in other movies I've seen, where they can't get a Southern character to be more than a caricature.
Also, Houston Nutt is in this movie, which gives it bonus points for me.
#7 I agree, and would add, mixing demonic beings that want to drink your blood, a very hansom hero who admits to wanting to drink you blood, and shows the traits that any woman's shelter will tell you are red flags, add all this up and tell young girls that "this is the guy you want" and boys that "this is how you treat a girl" is dangerous!!! How would you feel if your girl wanted to date a guy like that?
I have not seen either movie or read either book. The previews do make the movies seem entertaining, but my reasons for disliking this series go beyond entertainment value.
I have personally known people, one young man in particullar, who have truly believed they were vampires. Not necessarily the blood-sucking undead creatures of the night, but vampires that feed off of energy, sanguine vampires.
This belief is embedded within more pagan doctrine and polytheism. My friend woud pray to gods and goddesses for his desires and self-mutilation was no uncommon.
Though the Twilight series does not directly encourage paganism or polytheism, it does make this lifestyle look attractive and further encourage young audiences to independently seek "what feels right" rather than the Truth of God's Word.
Anna - LOL, "a special kind of bad" pretty much sums the book up!
Katy - glad I'm not the only one creeped out by adult women (including plenty old enough to be his grandmother) drooling over and blatantly expressing their lust for the 17-year-old star of this film. Can I just say EWW?
Spoilers here, just in case anyone cares.
I'm really touchy re: Twilight criticisms. I don't think it's the best series around - in fact I think there's heaps of things wrong with it. But they're mostly literary issues, not moral. Most moral criticisms that get levelled at it are pretty misdirected.
I will fully agree Edward is not a quality boyfriend because he's over-protective and controlling. He doesn't trust Bella to make decisions for herself (until part way through "Eclipse"). Bella's also a push-over. She (virtually) unquestioningly follows everything Edward says/does (until "Eclipse"). He doesn't trust Bella's werewolf friends and tries to isolate her from them (which she doesn't tolerate). They're both just too sappy for my liking. I do question the sanity of anybody who thinks it's the best series around.
However, I don't think it has the hugely significant moral issues many people think it does.
Let's look at Jeremiah's issues:
Edward...
1) constantly checks up on Bella’s whereabouts - I agree, that's creepy. But Bella reacts well to it and pretty much encourages him to. You can't really fault him for that. (It annoys her in "Eclipse" though, and she tells him she's had jack of it. I cheered for her then. He also backed off a bit. I reluctantly cheered for him there, coz he just annoys me anyway.)
2) invades Bella’s personal space (bedroom) and personal conversations prior to obtaining her permission - He reads people's minds. He can't help it! But he can't actually read Bella's, so the most of her conversations that he invades is what he gets from other people's minds. He can't just 'switch off' this sense - he describes it as being in a room full of people talking. He can hear everyone's thoughts.
Also, I'm pretty sure he only comes into her bedroom after being invited. Yes, he watched her sleep from outside her window once (yes, creepy) but again she liked that and encouraged him to do it. Again, can't really fault him.
3) takes over for Bella in rather mundane tasks such as buckling her seat belt and carrying her through the woods due to her perceived inability to accomplish either of these things without breaking something or hurting herself - oh come on, she's a total klutz. She also walks at about a hundredth of the speed he can run. When they've got a long way to go, better for him to run with her on his back and take 2 minutes than to hike for 3 hours. She also has an uncanny ability to end up in hospital (or at least being treated by Carlisle) from doing mundane tasks!
4) has no close male friends outside of immediate family - NONE of the Cullen family have ANY close friends, male or female, outside of their immediate family. They're vampires. They avoid people, for the most part. (Except of course for Carlisle working in the hospital and the four 'kids' at school). Outside of school and work, they all keep to themselves. You can't criticise Edward for not having any close male friends when neither Alice nor Rosalie have any close female friends either.
5) has very little moral accountability for his actions. That's an interesting point. It depends what you mean. That he doesn't believe there's a God who will judge him? The fact is, Edward believes his soul has already been damned. And he hates, absolutely hates what he is. And he strives to make up for it in behaving himself in other areas. He said to Bella in "Eclipse", (after she told him she wanted to have sex with him before getting married & becoming a vampire) that he has broken many 'rules' before (killing, lying, etc) and this is one of the few things where he hasn't broken the rules (ie. having sex before marriage) and he wants to keep it that way. So, no, he doesn't have a higher authority he's accountable to. But he holds himself accountable, for the most part. His family holds him accountable too.
6) hints at and alludes to an uncontrolled temper and a deep desire to hurt those that may pose a threat to Bella - please tell me where he talks about having an uncontrollable temper (and I specify "uncontrollable"). From what I read, most vampires have pretty firey tempers, and for the most part, Edward is pretty well controlled. But of course he wants to hurt those who he sees as posing a threat to Bella... I thought most men would be like that in regards to their girlfriends and wives! The only time I recall Edward losing his temper at somebody who was not actually out to kill Bella was when he thought she was being crushed by Jacob (who accidentally rolled on top of her), and Bella made him apologise.
7) performs no noticeable service to anyone other than Bella at any point - well what do you mean by 'service'? What 'service' do most of the vampires perform? (Yes Carlisle is a doctor... that's really about it).
8) displays no compassion for others - I just can't see where this came from. He doesn't have compassion for his enemies or those who pose a threat to Bella (basically one and the same), but what else demonstrated a lack of compassion?
Also, in regards to Jacob having his shirt off for most of the movie... don't fault the movie-makers for that. At one stage (in "Eclipse", I think) Bella actually says to Jacob something like "is it impossible for you to go around with a shirt on?" To which he explains that basically, any clothing at all is a hindrance - when he morphs, he has to take his clothes off or else they'll tear off him. And then he has to somehow carry the clothing on him when he runs as a wolf. It's a pain. So he goes about with basically only his shorts (no shirt, no shoes, etc) and when he morphs it's only his shorts he has to take off and he then ties them to one of his legs.
Callie - how are vampires occultic?
@ Leah:
The criticisms hold because the book isn't a narrative of actual facts. It is a fiction (obviously) so the actions and motives of the characters are created by the author to drive the plot and set a specific tone.
The decisions regarding Edward and Bella's dynamic, or any of the other characters aren't inevitable, but carefully designed by the author. Every word in that book is by pure choice, and it fits within a carefully dictated framework.
Meyer has chosen to give Edward the habits he has, make him the sympathetic character and make him the love interest. And she's chosen to give Bella the type of mentality that would foster and encourage those actions.
Like any author, she could have written in a different ethos or actions, if she'd chosen. She doesn't have a responsibility to do that, because she can write whatever she wants. But she's not absolved from critique regarding those decisions.
Not all books need to be high literature, but they can also be not-high lit and still warrant critique.
What frustrates me most about the "Twilight" series is Bella's deplorable behaviour towards her family and friends. Her world revolves around Edward and as a result, she doesn't tell her parents where she's going, she indulges in stupid and dangerous behaviours (that her father repeatedly asks her to stop). She's disobedient and often lies.
And with her friends, she drops them the instant Edward is on the scene and only seems to pay attention to them when Edward isn't around. The worst example of this is how she treats Jacob. It's a perfect example of the "Not Your Buddy" scenario. She knows how he feels about her and she should cut off all friendship.
But no, Bella keeps stringing him along, because she gets the emotional companionship she craves, while not making any kind of commitment because she's holding out for her romantic "ideal".
And why does Jacob go along with it? Because he loves her and men will move mountains for love. (Or stay in a ridiculous quasi-relationship, knowing he's in second place.)
This is the type of fantasy I grew up on, watching Disney movies. "Some day your prince will come." And where has that got me now? Still waiting!
@Leah (#19). As I said I have only read Book 1. However, here are my counterpoints:
2) Reread book 1. Edward watches Bella sleep several times before she even knows he is a vampire. It is clear that he has been inside her house and can enter at will. Also, it is clear that Edward can choose to not pay attention to people’s thoughts. If he was concerned about Bella’s personal space at all he would choose to “look away” so to speak when she is having personal conversations about him with her friends. Instead he chooses to spy.
2B) Also in Book 1 was the scene were Edward sleeps in the same bed with Bella. Though they obtain from sex, I think it’s is extremely dangerous to tell young teenage girls that it is EVER ok to have a 17 year old boy spend the night in your bed because you have both agreed to abstinence. Edward states that he has all the normal desires of a 17-year old – it’s just that his blood lust is much stronger… Obviously, the author has very little understanding of what it means to be a 17-yr old boy and what is going through Edwards head. No way, the average 17-yr old can sleep in the same bed with someone he is attracted to and have NOTHING happen. Ladies, let’s be clear. As much as Stephanie Meyers wants Edward to be the perfect combination of dangerous and gentlemanly, she has a massive and fundamental misunderstanding of what it means to me male… She has written a predator into her narrative but has not written about any of the consequences of dating one.
4) That fact the others in the family have no friends is not an excuse. Apparently, Edward is OK dealing with vapid teenagers since he eventually forms a close relationship with Bella. On the other hand he has no other friendships at school or with older mature men. All guys need other male relationships for accountability. The fact that there are no other men in a guys life, is a huge red flag in real life for potential abussive spouses. Ladies would be wise to take note of this.
6) Reread Book 1, the scene were Edward rescues Bella from the townies. He alludes to his violent nature and states several times how badly he wants to go back and kill those men. There is a difference between being protective of those you love and harboring a desire for murder. (Even if it is justified anger...)
7) Edward does not help anyone in Book 1. He is not particularly nice to others at his High School. At times he is downright nasty to Bella’s other friends. He does not use any of his abilities to help people. Carlisle is a doctor. Edward does not sleep, but somehow it’s clear that he is not out helping the needy either…
Again, huge red flag. Ladies if you are dating someone that does nothing good for anyone else besides you, it is probably that what you are seeing is an act based on that man's temporary infatuation. Run away!!!
I saw New Moon at the weekend, and quite enjoyed it - thought it was better than the first one anyway.
The biggest thing that bothered me was Emily's scars - inflicted by her werewolf fiance Sam. However you paint that, it's domestic violence, but there's no suggestion that this is a bad relationship - Sam is given a pass because he got angry so he just couldn't help it. I find that worrying.
On the flip side, I like the fact that the vampires aren't painted as perfect - they're still tempted to kill humans, and they occasionally 'fall'. I can see a parallel there with our relationship to sin as Christians, and I appreciate that they're portrayed as trying to overcome the evil in them, but still struggling.
I guess the difference for me is that the Sam/Emily thing is too close to reality. Letting the vampires off when they 'fall' is one thing - murderous bloodsucking is extreme and bizarre enough that we can contextualise within the Twilight universe and say, "It's understandable that they occasionally succumb", without getting confused and thinking we'd be okay with it in real life.
But letting a character off for viciously attacking the woman he loves is a problem for me, because that DOES happen in real life for the same sort of reason (anger) and to start making excuses for that kind of behaviour is very dangerous, I think.
On a lighter note, I'm expected to believe that the slightest drop of blood sends Jasper into an uncontrollable murderous craze? Because seriously, it's not like people bleeding is a rare event...
Well, here speaks the tortured woman, Jo. Never want to be vulnerable and yet feel love... You can't give your heart without breaking one to give another chance. Nevertheless, God is there for the lonely and the broken-hearted. Those whom you look down on, may be the ones that you cry out for the most one day. No one can change the heart and the selfishness inside of us - even the deepest love on the cross. until it bleeds and dies completely.
I completely agree with Kelly-1 (#22).
I've read the books and seen the first movie (and will probably see the second one eventually) and the biggest problem I have with them is Bella's behavior, not Edward's. She's so completely obsessed with him , a guy she dated for a short time, that she's willing do do dangerous things and almost die repeatedly just to feel him near her. And the way she treats everyone else is that they don't even matter. Only Edward matters. I feel young girls already lean towards obsessiveness and don't need this extra push to throw themselves completely into their boyfriends.
I enjoyed the first book (it was fun) but as they went on I enjoyed them less and less and thought the last one was pretty rediculous.
Blind Side was really good. I'm glad it's doing well.
Jo (24) - I haven't seen the movie so I don't know how they painted the situation, but I have read the book. Sam is extremely repentant of what he did to Emily. It's also heavily emphasised that young werewolves have to learn how to control the new temper that comes over them when they become werewolves. Sam's temper was not normal. It was something he was not used to. He didn't know how to control it. And when he saw what he had done to Emily, he was horrified. It haunts him for the rest of his life, and he's never hurt her since. Perhaps it was domestic violence, but he wasn't let off just because he "couldn't help it", but because he was so repentant afterwards. If he'd just shrugged and indicated he didn't care and wasn't going to take responsibility, I'm sure the elders would have had something to say about that.
Jeremiah: regarding point 2), your original comment centred on the fact that Edward did these things without Bella's permission. He had her permission (indeed, I think she requested it) that he sleep in her bed. You won't find me defending that particular action, but that's not what you originally objected to.
4) You suggest that because Edward has no male friends, he has no accountability. I think you forget he has a surrogate father and two surrogate brothers, who all hold him accountable. There are no other close non-family guys in Carlisle, Jasper or Emmett's lives, yet you're not accusing them of being potential wife-beaters. (It should be noted that Carlisle is described as very calm, anti-violence, etc etc. He hates the fact in 'Eclipse' that he is forced into killing other vampires, even in defence of his family and Bella. Not exactly wife-beating material. And HE'S been alone for 500+ years.)
6) You're criticising him for a temptation, not for actually doing anything wrong. Your original criticism centred on the fact he supposedly had an 'uncontrollable' temper. He seems to have controlled it pretty well, seeing as he wanted those blokes dead but didn't lay a hand on them.
anna (20) - I'm not sure what you're getting at, or how my comment disagrees with anything you suggested. I never suggested it wasn't worth criticising because it wasn't high-lit... quite the opposite... I was only too happy to point out its faults... I was just saying that many of the criticisms that DO get thrown at it are pretty off-base.
Leah,
my point was that you're using the character's traits to explain why the other characters act the way they do. It's like defining something by using the same word that you're trying to define.
That would be useful if the complaints were that the plot doesn't hold together. But that's not most people's issue with the book, because the story works as a story: all the plot elements fit together, but the questions are about what ethics and values drive the plot.
The criticisms of the book hold because each character is created in a way that allows the heroes to be deviant or to induce poor decision making in another heroic character.
So if Edward is overprotective because Bella is clumsy, then the question is: why did Meyer make Bella so clumsy, and set the plot so that the only way to fix the situation is for Edward to be overprotective?
The concerns about the book are: why did the author design in elements that are at best, regressive, and at worse, dangerous? And why are those elements wedded to the characters that the readers most want to emulate?
Also, why does the plot make it so these problematic elements are necessary for the story to advance?
Jo,
Is that statement true? What is really most important in your life as a Christian - telling the truth trusting in Jesus or finding excuses to live a different kind of life? You always have your choice, as you already know very well.
Leah - my point about the book not being high lit was that I can understand not holding to the standard of literary critique that one could give a classic.
So if the plot had holes, or goofy dialog and flat characters then it's par for the course and not entirely unexpected.
But the morality and themes of the book can be critiqued at a higher standard than the actual literary value of the book itself.
It's like, I don't expect a cheeseburger to be filet mignon. But I also don't expect it to be on moldy bread , prepared in a dirty kitchen and sneezed on just because it's a cheeseburger.
Leah, 27:
Okay, fair enough, it sounds like it was dealt with more fully in the book. In the film they reeeally skimmed over it and didn't go into the whole werewolf-temper thing at all. So maybe that was the film's fault for not paying it enough attention...
BI, 30:
Seriously, I have no idea what you're talking about. I criticised New Moon for seeming to make excuses for domestic abuse. Your responses are honestly completely confusing to me. :S
Jo,
You will understand when the time comes and the Lord speaks. But cry out for now and pray because of the great evil that God’s people have done in His house. They prefer to put their trust in idols of money, power, positions of power and good reputations, but when trouble comes, who is going to save them then? So the Lord’s anger has spread over His people and He will judge the nations for the evil things they do. But those who trust in the Lord will be safe. Even, if they find themselves in the lions’ den, they will survive if the Lord wills. And even if they do not survive, they will go to heaven and their joy will be full in the Lord which is often times more preferable than being among wicked people who refuse to change and constantly look down on you as if your love and life do not matter to them because they are more interested in other things.
BI,
As far as I can tell, your posts are totally unrelated to mine, and I don't understand why you're addressing me when nothing you write seems to be a response to anything I've written. Since you'd rather imply that I'm not spiritual enough to grasp your meaning, than actually explain what you're talking about, I officially give up trying to make sense of what you're saying.
If anyone else can shed any light, please do...
Jo,
You are free to speak whatever you want to speak and free to think whatever you want to think. When the Lord speaks, you will understand.
If you'd like to leave a comment, click here. I couldn't get the commenting feature to work correctly here, but it is available on that less user-friendly mobile version of the blog. Yeah, it's kludgy. Sorry. ~Ted.
1. Samaria said the following at 6:19 PM on Nov 24:
1
I have major issues with the Twilight series that goes beyond shirtless guys and mindless fans, but I digress.
Eh, New Moon the movie. I have not seen it, nor do I plan to, but it does what it was made to do: make money, entertain, and provide eye candy. I can't argue with it because that's what it is. *shrug*
2. Leigh said the following at 6:32 PM on Nov 24:
2
Im 26 and I will probably go see this movie. A guy at church asked me if I would pretend to be his daughter so he could see it w/out being the creepy guy alone in a movie theatre full of young girls. lol
3. Vanessa said the following at 9:26 PM on Nov 24:
3
SOLD! I'm going to go see Blind Side. I probably wouldn't have gone without this review. Thanks!
4. DannieA said the following at 11:35 PM on Nov 24:
4
I had to laugh out loud as he was describing hot young guys being shirtless and the teenagers that screamed....
Do we not remember being silly and only seeing movies because some hot guy was in it when we were oh 13-21 years of age????? LOL
I personally have issues with anything having to do with vampires and such but teenage girls will always swoon over guys on the screen...
5. Befuddled said the following at 9:37 AM on Nov 25:
5
The Twilight mania is troubling in more ways than just shirtless males. Young girls' fantasy literature has long been a source of empowerment for women. Yet, as the Atlantic points out, Twilight stands as a narrative stunningly regressive in its feminism. Consider the following quotation from the book:
“I would probably never be able to do anything interesting or special like Edward, Alice, and Jasper could do,” she muses. “Maybe I would just love Edward more than anyone in the history of the world had ever loved anyone else."
Female passivity and male domination is no help to our young women.
6. RB said the following at 10:49 AM on Nov 25:
6
I actually think Twilight is an amazing book for young girls to read!
It's all about waiting until marriage to have sex, virtue, doing "good" things even when your nature makes you want to do bad etc. I'm 30 and I absolutely loved every book.
7. Jeremiah said the following at 10:59 AM on Nov 25:
7
Amen to #5!
I wonder how Edward’s personality would translate into a real, rather than fictional character? I haven’t seen the new movie yet but let’s review Edward from the first film/book: 1) constantly checks up on Bella’s whereabouts; 2) invades Bella’s personal space (bedroom) and personal conversations prior to obtaining her permission; 3) takes over for Bella in rather mundane tasks such as buckling her seat belt and carrying her through the woods due to her perceived inability to accomplish either of these things without breaking something or hurting herself; 4) has no close male friends outside of immediate family; 5) has very little moral accountability for his actions; 6) hints at and alludes to an uncontrolled temper and a deep desire to hurt those that may pose a threat to Bella; 7) performs no noticeable service to anyone other than Bella at any point; 8) displays no compassion for others.
To me, the character of Edward translates directly into "future controlling and manipulative wife beater."
I know it’s JUST fiction, but still, hat exactly makes Edward a quality BF? So far as I can tell, he’s good looking… but in every other character traits is scary dangerous…
Goes back to the earlier conversation about women being “damaged” by making poor choice with their early relationships... look no further than "Edward" as bad decision #1.
8. Kellie said the following at 3:59 PM on Nov 25:
8
I'm hoping that I will get to see New Moon. I like the Twilight books. Not great literature by any means, but just fun, light reading.
9. Callie said the following at 4:04 PM on Nov 25:
9
I have serious concerns about the whole Twilight series. Besides the fact that vampires are very occultic, the story line encourages a predatorial type relationship.
The author is Morman, which is where some of the more "virtuous" qualities of the plot might come from. Just as Mormanism wraps up a false doctrine with certain biblical principles, Twilight pulls in an audience unwilling to seriously examine the problems in light of the positives. If you're a reader, don't be deceived by the abstinence message. This series is bad news and has potential to be highly destructive to young women.
10. Renee said the following at 4:12 PM on Nov 25:
10
Hmm.... critics of Twilight movies should NEVER go on the first weekend, if they want an accurate viewing. I'm sorry, but the screaming gals just ruins it. I haven't seen it yet for that reason (hope to see it soon though). Maybe for Eclipse and Breaking Dawn, pluggedin reviewers should go after several days, in the morning, with no one else, because eventually the screaming in the audience dies down, later in the week, and then the movie is a little easier to take seriously.
11. anna said the following at 3:05 AM on Nov 26:
11
@ Jeremiah,
There's an article that echoes what you've said:
"Edward Cullen Ruins Dating for Average Guys"
Not that you are an average guy, but that someone else wasn't thrilled with the character.
I read Twilight, and it was a special kind of bad: I could barely finish the book.
12. Jeremy said the following at 6:09 PM on Nov 26:
12
I too would like to think it was only swooning teenage girls that went to see Twilight, but sadly that was not the case -- New Moon set an all-time opening day box office record, and had the 2nd biggest opening weekend of all time, despite terrible reviews. Amazing.
13. Katy said the following at 8:49 PM on Nov 26:
13
To me the books were ok. The first movie was horrible (every single thing about it) - so that is the main reason why I'm not seeing this one. Also, I'm not paying $8 to watch a 17-year-old take his shirt off as that is the main part of the movie.
14. Elizabeth said the following at 8:51 AM on Nov 27:
14
I'm not going to see "New Moon," even though nearly everyone at my workplace was all excited and went to see it together. I have read most of the books (all except "New Moon," actually). Now, I have an extremely high tolerance for nearly all types of literature (all except romance, actually), but a very low tolerance for movies. Since I thought the books were ridiculous (though I really enjoyed "Breaking Dawn"; the logic was so bad and the situations so unnatural that I couldn't help reading it almost as a parody of itself), mostly because the total obsession of the girl with the not-so-healthy-for-her guy very obnoxiously reminded me of a friend that I was really worried about, I know that it would not be a good idea for me to go see a movie of a book that stretched my limits of endurance as it was.
15. Carol said the following at 3:32 PM on Nov 27:
15
I went to see The Blind Side based on this and other recommendations, and it was very good. I live in Arkansas, and I found Bullock's character's accent and actions truly believable, unlike in other movies I've seen, where they can't get a Southern character to be more than a caricature.
Also, Houston Nutt is in this movie, which gives it bonus points for me.
16. I. M. Redeemed said the following at 4:30 PM on Nov 27:
16
#7 I agree, and would add, mixing demonic beings that want to drink your blood, a very hansom hero who admits to wanting to drink you blood, and shows the traits that any woman's shelter will tell you are red flags, add all this up and tell young girls that "this is the guy you want" and boys that "this is how you treat a girl" is dangerous!!! How would you feel if your girl wanted to date a guy like that?
17. Shelby said the following at 5:27 PM on Nov 27:
17
I have not seen either movie or read either book. The previews do make the movies seem entertaining, but my reasons for disliking this series go beyond entertainment value.
I have personally known people, one young man in particullar, who have truly believed they were vampires. Not necessarily the blood-sucking undead creatures of the night, but vampires that feed off of energy, sanguine vampires.
This belief is embedded within more pagan doctrine and polytheism. My friend woud pray to gods and goddesses for his desires and self-mutilation was no uncommon.
Though the Twilight series does not directly encourage paganism or polytheism, it does make this lifestyle look attractive and further encourage young audiences to independently seek "what feels right" rather than the Truth of God's Word.
18. Sasha said the following at 8:56 PM on Nov 27:
18
Anna - LOL, "a special kind of bad" pretty much sums the book up!
Katy - glad I'm not the only one creeped out by adult women (including plenty old enough to be his grandmother) drooling over and blatantly expressing their lust for the 17-year-old star of this film. Can I just say EWW?
19. Leah said the following at 12:33 AM on Nov 29:
19
Spoilers here, just in case anyone cares.
I'm really touchy re: Twilight criticisms. I don't think it's the best series around - in fact I think there's heaps of things wrong with it. But they're mostly literary issues, not moral. Most moral criticisms that get levelled at it are pretty misdirected.
I will fully agree Edward is not a quality boyfriend because he's over-protective and controlling. He doesn't trust Bella to make decisions for herself (until part way through "Eclipse"). Bella's also a push-over. She (virtually) unquestioningly follows everything Edward says/does (until "Eclipse"). He doesn't trust Bella's werewolf friends and tries to isolate her from them (which she doesn't tolerate). They're both just too sappy for my liking. I do question the sanity of anybody who thinks it's the best series around.
However, I don't think it has the hugely significant moral issues many people think it does.
Let's look at Jeremiah's issues:
Edward...
1) constantly checks up on Bella’s whereabouts - I agree, that's creepy. But Bella reacts well to it and pretty much encourages him to. You can't really fault him for that. (It annoys her in "Eclipse" though, and she tells him she's had jack of it. I cheered for her then. He also backed off a bit. I reluctantly cheered for him there, coz he just annoys me anyway.)
2) invades Bella’s personal space (bedroom) and personal conversations prior to obtaining her permission - He reads people's minds. He can't help it! But he can't actually read Bella's, so the most of her conversations that he invades is what he gets from other people's minds. He can't just 'switch off' this sense - he describes it as being in a room full of people talking. He can hear everyone's thoughts.
Also, I'm pretty sure he only comes into her bedroom after being invited. Yes, he watched her sleep from outside her window once (yes, creepy) but again she liked that and encouraged him to do it. Again, can't really fault him.
3) takes over for Bella in rather mundane tasks such as buckling her seat belt and carrying her through the woods due to her perceived inability to accomplish either of these things without breaking something or hurting herself - oh come on, she's a total klutz. She also walks at about a hundredth of the speed he can run. When they've got a long way to go, better for him to run with her on his back and take 2 minutes than to hike for 3 hours. She also has an uncanny ability to end up in hospital (or at least being treated by Carlisle) from doing mundane tasks!
4) has no close male friends outside of immediate family - NONE of the Cullen family have ANY close friends, male or female, outside of their immediate family. They're vampires. They avoid people, for the most part. (Except of course for Carlisle working in the hospital and the four 'kids' at school). Outside of school and work, they all keep to themselves. You can't criticise Edward for not having any close male friends when neither Alice nor Rosalie have any close female friends either.
5) has very little moral accountability for his actions. That's an interesting point. It depends what you mean. That he doesn't believe there's a God who will judge him? The fact is, Edward believes his soul has already been damned. And he hates, absolutely hates what he is. And he strives to make up for it in behaving himself in other areas. He said to Bella in "Eclipse", (after she told him she wanted to have sex with him before getting married & becoming a vampire) that he has broken many 'rules' before (killing, lying, etc) and this is one of the few things where he hasn't broken the rules (ie. having sex before marriage) and he wants to keep it that way. So, no, he doesn't have a higher authority he's accountable to. But he holds himself accountable, for the most part. His family holds him accountable too.
6) hints at and alludes to an uncontrolled temper and a deep desire to hurt those that may pose a threat to Bella - please tell me where he talks about having an uncontrollable temper (and I specify "uncontrollable"). From what I read, most vampires have pretty firey tempers, and for the most part, Edward is pretty well controlled. But of course he wants to hurt those who he sees as posing a threat to Bella... I thought most men would be like that in regards to their girlfriends and wives! The only time I recall Edward losing his temper at somebody who was not actually out to kill Bella was when he thought she was being crushed by Jacob (who accidentally rolled on top of her), and Bella made him apologise.
7) performs no noticeable service to anyone other than Bella at any point - well what do you mean by 'service'? What 'service' do most of the vampires perform? (Yes Carlisle is a doctor... that's really about it).
8) displays no compassion for others - I just can't see where this came from. He doesn't have compassion for his enemies or those who pose a threat to Bella (basically one and the same), but what else demonstrated a lack of compassion?
Also, in regards to Jacob having his shirt off for most of the movie... don't fault the movie-makers for that. At one stage (in "Eclipse", I think) Bella actually says to Jacob something like "is it impossible for you to go around with a shirt on?" To which he explains that basically, any clothing at all is a hindrance - when he morphs, he has to take his clothes off or else they'll tear off him. And then he has to somehow carry the clothing on him when he runs as a wolf. It's a pain. So he goes about with basically only his shorts (no shirt, no shoes, etc) and when he morphs it's only his shorts he has to take off and he then ties them to one of his legs.
Callie - how are vampires occultic?
20. anna said the following at 7:02 PM on Nov 29:
20
@ Leah:
The criticisms hold because the book isn't a narrative of actual facts. It is a fiction (obviously) so the actions and motives of the characters are created by the author to drive the plot and set a specific tone.
The decisions regarding Edward and Bella's dynamic, or any of the other characters aren't inevitable, but carefully designed by the author. Every word in that book is by pure choice, and it fits within a carefully dictated framework.
Meyer has chosen to give Edward the habits he has, make him the sympathetic character and make him the love interest. And she's chosen to give Bella the type of mentality that would foster and encourage those actions.
Like any author, she could have written in a different ethos or actions, if she'd chosen. She doesn't have a responsibility to do that, because she can write whatever she wants. But she's not absolved from critique regarding those decisions.
Not all books need to be high literature, but they can also be not-high lit and still warrant critique.
21. BDB said the following at 11:30 PM on Nov 29:
21
So, I'm assuming this Jacob fellow is one of Harry Potter's friends...or is he from Slytherin?
22. Kelly-1 said the following at 11:40 PM on Nov 29:
22
What frustrates me most about the "Twilight" series is Bella's deplorable behaviour towards her family and friends. Her world revolves around Edward and as a result, she doesn't tell her parents where she's going, she indulges in stupid and dangerous behaviours (that her father repeatedly asks her to stop). She's disobedient and often lies.
And with her friends, she drops them the instant Edward is on the scene and only seems to pay attention to them when Edward isn't around. The worst example of this is how she treats Jacob. It's a perfect example of the "Not Your Buddy" scenario. She knows how he feels about her and she should cut off all friendship.
But no, Bella keeps stringing him along, because she gets the emotional companionship she craves, while not making any kind of commitment because she's holding out for her romantic "ideal".
And why does Jacob go along with it? Because he loves her and men will move mountains for love. (Or stay in a ridiculous quasi-relationship, knowing he's in second place.)
This is the type of fantasy I grew up on, watching Disney movies. "Some day your prince will come." And where has that got me now? Still waiting!
23. Jeremiah said the following at 9:31 AM on Nov 30:
23
@Leah (#19). As I said I have only read Book 1. However, here are my counterpoints:
2) Reread book 1. Edward watches Bella sleep several times before she even knows he is a vampire. It is clear that he has been inside her house and can enter at will. Also, it is clear that Edward can choose to not pay attention to people’s thoughts. If he was concerned about Bella’s personal space at all he would choose to “look away” so to speak when she is having personal conversations about him with her friends. Instead he chooses to spy.
2B) Also in Book 1 was the scene were Edward sleeps in the same bed with Bella. Though they obtain from sex, I think it’s is extremely dangerous to tell young teenage girls that it is EVER ok to have a 17 year old boy spend the night in your bed because you have both agreed to abstinence. Edward states that he has all the normal desires of a 17-year old – it’s just that his blood lust is much stronger… Obviously, the author has very little understanding of what it means to be a 17-yr old boy and what is going through Edwards head. No way, the average 17-yr old can sleep in the same bed with someone he is attracted to and have NOTHING happen. Ladies, let’s be clear. As much as Stephanie Meyers wants Edward to be the perfect combination of dangerous and gentlemanly, she has a massive and fundamental misunderstanding of what it means to me male… She has written a predator into her narrative but has not written about any of the consequences of dating one.
4) That fact the others in the family have no friends is not an excuse. Apparently, Edward is OK dealing with vapid teenagers since he eventually forms a close relationship with Bella. On the other hand he has no other friendships at school or with older mature men. All guys need other male relationships for accountability. The fact that there are no other men in a guys life, is a huge red flag in real life for potential abussive spouses. Ladies would be wise to take note of this.
6) Reread Book 1, the scene were Edward rescues Bella from the townies. He alludes to his violent nature and states several times how badly he wants to go back and kill those men. There is a difference between being protective of those you love and harboring a desire for murder. (Even if it is justified anger...)
7) Edward does not help anyone in Book 1. He is not particularly nice to others at his High School. At times he is downright nasty to Bella’s other friends. He does not use any of his abilities to help people. Carlisle is a doctor. Edward does not sleep, but somehow it’s clear that he is not out helping the needy either…
Again, huge red flag. Ladies if you are dating someone that does nothing good for anyone else besides you, it is probably that what you are seeing is an act based on that man's temporary infatuation. Run away!!!
24. Jo said the following at 10:40 AM on Nov 30:
24
I saw New Moon at the weekend, and quite enjoyed it - thought it was better than the first one anyway.
The biggest thing that bothered me was Emily's scars - inflicted by her werewolf fiance Sam. However you paint that, it's domestic violence, but there's no suggestion that this is a bad relationship - Sam is given a pass because he got angry so he just couldn't help it. I find that worrying.
On the flip side, I like the fact that the vampires aren't painted as perfect - they're still tempted to kill humans, and they occasionally 'fall'. I can see a parallel there with our relationship to sin as Christians, and I appreciate that they're portrayed as trying to overcome the evil in them, but still struggling.
I guess the difference for me is that the Sam/Emily thing is too close to reality. Letting the vampires off when they 'fall' is one thing - murderous bloodsucking is extreme and bizarre enough that we can contextualise within the Twilight universe and say, "It's understandable that they occasionally succumb", without getting confused and thinking we'd be okay with it in real life.
But letting a character off for viciously attacking the woman he loves is a problem for me, because that DOES happen in real life for the same sort of reason (anger) and to start making excuses for that kind of behaviour is very dangerous, I think.
On a lighter note, I'm expected to believe that the slightest drop of blood sends Jasper into an uncontrollable murderous craze? Because seriously, it's not like people bleeding is a rare event...
25. BI said the following at 12:25 PM on Nov 30:
25
Well, here speaks the tortured woman, Jo. Never want to be vulnerable and yet feel love... You can't give your heart without breaking one to give another chance. Nevertheless, God is there for the lonely and the broken-hearted. Those whom you look down on, may be the ones that you cry out for the most one day. No one can change the heart and the selfishness inside of us - even the deepest love on the cross. until it bleeds and dies completely.
26. Afton said the following at 2:26 PM on Nov 30:
26
I completely agree with Kelly-1 (#22).
I've read the books and seen the first movie (and will probably see the second one eventually) and the biggest problem I have with them is Bella's behavior, not Edward's. She's so completely obsessed with him , a guy she dated for a short time, that she's willing do do dangerous things and almost die repeatedly just to feel him near her. And the way she treats everyone else is that they don't even matter. Only Edward matters. I feel young girls already lean towards obsessiveness and don't need this extra push to throw themselves completely into their boyfriends.
I enjoyed the first book (it was fun) but as they went on I enjoyed them less and less and thought the last one was pretty rediculous.
Blind Side was really good. I'm glad it's doing well.
27. Leah said the following at 11:37 PM on Nov 30:
27
Jo (24) - I haven't seen the movie so I don't know how they painted the situation, but I have read the book. Sam is extremely repentant of what he did to Emily. It's also heavily emphasised that young werewolves have to learn how to control the new temper that comes over them when they become werewolves. Sam's temper was not normal. It was something he was not used to. He didn't know how to control it. And when he saw what he had done to Emily, he was horrified. It haunts him for the rest of his life, and he's never hurt her since. Perhaps it was domestic violence, but he wasn't let off just because he "couldn't help it", but because he was so repentant afterwards. If he'd just shrugged and indicated he didn't care and wasn't going to take responsibility, I'm sure the elders would have had something to say about that.
Jeremiah: regarding point 2), your original comment centred on the fact that Edward did these things without Bella's permission. He had her permission (indeed, I think she requested it) that he sleep in her bed. You won't find me defending that particular action, but that's not what you originally objected to.
4) You suggest that because Edward has no male friends, he has no accountability. I think you forget he has a surrogate father and two surrogate brothers, who all hold him accountable. There are no other close non-family guys in Carlisle, Jasper or Emmett's lives, yet you're not accusing them of being potential wife-beaters. (It should be noted that Carlisle is described as very calm, anti-violence, etc etc. He hates the fact in 'Eclipse' that he is forced into killing other vampires, even in defence of his family and Bella. Not exactly wife-beating material. And HE'S been alone for 500+ years.)
6) You're criticising him for a temptation, not for actually doing anything wrong. Your original criticism centred on the fact he supposedly had an 'uncontrollable' temper. He seems to have controlled it pretty well, seeing as he wanted those blokes dead but didn't lay a hand on them.
anna (20) - I'm not sure what you're getting at, or how my comment disagrees with anything you suggested. I never suggested it wasn't worth criticising because it wasn't high-lit... quite the opposite... I was only too happy to point out its faults... I was just saying that many of the criticisms that DO get thrown at it are pretty off-base.
28. Jo said the following at 8:41 AM on Dec 1:
28
BI #25,
I'm sorry, I don't understand your comment. Who am I looking down on?
29. anna said the following at 10:54 AM on Dec 1:
29
Leah,
my point was that you're using the character's traits to explain why the other characters act the way they do. It's like defining something by using the same word that you're trying to define.
That would be useful if the complaints were that the plot doesn't hold together. But that's not most people's issue with the book, because the story works as a story: all the plot elements fit together, but the questions are about what ethics and values drive the plot.
The criticisms of the book hold because each character is created in a way that allows the heroes to be deviant or to induce poor decision making in another heroic character.
So if Edward is overprotective because Bella is clumsy, then the question is: why did Meyer make Bella so clumsy, and set the plot so that the only way to fix the situation is for Edward to be overprotective?
The concerns about the book are: why did the author design in elements that are at best, regressive, and at worse, dangerous? And why are those elements wedded to the characters that the readers most want to emulate?
Also, why does the plot make it so these problematic elements are necessary for the story to advance?
30. BI said the following at 11:02 AM on Dec 1:
30
Jo,
Is that statement true? What is really most important in your life as a Christian - telling the truth trusting in Jesus or finding excuses to live a different kind of life? You always have your choice, as you already know very well.
31. anna said the following at 11:07 AM on Dec 1:
31
Leah - my point about the book not being high lit was that I can understand not holding to the standard of literary critique that one could give a classic.
So if the plot had holes, or goofy dialog and flat characters then it's par for the course and not entirely unexpected.
But the morality and themes of the book can be critiqued at a higher standard than the actual literary value of the book itself.
It's like, I don't expect a cheeseburger to be filet mignon. But I also don't expect it to be on moldy bread , prepared in a dirty kitchen and sneezed on just because it's a cheeseburger.
32. Jo said the following at 4:19 PM on Dec 1:
32
Leah, 27:
Okay, fair enough, it sounds like it was dealt with more fully in the book. In the film they reeeally skimmed over it and didn't go into the whole werewolf-temper thing at all. So maybe that was the film's fault for not paying it enough attention...
BI, 30:
Seriously, I have no idea what you're talking about. I criticised New Moon for seeming to make excuses for domestic abuse. Your responses are honestly completely confusing to me. :S
33. BI said the following at 12:40 AM on Dec 2:
33
Jo,
You will understand when the time comes and the Lord speaks. But cry out for now and pray because of the great evil that God’s people have done in His house. They prefer to put their trust in idols of money, power, positions of power and good reputations, but when trouble comes, who is going to save them then? So the Lord’s anger has spread over His people and He will judge the nations for the evil things they do. But those who trust in the Lord will be safe. Even, if they find themselves in the lions’ den, they will survive if the Lord wills. And even if they do not survive, they will go to heaven and their joy will be full in the Lord which is often times more preferable than being among wicked people who refuse to change and constantly look down on you as if your love and life do not matter to them because they are more interested in other things.
34. Jo said the following at 10:14 AM on Dec 2:
34
BI,
As far as I can tell, your posts are totally unrelated to mine, and I don't understand why you're addressing me when nothing you write seems to be a response to anything I've written. Since you'd rather imply that I'm not spiritual enough to grasp your meaning, than actually explain what you're talking about, I officially give up trying to make sense of what you're saying.
If anyone else can shed any light, please do...
35. BI said the following at 11:13 AM on Dec 2:
35
Jo,
You are free to speak whatever you want to speak and free to think whatever you want to think. When the Lord speaks, you will understand.