Harry Potter VS Twilight - Now with commentary from Stephen King!

[S31R31]

Is it true that Edward Cullen dies in the newest Twilight sequel?

 

[Forever&Always]

No he doesn't. SPOILER:


Bella almost does due to complications but survives.


END SPOILER.

 

[~Magic Thunderbolt~]

What...the...****....

That's...disturbing...

I have nothing to say...

*Searches for alcoholic beverage*

That's wayyyy too disturbing, but she's doing it wrong. A uterus made of felt? Come on.

Yeah, we're doomed. In fact, if you don't like Twilight, chances are, someone's gonna try and kill you (I am not making this up).

 

[jigglypoof]

And you guys think photoshopping yourself to edward is bad wait till you see this:
http://www.cinematical.com/2009/02/05/fan-made-bellas-womb-from-twilight-aka-creepiest-fan-made/

Ah yes, the handmade womb. When I first saw that I thought it was as coconut, or maybe a dinosaur egg. If you didn't know before, how could a person even tell?

Creepy!

 

[Pkmn Breeder Jack]

LotR is overrated.


Movies are Genius though.

Books are about a wonderful plot that is completely ruined by tolkiens pieces of cardboards forced to play characters.

Still probably the best plot out there

His Dark Materials are better than LotR and HP combined

While I know everyone is entitled to their own opinions and this has little to do with the topic, I'd like you to know that LotR is regarded as one of the greatest masterpieces of fiction in modern history. The characters are not flat in any regard, but Tolkien's style of writing makes the books hard to comprehend for a younger audience.

And if indeed the movies are genius, how would they create characters for the movie if the characters in the books were cardboard?

 

[Skiks]

While I know everyone is entitled to their own opinions and this has little to do with the topic, I'd like you to know that LotR is regarded as one of the greatest masterpieces of fiction in modern history. The characters are not flat in any regard, but Tolkien's style of writing makes the books hard to comprehend for a younger audience.

And if indeed the movies are genius, how would they create characters for the movie if the characters in the books were cardboard?

It happens with comics all the time.
"Comics are so boring to read....holy **** the dark knight was the ****." Basically if they don't understand the concept of the story told they lose interest. That's why movies are an awesome media to introduce people to literature of all sorts if done well.

 

[Kazekage]

While I know everyone is entitled to their own opinions and this has little to do with the topic, I'd like you to know that LotR is regarded as one of the greatest masterpieces of fiction in modern history. The characters are not flat in any regard, but Tolkien's style of writing makes the books hard to comprehend for a younger audience.

And if indeed the movies are genius, how would they create characters for the movie if the characters in the books were cardboard?

I agree with you don't get me wrong. I just say that the characters aren't on the same level everything else in the books/movies is

It happens with comics all the time.
"Comics are so boring to read....holy **** the dark knight was the ****." Basically if they don't understand the concept of the story told they lose interest. That's why movies are an awesome media to introduce people to literature of all sorts if done well.

Wow, are you speaking to me about literature. Just because I don't feel like reading Tolkien who obviously knew he was being paid by the amount of words in his stories.

Sorry LotR isn't my cup o tea...

It still wouldn't hold a candle to Othello, or other great classics.

Just because a best selling book gets rave reviews doesn't make it the best.

I still stand by my statement about His Dark Materials

 

[Pkmn Breeder Jack]

Wow, are you speaking to me about literature. Just because I don't feel like reading Tolkien who obviously knew he was being paid by the amount of words in his stories.

Pfft. Tolkien didn't write to get paid. LotR didn't sell great for years after it was published. Tolkien never meant to publish any of his books. He started with the Silmarillion, which didn't get published until after he died. His career was being a college professor, not an author. To say Tolkien wrote to make money is ignorant and it really kinda annoys me. :/


Enough on Tolkien, this is way off topic. This is the last I'm saying.

 

[Skiks]

Wow, are you speaking to me about literature. Just because I don't feel like reading Tolkien who obviously knew he was being paid by the amount of words in his stories.

I didn't really argue any of that I was just adding on to what he said about people not getting the concept of a book therby losing interest. If you don't like it you don't like it's obvious.

 

[Eclipse]

I'm not even going to bother any more. I want to tear my eyes out after reading that you think that some Sue!Story is better than Harry Potter. It's just crazy that your main argument against Harry Potter is that it's not as realistic. They're both fantasy! Are you like those other psycho fangirls who are convinced that Twilight takes place in our universe? In that story, everyone is perfect, everyone has Mormom religious values, and in the end everyone gets to have sex and live happily ever after with no conflict! Twilight is just the sick fantasy of an under-sexed Mormon woman who wants to corrupt the minds of young girls with her right-wing madness. The whole "message" at the end of Breaking Dawn is to give up your friends and family, drop out of college, and stay at home, cooking food for your husband and having sex.

I'm not actually a rabid fangirl as you seem to think. I prefer other books, such as Inheritance and the Warriors series by Erin Hunter. But my preferences in books are irrelevant.
I don't think Edward nor Bella are sues. Bella is extremely whiny and annoying by my standards, and Edward is possessive, and well, cold and dead. Not hot and sexy by my standards at all, but meh, whatever floats your boat.

Oh, and about the mormon religious values, I believe Religion is mentioned, umm, correct me if I'm wrong, twice. Once, when Carlisle mentions he doesn't believe in God, and again when either Bella or Jacob (forgive my memory) refers to a passage in the Bible to the other to describe the circumstances.

In real life, the chances of girls having a super-rich hot immortal boyfriend who can dedicate his entire life to her is... Ummm... let's see now... zero. The message those books are putting out is false. Nothing about them is realistic, except for the setting. But, on the other hand, isn't Harry Potter set in our world as well?

Super-rich? Possible. Hot? Possible. Immortal? Okay, maybe not. But the thing is, it's not all a totally happy ending if you happen to have read Breaking Dawn. Bella struggles to deal with her desire to drain her own father of his blood, and Leah is still left without a partner.

Harry Potter, on the other hand, deals with war, prejudice, injustices, shades of color and not just black and white (in Twilight, you're either a super hot good guy, or an ugly evil bad guy), and teaches its readers to never give up. In Twilight, it's the opposite! The message is TO give up your life for your boyfriend!

Edward is not purely good. He has killed humans in the past, and desires to kill those drunk men when they want to rape Bella. And remember James? He was very attractive. As was his mate Victoria.
Despite the setbacks she faces, Bella's love prevails. So I guess you could say she didn't give up. In fact, giving up on what she really wanted and what her heart desired would be going back to lead a normal life. Edward tells her again and again that she should lead a normal life, but Bella refuses. I don't see how that’s her giving in. She fights for what she loves.

Books don't have to have messages either. One thing that infuriates me about society is how they think that everything has to teach you something. This isn't wish fulfilment for me because I would not love to be in Bella's position, because giving birth to a vampire baby at age 18 doesn't appeal to me. Neither do cold, dead sparkly men. I just liked reading Twilight because it offered a fresh and new concept of vampires, one that could almost be scientifically possible.

The character Harry Potter himself actually infuriates me as much as Bella because he is a stereotypical "poor, innocent orphan who finds out he's important". But that's just my opinion. I like both books regardless.

Oh, and for those of you who say that "fiction doesn't have to be realistic", you're right. But I prefer it if it is somewhat believable, especially fantasy. That's my opinion. I'm not saying Twilight is better because it's more believeable. I'm saying I prefer it because it is.

 

[mimefan]

Which is better a book series or gay emos who think they're vampires but their not? Tough question, I think not, Twilight's overrated, overhyped and extremely crap, now mind you, I haven't read either book series but from a homo sapiens' point of view, HP is and always will be superior.

 

[Skiks]

The character Harry Potter himself actually infuriates me as much as Bella because he is a stereotypical "poor, innocent orphan who finds out he's important". But that's just my opinion. I like both books regardless.

The difference between Harry And Bella it's clearly a given that he has flaws. He's human You can relate to him. Half of the characters in twilight seem completely unrealistic because of how they act with each other. True Lust prevails all. Bella is a Sue character for how she is portrayed even though she has obvious flaws. They try to make her seem too perfect when she's not. Smart when she isn't. Edward is completely Sue like in the sense that he is also deemed a perfect boyfriend for being strong and "beautiful".

Oh, and for those of you who say that "fiction doesn't have to be realistic", you're right. But I prefer it if it is somewhat believable, especially fantasy. That's my opinion. I'm not saying Twilight is better because it's more believable. I'm saying I prefer it because it is.

Realism has more then one context in this case I find the character interactions in twilight for the most part unreasonable.

 

[ForeverFlame]

I'm not actually a rabid fangirl as you seem to think. I prefer other books, such as Inheritance and the Warriors series by Erin Hunter. But my preferences in books are irrelevant.
I don't think Edward nor Bella are sues. Bella is extremely whiny and annoying by my standards, and Edward is possessive, and well, cold and dead. Not hot and sexy by my standards at all, but meh, whatever floats your boat.

Bella calls Edward attractive at least ten times a page. His "gorgeous lips", "Seraphic eyes", and "sweet-smelling breath" are all indicators of his attractiveness, and she uses adjectives such as those every time she describes Edward. Not to mention how, in the first chapter, the author stated that all of the Cullens were "inhumanely beautiful". So that either means that Edward is super hot, or really feminine.

On the topic of Bella, she fits all of the signs of a Mary Sue. Plain, ordinary, but everyone loves her (in the first chapter everyone was obsessing over her moving to Forks, for some reason). Her blood is apparently delicious and "irresistable" - though, again, there's no explanation as to why. When the Cullens first meet her, they put their lives on the line to save her from James, though she's a plain, ordinary, clumsy, unattractive human girl.

The hottest, richest guy in school loves her, though she's ugly, clumsy, plain and ordinary, and states that he would rather die without her by the time the second book comes along (and tries to committ suicide). That is all just so Tragic!Sue-like to me. If Edward was your typical high school hottie, and Bella didn't have "delicious" blood, he wouldn't go near her. Period. The books are filled with poorly-described plotlines that simply are there for convenience. J.K. Rowling always explains the reasoning behind things, such as Priori Incantatem and why Harry beat Voldemort. If SMeyer wrote HP, she wouldn't have explained anything.

Oh, and about the mormon religious values, I believe Religion is mentioned, umm, correct me if I'm wrong, twice. Once, when Carlisle mentions he doesn't believe in God, and again when either Bella or Jacob (forgive my memory) refers to a passage in the Bible to the other to describe the circumstances.

In Breaking Dawn, Stephenie Meyer took all of the characters values, threw them in the garbage, and gave them "anti-abortion", "no-sex-before-marriage", and other conservative values out of the blue when it was obvious that they didn't have those values before.

Super-rich? Possible. Hot? Possible. Immortal? Okay, maybe not. But the thing is, it's not all a totally happy ending if you happen to have read Breaking Dawn. Bella struggles to deal with her desire to drain her own father of his blood, and Leah is still left without a partner.

Yes, but she still had a fairly easy struggle with her blood urges compared to what Edward described in Twilight. Edward actually had struggles, and sometimes he failed to restrain them, while Bella just went along happily in her "small but perfect piece of her forever". The author's style of writing is to MAKE you think that there will be conflict, but in the end nothing happens. No deaths, no injuries, and EVERYONE has to live happily ever after. So what if Leah didn't have a partner? That's what's wrong with these books! They try to make girls think that they have to have a man to rely on. You can still live happily ever after, even without a partner.

Look at Jacob's situation. Wouldn't it have been better just to leave him along, instead of pairing him up with an infant? It doesn't make any sense! The whole "six years and Renesmee will be fully grown" thing screams "last minute edition to give Jacob more closure". Stephenie Meyer tried to pair up every character, which is what fans thought J.K. Rowling would do, and she paired up Harry and Ginny, Ron and Hermione, and that was it. For everyone else, they ended up with different (mostly unknown) characters, which is how real life works.

Edward is not purely good. He has killed humans in the past, and desires to kill those drunk men when they want to rape Bella.

To protect Bella, however, which was a noble purpose. About him killing humans in the past, he has stated that he regretted it. Stephenie Meyer probably added that little tidbit because she realised how harmless and pathetic Edward was, and because girls love ex-Bad Guys (see every Anime series in the universe for more information).

And remember James? He was very attractive. As was his mate Victoria.

The author never actually described their appearance, but she did describe the Volturi as ugly, green, with red pupils and transparent, onion-like skin. If Bella actually described James and Victoria's attractiveness, she would have probably called them ugly, just as she called the rest of the bad guys "ugly".

Despite the setbacks she faces, Bella's love prevails. So I guess you could say she didn't give up. In fact, giving up on what she really wanted and what her heart desired would be going back to lead a normal life. Edward tells her again and again that she should lead a normal life, but Bella refuses. I don't see how that’s her giving in. She fights for what she loves.

Twilight's idea of "giving up" and Harry Potter's idea of "giving up" is completely different. In Twilight, its all complete vanity and selfishness. Bella's love is for herself and her self-interests, and in Harry Potter his love leads him to sacrifice his own life to take down Voldemort. Harry's love was for humanity, and he made the ultimate sacrifice to save it (technically he did make it, since he thought he was going to die). Bella hated humanity, on the other hand, and even gave her's up to be with her husband her eternity. That's the difference between the two.

Books don't have to have messages either. One thing that infuriates me about society is how they think that everything has to teach you something. This isn't wish fulfilment for me because I would not love to be in Bella's position, because giving birth to a vampire baby at age 18 doesn't appeal to me. Neither do cold, dead sparkly men. I just liked reading Twilight because it offered a fresh and new concept of vampires, one that could almost be scientifically possible.

The character Harry Potter himself actually infuriates me as much as Bella because he is a stereotypical "poor, innocent orphan who finds out he's important". But that's just my opinion. I like both books regardless.

The difference is that Harry DOES something. In the beginning, yes, he fits that characterisation, but by the end of the first book, his character FITS that importance, and he risks his life to prevent Voldemort from coming back to life. Bella does absolutely nothing. Edward does absolutely everything for her, and she does nothing to earn the importance that is given to her, except for having good-smelling blood and being Edward's love interest. That's the only reason why Victoria and the Volturi were after her! Because of Edward!

Oh, and for those of you who say that "fiction doesn't have to be realistic", you're right. But I prefer it if it is somewhat believable, especially fantasy. That's my opinion. I'm not saying Twilight is better because it's more believeable. I'm saying I prefer it because it is.

I just don't see how Twilight is any more believeable than Harry Potter. They're basically on the same level in that department. They both take place in our world, so the setting is the same. What's NOT realistic about Twilight is the characters, while Harry Potter has characters with basic, common personalities. Courageous boy who plays the hero, friendly bookworm know-it-all, and shunned "sidekick" from a poor family. In Twilight, there's no such thing as a "poor" family. Everybody can afford anything, no problem! Ticket to Italy? No problem! Stealing a fancy car in Europe somehow? No problem! Driving across the country without worrying about gas? No problem! Driving to a hotel during spring break and getting a room? No problem! Committing arson on a Ballet Studio? No problem!

My responses in the bold. ^^