Script for Twilight sequel found in trash.

Originally Posted by Judicium

But there are aspects of the independent film that differ from those that are mainstream.

Not really, no. "Indie", again, refers only to studio affiliation. It's entirely possible to have a generic action movie that's also a indie film, say.

You don't tend to hear about those ones, but "Indie" is not a genre or style, and no two indie films have much in common.

Judicium, google "independent films", you'll see it only has to do with studios, not production values.

Edit: John beat me to it. :<

Arbitrator is my hero on this subject of critiquing the actual media. Seriously, every point nailed exactly for me. The story is simply a generic romance with 'vampires' cut up to make them near perfect. People can try to argue with that, but take away the vampires, all the supernatural stuff, and it's a basic romance. The only thing that can make it stand out is the sparkling vampires and werewolves, which was thrown in there for the author's own fantasy, no doubt. At least make an original plot, instead of throwing in different legends and changing them to fit your own needs and claim it be unique... any fans who want to challenge that claim, go ahead. That's my own opinion, and nobody can change it.

The only thing I can add onto why so many people don't like Twilight is because of what the author did to the great myth of the Vampire. Sparkly vampires? In the sunlight? To my knowledge, Vampires burst into flames and die in sunlight. That's my main complaint, besides the book dragging on and on about nothing, and the movie being unbearable to watch without wanting a glass bottle to shatter on your skull.

Originally Posted by The Arbitrator

Firstly they are held up as literary masterpieces for that alone, but if a book is badly written, you cannot be immersed in a world, just like a really glitchy game keeps reminding you that it's a game.

Though I get your point, there's something I don't agree with. If I were to play a glitchy game, it would suck and I would soon stop playing it, as I would if a book were as bad - which Twilight is not. There was never a point that I remember in any of the books, where I had to stop and try to understand what she was saying. There never came a point where reading the books was unenjoyable. It was an easy read. I guess it matters on the person, but I found myself quite immersed.

Quentin Tarantino wanted to make films because he himself is a big movie buff. This does not exempt his films from critique.

Tim Buckley of Ctrl+Alt+Del fame just wanted to make a webcomic. This does not exempt his webcomic from critique.

Stephanie Meyer just wanted to write books about that crappy fantasy universe, a world which she quite thoroughly made up from my understanding (as there is no vampiric lore involving shiny vampires other than in her imagination to my knowledge and she had never been to "Forks" prior to the writing of Twilight from what I can remember), but this does not lend credit to her literature.

Claiming that is like claiming "I can do what I want with MY [media]." Yes, you can - but this does not exempt you from my critique.

Haha, I wasn't really trying to make it seem like critiquing the work was a bad thing to do, but, I just think that some people are holding her up to a bar in which she never aimed for.

For example, I like drawing, and I know I'm not the greatest there ever was, nor do I really plan on trying to achieve a famous level of artistic ability, so, I would find it a little unfair to be compared to someone like Alfons Mucha, or Picasso. It's unavoidable of course, and I'm sure if a drawing of mine were to hit the entire world as something incredibly awesome, that there would be a ton of art buffs coming at me at every angle about how what I made was not worth the media attention it was gaining.

I like being critiqued, and it makes sense to critique things, but sometimes I think it's a little unfair.

Oh, and FTR: I'm not a vampire buff. Most of the vampires depicted throughout my life span were creepy and I didn't find to the concept of them to be too friendly. I like how human the vampires seemed in these books. It was her own concept of course, that I liked. I'm sure plenty of people in the world has made up their own conception of vampires.

it's not badly written at all, men in general just don't like it

also when did this become a twilight book thread

Originally Posted by nod flenders

when did this become a twilight book thread

Sometime before it was moved to Movies & Hollywood

First off, I just want to appologize for how heated my posts got.

I...feel strongly about people insulting a fandom. It's very rarely justified, and the anti-twilight stuff tends to be highly vitriolic.



And Arbiter, my apologies to my response to your post. You really weren't one of the people I was angry at, but I guess you just made a good target.

Originally Posted by Azul

The only thing I can add onto why so many people don't like Twilight is because of what the author did to the great myth of the Vampire. Sparkly vampires? In the sunlight? To my knowledge, Vampires burst into flames and die in sunlight. That's my main complaint, besides the book dragging on and on about nothing, and the movie being unbearable to watch without wanting a glass bottle to shatter on your skull.

Original vampires were just fine in sunlight. They just happened to be nocturnal and were active in the night.

They also were what we'd now call zombies.


The modern vampire has no set lore.
She may, or may not, burst into flame in the sun.
She may, or may not, be able to turn into smoke.
She may, or may not, be able to turn into a bat (or a flock of bats.)
She may, or may not, be able to make new vampires by drinking the blood of humans.
She may, or may not, fear silver, garlic, crosses, wooden stakes, lemons, or the true name of God.
She may, or may not, be undead. She may, or may not, have super-human strength and endurance.
She may, or may not, be able to fly. She may, or may not, have excellent eyesight or sense of smell.
She may, or may not, be able to hypnotize with a glance...

It's really a mish-mash, new abilities are added and removed all the time. I mean, I think Dracula had his hands on backwards, yet most vampires post-Bela Lugosi lack that. Nosferatu was a horrid-looking monstrous figure. Most now wouldn't call him a vampire, but he was one of the originals.

I have no idea how this is news. This is where I would expect to find the scripts.

I feel sorry for that trash can for having to hold such a despicable piece of junk.

Originally Posted by John

They also were what we'd now call zombies.

IIRC, vampires and werewolves were the same thing. Not sure how zombies fit into that.

Originally Posted by John

First off, I just want to appologize for how heated my posts got.

I...feel strongly about people insulting a fandom. It's very rarely justified, and the anti-twilight stuff tends to be highly vitriolic.

And Arbiter, my apologies to my response to your post. You really weren't one of the people I was angry at, but I guess you just made a good target.

Oh come now, you weren't that heated in your response I don't think, and you made some good points which I simply responded to, perhaps in a heated manner.

Original vampires were just fine in sunlight. They just happened to be nocturnal and were active in the night.

They also were what we'd now call zombies.

The modern vampire has no set lore.
She may, or may not, burst into flame in the sun.
She may, or may not, be able to turn into smoke.
She may, or may not, be able to turn into a bat (or a flock of bats.)
She may, or may not, be able to make new vampires by drinking the blood of humans.
She may, or may not, fear silver, garlic, crosses, wooden stakes, lemons, or the true name of God.
She may, or may not, be undead. She may, or may not, have super-human strength and endurance.
She may, or may not, be able to fly. She may, or may not, have excellent eyesight or sense of smell.
She may, or may not, be able to hypnotize with a glance...

It's really a mish-mash, new abilities are added and removed all the time. I mean, I think Dracula had his hands on backwards, yet most vampires post-Bela Lugosi lack that. Nosferatu was a horrid-looking monstrous figure. Most now wouldn't call him a vampire, but he was one of the originals.

Still, Stephanie Meyer has openly admitted (from what I remember at least) that she did little research into vampiric lore. Nowadays there tend to be many consistencies in vampire depictions, and if something is changed, it's usually a considered change, or a change made due to the nature of the world that vampire is inhabiting. Not, as it seems to be in Twilight, for romanticism's sake.

Legacy of Kain was a good depiction of vampirism, but what it did change didn't really matter because it wasn't such a massive point of of the plot that they were in fact vampires. You just accepted that they were vampires and the plot moved on from that. In Twilight the focus is on the fact that it's a romance between a supernatural entity of vampiric tendencies and a human, so if you're going to draw so much attention to the vampiricism, you need to think about what you're doing with that vampire.

HAHAHAHAHA.

Fail. They should've kept it there and let it burn. I like the books but honestly....

Originally Posted by John

"Indie" simply means "independent". It says nothing about content, style, production values or anything about the film.

Twilight was not an Indie film by any metric.

Yes it was.

Originally Posted by nolan

Yes it was.

Well played, nolan. I actually lol'd.

let the starving masses of teen girls like what they like, give it a rest

Originally Posted by Ringo Starr

IIRC, vampires and werewolves were the same thing. Not sure how zombies fit into that.

Not as far as I know.

A traditional vampire was a corpse. Sometimes the corpse of a murderer, or suicide, or blasphemer. Someone "evil", anyways.

It would, at night, dig its way out of its grave and wander around menacing people, usually killing them by biting them and sucking their blood or various vital fluids.

Come sunrise it would return to its grave (and presumably re-bury itself from inside its coffin. A talent that few posses.)


Then the villagers, after realizing that someone in the village has died/is ill/is pale go to the graveyard and go to the last grave dug, digging it up again.

Now, a corpse after a bit of rotting is not a...nice sight. It's bloated, badly discoloured, and has all sorts of fluids pooling inside of it. Many of these fluids are red, and tend to ooze out the mouth of a rotting body.

I think you can see where this is going.

So, the way to kill this monstrocity varied over time. Originally it was to be burned, but corpses are rather too...soggy, to burn well. So removing the head and burying it elsewhere was popular. As was, if the corpse was too far gone for the head to be more than a skull, re-arranging the bones. Eventually the idea developed that vampires had an insatiable compulsion to count things, so throwing poppy seeds in the coffin would stop them, since they'd spend all night trying to count them.

This is very similar to most modern ideas about zombies (other than the counting compulsion). Not so much werewolves.

Originally Posted by nolan

Yes it was.

...Huh.

Originally Posted by John

Eventually the idea developed that vampires had an insatiable compulsion to count things

Originally Posted by PyroShadow

I...
I can't even....
Oh man.
Words cannot describe how hard I just laughed.

Making "The Count" a vampire was no coincidence.


It let them tie in two aspects of Vampire mythology: Their obsessive need to count things, and their living in old castles. In addition, it gave them the lovely pun of calling him "the count".

The Jim Henson company has had it's fair share of very intelligent people over its life.

Originally Posted by John

Not as far as I know.

A traditional vampire was a corpse. Sometimes the corpse of a murderer, or suicide, or blasphemer. Someone "evil", anyways.

It would, at night, dig its way out of its grave and wander around menacing people, usually killing them by biting them and sucking their blood or various vital fluids.

Come sunrise it would return to its grave (and presumably re-bury itself from inside its coffin. A talent that few posses.)


Then the villagers, after realizing that someone in the village has died/is ill/is pale go to the graveyard and go to the last grave dug, digging it up again.

Now, a corpse after a bit of rotting is not a...nice sight. It's bloated, badly discoloured, and has all sorts of fluids pooling inside of it. Many of these fluids are red, and tend to ooze out the mouth of a rotting body.

I think you can see where this is going.

So, the way to kill this monstrocity varied over time. Originally it was to be burned, but corpses are rather too...soggy, to burn well. So removing the head and burying it elsewhere was popular. As was, if the corpse was too far gone for the head to be more than a skull, re-arranging the bones. Eventually the idea developed that vampires had an insatiable compulsion to count things, so throwing poppy seeds in the coffin would stop them, since they'd spend all night trying to count them.

This is very similar to most modern ideas about zombies (other than the counting compulsion). Not so much werewolves.

John, how do you amass such knowledge? It seems like you just click the random page button on wikipedia all day, and then read the entire page. You also read the featured articles and any interesting links coming close.