http://uk.rottentomatoes.com/m/twilight_saga_new_moon/news/1824191/trailer_bulletin_the_twilight_saga_new_moon

- The first official trailer is here. Oh yeah... this looks good. Not sure about the werewolf cgi, though.

If that's a werewolf, then I'm Andre the Giant.

If that's a werewolf, then I'm Andre the Giant.

Hi Andre

I can't view it from work but the way they're described in the book is as wolves not like the traditional werewolves of other myths. The indians in this story are spiritwalkers.

Hi Andre

Oh, I know it's supposed to be a werewolf.

That thing in the trailer wouldn't instill fear in a chihuahua puppy though.

its not supposed to be a werewolf in the traditional sense. Its just a wolf. In the book they actually mention the werewolves, but these guys are different.

Boo the scene with Jake and Laurant is so completely different than the book so utterly different meh.

But yeah, these aren't werewolves are you know them. The other type that most associate with werewolves is discussed in the book but like I said earlier these are spiritwalkers sort of.

Off topic, but how come spirit walkers never take the form of a 'possum? Or a hedgehog? Or a muskrat?

Always has to be the dominant wolf form. :rolleyes:

Muskrat love?

Rofl!

Their Vampires sparkle in the sun, really thats all that needs to be said here.

For the folks saying they are not werewolves they are skin walkers, get a grip, thats what werewolves are called in their mythos. They had no idea...what a Lycanthrope was...

Their Vampires sparkle in the sun, really thats all that needs to be said here.

For the folks saying they are not werewolves they are skin walkers, get a grip, thats what werewolves are called in their mythos. They had no idea...what a Lycanthrope was...


I agree about the sparkling...

As far as the werewolves and us arguing about it, just pointing out in the lore of Twilight there is a difference between what Jacob is and a werewolf. They are two seperate creatures according to the story.

Off topic, but how come spirit walkers never take the form of a 'possum? Or a hedgehog? Or a muskrat?

Always has to be the dominant wolf form. :rolleyes:

In Whitewolf, there is a side story with some badgers, a moose, and a totaly bad ass Kodiak.

Their Vampires sparkle in the sun, really thats all that needs to be said here.

For the folks saying they are not werewolves they are skin walkers, get a grip, thats what werewolves are called in their mythos. They had no idea...what a Lycanthrope was...

Ironic you're telling someone to get a grip IMO. :)

are you guys actually going to argue about Twilight? /snicker Did someones black finger nail polish run out today or something?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v510/fireslayer1672/celebrity-pics-mcgavin-spar.jpg

no way is my black nail polish running out I have cases of it ....cuz you know I'm waiting for Zedd.

I agree about the sparkling...

As far as the werewolves and us arguing about it, just pointing out in the lore of Twilight there is a difference between what Jacob is and a werewolf. They are two seperate creatures according to the story.

Ah gotcha! Thanks for clearing that up for me.

Fil
I was referring to folks saying skin walkers were not werewolves in Native American lore. They were. Lets not be a snappy snaperton. It was just miss communication.

What else are we gonna do, if we can't argue about Twilight!?

Theres still pokemon and harry potter!

Theres still pokemon and harry potter!


And I am eagerly awaiting 'The Half Blood Prince' which comes out next month.

I keep doing my other half's head in about Half-Blood Prince *wets himself* Cannot wait.

im just glad Hermione is legal, and is it me or is a Asian chick with a irish accent the hottest thing ever created????? i seriously would shoot you all (but Fil) for a chance to......nm.

I made Grey's save list! Wooooooooot :)

Yah, I brought the 'Hermione now 18' topic up the other day, it was to very dissaproving looks, however.

I still maintain that 'I would', nonetheless.

Ah gotcha! Thanks for clearing that up for me.

Fil
I was referring to folks saying skin walkers were not werewolves in Native American lore. They were. Lets not be a snappy snaperton. It was just miss communication.

My humor and sarcasm failed apparently. I was just pointing out the obvious in what I thought was a fun way :( I'll try harder next time. But for the record I like the name snappy snaperton!

im just glad Hermione is legal, and is it me or is a Asian chick with a irish accent the hottest thing ever created????? i seriously would shoot you all (but Fil) for a chance to......nm.


Not sure how she would do an Irish accent, but I will watch anything with Lucy Liu. Am hoping they do some follow-up movie(s) to the latest one she did where she is a vampire hunting vampires. Could that accent be Scottish, btw? Seems a bit more of that inflection, while Seamus sounds more Irish.

And, now that Emma is over the legal age, she is apparently being swarmed with the lowest of the paparazzi crowd all seeking those magical upskirt kinds of shots. You can always shoot them, Grey.

Eek, I'm guilty of a derail.:eek:

I've never seen any of The Harry Potter movies.

I've never seen any of The Harry Potter movies.
*gasp*:eek:

I've never seen any of The Harry Potter movies.


Provided you remedy that situation, you may still be forgiven.

I saw the movies before reading the books, and they really are done well.

My humor and sarcasm failed apparently. I was just pointing out the obvious in what I thought was a fun way :( I'll try harder next time. But for the record I like the name snappy snaperton!

Its best to say Snappy Snapperton while making crocodile mouth closings with your hands :D

I've never seen any of The Harry Potter movies.

I'm happily right there with you.

Come on, it's not like you watched Twilight.

They all look the same to me.

That's like saying all of the LotR looked the same.

On behalf of those who do watch the Potter movies, we pity you for your lack of imagination.

That's like saying all of the LotR looked the same.

On behalf of those who do watch the Potter movies, we pity you for your lack of imagination.

I wont be seeing the next one or supporting that bitch ever again.

On behalf of those who do watch the Potter movies, we pity you for your lack of imagination.

To be spoon-fed the illiterate's version of a children's story? Next, you're going to tell me you think Dan Brown is deep and profound.

Since when was cinema for the illiterate?

And what is wrong with children's stories? Some of the most profound and memorable literature has been aimed at children. Jonathan Swift's Gulliver's Travels was a child's novel, but it said more about Tory commercialisation and secularism in an age of Robinocracy from 1715-1742 then it did about Giants.

I've always regarded you as narrow minded, but gosh, I never knew to what extent.

Since when was cinema for the illiterate?

And what is wrong with children's stories? Some of the most profound and memorable literature has been aimed at children. Jonathan Swift's Gulliver's Travels was a child's novel, but it said more about Tory commercialisation and secularism in an age of Robinocracy from 1715-1742 then it did about Giants.

I've always regarded you as narrow minded, but gosh, I never knew to what extent.

I disagree i have always considered gullivers travels a political book disguised as a childrens story, much like animal farm.

Congratulations, you just repeated what I said.

I read a lot. Like, a lot. 80 novels in 2007, didn't keep track the past 2 years but it probably is pretty similar. And when I see a movie based on a book or story I'm familiar with but they leave out large portions of the plot it bothers me (recently I got annoyed at the Prince Caspian movie). Compared to most, the Harry Potter ones aren't too bad. You could replace any book with a movie and still be caught up enough to keep reading the storyline should you ever wish to do such a thing.

And of course, many a Newbery award winner became a great film.

Kind of Halo. I don't think the books were actually aimed at children, because well they would not get it. That is all I was trying to say.

Yes, actually, they were. Read Swift's correspondence with Henry, St John (later Viscount Bolingbroke, after the Tories treacherous Peace of Utrecht, which so happily pleased Queen Ann but, when she died the following year, brought down the new Hanoverian dynasty's retribution on them, and brought the Whigs sweeping into power for the next two generations).

The fundamental premise of the three volumes were as a children's novel, indeed the first 'modern' novel (in structure and conception). But, of course, as with many novels, it had strong underlining points to make about contemporary society and politics.

Nonetheless, it remained a child's novel.

how and why did this get **T - Boned** off topic:confused: .. its starting to turn into a NAG :(

I read a lot. Like, a lot. 80 novels in 2007, didn't keep track the past 2 years but it probably is pretty similar. And when I see a movie based on a book or story I'm familiar with but they leave out large portions of the plot it bothers me (recently I got annoyed at the Prince Caspian movie). Compared to most, the Harry Potter ones aren't too bad. You could replace any book with a movie and still be caught up enough to keep reading the storyline should you ever wish to do such a thing.

And of course, many a Newbery award winner became a great film.

That is allot of books man! I do about 1 a week and felt that was allot. I'd be interested in seeing what you're reading though b/c I think we read/have similar tastes so please give me a list of what you're reading. Sometimes I struggle with what to read so I stick with what I know. I'm never afraid to branch out though. I read everything suggested to me last year when I made a similar plea :)

That's like saying all of the LotR looked the same.


There's a pretty big and obvious difference between highly original (and in some cases genre defining) works and the highly derivative, practically replaceable part pulp-mill fiction most of this stuff is. I'll admit to having some guilty pleasures in fiction as soon as the next guy, but the only real difference between Twilight and the 50 other teen angst fantasies out there was the luck of the draw.

The only particularly original bit of children's fiction I've seen lately was Howl's Moving Castle ... to which the film was unfortunately near-totally unrelated, although you could argue it was just a twist on the same gimmick from Ende's Neverending Story books.

It's not a lack of imagination on the reader's part that this stuff blends together.

It is a lot, but think of my job. Last night for example I got to National's Park at 3:00 for a 7:30 game. We were set up by 4:30 and did 3 live shots of a few minutes a piece between 5 and 8. Then the rain pushed the game back and back and it finally got canceled by 11, giving me about 6 hours of reading time total "on the clock", nevermind what I read before bed and so forth. Between last night and my shoot today I've finished a bit over half of Magician: Apprentice

I'll gladly give you a list of the last 50 books I read later tonight when I get home. Not all of them are 500+ pagers either, some in my count were skinny but I counted them none the less.

Yes, actually, they were. Read Swift's correspondence with Henry, St John (later Viscount Bolingbroke, after the Tories treacherous Peace of Utrecht, which so happily pleased Queen Ann but, when she died the following year, brought down the new Hanoverian dynasty's retribution on them, and brought the Whigs sweeping into power for the next two generations).

The fundamental premise of the three volumes were as a children's novel, indeed the first 'modern' novel (in structure and conception). But, of course, as with many novels, it had strong underlining points to make about contemporary society and politics.

Nonetheless, it remained a child's novel.

See thats where I disagree. By the very fact it has adult material in it, makes it not a children's book. But a political book disguised as a children's novel. But I will take your word on it, children's book full of stuff the target audience wouldn't understand.

Since when was cinema for the illiterate?

And what is wrong with children's stories? Some of the most profound and memorable literature has been aimed at children. Jonathan Swift's Gulliver's Travels was a child's novel, but it said more about Tory commercialisation and secularism in an age of Robinocracy from 1715-1742 then it did about Giants.

I've always regarded you as narrow minded, but gosh, I never knew to what extent.

Being spoon fed a kid's book-turned-screenplay requires no more imagination than watching The Allegory of Shrek or The Fable of Bambi. There's nothing wrong with enjoying it, but don't delude yourself into thinking it's more than what it is.

These books like Harry Potter and Twilight are all the same. They simply target that little hole in your soul that wants to believe you're a unique snowflake with a <choose one: Magic Wand, Vampire Boyfriend>.

Fundamentally not very different than a romance novel with Fabio on the cover.

I haven't seen Twilight either. For some reason these just don't scream 'watch me". I dunno /shrug

Sanchek I can't help but think you haven't read any of the books you are pretending to know so much about. For that matter, couldn't the same be said just as ignorantly about Lord of the Rings only replace wand with "one ring", or Wizard of Oz with slippers, or Alice in Wonderland, etc etc.

The thing about the Potter movies is that they are more of an augment than a replacement to the books. More people have read the books than watch the movies which hardly can be said about those books I just listed.

Surely you understand the difference between creating a new world within a genre and creating the entire genre itself. I'm not a big LoTR fan, but it's absurd to compare it to Harry Potter.

I don't see why anybody cares if they watch/watched it or not... To be snobby with entertainment is funny to me.

To be snobby with entertainment is funny to me.

There's nothing wrong with enjoying it

:rolleyes:

'To be spoon-fed the illiterate's version of a children's story? Next, you're going to tell me you think Dan Brown is deep and profound.'

'There's nothing wrong with enjoying it'

:rolleyes:

- Oh don't come in here with all your crap and pretend you're not stepping on anybody's toes, as per usual.
With your triumphant 'I've never read any of this!' and your 'illiterate' jibe - you are obviously judging the pleasure that many of us have so clearly stated we extract from these novels and movies. You obviously *DO* believe there is something wrong with enjoying it, and thus once again have exposed yourself as a grade one hypocrite.

I have a PhD. I read Tolstoy's War and Peace in two days. I'm almost a genius. And I fucking appreciate Hogwarts. So suck on that big fat one.

I actually enjoyed Harry Potter, until the author ruined it by suing that guy that ran the history time line for the harry potter world. The one the actual author used as a reference while writing the series. She had so much money and she stepped right on the little guy, like she had never been there herself.

The movies, I have never read the books.

I'm almost a genius.

The shark has officially been jumped.

What a Sanchek tactic, ignore the entirety of the post.

Hypocrite.

Shouldn't you be twittering about botany?

/bump

The new one - supposed to be the best of the bunch, although that's not saying much after the train-wreck that was New Moon!

Anyone going to see it?

I'd sooner squat on a piece of splintered balsom wood.

I was forced to go see it and its really an awesome COMEDY... How could so many main characters in a movie be such bad actors...

Actually, this didn't prove to be all that bad. More action than the shitty second one, still poor dialogue, but a freakishly weird love-triangle that proved interesting enough to keep watching.

The general premise of a vampire army made it mildly entertaining, too. The special effects haven't improved, however.

Overall, about a 5/10.

Actually, this didn't prove to be all that bad. More action than the shitty second one, still poor dialogue, but a freakishly weird love-triangle that proved interesting enough to keep watching.

The general premise of a vampire army made it mildly entertaining, too. The special effects haven't improved, however.

Overall, about a 5/10.

If you are a guy and enjoyed this movie even giving it 3/10 you are either a very flamboyent sensitive homosexual male, or you are the girlfriend/wife posting on your mans account...

A devastating and witty attack. I'm left stunned.

A devastating and witty attack. I'm left stunned.

Hopefully your mouth is closed... (British bad teeth joke)




*Joke described in parenthesis... Just in case you didn't understand




Seriously though... The movie was horrible

Jokes lose their funny when they are explained.

Jokes lose their funny when they are explained.

I know, but Halo doesn't always understand me... So I had to break it down

Mate, I don't think I'm the only one.

I've never seen/read any of them, but Brad Meltzer has admitted to enjoying them ... and he writes dialogue for Superman. There isn't anything manlier than that.

Twilight is like world cup soccer. They run around for two hours, nobody scores and a billion fans world wide cant understand why we don't love it.

saw something like that on a poster somebody made, I lol'd.

All it needs is vuvuzelas!

I dunno Selwen, nothing can be as boring as your supposed 'World Series'. I never understand that, how is it a world series if one country is playing?!? :p

Don't forget Canada!

well and most of the good players are from central america or the like.

and really, can brits even play baseball?

well it does have players from all over the world, but yeah, I agree it's dumb to call it a 'world series'

Brits don't play baseball. they play cricket.

Actually, baseball was invented in Britain. But we stopped playing it because it was a load of crap! :P

This (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jul/12/charlie-booker-twilights-unscary-monsters) roughly sums up my feelings on twilight. :p

Twilight is like world cup soccer. They run around for two hours, nobody scores and a billion fans world wide cant understand why we don't love it.

saw something like that on a poster somebody made, I lol'd.

I totally stole this while watching the last World Cup game - 90 minutes without any goals, so boring!

'She's not allowed to try them both out, or get to second base with one and third with the other. And she's certainly not allowed to take them both on at once, although that would clearly make for a far better film'

- ROFL!!

'Vlad would sit among entire forests of screaming human kebabs, chuckling and munching his oxburger or whatever the hell they ate back then.'

UK film critics are awesome Halo. I wish ours were like them.

Twilight is like world cup soccer. They run around for two hours, nobody scores and a billion fans world wide cant understand why we don't love it.

saw something like that on a poster somebody made, I lol'd.


Now that is freakin' funny!!!! :D