jef and me had a conversation as we walked out of daybreakers this evening. he claimed that this was another movie in the wave of vampire movies that have come out of the vampire trend started by the twilight series; a statement at which a necessary part of my soul died and will never come back. i was left aghast and astonished at SUCH a statement, and instantly went on the attack at why this blasphemy had just come out of his mouth. he claimed 'well rotten tomatoes said so in an article'- which did also not bode well with the stirrings inside of me, as i do find rottentomatoes a valid source of movie information and judgment. as we parted ways i was struggling in my mind to come up with a valid, just and perfect argument against his, of which didn't come to my mind until walking-away-distance later when a leather clad blood sucking temptress came dashing into my skull cavity. quickly and accurately and with immense purpose i typed 'we all know kate beckinsale started the trend ; )', and with an immediate response from the sir 'haha you win'. easy, game set and match, the kate beckinsale trump card. however in my arrogance and unsatisfied with merely a verbal win, i responded some time later 'lawyered!'... curiously wondering if i had spelled it correctly, yet with a resounding rebuttal 'no. if you could prove it with numbers or real facts it would be lawyered'. which now, approximately 67 minutes later has brewed itself into a mental storm of excitement and intrigue, in which this post has been inspired by. i will leave out as many possible biases as possible, excluding opinionated (and possibly ignorant) offensive remarks about twilight and it's mangled representation of vampires and teens and love; and overall shoddiness... but while trying to capture as much numerical evidence and 'real' fact (because any fact concerning movies, especially regarding real articles which are opinion, can only be countered with opinion validated with said numbers) to strike a case against the claim that twilight is in any way affiliated with trend-setting.
before we look at evidences for and against, we must first conclude the definition of the phrase 'trend setter'.
trend setter
–noun a person or thing that establishes a new trend or fashion.
Origin:
1960–65; from the v. phrase set a trend; (dic.1)
now while it can be said that twilight has definitely added to the popularity of the vampire 'genre' with it's poorly acted directed and adapted (because i have not read the books, i am not capable of casting judgement on them- they remain a separate issue and have no real quarrel with me in this situation) film(s), it is by no means a radical leap forward in originality or establishing anything 'new'.
item 1- the date of publication of the first twilight book. 2005- 5 years ago, and 3 years previous to the release of the first film adaptation (wiki.1). since the BEGINNING OF MAAAAAAAAAAN we have been said to fear 'things' that often fit the description of blood sucking, brooding and overall dark and scary, but it wasn't until the early 19th century that our modern fictional representation of a vampire was established (2). what started with the creation of the first vampire fictional story with 'the vampyre' by john polidori (1819), was replaced in 1897 by bram stoker's 'dracula' as the (AS they say) quintessential basis for modern vampire fiction (3). this being noted, could be said to be the birth of the 'genre' in itself, a full 108 (112 if you are counting from when stephenie meyer had her dream about what to write (4)) years before twilight was published. film wise, the origins meander in and about the '30s through flippin now, with dracula being represented in films most often second to sherlock holmes (5). to claim twilight as anything 'new' is to shit on a sandwich and call it edible. though meyers definitely took creative liberties with vampiristic (new word. chyeahhh) qualities, 'the representation of sexuality and the perennial dread of mortality (6)' still followed the modern formula for fictional vampire appeal.
item 2- being part of a series makes it more worthy of following. truth; any story that boasts a staple like a sequel or prequel or triliogy or my new favorite, quadrilogy, is very likely more successful at establishing a base for re-consumption, therefore gaining more popularity and fans capable of following or existing within a trend. in this, twilight is no more than a strong current formed by falling rain entering the river vampire. buffy, blade, KATE BECKINSALE OH! all already boast this same momentum and potential energy relating to the cause of vampire popularity. the only thing new twilight has done is take away the mess and fear of it by replacing blood with lip quivers/creepy stares and violence with obsessive hormones, aiming darkness at a generation who hasn't been exposed to parents-acceptable vamps because all the rest are too blood soaked and demonic to be enjoyable (even for me sometimes... yuck) in a family setting. tone it down, up the viewing potential, and guarantee a following of youngsters who won't know what they are missing until they see equally unfit acted directed and adapted films like the blades (with the exception of the delightfully sarcastic and rude ryan reynolds in blade 3. always a joy my salt tongued fellow countryman) and underworlds.
item 2.1- speaking quickly on reinvention, '30 days of night' did the same thing.
item 3- opinionated conclusion. granted the rate of speed these disease ridden films have gained give it valid push to say they are a part of the vampire genre; history, and me say that twilight has no claim to any sort of ownership in inventing the vampire trend. research aside (by the by, is more work i've put into any sort of paper for art school, high school or any school for that matter), i feel my original argument that kate beckinsale is the queen of RECAPTURING the love of vampires is the most sound, but the rest of this movie-political nonsense should do well against teeming fans of rationally bankrupt compost heaps like twilight. AND POOR ROBERT PATTISON AND KRISTIN STEWART! those poor souls have been sucked into a life of expectation (albeit fame, money, and overall 'dream' life of excess and poopularity (hehehehehe)) and cult following, with no more privacy and instant forgetfulness of their past beautiful work and acting skills, of which they BOTH possess. bel- i mean kristin stewart deserves better than being a sulky irrational 'love' enslaved girl trapped on the screen and posters and tabloids. i wouldn't wish the luke skywalker syndrome on anyone, and hopefully that doesn't happen. but whenever a girl squeals at the sight of pattison, one other well deserving lovely boy gets one less percent of a chance at a truly dedicated and loving future mate. in FINALITY, not conclusion, twilight doesn't get to be called a trend setter, and will never in my mind be affiliated with acceptable vampire viewing.
k. i feel like an ass. are you with me spider monkey? (erase erase erase) LAWYERED!
citations:
the lovelies at dictionary.com.
and wikipedia. screwing your arguments over since 2001. (to find that out, i had to wikipedia wikipedia, and for fear of ripping a hole in the universe, clenched most of my lower body muscles whilst pressing enter.)
pretty much the internet. google vampire, twilight, or worst movies ever to influence society to get all the information i had access too.
PS- daybreakers was just alright.
No comments:
Post a Comment