The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part 2

[Accursed Arachnid!™]

Yeah it was super distracting the way they had the face of the baby CGI'd to look like the actress that would end up playing her when she got older. I was also "WTH?" but my wife was next to me so I was "WTH?" in my mind.

But seriously, what the hell is up with Stephanie Meyer and her predisposition to awkward and creepy couplings? First we have a 100+ YO vampire virtually stalking a 16 year old girl. But it's OK, cuz he looks 17. Now in this film we have a 20ish man who ends up with like a 7 year old girl, but it's OK cuz she looks 17? Uh....

[Hatebox]

I'm almost tempted to see this, as apparently it it's your first Twilight experience it's amusingly baffling. Only thing that puts me off is that, apart from the battle scene, it's apparently people talking in a room for an hour and a half. I have literally no friends who'd want to see it either.

[baumer]

Just for the record imprinting is not a sexual thing. And you shoul. know that AA.

[Accursed Arachnid!™]

Just for the record imprinting is not a sexual thing. And you shoul. know that AA.

You mean to tell me that even though they are "soulmates" they aren't going to have sex? There's a lot of sex and sexually charged moments in the Twilight series. It's a recurring theme. The vision Bella projects shows them as a couple. Sorry, I don't see Jacob waiting for 11 years after she reaches physical maturity to "hit that".

[CoolioD1]

"Yeah, but how old are you in dog years?"

[baumer]

You mean to tell me that even though they are "soulmates" they aren't going to have sex? There's a lot of sex and sexually charged moments in the Twilight series. It's a recurring theme. The vision Bella projects shows them as a couple. Sorry, I don't see Jacob waiting for 11 years after she reaches physical maturity to "hit that".

Sure Jacob will hit that. But it doesn't mean that he will for sure. She has to reciprocate his feelings and right now, they are strictly for protection. The book doesn't once mention anything about it being sexual....it's just that you find someone that you have a desire to keep safe. In NM, when he tells Bella about imprinting, it's not about sex.

[Accursed Arachnid!™]

Sure Jacob will hit that. But it doesn't mean that he will for sure. She has to reciprocate his feelings and right now, they are strictly for protection. The book doesn't once mention anything about it being sexual....it's just that you find someone that you have a desire to keep safe. In NM, when he tells Bella about imprinting, it's not about sex.

I know, but then within a few min we have some sexually charged moment. Look, I like Twilight more than most men and I'm not just attacking it arbitrarily. It's a very inconsistent story with a bunch of contradictions. It's entertaining, but definitely not immune to ridicule and critique. But the same could be said for most films. Hell, my favorite film of all time, TDK, is far from perfect, but that doesn't make it any less appealing to me.The two main couplings are a bit weird. You can't deny that.

[baumer]

I know, but then within a few min we have some sexually charged moment. Look, I like Twilight more than most men and I'm not just attacking it arbitrarily. It's a very inconsistent story with a bunch of contradictions. It's entertaining, but definitely not immune to ridicule and critique. But the same could be said for most films. Hell, my favorite film of all time, TDK, is far from perfect, but that doesn't make it any less appealing to me.The two main couplings are a bit weird. You can't deny that.

All vampires are old, are they not? And Dracula, especially, is very old, and traditionally they go for the young ones.....if you were a 115 year man in a 17 year old body, would you not go for the hottest woman around?Jake and Loch Ness.....yes, I agree, it is a weird pairing. But it is still explained well enough....for me.

[Accursed Arachnid!™]

OK, how about this? The couplings mostly make sense when taken in context of the story. But taken out of context they look strange. Is that better?

Edited November 24, 2012 by ShAAken not Stirred™

[baumer]

OK, how about this? The couplings mostly make sense when taken in context of the story. But taken out of context they look strange. Is that better?

I'm with you AA, but the vampire mythos has always been about desiring beauty, hasn't it? You don't see a lot of vampire movies where they are going after the hot old lady with a dialysis machine. Edited November 24, 2012 by baumer

[Accursed Arachnid!™]

I'm with you AA, but the vampire mythos has always been about desiring beauty, hasn't it? You don't see a lot of vampire movies where they are going after the hot old lady with a dialysis machine.

I could buy Bella and Edward. She's 16, not 6. I like to quote that line from TF&F. "Letty grew up just down the street. She was into cars since she was like ten years old. Dom always had her attention. Then she turned sixteen... "

"And she had Dom's attention."

But if you think about it like this:

Bella at 16:

107 year old man if he aged normally:

That's not creepy?

And then you have this:

Sorry, but for the uninitiated, that's just weird. Especially in this day and age.

[75Live]

The girl that wanted to see this finally picked a day and we saw it earlier in the week. I didn't want to say anything at the end until she did because I didn't think it was that good, but she agreed so I was off the hook

Like AA, and baumer knows this too, I don't have a problem with this series and it does get a lot of hate for some reason. I don't have the series high on any of my lists but still it is harmless.

I have to put this as the 2nd worst of the series for me, just above New Moon. I can deal with the fighting scene although just from the trailers I knew it was a vision. The CGI of the baby and kid growing up was just horrendous. Well actually most of the CGi was bad.

There were just completely useless characters, and I am glad someone else brought this up but the whole scene where it ends Loch Ness line was horrible. I get that was in the book, but that doesn't make any less bad.

Even with saying all that, I get why fans of the series really enjoy it. I can see how it it wrapped up the series very well for them especially with the "clip show" ending.

I am going back and forth between a C-/D+ at this moment. It will probably be closer to the C - after the initial taste of the whole movie goes away though

Edited November 24, 2012 by 75live

[Accursed Arachnid!™]

Maybe it was just Stewart's overly serious delivery of the line, but even if it was meant for a laugh, it's out of place. She was just outraged that Jacob "imprinted" on her baby, which had seriously creepy implications, then she seems more outraged that he nicknamed her after the Loch Ness monster. It was a completely ridiculous moment whichever way you look at it.

[baumer]

It was one of my favourite parts of the movie.

[75Live]

It was one of my favourite parts of the movie.

I can see why it would work for you. Unlike people that bash the series, I can see what people like in it. I actually find it a decent series. I have seen every movie in the theater.

[Accursed Arachnid!™]

It was one of my favourite parts of the movie.

Even my wife, a complete "Twi-hard", rolled her eyes at it when I mentioned the absurdness of it to her afterward. My wife loves the books, but finds the films to be merely OK. Although she can watch them over and over and over and over...

[baumer]

I'm not your wife....

[75Live]

I'm not your wife....

Glad to know that was cleared up

[Accursed Arachnid!™]

I'm not your wife....

I know. And you know I wish I would have said yes, but now you're married to someone else and so am I, so it's just not meant to be...Oh, the pathos! :(

[Goffe]

in a second view the flaws were much more evidentlowering my rating to 5.2 or a C

Edited November 24, 2012 by Goffe Bond