This is a great prank. I'd love to see more of this type of thing.
http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/353...ked?rel=player
Printable View
This is a great prank. I'd love to see more of this type of thing.
http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/353...ked?rel=player
This is absolutley amazing. Seriously.
Vampires don't sparkle.
They burn up and die in the sun.
Though someone did make a good point in saying that vampirism is supposed to be an eternal curse, and running around like an emo fairy who sparkles in the sun makes it so much worse than just turning to ash =)
If Buffy staged Edward would he turn to ash or glitter?
there's a parody video on youtube of what would happen...needless to say, he got dusted...HARD!
I remember when Buffy was the thing that was making vampires uncool.
Goes to show the benefit of having someone below you in the pecking order, I guess.
yeah but buffy atleast went somewhat with the standard formula of a vampire including their ability to cast a glamoure~which they almost always had on to disguise themselves around humans...And the fun part was they poked fun of themselves quite often in the series too like when willow met her alternate dimension self who was a vampire and she freaked out cus she was a lesbian (before willow came out of the closet) and about how vampies instantly know karate when they're ressurected from the grave...apparently they take karate lessons in the underworld. go figure.
and then there's that horrid movie that came out before the series where they went into why it's only women who are slayers and it dealing with the menstral cycle and what not.
but in all fairness, befor ebuffy came out, people were saying anne rice was the what was making vampires uncool and so on and so on. it's a vicious cycle.
So it's better than Twilight on account of being formulaic and having lesbians, which today is more or less the same thing.
I'm inclined to agree, but that still doesn't speak a lot of good about Buffy. Also, give Twilight a few sequels and they'll probably catch up in that regard.
funny idea.....
exactly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Raza
buffy followed the rules. the vampires were scary/sexy/icky/evil. the only two that ever fell in love with a high school girl were the two that fell in love with their arch nemesis and one of those two had a soul (gypsy curse). they burned in the sun, had trouble walking into churches, blistered with holy water and drank HUMAN blood, even set up an evil machine to extract the blood from the human cattle without having to play with their food*.
and people actually DIED. if edward was fluttering around in the buffy-verse he would have been staked in under 20 minutes and there would be no mopey glittery emo stalking confused loner outcasts that are destined to become invisible members of the CIA hit squad.
granted it's biggest saving grace was whedon's dialog. it was funny, as in farcical, tongue in cheek, didn't take it self seriously... etc. what makes twilight suck is that it takes itself way too srsly with all the life-or-glitter melodrama.
Anne Rice is just creepy.... hell VC Andrews is better than Stephanie Meyers by about 100000000000x's. the drek that is the penny dreadful abstinence propaganda is just that, propaganda. I'd rather read Anita Blake than Twilight.
~K
I liked "30 Days of Night". Let's go back to vampires being just plain fuckin' evil blood suckers with no souls and needing to be destroyed. This whole "vampires are people too" thing? No. They're not. They're the undead and they live on blood...And LOVE human blood above all else. What redeeming qualities could they possibly have? Oh yeah...That's right...They're sexy, have great bodies, are very deep in thought, have nice hair and cool clothes...No...They're fuckin' vampires. They're the undead...Pasty skinned...Hallow eyes...And, hey live off of us. Come on! Even in the old Legosi movies...He wasn't really debonair...He was creepy...He employed hypnotism to get the ladies into his lair...Not because he was having a bad hair days and the chicks felt bad for him.
I just had an idea for a novel!
A teenage Succubus meets a young male virgin (with bad hair), intending to claim his pure soul and drag it back to Hell. Instead, she falls in love with him and renounces her lord Satan to become a born-again, abstinence-promoting Christian, whereupon she is cleansed by the "Holy Spirit" of all past transgressions and her hymen repaired until the day they are finally married under the eyes of God and...
... I can't bring myself to continue with this joke, as I'm making myself so nauseous that I'm afraid to imagine how the rest of you must feel. I should first print this out and burn it, then probably delete this post and burn my computer. A concept that horrendous should never see the light - I SEE YOU READING THIS, MEYER!!! Don't you even THINK of plagiarizing this shit, bitch; this is MY IDEA!!!
Aw crap; now I'm a hypocrite...
...who's about to milk the pockets of millions of Christian Right-Wingers! I think whatever I don't spend on drugs and bondage gear will be generously donated to Obama's 2012 Presidential campaign. ;)
hey, that's not a bad idea you could string out a bunch of slop for a few movies until the final chapter or two where satan gets him to commit some transgression that she catches him at which causes her to renounce her newfound religion and do.........stuff in keeping with the situation.
Hahaha!Quote:
Originally Posted by Aza
I have to admit, it's tempting. I could profit from a few PG-rated flicks until I'm rich enough to wrap up the whole project on my own dime. Then I'll laugh maniacally as my Christian audience members nestle themselves comfortably in their expensive theater seats to await the nudity-filled, drug-fueled, gore-splattered R-rated (if not worse) conclusion to a long and beautifully-cruel gag!
Who wants to help me make a movie?
*jumps up and down* MEmememememememememe! I'll help you make a movie! Can I be the Succubus?
I think what pisses me off about twihards is that they are so Obsessed with something that is so unreal that it actually perverts centuries old myths and legends about these creatures without even acknowledging the basis of the concept. They are Vampires in name only. If it doesn't waddle like a duck, or quack like a duck, or swim like a duck, it's not a fucking duck. In this case it's probably a beaver, shares the water with the duck, but it's still a pussy.
~K
The only thing funnier than Twilight are the people that are arguing that it's not how vampires really are.
How exactly does a person portray something that is fake in an unrealistic way?
when a myth originates from more than one culture and there are "rules" that every culture agrees are part of the myth then that's how the story goes. it's ancient cannon. if luke skywalker was suddenly not a pilot but a track star people would cry foul just as loud as those of us that accept the "reality" of vampires in the old stories.
~K
oh well, who knows. there might have been people when dracula came out(as a book) a way back when who said "what the fuck is this shit?, that's not how it is"
"Hey, You like pie? We got free pie!"
"Ha Ha! There is no pie! Pie sucks! You should be eating cake! Cake is delicious! Pie is Stupid!"
"No, we don't have cake here either. PIE IS STUPID!!!"
"Man, we showed those pie-hards!"
Sorry man, just not seeing the prank. It is really basic and not that clever. It is just tricking some people into a half-assed stand up routine about twilight.
And what we consider the traditional vampire is not that old. Stake through the heart, drinking blood, fearing sunlight, these things are not usinversal by any means. Dracula was killed with a knife through the heart. Old timey vampires could be stopped by burying them face down, cutting off their feet, drowning them or putting lemon in their mouths. Mastubating could make you into a vampire when you died. Sparkling doesn't seem so weird now does it?
I like the monster vampires, I like the sexy vampires. And although I haven't read twilight, or seen the movies yet, I suspect that the story of these sexless, sparkly vapires would rank slightly behind slamming my dick in the silverware drawer on my list of things to do, but hey, I don't get a lot of things people are into. And who knows, the popularity of twilight may get producers and publishers to look at interesting vampire stories, cause vampires are hot right now.
Most peeps here don't give a shit about 'real' vamps. they just want to see girls in fishnets spilling blood on their tits wearing really elaborate clothing. real vamps would probably be ugly as fuck and vicious as hell. that buffy era highschool vamp bullshit from the 90s has clogged peoples brains. just sayin.
So, to be an informed critic i tried to watch New Moon.
I could probably get past the WB-90210 vampires, even with the sparkles. I could get past that the "drama" is about a none issue. i mean, with no real downside to being a vampire other than some vague soul shit and the fact that you are so pretty the real world can't deal with you. So wether or not to turn the girl he loves into a vampire, like she wants, is kinda silly.
No, what killed me on the movie was that it was boring. I got through what seemed like the first six hours, but was probably about 20 minutes and nothing happened. Well something almost happened, but it was stopped quickly, thank god. I mean action, drama or suspense would have just killed the... um nap I started taking?
Listen, I have sat through some bad movies, just because there was a vampire, demon or what have you. I can watch a bad movie, but not a boring one.
But I still stand by what I said earlier.
When has every culture ever agreed on anything? Ok, I understand the argument of preserving folk history, but that is a rather exaggerated claim.Quote:
Originally Posted by keiko
Actually, that's an invention of F.W. Murnau, writer and director of 1921's Nosferatu. If you've read Stoker's Dracula, the count could venture out into daylight, but at reduced powers. This was invented for the film due to the Stoker estate refusing Murnau's company to produce a film version of Dracula, so they changed not only names, but a lot of Dracula's major plot points and vampire mythology.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brigeyboo
Traditional folkloric beliefs about vampires place them as more active at night, but any sort of extreme vulnerability or fatality from sunlight is non-existent until Murnau's film. By that logic, as hokey as SMeyer's novels are, her purely self-invented vampire mythos is actually closer to traditional vampire folklore than what many people born in the 20th Century have come to regard as "Real Vampires™". Don't get me wrong -- I'm no fan of her books at all, and find the vampsparkle™ completely stupid on general principle, but I'm still going to be fair enough to acknowledge that they aren't complete garbage, and as somebody who won a regional award in high school from a research project on vampires in folklore and popular culture, I think I know what I'm talking about.
Actually, I've seen that "vamp Willow" episode of Buffy very recently (I've been watching roughly a season a week for the last two months) and only a few episodes prior to "Dopplegangland", it's established that "vamp Willow" and "vamp Xander" are also an item. "Vamp Willow" is thus overtly bisexual and likely also polyamorous. Insistence on identifying Willow as a lesbian is nothing more than bisexual erasure -- even after her relationship with Tara is established, it's established that she still is in love with Oz, that her "high school crush" on Rupert Giles hasn't completely faded, and in "Buffy vs Dracula", Willow voices finding Dracula "hot", only to retract her statement when Tara voices playful offence. Even when asked if Willow is a lesbian, Wheedon has said "Willow is Tara-sexual" (before the character dies), implying that Willow is more monogamous than a character whose sexuality is restricted to any one gender or another. Her later relationship with the male character Rack takes on a sexual angle, and while she may have attempted to use magic to make him a woman, this merely establishes a preference, not an orientation (and most bisexuals tend to have at least a slight preference).Quote:
Originally Posted by malcolm
Buffy was in her second year of uni by the time Spike started falling in love with her, and has had her twenty-first birthday by the time she and Spike finally hook up.Quote:
Originally Posted by keiko
No, because on Buffy it becomes established pretty early on that Buffy herself is willing to turn a blind eye on vampires who don't actually kill living people, and in series 5, when she discovers that Riley is basically paying vampires to bite him and drain a low amount of blood, Giles points out that he's known about such arrangements for decades but didn't tell Buffy about it because 1) people rarely actually die and 2) on the occasion of "accidental" deaths, the people are willing victims, so the moral issue is debatable. As long as Edward and his family just keep to themselves and feeding on animals, Buffy herself is likely to leave them alone to be their mopey emo selves.Quote:
Originally Posted by keiko
Furthermore, seriously, watch the first season of BTVS again, and tell me that Angel isn't a creepy stalker. Edward is Angel with a) a younger physical age (17 as opposed to roughly 25) and b) Sparkle™. He's also more likely to wax the purple prose about being a creepy stalker, but Angel pretty much pulls the same creepy stalker shit on Buffy before she falls for him. Seriously. He even comes straight out and says in one episode "I just want you to be safe". There is no logical reason to come down on the character of Edward Cullen for the same shit you're apparently forgiving of in Angel from Buffy.
Yeah, this was what I thought about the Twilight and New Moon films. The level of drama is... eh... It's adequate for what's basically made for Junior High girls ages 10-13 -- it's not good, and I guess if you're into a hokey romantic drama sort of plot, it gets the job done. The vampire mythology, while almost wholecloth SMeyers' creation, it's not too terrible, and as I've pointed out, if you know anything about pre-1921 vampire folklore and literature, it's arguably closer to traditional vampires than The Vampire Chronicles or Buffy (I just think the way she did it was kind of stupid, but that's subjective).Quote:
Originally Posted by Cafe_Post_Mortem
Their biggest flaws as film is that if you're not their target audience, they're more likely to be incredibly boring than anything else. The only way I got through both is cos I purchased mp3 commentary from Rifftrax.com.
Actually, despite what people say Meyer's vampires are pretty basic modern vampires. Aside from the sparkling and the insomnia, I don't see one original thing about them.
Strong, sexy, live forever, read minds, sharp senses. Come to think of it, the skin thing is even reminiscent of Anne Rice's vampires.
OK, they don't seem to have any real weaknesses, but she is hardly the first writer to do that.
Vaguely reminiscent, I suppose -- I know she'd go on for what felt like pages about how pale and stunning Lestat, Louis, and Armand were supposed to be.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cafe_Post_Mortem
Without yet having read the books, so I'm basing this all on the opinions of people I usually agree with on this sort of thing, my biggest issues with the story are:
1) the vampires are just... vampires. Anne Rice used vampires as a literary device to delve into issues of mortality and morality. Joss Whedon used his Buffy vampires to occasionally explore morality, the concept of the soul, human purpose, stuff like that (though considerably less so in the first and second series). Even Poppy Z Brite's vampires are "born that way", which makes them a pretty obvious allegory for her own Queer identity. Unless you're looking for SMeyer's apparent Mormon subtext (and like with the Narnia books and liberal Protestant Christianity, unless you know it's there and what to look for, you'll probably miss it), the only theme she seems to use vampires to explore is the concept of Eternal Love™ -- something I find kind of boring, but then again, I'm hardly the marrying type.
2) the main vampire characters seem to have these intricate backgrounds but no real "depth" of personality. Bella's personality seems virtually non-existent -- now, I knew a lot of girls like that in high school, so I guess I can't fault SMeyer for "realism", but the fact that this got popular to the degree that is has scares me with the pretensions and narcissism that this implies about the average young woman. That kind of "heroine" is for trashy pulp romances with an H in a diamond on the spine.
3) This is apparently one of those rare cases where the films are actually better than the books.
4) There's no real internal or external conflict in this story. You get little bits of it here and there, but it's pretty easily quashed with how perfect and amazing the Cullens are and how Bella + Edward = Twoo Wuv™. Bella being tracked by a pack of killer vamps that want to eat her? The Cullens keep close and kill their leader easy-peasy. Bella gets a case of The Emo when her boyfriend leaves? Ten blank pages later, the hot boy from the reservation takes his shirt off and all is well. The mate of the vampire the Cullens killed wants to kill Bella now? Well, she's slightly harder to kill, but only cos her Supernatural Vamp Powaz™ is "self preservation". The vampire aristocracy wants to kill Bella cos she knows they exist? Well, hey, the Cullen who has visions tells them that they're gonna end up turning Bella anyway, so problem resolved. The fact that all of these problems get solved so easily is proof enough that this is complete fantasy, and since any sense of internal struggle about Bella going vamp is glossed over and just kind of a "well, duh", and the only voice of dissent in the whole thing is Rosalie, who only really voices that she wished it never happened to her because omg, vampires can't have babies, like normal girls can and want to have, the feminist androgyne in my head is shouting "YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME!!!" and pushing a copy of The Dialectic of Sex with a post-it that says "READ THIS" across the table at me.
5) lastly, there seems to at least be this implied thing where vampires in the Twilight universe, don't age physically, but they don't mature emotionally past their physical age, either. I don't buy that; that's not how human beings work, and it seems pretty well-established that Twilight vampires are still pretty much human -- after all, Dr Carlisle Cullen is a doctor because he's decided he's going to use his immortality to help people, Edward doesn't want to turn Bella at first because he believes that their nature is a monstrous one, Jasper has a background as a Civil War vet and has recently joined up with the Cullens because he's decided that he hates being a killer, Rosalie is... well, pining for babies. These are human emotions. The only way to make the whole "vampires don't mature emotionally" thing work is if you establish vampires as something no longer human at its core -- even Lestat matured and grew, even if for the longest time, he embraced "the monster within". In Carlisle's 400 years, he has maybe the wisdom of a thirty-five-year-old; in Jasper's nearly 200, he acts like an awkward sixteen-year-old, as does Edward. That's just not very good writing.
It could all be worse, I suppose, but the more I know about this story, the more I find it completely ridiculous, even if just imaginative enough to not be total garbage.
Jeeeeeeeeeeesus....