Cameron H.

Like what if it were honey...

I have to admit, I’m kind of sad they’re doing away with the Zocchihedron. I get why they’re doing it, but I really enjoyed the randomness of the picks. It also means that we probably won’t get Star Wars out of the way until Rise of Skywalker - which bums me out. I love Star Wars, but I am sick to death of talking about Star Wars - for good or ill. I was really hoping to get it out of the way sooner rather than later. Oh well...

Yes! That was one of my bits of foreshadowing I caught based on my knowledge of the Nic Cage version. I was like, “Oh, he’s so going to be the fool...” I also like how the movie subverted the whole “virgin sacrifice” trope. It annoys me so much when movies just ignore male virgins. My favorite example of this is when two eleven year old boys lament “Where are we going to find a virgin?” in Monster Squad. I’m like, “Hey fellas, take a look in the mirror...” I watched the version on iTunes. It says it’s 1:42 (102 minutes), and as far as I could tell, it was chronological.

This is my first time watching this, so for people who have seen this before, what’s your take on the nude bedroom dancing scene? I loved the music playing in the background and the forbidding “thumps” on the wall. And I liked the idea of her tempting him to make sure he was “pure.” But, damn, Howie acts like a real weirdo in that scene - lol.

I could see making this movie a yearly tradition.

Me too. It opens the doors for Musical Mondays to be interpreted more broadly while still allowing for straight Musicals if that's what people want to choose.

I agree. That song they sing at the end, about the cuckoo, would be absolutely terrifying if you were in Howie’s position. It’s so silly and cheerful sounding.

As I said on Letterboxd, it makes the Nic Cage version make both less and more sense. It definitely makes more sense for the detective to be super religious though. Cutting that aspect of the character from the Nic Cage version is confounding. What were they thinking?

Oh yeah, they definitely have. It just feels like it’s been awhile. I could be wrong. I’d just like to hear multiple opinions/viewpoints and at least get their brief take on that, rather than them just repeat what they’ve already said.

Musical Mondays seems to be kind of morphing in that direction anyway. Maybe it’s time it evolved? Maybe call it Forum Favorites?

I’m listening to the episode right now, and I’m trying to word this carefully as I can as I don’t want to come off as too critical. Please understand, I’m not trying to be an asshole. Just something I wanted to get off my chest. So, I love the show. I love the hosts. But what kind of disappoints me is that when they choose quotes from listeners, whether it be from here, Facebook, or Twitter, it feels like lately they’ve only been choosing from people that agree with them. I’m not saying that shouldn't ever pick posts that agree with them, nor am I suggesting that they should only pick posts that disagree. And I really don’t feel they should have to relitigate their position at the top of every episode. I guess I just feel like if you say, “Most people disagreed with us” then it’s a bit lame to go out and pick out posts that agree with you. We’ve already heard you speak for over an hour about why you think such and such movie deserves or doesn’t deserve to be on the list. And that’s great, that’s why we’re here, but in order for people to grow they sometimes need to have their assumptions challenged. In my experience, Unspooled listeners tend to be an intelligent lot and it would be nice to hear other points of view rather than the just the same points of view reiterated. Of course, this is just my opinion. Others may feel differently.

Wow, someone was a real Paul Poopypants about C&O’s this week In our defense, it’s not that we’re “missing the point,” but when the insanity of a movie is essentially one note, and the hosts and their guests expertly singing that note for an hour and a half straight like a quartet of Pavarottis, it’s sometimes difficult for us come up with an interesting harmony or counter melody. We do our best with the material presented, but sometimes it’s slim pickins. We’ll try harder next time

This month, I’m going to let Grudlian dictate which Friday we do this since I know he watched all the other Twilights in preparation for this, and I would hate for him to have gone through all that effort just to miss out. Grud, which Friday is better for you: the 5th or the 12th?

Holy Hell!

The way I thought of it, after I wrote that, was that it's like having private-public conversations. If I'm talking to you (that is, I'm quoting you), I'm talking to only you - but other people are more than welcome to listen in and comment if they wish. If I were ever to address (or call out) everyone, I would never do it in post quoting another person. I'm not trying to subtweet anyone And, not that you need my permission, but you should absolutely stand by what you think. You've had experiences that I could never begin to fully appreciate or understand. That's your truth. I would never dream of arguing against that. And while I might seem at odds with the popular opinion, I promise you, I'm not really. Of course I see the problematic shit. I don't think I've outright disagreed with a single thing anyone has said on this thread. Part of what I like about the Twilight movies is laughing at the dumb garbage. I would say my affection for it is about 75% ironic and 25% sincere. And that sincere part is the part of me that says, "While I don't necessarily agree with everything that's being presented, I understand why a teenager might respond to this" and also sees how it fits into the grand tradition of problematic literature.

Because it was part of my “multiple points” You said: But none of those things are mutually exclusive. They don’t contradict each other. And each was in response to a different person, in a different post, regarding a different aspect of Twilight. The quote you pulled of mine up there was in response to things EvRobert brought up. I don’t know why you read that as if it were directed at you or anyone else here. Last night, I was juggling different conversations with you, EvR, Almost a Ghost, Watch Out for Snakes, Grudlian, and SyCasey. I was carefully reading each of your posts and responding as quickly as I could while also doing other “in real life” things. If things sound “muddled,” I don’t know what to tell you. If Person A brings something up, and I respond to them that maybe it would help to view the work as a whole, it has nothing to do with conversation I’m having with Person B about intention versus interpretation. Those are totally different topics. Each with different “points” Of course, sometimes there’s overlap, and it’s not perfect, but that’s just the nature of online conversations. I understand you’re all arguing the same general point, but I’m not looking at is as me talking with a group of five people. I try to treat each of you as an individual that deserves my undivided attention.

Damn, I really want to be done with this conversation, but I don’t remember ever saying this...

I am nitpicking Twilight. I am citing specific scenes and using other books and movies to support what I am saying - just like we always do. I just happen to be nitpicking against everyone else’s opinion (which always seems to upset people) So I’ll stop. No big deal. And in my defense, not once did I say or come close to suggesting we should ignore it and let it continue to be. That’s putting words in my mouth. My point from the beginning has always been, that they are bad, just no worse than other things that have come before it, and isn’t that weird? Why is that? It reminds me of the same stigma Romance Novels get all the time. I’m also merely pointing out that it’s a four book series that should be taken as a whole and not from isolated moments from an earlier book meant to represent the entirety of the work and the author’s philosophy. But I will happily drop it.

And I'm not denying any of that. I'm just saying that for that the conceit of a "Dickish, handsome, rich man that treats the female protagonist like dirt, but is actually an okay dude so you should probably just marry him" isn't unique to Twilight. It's at least as old as Pride and Prejudice, and probably older still, but people still love Mr D'arcy. You say that Stephanie Meyers should have known better, but what of the thousands of other examples of problematic relationships in literature that existed before her? Why don't they get called out? That's my point. Why does Twilight take the blame when something like (Best Picture Nominee) Beauty and the Beast probably conditions people to accept and normalize the same exact dysfunctional behavior and at a far younger age? Why is Belle and The Beast's relationship "romantic," while Bella and Edward's* is problematic? Why was it this struggling and unknown author's responsibility to write a healthy relationship when she grew up surrounded by the same toxic masculinity that's been present since forever? And, again, I'm not saying that it isn't problematic. I'm not saying that bad lessons can be gleaned from it. I'm not defending sick relationship behaviors. I'm not saying that I love the movie to my forever soul. I'm not saying that anyone here has to actually like it. I'm simply challenging the fact that Twilight receives far more backlash than almost any other piece of literature that presents the same exact dynamic. I'm saying I don't think its appeal is because it promotes these behaviors, but that it references these already existing (bad) behaviors and beliefs. And I also believe that a lot of the negative behaviors are addressed and commented upon in the film. *I just noticed the similarity of the names. That had to be intentional. Twilight literally is Beauty and the Beast, meets Dracula, meets Romeo & Juliet, meets Pride & Prejudice.

First of all, the visions were only put in the movie to put more R Pats in the movie. The studio didn’t think it would be a hit if it was just Bella and Jacob. I don’t expect you to know that, but it’s worth bringing up. Her reckless behavior doesn’t help them really. They certainly don’t avoid the bad vampires because of them. It actually just leads to Edward to thinking she died and subsequently attempting to kill himself. (Which is just Romeo & Juliet - which is specifically referenced in the movie) As a result, her reckless behavior nearly drives Edward to suicide, exposes her and the Cullens to danger, and forces their hand regarding turning Bella into a vampire. They don’t “avoid” the vampires, they are forced to deal with them to save their lives. Bella’s visions don’t help them. They cause more problems. I mean, yeah, they end back up together, but it’s not exactly a reward for her behavior. At best, it’s a consequence. And going back to the reckless behavior in New Moon, again, this isn’t about endorsement so much as acknowledgement. It’s just saying that when we break up with someone we care about we sometimes do dumb things. And since she wasn’t about to show Bella shooting up, drinking, playing Russian Roulette, or engaging in unprotected sex, she chose to show her cliff diving and...riding motorcycles? But again, it’s a series about growth. She’s not meant to be perfect from page one, just relatable. If you can show me examples of a bad message in the fourth movie, once they’re married and everything, then I’m more open to criticism. By citing a character as being a bad example before allowing the character to fully complete their journey is, in my opinion, unfair. Why does Bella have to be a perfect role model right from the beginning, but someone like Tony Stark is given space and allowed to be flawed?

Again, the quality of those films are precisely why I brought them up in the first place. I never came close to suggesting Twilight was superior. Just that creators have their works and characters misinterpreted all the time. Hippies (and modern viewers) thought the Hobbits smoking “pipe-weed” meant Hobbits liked to get high even though Tolkien frowned upon drugs. If even great works can have the intentions of their authors misinterpreted, how much easier for an author or filmmaker who isn’t a Tolkien or a Kubrick?

That’s pretty much what I’m saying. It’s the reason it’s relatable to so many. It didn’t create the fucked up dynamics, it just highlighted the fucked up dynamics that have always been present. That’s why it feels “real.” We understand these characters because they are archetypes of people we encounter everyday - especially in high school.

I also think Stephanie Meyers wrote herself into a bit of a corner. It’s a big issue in Eclipse, but the whole idea of Bella aging and Edward staying young really creates issues that I’m not sure she thought out. The problem with the movies is that Pattinson doesn’t LOOK 17. So when you’re watching the movie you’re kind of like, “Why not wait a few years? Who cares?” But if he actually looked 17, 10 years might make a huge difference! So it’s like, “Well I have to make her a vampire at 18. But since vampirism is a metaphor for sex, based on my beliefs, that can’t happen unless they get married. Welp, I guess she’s getting married straight out of high school.”

I just wanted to respond to this point directly. I’m not going against anything that I don’t think is “well thought out.” I think you all have good points. In the quote above, you cut out my sentence where I said i don’t even “necessarily like the series” and I’ve conceded a bunch of times already to a lot the problematic elements. Just like all of you, I used to hate these movies, now I appreciate them for what they are. Mine is the unpopular opinion, so I feel like the onus is upon me to explain what turned me around on them.

My wife and I were discussing this after we watched the movie and we both agreed the biggest hang up was that she was only 18 when they get married which feels a little too young. We were like, “I think people could accept it better if Breaking Dawn was like 10 years later.” But really, it’s not that much different from other romances where kids get married right away. My wife and I met when she was 20 and I was 23 and we got married a year and a half later. 18 isn’t really that much younger.