Retcon Anyone?

Everyone notices that it's a Mary Sue when it's a girl Mary Sue.

I think comic book geeks pretty much waive the right to wave something off as waves of Mary Sues, be they Twilight's Vampires or the Witches of Waverly Place.

That's... fascinating!

Well, except for the part about "accurate vampire" which is bull butt. The rest is... hm. I like this. May put it in a certain project.

No, we get extra Sue-hating priveleges.

Also, the male term is Marty Stu. Or Wesley Crusher.

The male term is Marty Stu. Wesley Crusher is just a universally hated character who is a Marty Stu.

I see.

You know, I'll say what I haven't said on these forums before but I've come to believe is true: By the numbers, the majority of people don't hate Twilight because it's bad; They hate it because the number 1 franchise in America is something marketed to young women. That it's "in" to like cheesy romance and talking about your feelings. The rest came later.

My theory. Now, you know that I Twilight. Viciously. But the things that everybody hates about Twilight is distinctly feminine. The brooding. The emo. The sparkles. These are traditionally girly things. And those are the ones that everyone mentions.

Buffy beats the snot out of vampire mythos something awful. But it does so in favor of grim darkness, an aim at an older audience, fight scenes, and lesbians. Suddenly, no one really minds that one as much.

Yes, I'm playing this card. I've been holding onto it for months.

It's also why I no longer really participate in Twilight Hate-Fests.

I read the first book. It was horrible.

Buffy had comedy. Twilight is dead serious. And ridiculous romances that involve vampires.

Buffy's vamp romance was at least mildly realistic.

Yeah, but do people say "I think it's poorly written"? No. They post pictures of Buffy's Angel and angry messages like "Real vampires don't F'ing smile." That's my point.

Note that I am not calling you out. I'm calling out the general populous. Go look up lolcat pics making fun of Twilight. You'll see what I mean. I'm not calling out you nor ManOf.

Edit: Okay, so I think I was wrong about Buffy not being marketed to young women. That was kind of stupid of me.

Can't speak for the books, but from what I've seen of the movies they're poorly written, poorly directed, and poorly acted. I've seen more natural acting from Balok.

Are you seriously trying to claim Buffy wasn't marketed to young girls? Really?

Buffy was a show for girls. Guys (like myself) may have liked it, but it was aimed at the female audience. Furthermore, it was actually fairly accurate in its portrayal of vampires. The reason so many vampires in Buffy were "pretty" is because, as shown, a lot of vampires-to-be were seduced because they were attractive and their sire wanted some hot arm candy. Plus, when they went all-out, they took on a fairly monstrous appearance, not to mention the way that their leader from the first season looked (which is presumed to be what all vampires will look like after being undead long enough).

They were weak to sunlight, fire, decapitation, holy water, stakes through the heart, crosses, and possibly garlic (don't remember if it ever came up), all the classic vampire weaknesses. They could not enter the home of a living person without being invited in, nor could they cross a threshold marked with a cross. They took most of their mythos from Bram Stoker, granted, but it's basically him and European folklore that stand as the two "true" sources for vampire lore. They were, at most, 10% away from being correct.

This is of course working under the tennant that when it comes to interpreting folklore, one does not need to include every single aspect of the creature discussed, but one should at least hit all the major points, and try to avoid tossing in some random thing that has nothing to do with them (i.e., sparkles).

Twilight vampires are, well, not vampires. Not even close. To imply that Buffy does anything even remotely similar is an insult to the very concept of fiction. Furthermore, Twilight presents several other horrible concepts:

-Breaking into a girl's house and watching while she sleeps is romantic.
-If a boy is verbally abusive and acts like he hates you, it must be TRUE LOVE.
-If said boy gets you teen pregnant, it's not the most horrifying thing ever for the other boy you rejected to mention that he has every intention of getting with your daughter as soon as she's legal.

Again. I'm not discussing what you, Arkasas, ManOf or any one individual person thinks of the series. I think that they're awful, terrible things. Just... just bad.

But that is not the tact people take when taking it down. That isn't the tactic they take. That's my point.

And I think New Moon was very well directed. Even if it was garbage.

So, you're saying the stance that everyone thus far has taken is not the stance everyone is taking?

1) I already took back the Buffy thing. Read the post above yours where I take it back. Smooth stab there, mate.

2) If you are listing why you don't like Twilight, you are missing the entire damn point of my post. I've explained it three times now. Go re-read.

I know, but I've been looking for an excuse to bring up the Balok comparison

I'm saying three people in a very specific thread that were pre-warned what the "wrong" answer was before giving the "right" one don't disprove my statement about a population at large.

Me: "A thousand people picked the blue box. That is wrong."

You: *Picks up Red Box* "See!? A thousand people didn't pick the blue box!"

Me: "..."

---

I just said that I find a certain answer offensive. An answer I've seen across the internet by hundreds (thousands?) of people for years. Do you really think demonstrating that you are capable of parroting what I consider a less-offensive answer proves that I didn't see those things?

1. That's because I warned you on Skype.

2. I'm actually listing why everyone who has ever posted in CaH/VC's Twilight threads has said they hate Twilight. And me also.

1)


2) Ook, hyperbole looks ugly on you. If it were still the 4th Era, I'm sure I could pull up a suitable number of answers where people use the phrase "Vampires DON'T Sparkle" as the banner for their offense.

Another reason the whole "sparklepire" thing is so popular:

You ever play TF2? Good players, they go for the Medic. Yeah, he's smaller than the dude with the chaingun, but he's a better pick in the long run for targets. All the new players and bad players go for the Heavy, because he's big and obvious and they figure if he's so easy to hit, why even bother aiming at the little guy next to him.

Do you see where this metaphor is going?

'Course you did. I like it better when you provide conversation rather than "Yah-huh" / "Nu-uh". If you had something to say about horses, we'd still be on it.

Cited:

"You're wrong"
"You're wrong"
"You're wrong"
"You're wrong"
"You're wrong"
"You're wrong"

I hope this illuminates things. You know I always let you know how I feel Double G. Anyway, as you were.

As I am what?

An idiot?