Topic: Twilight (Sorry for cursing) (Read 109217 times)

Eris · « **Reply #200 on:** 09 Feb 2010, 04:46 »

well I mean, I write stuff (or at least I used to), and I put a fair amount of effort into it. I thought about what I wanted the characters to look like, how they should sound, and what was going to happen. If someone came in and said something along the lines of "The main character is blonde and has blue eyes, an obvious callback to hitler's ideal, coupled with their manipulative actions indicates that [blahblahblah nazis]" or someshit they are putting words in my mouth. I might have made the character blonde and manipulative as a reference to Barbie and how that doll affects how young girls think. She might be blonde because it is seen as an indication of dumbness, and put the manipulation in there to counter that. Maybe I just wrote about a manipulative character and happened to want her blonde. The people making these analyses don't know what was going on in my head unless they or someone else has talked to me about it, so why should they just assume that I meant a certain thing?

The thing about Twilight is that we know where the basis of the story came from. Meyer had a dream that she was laying in a field with a beautiful, sparkly vampire-man and wrote 5 books about it. This guy's interpretation of the story is really interesting, but the book isn't marketed that way, it is marketed as a coming-of-age love story, so you have to at least take that into consideration, because that affects who reads it and why. Sometimes it is really easy to come up with bullshit about a narrative, and it is just as easy to be way off the mark. I remember a friend studying a poet in English at high school, and her teacher talking about what the author meant when he used certain phrases or imagery or whatever. They were able to get the poet in for a talk, and the teacher asked him about some of the stuff that had been talked about, and the guy basically contradicted all that they were taught.

I am not saying that people can't read things differently and that you should only read stuff a certain way, I just think that disregarding all readings but one is stupid.

a pack of wolves · « **Reply #201 on:** 09 Feb 2010, 07:47 »

With the whole concept of the death of the author if someone were to take a text you had written as an allegory of National Socialism they aren't putting words into your mouth. They're building something from the text that they're reading, a text you can no longer control (the degree to which anyone's reading of a text, even their own unsullied by publication, can be truly said to be entirely under their control is highly debatable). Once it's out there what you were intending at the time of writing doesn't necessarily become irrelevant, but it does become just another part of the meta-text along with how the book was marketed, historical context, its jacket and typeface, the other texts it draws upon and the ones it may have influenced etc.

I generally think of criticism as just another form of art, one that uses other art as its material. Artworks are just toolkits, and just like a toolkit they vary in quality. Twilight being, say, a shoddy penknife and Moby Dick being a bit more like the Large Hadron Collider. They mean nothing without the intervention of the reader, reading is an act of construction rather than absorption. For me, a reading is only bullshit if it's uninteresting (like saying something is about Nazis just because there's someone with blond hair and blue eyes), regardless of how far it deviates from the author's intentions.

So Meyer's dream doesn't need to be attended to, and even if it were "it came from a dream" is more than a little questionable. Authors don't necessarily tell the truth about their intentions (as I remember Bunuel claimed the bear in The Exterminating Angel was nothing more than a bear, which is pretty much impossible given the film), and attempting to psychoanalyse them based on their work is dicey at best although sometimes possible (it's safe to say Birth Of A Nation was made by a massive racist based on the film alone). I've only read about one page of that guy's posts about Twilight but he actually does seem to spend a fair bit of time discussing the film's audience and reception so he's not ignoring context to preserve his reading, he just has a different reading of those aspects to most people.

Eris · « **Reply #202 on:** 09 Feb 2010, 17:07 »

ok so, I was really quite angry last night at that thread, but after taking a break to sleep and calm down and then go back to reading the thread, I can see what I was getting so mad at. One lady was saying that SMG's reading was the only reading that she was going to consider, because she didn't think that viewers of the movie were going to take it at face value (despite the evidence to the contrary). Her saying things like that the story of Bella being the manipulative evil monster was a progressive story was all good and fine, but calling anyone who disagreed a misogynist made me think of a little kid arguing with"yeah? well... you smell!". She was taking her feminist views to the extreme, and ignoring a lot of people's opinions because they were filthy men.

I will probably reply to the post above me later, but this thread is like a soap opera, it's great!

scarred · « **Reply #203 on:** 09 Feb 2010, 17:29 »

I nominate this entire thread for post of the year.

Alex C · « **Reply #204 on:** 09 Feb 2010, 20:12 »

Quote from: Eris on 09 Feb 2010, 17:07

I will probably reply to the post above me later, but this thread is like a soap opera, it's great!

I'm not sure I know what you mean here. It doesn't really seem like anyone is very cranky here. This isn't even our oldest, longest or snarkiest twilight thread.

Eris · « **Reply #205 on:** 09 Feb 2010, 22:20 »

nono, the SA thread. It is the intriguing one.

Alex C · « **Reply #206 on:** 10 Feb 2010, 18:18 »

Ah, yeah, okay. That makes roughly a million times more sense.

BeoPuppy · « **Reply #207 on:** 12 Feb 2010, 01:16 »

http://www.geekologie.com/2009/07/sure_why_not_twihard_tattoo_ga.php

Damn.

I guess I really didn't get how hardcore fans of the series actually are until I stumbled upon this. This is dedication.

Ikrik · « **Reply #208 on:** 12 Feb 2010, 02:42 »

I am not surprised by the quality of those tattoos. The art ones are horrible and the text ones are mostly boring. When I first went to that page I looked at the scrollbar and went "wtf?" until I found out that most of the page are comments.

For the sake of asking, how much would it cost these poor people to get these removed in like 6-9 years when Twilight is dead and forgotten?

look out! Ninjas! · « **Reply #209 on:** 12 Feb 2010, 04:54 »

Quote from: BeoPuppy on 12 Feb 2010, 01:16

http://www.geekologie.com/2009/07/sure_why_not_twihard_tattoo_ga.php

Damn.

I guess I really didn't get how hardcore fans of the series actually are until I stumbled upon this. This is dedication.

At least we can be confident that none of these people will ever breed and unleash their Twilight-spawn on us all.

Jimmy the Squid · « **Reply #210 on:** 12 Feb 2010, 04:57 »

Dude are you kidding? They're probably rutting like mad pigs.

Emaline · « **Reply #211 on:** 12 Feb 2010, 07:54 »

Quote from: Ikrik on 12 Feb 2010, 02:42

I am not surprised by the quality of those tattoos. The art ones are horrible and the text ones are mostly boring. When I first went to that page I looked at the scrollbar and went "wtf?" until I found out that most of the page are comments.

For the sake of asking, how much would it cost these poor people to get these removed in like 6-9 years when Twilight is dead and forgotten?

Wait, seriously? I mean, I guess if we are talking about content, yeah, I can see what you are saying, but the quality? The shading on that first apple is pretty damn good, and for the most part they look like pretty well done tattoos. Obviously not flowing with originality, but craftsmanship, quality, those tattoos have that. Not all of them, but most of them.

And who's to say they are going to get them removed? Even people with dumb tattoos consider them for quite sometime before getting them.

And I'm with Jimmy. Those people are probably getting hellsa laid. Especially the dudes.

elizaknowswhatshesfor · « **Reply #212 on:** 12 Feb 2010, 10:22 »

I read somewhere it costs 3 times the amount to get done to get it removed, more if you have green or blue in them.

By the quality of the artistry of those I would say they were pretty expensive. I get most of mine done free or discount because I know of people who are great, but just starting so I'm pretty clueless about regular cost.

tricia kidd · « **Reply #213 on:** 12 Feb 2010, 11:53 »

i don't know what tattoo parlors you guys are going to but those are really poorly-done, and the ones that aren't are just basic (ie the ones that are just writing). especially that first apple one. that looks like someone drew on her with a crayon.

Emaline · « **Reply #214 on:** 12 Feb 2010, 14:54 »

I think the shading on that looks great. It looks just like a real apple's skin. I was there was a better picture of it so you could see that it's not as scratchy as you are probably assuming. And none of those are that poorly done. I mean, honestly, can't you guys separate poor quality vs poor content? I mean, give me 20 pictures of any tattoo based on the same idea, and tell me that they are all perfect.

Alex C · « **Reply #215 on:** 12 Feb 2010, 15:19 »

I wouldn't fault his shading either. I think it's kind of a dumb idea to have such an otherwise simplistic design and such uniform black outlines paired up with that shading, but that's a compositional thing rather than a criticism of the color work.

JD · « **Reply #216 on:** 12 Feb 2010, 18:25 »

The one with edward holding the apple is fucking awful.

David_Dovey · « **Reply #217 on:** 12 Feb 2010, 23:42 »

Yeah most of them are pretty decent but the second one and the big Edward portrait and the one with the big bleeding circle things (what the fuck?) are just utter dogshit in every respect

Alex C · « **Reply #218 on:** 13 Feb 2010, 08:36 »

I think my favorite part of the portrait is the hair. I can't think of a tattoo that could possibly seem more immediately dated.

tricia kidd · « **Reply #219 on:** 13 Feb 2010, 18:51 »

Quote from: Emaline on 12 Feb 2010, 14:54

I think the shading on that looks great. It looks just like a real apple's skin. I was there was a better picture of it so you could see that it's not as scratchy as you are probably assuming. And none of those are that poorly done. I mean, honestly, can't you guys separate poor quality vs poor content?

i guess all the people i know just have really insanely awesome tattoos. it really isn't the content, those just look like bland tattoos compared to what i'm used to seeing.

Nodaisho · « **Reply #220 on:** 13 Feb 2010, 18:52 »

A MacGyver tattoo?

Alex C · « **Reply #221 on:** 13 Feb 2010, 21:09 »

I guess it depends on where you want to draw the line between being a decent draftsman and being a good artist. To harp on the first tattoo again, I see that thing and I figure there's nothing stopping that guy from being a good tattoo artist from a hand-eye coordination perspective. The lines are clean, and he made as rock solid of a circle as you can ask for with the text. Love or hate the style of the shading, its too deliberate and too good of an example of its type to write off as being a hack job. Basically, it's a perfectly competent crappy tattoo. I've seen sloppier artists do tattoos that are much, much more interesting, but I have a hard time crapping on the craftsmanship.

Emaline · « **Reply #222 on:** 13 Feb 2010, 21:50 »

Quote from: tricia kidd on 13 Feb 2010, 18:51

Quote from: Emaline on 12 Feb 2010, 14:54
I think the shading on that looks great. It looks just like a real apple's skin. I was there was a better picture of it so you could see that it's not as scratchy as you are probably assuming. And none of those are that poorly done. I mean, honestly, can't you guys separate poor quality vs poor content?

i guess all the people i know just have really insanely awesome tattoos. it really isn't the content, those just look like bland tattoos compared to what i'm used to seeing.

Man, I don't know if you are doing this on purpose or if it's just how I'm reading your posts, but do you think you can post without talking down to us? I mean, maybe familiarize yourself with the tattoo thread.

a pack of wolves · « **Reply #223 on:** 13 Feb 2010, 23:12 »

It's not just you, that's a pretty smug way for someone to admit they know sod all about tattoos. I seriously doubt it's true anyway. Nobody who knows a lot of people with tattoos only knows people with exclusively good tattoos. There are always plenty of people with some shit tattoos, tattoos they got at a friend's house when they were drunk or from a really shite tattooist when they were 17, even if the majority of their work is great. If everyone you know only has awesome tattoos that means you only know about two people with any work done anyway.

tricia kidd · « **Reply #224 on:** 14 Feb 2010, 12:35 »

i'm not talking down to anyone, i'm just saying that i honestly know a lot of people with tattoos and almost all of them are amazing.

now granted i know a lot of people who don't have any tattoos. the people i know who have tattoos got them very very deliberately. of course i've seen people at shows or hanging around with mediocre tats, i just mean that out of my actual friends, the ones that have tattoos have good tattoos.

here let me find an example.

Lines · « **Reply #225 on:** 14 Feb 2010, 19:56 »

I wouldn't say that's an example of a good tattoo while you're trying to say the other ones aren't. Really, not many of the ones on that site did it for me, but the one Emaline commented on is more interesting than that one. I'm not knocking the line work or anything, the picture is too small to judge it by, but it's not very detailed or elaborate, which I think is what the others are trying to say. And seriously I'd recommend looking at the tattoo thread in Pony Debates because there are some amazing tattoos in there that the one you posted doesn't even hold a candle to.

JD · « **Reply #226 on:** 14 Feb 2010, 20:05 »

Reminds me of tribal tattoos

David_Dovey · « **Reply #227 on:** 15 Feb 2010, 04:25 »

Quote from: tricia kidd on 14 Feb 2010, 12:35

here let me find an example.

well shit guys we just got trolled the fuck out of us

tricia kidd · « **Reply #228 on:** 15 Feb 2010, 10:37 »

Quote from: Linds on 14 Feb 2010, 19:56

I wouldn't say that's an example of a good tattoo while you're trying to say the other ones aren't. Really, not many of the ones on that site did it for me, but the one Emaline commented on is more interesting than that one. I'm not knocking the line work or anything, the picture is too small to judge it by, but it's not very detailed or elaborate, which I think is what the others are trying to say. And seriously I'd recommend looking at the tattoo thread in Pony Debates because there are some amazing tattoos in there that the one you posted doesn't even hold a candle to.

there's no accounting for artistic taste, i suppose. did you know that some people like films that are in black and white? weird, i know.

sean · « **Reply #229 on:** 15 Feb 2010, 10:55 »

i like films in black and white just as much as i like films in color.

however that doesn't change that fact that the tattoo you posted is terrible.

Alex C · « **Reply #230 on:** 15 Feb 2010, 10:57 »

It's kinda nice to see someone go for a balanced pair without just making the dragons mirror images of each other, although I'm not really fond of the end result either.

tricia kidd · « **Reply #231 on:** 15 Feb 2010, 11:16 »

i'm just saying, if being "detailed and elaborate" is what makes a good tattoo, that's like saying that Avatar is more visually interesting than Pi.

JD · « **Reply #232 on:** 15 Feb 2010, 11:42 »

That is a pretty elaborate tattoo. More elaborate than I'd like anyway.

tricia kidd · « **Reply #233 on:** 15 Feb 2010, 12:42 »

there are two schools of thought for people who get tattoos. most people get tattoos because they want a picture on their body. some people get tattoos because they want it to look like something that is more of... i suppose an "emblem"? people make fun of "tribal" tats all the time but really, i much prefer something which is elegantly simple and not a specific reference to anything at all to a picture of someone from a movie or book or a band logo.

it's an aesthetic argument that can't be won, because both preferences are valid. but they are different and it is also valid to prefer one to the other.

Lines · « **Reply #234 on:** 15 Feb 2010, 14:20 »

Yes, it's all about aesthetics and everyone's opinion is different. That doesn't make us wrong for disliking the tattoo you posted and it doesn't make you wrong for not being impressed by the shading on that apple or whatever. But I'm an artist. I like things to be visually engaging. I honestly don't mind tribal tattoos, I just think they're banal. I honestly like simple black tattoos over very colorful ones, but I happen to think there's more interesting work out there. Like this and pretty much everything else on that guy's site. They're simple, but very original in style, more intricate, and more dynamic.

But seriously. I know Twilight is stupid, but this is the Twilight thread. There is a tattoo thread where this can be discussed.

tricia kidd · « **Reply #235 on:** 15 Feb 2010, 16:21 »

Quote from: Linds on 15 Feb 2010, 14:20

I'm an artist. I like things to be visually engaging. I honestly don't mind tribal tattoos, I just think they're banal. I honestly like simple black tattoos over very colorful ones, but I happen to think there's more interesting work out there. Like this

i am also an artist. and that tattoo you linked does nothing at all for me.

anyway. twilight still sucks.

Eris · « **Reply #236 on:** 15 Feb 2010, 16:43 »

Man linds, that is my favourite tattoo ever and after seeing that it made me want to get gears for my back tattoo. Why did you have to link me back to that site? Now I'm gonna look at all the tattoos and wish I lived in Canada so I could get a Yann tattoo. fffffffff

Lines · « **Reply #237 on:** 15 Feb 2010, 21:22 »

Bahaha! Now you'll just have to get one!

Emaline · « **Reply #238 on:** 15 Feb 2010, 22:31 »

Linds, that tattoo is fucking awesome!

Also, tricia kidd, seriously. Here is my tattoo. I fucking love it and it is beautiful and amazing. I get compliments on it where ever I go. Regularly.

Now, don't fucking sit here and tell me that the ideas for those tattoos(the Twilight ones) are lame because they aren't very complex, and that they are simple and bland, and then fucking post that tattoo. Are you trying to tell me that it isn't simple or bland? Double U tee f. Seriously? Just fucking admit that you don't like them because they are Twilight related.

And fuck, I'm an artist. I've had shit in galleries, and made a living off my art for awhile. I went to art schools all my life. I think I know a little about art. On top of that, I still fucking hate Twilight. I think it's stupid as hell, and sexist, and a number of other things. I think it sends the wrong message to young kids(based on New Moon[movie], it seems like every time they have a problem they are just like "Well, I'm gonna run away!" Also, how the fuck does one unemployed vampire, who steals cars, and one unemployed teenage girl, travel to Spain or where ever???? They have no money! She stole a fucking car! WTF!) So obviously, I don't care for the movies/books, yet I can still see the artistic quality to a number of those tattoos.

Gosh! Give credit where credit is due!

Alex C · « **Reply #239 on:** 15 Feb 2010, 22:47 »

Yeesh. C'mon now, opinions are opinions. When I disagreed with tricia kidd earlier, it was largely a quibble over the term "poorly done" and a specific tattoo. To me, poorly done implies that even if the idea was alright, the tattoo would have been held back by the tattoo artist's technical skills. I'm not sure if that's entirely fair if you interpret "poorly done" the same way I do. But if she wants to call those tattoos poorly done because she doesn't like the compositions or because the overall designs are boring, well, that shit is rather subjective now, isn't it? We don't need to be getting all aggro about tattoos while talking about twilight on the internet, do we?

JD · « **Reply #240 on:** 15 Feb 2010, 22:53 »

"I hate vaginas"

Alex C · « **Reply #241 on:** 15 Feb 2010, 22:55 »

Zombiedude, I love you, but not as much as I love vaginas.

I hope you're okay with this.

We can still be cool, right?

JD · « **Reply #242 on:** 15 Feb 2010, 23:02 »

Nodaisho · « **Reply #243 on:** 15 Feb 2010, 23:45 »

Wow, just look at those comments (or don't, they're pretty much all terrible). I can kind of see where he is coming from, vaginas are ugly.

scarred · « **Reply #244 on:** 16 Feb 2010, 00:09 »

But oh, so delicious.

Surgoshan · « **Reply #245 on:** 16 Feb 2010, 00:45 »

Take a minute. They look like flowers.

BeoPuppy · « **Reply #246 on:** 16 Feb 2010, 01:45 »

Quote from: scarred on 16 Feb 2010, 00:09

But oh, so delicious.

... and you can never eat just one?

elizaknowswhatshesfor · « **Reply #247 on:** 16 Feb 2010, 09:22 »

I swear he comes out with half the stuff he does to stop all the little girls chasing him because they think he is Edward Cullen.

Mike Patton did something similar when he became a "Heart throb"

Except I think he ment it.

Scandanavian War Machine · « **Reply #248 on:** 16 Feb 2010, 10:14 »

Mike Patton was a heart throb?

a pack of wolves · « **Reply #249 on:** 16 Feb 2010, 10:39 »

The '90s were a strange and difficult time.

THESE FORUMS NOW CLOSED (read only)

Author Topic: Twilight (Sorry for cursing) (Read 109217 times)