People should read more; I have no problem there.

The Saga was never a horror story. It is a love story. The basis of it is the way the two main characters love each other. The books are fictional. Since when do we put limits on an author’s imagination?

Anyone who spends so much of their valuable time bashing Twilight is obviously also trying to cash in on the series, even in a figurative sense, because they know anything Twilight related will be immensely popular.

Love it or hate it, you have to give Stephenie Meyer credit. You know why? I would much rather see pre-teens and teens, and people of any age really, reading books than playing video games and spending hours and hours on the internet. Reading is becoming less and less popular with younger generations and these books have inspired so many young people to READ and analyze a work of literature, and become interested in reading and writing, instead of Facebook, texting, Wii’s, etc. That alone is impressive and worthy of applause.

You want us to stick with obscure and low-budget films? We will and, also, with mainstream films. Hey, guess what film is a low-budget film that was way better than Twilight and made tons of money for under $400,000 and got an R rating? John Carpenter’s Halloween. Oh, god, the horrors of low-budget film making – its so dreadful.

Here’s another low-budget film that will always be better than Twilight because it speaks on so many undertones that the depth of its meaning will ultimately crush Twilight because its a weak story, with a weak plot, weak characters, and no meaning what-so-ever. Night of the Living Dead. Only $114,000 and it really says something about our history. Does Twilight do that? Fuck no! Who wants another love story with nothing to offer besides sparkle vampires who can run around in day time playing baseball and actually falling in love with a human girl? What the fuck?

If it’s such a “decent film” why are critics at 49% with it? What a load of crap Twilight is so get off your high horse of trying to defend it. You say you keep coming back and defending it, yet you keep coming back on your own free will. You should call it because you would lose this conversation against real horror fans. You will lose this conversation because Twilight is worse than cartoons of the 80s – fucking Smurfs owns movie. I even like Queen of the Damned better than I did Twilight and that movie was horrible. Yeah, you can call me an idiot, that’s cool, but I have far more knowledge about life, about mythology, and about horror movies than you ever will, Johnny Boy. You should call and entertain us “idiots.”

The two movies you mentioned are changed from the original source. The Thing was adapted from a short story, therefore it was lengthened and changed via the creative license of the film maker. The end of the Mist was changed from its original, apparently, as well. Therefore they are, quite simply, not the original. Twilight, on the other hand, is a direct adaptation from the novel.

The rest of your ‘response’ concerning self-esteem and individuality is absurd. The fact that I’ve wasted time defending a decent film from a couple of idiots is even more so. With all due respect, ‘Ironik!’ and ‘Wil,’ you may want to stick to critiquing low-budget, obscure horror flicks that no one in a healthy state of mind would dare to call entertaining.

He has it spot on. Its too much of a contradiction. Yes, it is a slap in the face. Yes, it is utterly blasphemous. I\’m serious. Nothing good has come out of PG-13 horror and I don\’t even consider Twilight to be a horror film. Its closely resembles more of a drama than anything else.

Twilight might have been number nine at the box-office of 2008, the reason being is that it was again PG-13 and every little 14 year old girl, without an individual soul and self-esteem, went and saw probably 2 to 3 times because of the casts of young heart throbs and, perhaps, those who read the books wanted to see what the film was going to do with the adaptation.

Not all of Harry Potter is based on myth. But like I said, those that were, played true to the myth and didn\’t stray off course. But then again, the novels of Harry Potter were far more success and well-known than Twilight ever was. Nobody under the age of 15 ever heard of Twilight until the movie came out unless they were an emotionally oppressed group of self-abused emos who look for that dust collecting crap on the library book shelf because they literally have no friends.

And, yes, she was telling us for \"the record\" that she was an Aussie. She is the one who\’s probably saying \"Robert Patti-who\" and everyone else down there is all about this guy. Americans aren\’t obsessed with Pattison. Its all the teenage girls in the world – except probably Africa. Also, she was saying that American is all about blood and shock and etc.. Its right there if you read her comment. Obviously, there needs to be a broaden of your way of thinking with American horror.

Oh, if you want a film that is better than its literature, lets take the film The Thing (or The Thing From Another Planet) for example. Way better than its short story of \"Who Goes There\" by John W. Campbell Jr. Even Stephen King thought that The Mist adaptation had a way better ending than his ending – I\’ve read the novel and I agree. The Mist wasn\’t all \"blood\" and \"rape\" – so I don\’t know where you got all that crap, lady. There are a few splatter films out there – but not as many as you think.

Come on, Vampires can only live in Seattle because the rain clouds cover the sun sooo much that they go out in the daylight – what the hell? That isn\’t a stupid notion to you? UV rays can pass through rain clouds! Am I going crazy here or what?

Your claim that Stephanie Meyer has stupid ideas is as valid as anothers persons claim that her ideas are genius. Entirely subjective. You may want to stop making subjective claims.

You misunderstood the purpose of her pointing out that she was from Australia. She meant to qualify her defense of Twilight by distinguishing herself from the seemingly Rob Pattinson-obsessed young audiences of the United States. She was, in no way, trying to say that Australian horror films are better than American horror films. And I hope you understand that vampire mythology has been around for millenia, and motion pictures are little more than one century old.

Twilight was number nine in the top ten box-office money-making films of 2008. The books are massive best-sellers. Clearly, those who enjoy the movie are not a minority.

A PG-13 horror film is ‘A slap in the face?’ and ‘Utterly blasphemous?’ Seriously?

If you loved the book and loved the movie, you’re in a minority. Its true. And, yes, I am criticizing the author because she has some stupid ideas. There are some aspects of Harry Potter that are stupid ideas but those ideas weren’t based on any mythology and, if they were, they were accurate portrayals; one that comes to mind is professor Lupin as a werewolf. Something doesn’t have exist to ruin it. Plus, the idea is real and the the old idea came first. So, if you’re changing the idea, you’ve bastardized it. That’s the way it goes.

Twilight didn’t necessary have to be violent to be good. You’re an Aussie, thanks for sharing, but I guess you don’t understand American nor European horror. Shock is what it is, shock. But if you add suspense, thrills, and actual scares – then you have a legit horror movie i.e. Black Christmas or Suspiria. Twilight offers nothing of the sorts as it is geared toward a younger audience and many masters of horror agree that an horror movie that PG-13 is utterly blasphemous and a slap in the face to the fans. Stay in Australia where the only thing good to come out of there is Undead and Paul Hogan.

Forgive me for being rude, but you’re criticizing an author for elaborating on fiction. As far as I know, mythical creatures are not confined to any particular criteria; therefore one persons take on vampire lore is as valid as the next persons. If vampires did exist, and the author was doing them an injustice by falsely portraying their physiology, then you would have an argument. But as it stands, vampires don’t exist, so Stephanie Meyer has creative license to portray mythical creatures in her fictional novels however she wishes.

And, if you follow the logic of your final argument, each and every film that is adapted from a novel, ruins the novel. How could you possibly consider sparkling vampires to be silly, when the Harry Potter films portray a fictional school where paintings that adorn the walls of Hogwarts carry on lives of their own (to give a relatively minor detail of a particularly flamboyant series of novels)?