Wednesday, 16 November 2011 18:04
Soapbox: Do Vampires Really Suck?Written by Taylor Cheney and Kate Hayworth
The latest film of the “Twilight” saga, “Breaking Dawn: Part 1,” comes out this month. You may already have your costume and fake blood ready to go for the midnight premiere or you might be sick of this Twi-Harding madness, waiting for just about any other supernatural creature to take vampires’ place.
by Taylor Cheney
Since the first “Twilight” novel dropped in 2005, “Twi-Hards” have become a force to be reckoned with. The story appeals to a wide demographic, from 12-year-old girls (and boys) barely able to get into theaters to college kids to 40-year-old moms vicariously living out their teenage desires. The plot not only offers an escape from reality but also issues we can relate to. I mean, who hasn’t had to choose between two overly attractive men willing to risk their lives for your happiness at least once?
Speaking of overly attractive men, vampire shows have a lot of them. Robert Pattinson, Stephen Moyer and Paul Wesley are reason enough to sink your teeth into the craze. HBO’s “True Blood” and CW’s “The Vampire Diaries” offer the same convoluted love triangles, mixed with some intense sexual chemistry and genetically gifted, so-called “outcasts.” Though characters like Sookie Stackhouse and Elena Gilbert deal with issues that most USC students don’t (like a she-wolf breaking into your house and murdering your best friend), they’re really just like you and me beneath their supernatural exteriors. We can all empathize with the deep-rooted rivalry between werewolves and vampires (USC versus Clemson, anyone?) or having that significant other your parents just don’t approve of (maybe not because he or she is a bloodsucker, but you get the point).
William and Kate’s wedding may have been cool and all, but the marriage of the future Mr. and Mrs. Cullen will definitely be the most celebrated event of the season.
by Kate Hayworth
Movies about vampires used to be scary. Now we have pretty, sparkly Mr. Cullen, who spends five films trying not to nom-nom on his vapid, human girlfriend. Face it: Stephenie Meyer has defanged vampires. There is a wealth of frightening supernatural creatures who have yet to shine on the silver screen that would be far scarier—and just more interesting—to watch. Here’s a sampling for your viewing pleasure.
Manticore: With a lion’s body, shark teeth and a scorpion tail, the manticore sounds like a genetic experiment gone wrong—and on the loose. How’s that for a spine-tingling sci-fi star? The fact alone that the manticore has three rows of needle-sharp teeth ensures it’ll wreak havoc with which “Twilight” mandibles can’t compete. Those vampires’ nonthreatening teeth belong in a Crest toothpaste ad.
Minotaur: How would you like to be trapped in a maze with a ravenous bull-man, armed solely with the paltry contents of your girlfriend’s sewing kit? Yeah, Greek hero, Theseus, wasn’t too excited either, but “man versus monster” is a more promising concept than “girl versus vampire.” Oh. Wait. That’s just her gorgeous, protective, perfect boyfriend. Never mind.”
Paradoxicorn: My summer camp counselor explained this to me (though it was actually made up by comedian Demetri Martin as the “paradoxotaur”), so you may have never heard of it, but it’s still more interesting than the blood-sucking pansies of “Twilight.” The paradoxicorn is an existential nightmare described only in one statement: If you don’t believe in it, it exists. Victims go mad attempting to comprehend its logic. I would say “Twilight” did the same to me, until I realized it makes no sense.
Don’t waste your precious dollars to see the Barbie doll vampires in “Breaking Dawn: Part 1.” Save your cash for future films with real thrills and chills.
Read 347 times
Published in Scene
Leave a comment
Make sure you enter the (*) required information where indicated.
Basic HTML code is allowed.