The Twilight Saga: New Moon (there may be spoilers inside)

Dokter Bob · **Posted:** November 27th, 2009, 1:07 am

Ocool I went to Volterra yesterday and they told us that they filmed New Moon there

Adbot · **Posted:** November 27th, 2009, 1:07 am

Arb 67 · **Posted:** November 27th, 2009, 3:07 pm

I read the books there not to good the author is a J.K. Rowling Wanna Be

Unbirthday · **Posted:** November 27th, 2009, 3:48 pm

I saw New Moon for the second time. It was better than the first time I saw it. Has anyone seen it more than twice? Post if you have, I'd like to see what the most anyone has seen it. (On the forums that is, I'm sure someone fanatic has seen it 50 times by now.)

CreepyPirate wrote:

Massive amount of guys on here or people that know guys being "forced" into seeing something. Maybe I'm an *** of a boyfriend but girlfriend or not I've never been forced into seeing a film or anything for that matter that i really did not want to see. ;D Last time one tried that i spat on her and went and watched X Men instead.

Lets be honest here you all wanted to see sparkly vampires live happily ever after with there beloved mortal girlfriends in little cottages by the sea eating ice cream.

I feel the same way. Are the guys of this forum really that "whipped" or "on a leash" that they'd let their significant other drag them to something they really didn't want to see? In my case, I called up my girl and asked her if she wanted to go, backwards compared to most I guess.

Dokter Bob wrote:

Ocool I went to Volterra yesterday and they told us that they filmed New Moon there

Oh nice, I bet it was a nice place to be. Any "I stood where Edward stood." t-shirts?

momsrascal93 · **Posted:** November 27th, 2009, 5:32 pm

I heard the movie was lulzy. Bad acting and screaming fangirls galore! I saw girls hugging new moon posters in the theater. :roll:

KefkaticFanatic · **Posted:** November 28th, 2009, 3:03 am

This.

Hey, it's my opinion.

Unbirthday · **Posted:** November 29th, 2009, 9:09 am

KefkaticFanatic wrote:

[img]http://www.basicinstructions.net/comics/2009-08-05-set-straight.gif[img]
This.

Hey, it's my opinion.

Good points and funny read. I'd be willing to call them leach people in replace of vampires.

Perhaps the writer should have just created a new monster that has all of these qualities (ex: sparkles, drinks blood, etc) rather than just calling them vampires. Maybe everyone who hates the Twilight series just based on the fact that her vampires aren't the "standard" vampire would like it if she had done this instead.
Example:

CreepyPirate wrote:

I asked some of my posse not so long ago what the low down go town is with this twilight because every time I'd heard it mentioned it usually had "***" somewhere along with it and I'd yet to understand wtf it was. I was told vampires sparkle when in sunlight and didn't need to hear much more.

Nobody pansy's up my vampires and gets my support. So nope, not seen it. I have seen Blade (the original not the sucky ones) Dracula, Van heslin (sp!) and a ton of other vampire films with my favourite being;

Salem's lot

That's a mans vampire. Falling out of windows cause of a cross.

Maybe CreepyPirate would like if she'd created her own monster since the only reason he doesn't like it is because they're not the "standard" vampire.

Thoughts?

Adbot · **Posted:** November 29th, 2009, 9:09 am

KefkaticFanatic · **Posted:** November 29th, 2009, 9:45 am

Well, you also have to consider the fact that the woman is a terrible writer, as confirmed by many actual people. (i.e. not teenage girls)

Rune Beast0 · **Posted:** November 29th, 2009, 2:20 pm

KefkaticFanatic wrote:

Well, you also have to consider the fact that the woman is a terrible writer, as confirmed by many actual people. (i.e. not teenage girls)

While I'm not a fan of the series (haven't even read all of them), I don't think you can say she's a terrible writer. She does have some writing talent, particularly in the area of hooking readers. When you're reading one of her several hundred page books, they don't seem nearly as long as they actually are. The problems I have with her writing are more in the plot and characters than the writing itself. Of course, there are some ugly parts and thesaurus abuse; I wouldn't call her a great writer.

I nearly saw the movie, one of my friends (who thinks the books are good) went. He said it was better than the first, but it was fairly boring. I'll probably see it when it comes out on DVD for lulz, just like I did with Twilight.

CreepyPirate · **Posted:** November 29th, 2009, 2:33 pm

Zac Glenn wrote:

KefkaticFanatic wrote:

[img]http://www.basicinstructions.net/comics/2009-08-05-set-straight.gif[img]
This.

Hey, it's my opinion.

Good points and funny read. I'd be willing to call them leach people in replace of vampires.

Perhaps the writer should have just created a new monster that has all of these qualities (ex: sparkles, drinks blood, etc) rather than just calling them vampires. Maybe everyone who hates the Twilight series just based on the fact that her vampires aren't the "standard" vampire would like it if she had done this instead.
Example:

CreepyPirate wrote:

I asked some of my posse not so long ago what the low down go town is with this twilight because every time I'd heard it mentioned it usually had "***" somewhere along with it and I'd yet to understand wtf it was. I was told vampires sparkle when in sunlight and didn't need to hear much more.

Nobody pansy's up my vampires and gets my support. So nope, not seen it. I have seen Blade (the original not the sucky ones) Dracula, Van heslin (sp!) and a ton of other vampire films with my favourite being;

Salem's lot

That's a mans vampire. Falling out of windows cause of a cross.

Maybe CreepyPirate would like if she'd created her own monster since the only reason he doesn't like it is because they're not the "standard" vampire.

Thoughts?

Oh no i don't hate twilight. I've never seen the book let alone read it. Film isn't my cup o tea either. And I'm perfectly accepting to change for example I fully accept and support 28 days later making zombies move really fast. I think that's a brilliant change.

What i don't like is making bad changes to make up for the writers lack of imagination. The writer couldn't come up with a decent enough plot to stick to vampires hating sunlight so instead made them go sparkly..what sort of a ridicules thing is that? Do they even explain how that works?

I did see some random internet user ***** about it and apparently they've screwed with werewolf's as well? I mean i don't care so much about them but the hell, leave it alone. Is there anything actually bad in this series?

Unbirthday · **Posted:** November 29th, 2009, 7:10 pm

CreepyPirate wrote:

Zac Glenn wrote:

KefkaticFanatic wrote:

[img]http://www.basicinstructions.net/comics/2009-08-05-set-straight.gif[img]
This.

Hey, it's my opinion.

Good points and funny read. I'd be willing to call them leach people in replace of vampires.

Perhaps the writer should have just created a new monster that has all of these qualities (ex: sparkles, drinks blood, etc) rather than just calling them vampires. Maybe everyone who hates the Twilight series just based on the fact that her vampires aren't the "standard" vampire would like it if she had done this instead.
Example:

CreepyPirate wrote:

I asked some of my posse not so long ago what the low down go town is with this twilight because every time I'd heard it mentioned it usually had "***" somewhere along with it and I'd yet to understand wtf it was. I was told vampires sparkle when in sunlight and didn't need to hear much more.

Nobody pansy's up my vampires and gets my support. So nope, not seen it. I have seen Blade (the original not the sucky ones) Dracula, Van heslin (sp!) and a ton of other vampire films with my favourite being;

Salem's lot

That's a mans vampire. Falling out of windows cause of a cross.

Maybe CreepyPirate would like if she'd created her own monster since the only reason he doesn't like it is because they're not the "standard" vampire.

Thoughts?

Oh no i don't hate twilight. I've never seen the book let alone read it. Film isn't my cup o tea either. And I'm perfectly accepting to change for example I fully accept and support 28 days later making zombies move really fast. I think that's a brilliant change.

What i don't like is making bad changes to make up for the writers lack of imagination. The writer couldn't come up with a decent enough plot to stick to vampires hating sunlight so instead made them go sparkly..what sort of a ridicules thing is that? Do they even explain how that works?

I did see some random internet user ***** about it and apparently they've screwed with werewolf's as well? I mean i don't care so much about them but the hell, leave it alone. Is there anything actually bad in this series?

I don't have much opinion on your second paragraph but talking about making a director change of the 28 days later in regards to zombies, have you heard that the director of 30 days of night will be directing the third movie in the twilight series?
If so or not, and knowing that now, what are your opinions? (Know that I haven't seen 30 days of night, I'm just going off of the reaction and response others. This response being, that it will be action packed and better than the previous two.)

Al3X · **Posted:** November 29th, 2009, 7:41 pm

Everyone saying the movie was bad, has anyone considered it was a rushed low budget project? The two movies were released pretty quick.

I haven't seen or want to see either but was wondering if anyone has considered that.

Rune Beast0 · **Posted:** November 29th, 2009, 8:30 pm

Al3X wrote:

Everyone saying the movie was bad, has anyone considered it was a rushed low budget project? The two movies were released pretty quick.

I haven't seen or want to see either but was wondering if anyone has considered that.

I think the people making this movie knew that Twilight was (and still is) a pop culture phenomenon and to fully reap the benefits of such a thing they had to produce the movies quickly while everyone's still interested. Unlike something like Harry Potter, the Twilight series doesn't age well (I know several people who loved the series last year but found that they dislike the books now) and they have to ensure their demographic will want to see all the movies.

Not to mention the fact that even if they are rushed and low budget, millions will still flock to see them. They have a huge guaranteed audience, who will watch the movie regardless of how much they spent on special effects etc.

CreepyPirate · **Posted:** November 30th, 2009, 1:56 am

Zac Glenn wrote:

I don't have much opinion on your second paragraph but talking about making a director change of the 28 days later in regards to zombies, have you heard that the director of 30 days of night will be directing the third movie in the twilight series?
If so or not, and knowing that now, what are your opinions? (Know that I haven't seen 30 days of night, I'm just going off of the reaction and response others. This response being, that it will be action packed and better than the previous two.)

There not directed by the same person..i never really liked 30 days of night.

Al3X wrote:

Everyone saying the movie was bad, has anyone considered it was a rushed low budget project? The two movies were released pretty quick.

I haven't seen or want to see either but was wondering if anyone has considered that.

Not really our problem tho is it? We don't let them off the hook cause it's rushed if anything your even more harsh on it for it.

KefkaticFanatic · **Posted:** November 30th, 2009, 10:46 am

All they had to do was make a film that mirrored a book. They didn't actually have to try and make a good film. This can clearly be seen with the average of about 4.6/10 reviews of this film but #1 in box office rating.