HDTGM Classics Twilight Saga - Breaking Dawn Part 2 (4/12 9PM EST)

[Cameron H. 23786]

6 minutes ago, AlmostAGhost said:

Then when they get married and are parents, that changes the whole feel of the later books for me and I didn't enjoy them nearly as much.

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.  

[AlmostAGhost 2718]

Yea, I don't think the marriage is totally unrealistic or anything, it just changes the tone for me. Also it's possible if the whole thing was just better written, the marriage would have felt absolutely RIGHT.

But yea I'm not sure what other alternate arc would satisfy there, because I guess marriage was the natural next step after the first two books.

[Cameron H. 23786]

51 minutes ago, Cameron H. said:

I don't see the point in going against them because you think it's not well thought out.

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.

[Cameron H. 23786]

18 minutes ago, AlmostAGhost said:

Yea, I don't think the marriage is totally unrealistic or anything, it just changes the tone for me. Also it's possible if the whole thing was just better written, the marriage would have felt absolutely RIGHT.

But yea I'm not sure what other alternate arc would satisfy there, because I guess marriage was the natural next step after the first two books.

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.”

[Cameron H. 23786]

1 hour ago, AlmostAGhost said:

My take on liking that side of the romance was less to do with it being some perfect 'true love' and the fact that young 'love' is usually problematic, and therefore it all felt sort of real to me. I really did get sucked into the romance side of the story. Then when they get married and are parents, that changes the whole feel of the later books for me and I didn't enjoy them nearly as much.

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.

[sycasey 2.0 2301]

4 hours ago, grudlian. said:

I think a huge difference between A Clockwork Orange and Taxi Driver is that the intention of the creators (which I guess depends on if you think authorial intent matters).

I don't think Scorsese or Kubrick (or Anthony Burgess) find Travis Bickle or Alex to be likeable characters. We aren't supposed to identify with them. I believe Stephanie Meyer wants her audience to identify with Bella and I think she's fine with her actions. People who idealize Travis Bickle are misinterpreting Taxi Driver but people taking the wrong message from Twilight are getting exactly what Meyer wanted them to get. That's the difference to me.

Dismissing Twilight's flaws as a fairy tale doesn't seem quite right to me. Many fairy tales, fantasies and fables are written specifically to teach us lessons about ourselves or society. Lots of women (and I speculate the majority of Twilight fans) are taking the wrong messages from Twilight. They love Edward or Jacob even pining for someone who is as good to them as Edward. They want to be in Bella's situation.

It's perfectly fine for you to enjoy Twilight for what you find there. But I find it reinforces negative, misogynist stereotypes way more than any of its potential positives.

I see intentionality in those other movies to criticize society and the main character. It's very much crystal clear to me that's what the filmmakers are doing.

I don't see it in Twilight. Maybe a little bit in the silliness of the first movie (vampire baseball!), but by the sequels it feels like everyone is taking this completely 100% seriously. The filmmaking seems straight-ahead and unironic to me. Maybe the books are different, I can't speak to that. The filmmaking choices don't suggest active criticism.

[Cameron H. 23786]

5 hours ago, sycasey 2.0 said:

I see intentionality in those other movies to criticize society and the main character. It's very much crystal clear to me that's what the filmmakers are doing.

I don't see it in Twilight. Maybe a little bit in the silliness of the first movie (vampire baseball!), but by the sequels it feels like everyone is taking this completely 100% seriously. The filmmaking seems straight-ahead and unironic to me. Maybe the books are different, I can't speak to that. The filmmaking choices don't suggest active criticism.

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?

[grudlian. 4725]

8 hours ago, Cameron H. said:

Why do you believe this though? If in New Moon, Bella engages in risky behavior after a heartbreak, and every character is like, “What the fuck are you doing?” (Which they repeatedly do), how is Meyers endorsing Bella’s behavior? If she, the author, has her characters questioning what Bella’s doing, then she recognizes that the behavior she is engaging in is wrong. Otherwise, everyone would be like “You go, Bella. Jump off cliffs if it makes you feel closer to Edward! Great idea!” Instead, everyone is like “Pull yourself together. You’re a fucking mess."

I don't remember the specifics but I want to say it was an interview or something from Meyer that made me think that. It might have been from Twilight fans who have twisted her message to suit their own beliefs.

To refute your specific story point, you're right that her friends tell her she's acting crazy. Her crazy behavior also ends up saving her life because don't her visions of Edward tell her how to avoid the evil vampires? So, it's a real mixed message at best.

That's a big thing. The positives you can find through over analysis have pretty equal negatives throughout.

[Cameron H. 23786]

1 hour ago, grudlian. said:

Her crazy behavior also ends up saving her life because don't her visions of Edward tell her how to avoid the evil vampires? So, it's a real mixed message at best.

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?

[WatchOutForSnakes 807]

9 hours ago, Cameron H. said:

I’m literally the only fighting in favor of these movies - lol  I’m not dismissing anyone or attacking anyone’s views. I’m defending Twilight in the same way I defend the Prequel Trilogy. People pick on them as “easy targets.”  

The whole reason this even came up was Watch Out For Snakes said she couldn’t get through the first movie. I replied that, in my opinion, they get better and gave a theory I had on the Twilight Saga and was subsequently told that the books were “gross” and “left a bad taste.” After that, I just gave me rationale and defense for thinking they were fine. You guys gave me reasons why you think they’re not. And I responded in kind. I’m not dismissing, I’m listening and I’m engaging. Specifically, I’m engaging in a conversation with about five people who think I’m dead wrong - lol. 

Still catching up on this thread, but wanted to address it... I agree with everything Taylor has said. I, too, had toxic relationships, particularly in high school and there's something about Edward's behavior that goes into triggering territory where  Travis Bickle et al. do not. Yeah, he's intentionally creepy, but the audience is supposed to interpret that as a sign of love. Women and girls are brought up to translate men's aggression as affection. "He teases you because he likes you." And he's sneaking into Bella's room, and stalking her because he loves her. Or so the movie/books would have us believe. Men (I'm not even going to try to put a percentage on how many, but enough of them) act this way with girls and women, and we often interpret it as affection because that's all we see. Everywhere. All. The. Time. It takes a lot of counter-programming to get passed some of this stuff. Particularly for an audience of young girls who don't have the capacity to analyze the story or the language to discuss toxic masculinity, I think the author should have known better. You can make Edward weird and awkward and loving without making him a controlling, possessive, emotionally abusive stalker. She could have even kept in all the LDS messages she wanted. It was a choice to make him that way. A way that many boys and men actually think they can act around women. And as Taylor said, it normalizes it, and it shows girls that as long as you're meant to be together, and as long as it's true love, just stick with it. Don't' worry about what your friends and family are saying. Don't worry about all the warning signs. He just really loves you, and you're meant to be together, and definitely, as soon as you're married and have a baby, you'll all live happily ever after. 

I didn't quite mean to open a whole campaign against the movies, but I legit have a hard time watching that kind of relationship on screen because I've been in one. And yeah, maybe us women who've survived them are tough-as-nails now, but wouldn't the world be better if we could be tough without having to go through it? 

[EvRobert 1684]

Thank you for correcting me about Bella's mom and dad, I literally couldn't remember (but I literally remember nothing about her parents). 

I'm not sure what else I can add to this discussion that hasn't already been said better and by those more affected by these books than me. I read the books once (and frankly I thought they should have ended at the third one (New Moon?) which I thought ended in a perfectly fine way and made for a nice conclusion. 

From a movie making point of view, I do think that the movies got more "serious" and more and more funny (but less intentionally so), but I think is the fault of the filmmakers. I do think it is interesting that only one of the films (the first one) had a female director at the helm (I think we've talked about Catherine Hardwicke's career on this board before) . What else, I think, is interesting to  note is that this extends not just to the twilight films. None of the Hunger Games were directed by women, none of the Divergent movies were directed by women, despite those stories being about female protagonists and written by female authors. 

[Cameron H. 23786]

51 minutes ago, WatchOutForSnakes said:

Still catching up on this thread, but wanted to address it... I agree with everything Taylor has said. I, too, had toxic relationships, particularly in high school and there's something about Edward's behavior that goes into triggering territory where  Travis Bickle et al. do not. Yeah, he's intentionally creepy, but the audience is supposed to interpret that as a sign of love. Women and girls are brought up to translate men's aggression as affection. "He teases you because he likes you." And he's sneaking into Bella's room, and stalking her because he loves her. Or so the movie/books would have us believe. Men (I'm not even going to try to put a percentage on how many, but enough of them) act this way with girls and women, and we often interpret it as affection because that's all we see. Everywhere. All. The. Time. It takes a lot of counter-programming to get passed some of this stuff. Particularly for an audience of young girls who don't have the capacity to analyze the story or the language to discuss toxic masculinity, I think the author should have known better. You can make Edward weird and awkward and loving without making him a controlling, possessive, emotionally abusive stalker. She could have even kept in all the LDS messages she wanted. It was a choice to make him that way. A way that many boys and men actually think they can act around women. And as Taylor said, it normalizes it, and it shows girls that as long as you're meant to be together, and as long as it's true love, just stick with it. Don't' worry about what your friends and family are saying. Don't worry about all the warning signs. He just really loves you, and you're meant to be together, and definitely, as soon as you're married and have a baby, you'll all live happily ever after. 

I didn't quite mean to open a whole campaign against the movies, but I legit have a hard time watching that kind of relationship on screen because I've been in one. And yeah, maybe us women who've survived them are tough-as-nails now, but wouldn't the world be better if we could be tough without having to go through 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.

[EvRobert 1684]

Man, I'm drawing on some knowledge that I haven't thought about in awhile, but IIRC, Stephanie Meyers did state that (at least) Twilight and New Moon were based on Romeo and Juliet and Pride and Prejudice, so I think an argument can and has been made that these stories are problematic. I know we discussed at length the issues with R&J in the West Side Story thread on Unspooled. And I don't see anyone HERE arguing that Edward is problematic but Mr D'Arcy isn't. I've also seen quite a bit of a movement in the last couple of years about how Beauty and the Beast is a problematic story as well (also a Twilight connection with Bill Condon). So I think by saying that Character B is problematic his counterpart in Character A is also problematic and possibly his counterpart in Character C is problematic. 

Lots of people argue that Christian Grey from 50 Shades is a problematic character, but if he is, we have to look at his source material, which is Edward Cullen AND Mr D'Arcy and Romeo. 

[EvRobert 1684]

39 minutes ago, Cameron H. said:

*I just noticed the similarity of the names. Twilight literally is Beauty and the Beast, meets Dracula, meets Romeo & Juliet, meets Pride & Prejudice.

from the Wiki article on Twilight

Quote

Each book in the series was inspired by and loosely based on a different literary classic: Twilight on Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice, New Moon on Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet, Eclipse on Emily Brontë's Wuthering Heights, and Breaking Dawn on a second Shakespeare play, A Midsummer Night's Dream. Meyer also states that Orson Scott Card and L. M. Montgomery's Anne of Green Gables series are a big influence on her writing. The Cullens were inspired by Meyer's own family[16] as well as characters from the X-Men cartoon. Other influences on the series which Meyer has acknowledged include Jane Eyre by Charlotte Brontë, HGTV, and the films Iron Man, Somewhere in Time, Stranger than Fiction, and Baby Mama.

Some wild sources here, some I see, some I don't 

[taylor anne photo 11311]

54 minutes ago, Cameron H. said:

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.

This is the last thing I'm going to say about this topic because I feel like we're talking in circles here, but WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TWILIGHT BECAUSE THIS IS A TWILIGHT THREAD!

Should we watch Pride and Prejudice and nitpick that? Would you like to go through other examples? Cause right now I don't give a shit about any other examples that prove as to why we should all stop and just let this happen. You can claim that people shit on Twilight over and over because it's an "easy target" but then I guess we shouldn't have watched this movie to begin with if you didn't want us to pick out the things we find problematic about it.

[Cameron H. 23786]

1 hour ago, taylorannephoto said:

This is the last thing I'm going to say about this topic because I feel like we're talking in circles here, but WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TWILIGHT BECAUSE THIS IS A TWILIGHT THREAD!

Should we watch Pride and Prejudice and nitpick that? Would you like to go through other examples? Cause right now I don't give a shit about any other examples that prove as to why we should all stop and just let this happen. You can claim that people shit on Twilight over and over because it's an "easy target" but then I guess we shouldn't have watched this movie to begin with if you didn't want us to pick out the things we find problematic about it.

 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.  

[taylor anne photo 11311]

20 minutes ago, Cameron H. said:

 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, so why do people feel the need to particular series? 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.  

Then I believe your points are getting muddled because I feel like I've read "My point is..." a million times and it seems like a different point each time. It's either that Stephanie meant it to be taken a different way than intended, then it's that the series is getting dog-piled on, then it's that it should be taken as a whole not isolated moments. So now I'm very confused as to what we're actually discussing here.

I didn't mind that we all disagreed about Stephanie's intentions and whether or not it mattered because outcome outweighs intention, but once you started then claiming that those that followed this series like gospel were dumb because dumb people will be dumb, it felt important to bring up that hi hello I was one of those dumb kids and this is why it's important to talk about this series being toxic. Then you mentioned that people are always railing on this and not other things, but that shouldn't even have any baring on this very specific conversation since it's literally related to the movie we just watched. This is where I started to feel dismissed, because at that point it didn't seem to matter what any of us said because you had already stayed in your thought that it was only because it's easy to pick on, and I felt like you weren't actually taking in anything that had been said about the experiences. I mean you literally said that the arguments lacked substance which was wild to me and made me feel absolutely like there was almost little point to even discussing this further because at that point then I guess literally nothing I brought to the table mattered. So then later when you brought up the fans being dismissed I had to comment on that because literally I was that fan, and I have the proof of following the phenomenon from one end to the other (I stayed up all night to try and meet Robert Pattinson at a god damn MALL... didn't work).

Basically as a female representative of this fandom, I'm literally telling you that this conversation went down a terrible rabbit hole and I felt incredibly awful by last night. Like I still don't mind that you saw something different in these books/movies, but since the target demo was teenage girls and that was me, I'm just asking that you respect that maybe what I saw and what I experienced has a little more weight behind it.

Also I know that I said that was the last thing I was going to say, but y'all should know me well enough by now that that never happens LOL.

ETA: If I did put words in your mouth I do apologize for that. It's definitely harder to read tone and when things are a bit confusing it's absolutely possible to think one thing when you meant something different.

[sycasey 2.0 2301]

24 minutes ago, Cameron H. said:

My point from the beginning has always been, that they are bad, just no worse than other things that have come before it, so why do people feel the need to particular series?

When something gets massively popular, it also becomes a popular target. Same reason people are so heavily critical of Star Wars (often in dumb ways). There is also probably some sexism involved (also true for Star Wars these days).

We can also deal with the substance of the criticism and whether or not it's valid. I think most of the criticism of Twilight as a story actually sticks. I see a lot of ways that it fails in ways that Meyer's obvious inspirations (Jane Austen, etc.) don't.

[Cameron H. 23786]

2 hours ago, taylorannephoto said:

I mean you literally said that the arguments lacked substance 

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

[taylor anne photo 11311]

10 minutes ago, Cameron H. said:

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

I totally understand that, and I didn't quote you exactly right there but here's what I read -

20 hours ago, Cameron H. said:

But I feel like most of the criticism about them has to do with a backlash against literature aimed for women rather than anything truly substantive

Now re-reading this it does appear that you were making a very broad statement that revolved around criticisms not in this thread directly, but it was very confusing to me and so I thought you were specifically talking about our criticisms here and I was like... what the fuck?

That's a lot of the issues I was having, because it appeared you were directly saying our opinions and criticisms weren't valid because they didn't have anything substantive involved, and even if you weren't I'm not exactly sure why those criticisms were being brought up in response to ours.

[Cameron H. 23786]

5 hours ago, taylorannephoto said:

I'm not exactly sure why those criticisms were being brought up in response to ours.

Because it was part of my “multiple points”  You said: 

7 hours ago, taylorannephoto said:

Then I believe your points are getting muddled because I feel like I've read "My point is..." a million times and it seems like a different point each time. It's either that Stephanie meant it to be taken a different way than intended, then it's that the series is getting dog-piled on, then it's that it should be taken as a whole not isolated moments. So now I'm very confused as to what we're actually discussing here.

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. 

[taylor anne photo 11311]

1 hour ago, Cameron H. said:

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. 

I guess then really the whole thing comes down to miscommunications. Cause to me I was kinda like viewing this as all of us sitting in a circle and discussing together, but if you're viewing it as separate one on one conversations, then things can get disastrously confusing because of that disconnect between us lol. I apologize for coming off so hostile, but I definitely still stand by everything I think  

[Cameron H. 23786]

36 minutes ago, taylorannephoto said:

I guess then really the whole thing comes down to miscommunications. Cause to me I was kinda like viewing this as all of us sitting in a circle and discussing together, but if you're viewing it as separate one on one conversations, then things can get disastrously confusing because of that disconnect between us lol. I apologize for coming off so hostile, but I definitely still stand by everything I think  

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.   

[AlmostAGhost 2718]

we're not talking enough about the creepy CGI baby

apparently they considered an animatronic doll but it was even creepier

http://entertainment.time.com/2013/11/05/this-terrifying-animatronic-baby-freaked-out-the-cast-and-crew-of-twilight/

[Cameron H. 23786]

2 minutes ago, AlmostAGhost said:

we're not talking enough about the creepy CGI baby

apparently they considered an animatronic doll but it was even creepier

http://entertainment.time.com/2013/11/05/this-terrifying-animatronic-baby-freaked-out-the-cast-and-crew-of-twilight/

Holy Hell!