|
|
Post by Cujo - Jaydn - Kurt on Dec 9, 2008 19:32:21 GMT -6
Anybody agree with us? (Alice, Jasper, and me.) We went to see it and almost walked out. I swear, it's the dumbest movie on the planet.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ginger on Dec 9, 2008 19:41:16 GMT -6
Well it was better then Eragon. I liked it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cujo - Jaydn - Kurt on Dec 9, 2008 19:46:25 GMT -6
HOW WAS IT BETTER THAN ERAGON?! Eragon at least followed the basic idea of the book. Twilight didn't.
|
|
|
|
Post by Midnight on Dec 9, 2008 19:50:53 GMT -6
How do you figure that?
|
|
|
|
Post by Ginger on Dec 9, 2008 19:59:37 GMT -6
I vote that Eragon was completely off..
I like twilight Cujo your just mad!
|
|
|
|
Post by Cujo - Jaydn - Kurt on Dec 9, 2008 20:04:17 GMT -6
No, they skipped about twelve consecutive chapters in Twilight. They missed the blood-typing, the meadow scene, the lunch scene where Edward eats pizza, Bella and Charlie were in a reasturant WAY too much, Charlie wasn't in it enough, Jacob and Billy weren't there when Bella first saw her truck, Edward called Bella a spider monkey, Bella didn't go to her house, Alice and Jasper and Bella didn't go to the airport, and the dialogue was stupid.
Need I say more?
|
|
|
|
Post by Alis on Dec 11, 2008 22:03:03 GMT -6
Eddie, I think it was worse than Eragon. I agree, because I can understand why they changed stuff for it. Twilight just... sucked. They had no good reasons to change any of the things they did, and they just made it a terrible movie by doing so. Kristin Stewart speaks in a freakin monotone, so how she ever got the lead role in that movie amazes and confuses me. The only thing they did right, in my opinion, was Alice and Emmett. Carlisle (in Jasper's words) looked like a freakin elf, Jasper's hair was weird, Pattinson... surprised me, but still wasn't very good, Esme you didn't see enough of, Rosalie was too mean, and everyoe else... they just totally screwed that movie up. Ginger, you can say you liked it better all you want, in the end, the count goes to Twilight for being the stupidest, most terrible thing that they've messed up. The CG-ing sucked like no other, as did the actors. It just... sucked.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ginger on Dec 15, 2008 16:56:39 GMT -6
Well Personally I have seen worst movies..
Anyway... Be thankful it was good enough to be a movie although personally I think that all authors are asked if they want a movie out of it..
|
|
|
|
Post by Cujo - Jaydn - Kurt on Dec 15, 2008 19:48:11 GMT -6
The book may have been "good enough" to be a movie, but the movie they made was just an insult to the book. It was absolutely horrible. *Repeats Alice's entire rant*
|
|
|
|
Post by Alis on Dec 16, 2008 9:28:21 GMT -6
You people don't know what you're talking about. It wasn't even good enough to be a movie! Anyone who liked it (no offense) has no idea what they are talking about. I've been acting for many years now, and I understand what good acting is. Kristin Stewart and Robert Pattinson aren't it. I don't even know how they possibly passed it off as a movie. Again, Pattinson surprised me, and I enjoyed his role more than I thought (once in a while) but I still didn't like it. And I think I know a little something about acting; Years of classes and more years of acting and speech. Ginger... (no offense) you don't understand what you're talking about... Plus, I'm into all the Computer generated animation, so I understand how that works more than most people, too. They could have done way better, and the thing they made can't even pass as a movie. (If you couldn't tell, I feel very strongly about this thing. I'll win any argument you present, so there really isn't any point in trying.) Thank you, and good night!
I love how I was the last person to post in this thread; that's bloody amazing! =P
|
|
