Twilight (The Twilight Saga, #1) Twilight discussion

Why do people hate the movies?

Comments Showing 1-50 of 68 (68 new)    post a comment »
« previous 1

message 1: by Feliks (new)

Feliks Why do people watch these movies?

Karin I think it's because when you have great books that people become really passionate about they have a distinct image in their mind of what the characters look like and act. unfortunately no one ever really lives up to our expectations and seeing it on the screen so differently kind of ruins it.

American Wolf i think that the movie doesnt capater the book because they left half of it out and some of the actors were horrible *cough kristen stewart*

message 4: by Kaylee (new)

Kaylee Deline People hate the book because the acting.Some people literally hate Kristen Stewart because of this flim. Because she didn't show emotion but in my opinion she did a really damn good job for playing Bella.If you read the book you would know that Bella didn't have any emotion in the first place.But a lot of people nowadays watch movies without reading the book

Fabitha I read all of the books, and I don't like them not because of the movies: they're just showing a kind of relationship that's wrong and obsessive to me. Anyway, the third movie was nice, but the fist in particular was just awful. Too many ralenties, bad photography and what about the shining scene? I mean, apart from personal taste about Pattinson, it was definetly NOT beautiful. It should have been one of the most intense scene and it was ridiculous. The entire movie looked like a bad soap opera, and I didn't find the characters touching at all. I swear I wasn't prejudiced, I was actually thrilled when I went to see it. But honestly, they didn't do a good job. That's all.

message 6: by Kaylee (new)

Kaylee Deline Fabitha wrote: "I read all of the books, and I don't like them not because of the movies: they're just showing a kind of relationship that's wrong and obsessive to me. Anyway, the third movie was nice, but the fis..."

I completely understand,If you compare the first movie to the last one it's actually pretty laughable.The last movie was actually decent because i've heard the author helped directed the movie.

I'mogén I don't know why people hated it, I personally think the book-turned-movie was an epic, and that's saying a lot.
I mean it was a little over the top is some parts, like the long staring at each other, which I can see can be annoying, but they gave me chills (the good kind) and added to suspense.
I loved them, at least, I don't think it's very often that a book can be turned into a great movie franchise. :)

Fabitha Kaylee wrote: "Fabitha wrote: "I read all of the books, and I don't like them not because of the movies: they're just showing a kind of relationship that's wrong and obsessive to me. Anyway, the third movie was n..."

I don't know, I just didn't like the acting. I'm the kind of person that's always moved (I cried for TONS of movies) but they just didn't get under my skin.

Gabriela Araujo Kaylee wrote: "People hate the book because the acting.Some people literally hate Kristen Stewart because of this flim. Because she didn't show emotion but in my opinion she did a really damn good job for playing..."

Totally agree with you. For me, Bella's character was blank. I like the books, not as much as when I first read them, but I do. And I still think the protagonist was eclipsed by the other characters by being so insipid.

Gabriela Araujo I think there are a lot of people that have great arguments about the movies, but there a lot also who just flew along with the I-have-to-hate-Twilight-because-it's-social-suicide-not-to-do-so moment. A moment that's pretty strong still, even though the Saga is over now. I think the haters are more obsessed with Twilight than the fans, I really do.

I particularly liked the first movie, but after I read the book I got it why people didn't like it and I agree with some POVs about it. I liked the second movie, hated the third - and I know I'm pretty much alone in my thoughts here - and loved the last ones, about Breaking Dawn. The fifth, specifically, showed a tatic that Stephanie should have used when it came to the war - for me, that solution was awesome, even though a little frustrating when I found out I had been pranked. LOL.

But that's it. I understand now and agree with people who hated the books/movies on some things, but mostly I got 'over' Twilight because I started reading so many great books, so well-written, that it came to a point where I recognized the Saga's flaws.

But Twilight Saga will always be special for me because it made start reading constantly and I guess it'd be ridiculous of me criticize the series that defined a great moment of my life, like some people do. That's just wrong for me. And even though I had already developed a crush on him in Harry Potter 4, the Saga gave me the opportunity of getting to know better Robert, and I'm huge fan of him still - I just love the person he is and I'll be forever thankfull to Twilight for that.

message 11: by Line (new) - rated it 4 stars

Line For me, I don't hate the movies, just one of them, #4...
But that's not to say, that I don't have a problem with the other films...
I think they left half the book out of the movie, and that means that some of the interpersonnel relationsships doesn't make a whole lot of sense in the movies, if you haven't read the books first...

Contrary to my normal practice, I only read the books after watching the first movie, and I'm glad I did... If I had read the book first, I'm not sure I ever would have seen movie #2, 3, and so on...
Thing I didn't believe in the movie, suddenly made a lot more sense after reading the book...

I know the screenwriters and directors need to cut movies short, because a movie straight from the books, would last about 20 hours, but with Twilight, I think the took too much out, or took the wrong things out...

Alissa I think it depends if you read the books first or watched the movies first.
I reluctantly read the books after all the movies had come out (hadn't watched any of them) and I thought the books were OK. A bit melodramatic for me, but I think if I was high-school age I would have enjoyed them more, and that is the audience they were written for.
The movies were a disappointment after reading the books, but I think if I had watched them before reading (and when I was 10 years younger) I would have appreciated them more.

Karin twelvejan wrote: "I agree with Karin. I started and completed the series months before the release of the Twilight movie. I really enjoyed the series to the point of obsession. Got the movie poster (which never see ..." I tried to go back and rereading the books too and it was definitely not the same. The images I had in my mind prior to the movies was gone, what a disappointment because Kristin stewart and Rob pattinson failed for me.

Nicole Where is all the dialogue? In the book, Bella and Edward spend soooo much time talking and trying to understand each other. They say like 5 sentences to each other in the movie??? The movie also did nothing to develop the "relationship" between Bella and her father. Remember all the cooking and worrying Bella did in regards to her Dad? In the movie - she seemed just like a moody, typical teen - not like the "old soul" teen that Meyer had written. And why in God's name did they feel the need to drastically change the hair color and style of all the Cullens in the movies?? What was that about?? In Eclipse, Carlisle actually looks like a Ken doll that has come to life!! Weird!!

Lauren Graves Compared to the books the movies left much to be desired. Like the last post I think the books developed the characters and relationships between them in a better way. I think if you didn't read the books you might get lost with some of the characters in the movie, asking what does that person have to do with the story line.

message 16: by Violet (last edited Sep 02, 2013 01:01PM) (new) - rated it 4 stars

Violet I really liked the books a lot, initially , like when they just came out. And overall the series was pretty good.
When twilight was released it was actually pretty famous- in a good way.
But the flaws the flaws! Lets get the minow ones out of the way shall we, there's the whole building up of character part, The conversations that bella and ed had, were a major part in better understanding, getting a general sense of them..fav music, movies, books, colours's a vital part. Normal. That movie needed some normal and less obsessive creepy "fascinated by you so I watch you sleep" , I mean we don't even find her fascinating cause we don't know her...bella..probably a major hurdle,other stuff could be walked around.. So
Bella a lot of people did n't really like Bella(kristen Stewart), cause well..she can be emotionless at times- but it suited the series you know, it captured bella, would nt hurt for her to laugh a little more though :/ anyway, and hence as the series progressed they 're constant dislike for her grew too. So I guess it's hard to imagine why someone would be all googley eyed and crazy( it was excessively mushy at times) over someone they considered dry. And then you don't just have one, tow, but two powerful covens fighting for the life of this one girl, when you could just change her. I guess it's a lot to comprehend on a emotional level too, cause if your not a true romantic, it all just seems unnecessary. Nonetheless, as the situation escalates, and Bella is put on this throne of high worth, when you don't particularly like her, it ALL just seems ridiculous, I think the books captured that aspect a lot better.without it being quite so very cheesy.
Then there's the fact that she's sorta become a thing to refer to. All the hype.. Has put her on this pedestal of best zombie acts. It's like if you see a brinjal(eggplant) exclaim at the cheer in the world, you'd say it was about as animated as KS. It's got a name now. So you have your genuine haters and the the ones who just know about it. That about sums it up :)

Olivia I think that the movie studio and the film makers knew that they could be relatively lazy with these movies and still make a killing off all the Twihards or whatever they're called.

Both the books and the movies are rubbish - but I don't necessarily mean that in a truly negative sense as they provide an element of escapism and anything that gets and keeps young people reading, has to be a good thing.

But, seriously Kristen Stewart? YUCK. I don't think that Bella sighed THAT much in the books.

message 18: by [deleted user] (new)

Because it's a movie based off of an awful book. And since the movies are always not as good. . . .

Darcia American Wolf wrote: "i think that the movie doesnt capater the book because they left half of it out and some of the actors were horrible *cough kristen stewart*"

LOL that book is depressing, and apperantly so is Kristen Stewart. DON'T YOU DARE WATCH IT.

whoufflestories I (and I'm just stating my own opinion) feel the people acting are really awkward to watch. It makes me feel awkward and thus I don't watch it.

message 21: by [deleted user] (new)

Oh I love the movies. people hate because they hate. I can't imagine it have being done better.

message 22: by Tara (last edited Sep 04, 2013 10:41AM) (new) - rated it 4 stars

Tara The movies feel cheap and horribly made. Like they were done in the early 90s before so much more technology came out. They could have done so much better on the special effects and the makeup. That's what killed it for me. It was bad enough that Stewart and Pattison both ruined things for me (I got over it and gave it a chance) but, that awful, cheap, white Halloween makeup on their faces and their painted lips were a joke. All of it could have been better with the technology we have today.

message 23: by Kat (new) - rated it 4 stars

Kat The casual indy feel of the first installment was lost very quickly, which was a shame. Some actors were atrocious which made it difficult to take seriously. Robert's awkwardness was nessessary, Kristen can't be anything but, even when trying.

april I actually liked the first two books. but when the movie came out and I was able to watch. Oh sweet baby jesus... I couldn't stand Kirsten Stewart's acting.. that is all.

message 25: by Kat (new) - rated it 4 stars

Kat April wrote: "I actually liked the first two books. but when the movie came out and I was able to watch. Oh sweet baby jesus... I couldn't stand Kirsten Stewart's acting.. that is all."

I have watched a few of her movies in case there was something i missed, alas - no, they are all quite bad. there is no emotion in the girl, isn't that what makes you in Hollywood? She was a very lucky girl to get that gig. Into the wild wasn't bad, but given, the movie called for that style.

Vanessa I thought the movies were okay. The acting was not the greatest and some parts were really cheesy. I did like that there were more action in the movies than in the books.

Renae Richardson There will always be critics.Actually for once I thought the movie was pretty true to the book. I felt it was a pretty good representation. People who are die hard vampire fans have a problem with the vampire and human love interest story especially when you throw in werewolves. The plot of the story just strayed away from what traditional images of vampires are. I venture that many who disliked the movie also disliked the book or wouldn't pick up the book. I have heard so many people complain "but vampires shouldn't sparkle."

As for Bella's character have no affect or being lifeless so to speak was perfect. That's what made her fit in so well with the Cullens I thought. She was different from the norm she was strange sort of emotionally disconnected so to speak. It made it more believable to me.

message 28: by Salmaan (last edited Sep 05, 2013 08:12PM) (new) - rated it 3 stars

Salmaan Personally, I'm nonchalant about both, the movies and the saga.
But, I do appreciate the originality of The Twilight Saga and how it, arguably, gave birth to the whole Vampire-YA genre.

Jessica I actually found Bella in the book to have a lot of emotion. She would talk back to Edward and had an attitude..a good one. She didn't just stare at people and squeal like a pig. In the movie Kristen doesn't even act like a good mother. She never gets any better. I also think Robert Pattinson didn't do a good job as Edward. Edward had personality and teased Bella a lot, but Robert never does that. He always looks like he has to go to the bathroom...and I get that they needed to show that it was hard for him because of her blood but they overplay it. It just could have been presented better.

message 30: by Rae (new) - rated it 2 stars

Rae Because they SUCK!

Kimberly Rachel wrote: "Because they SUCK!"

Totally agree! Because there is no movie that is going to portray the book as you imagined it. Everyone has their own take based on experiences in their lives and for some reason the movie ruins it for most.

Saf I love the books, but I don't think the movies did them justice. It made it really cheesy, whereas the books are much much much better.
I only recently just ordered the white edition of the books!! REally excited for that!

message 33: by [deleted user] (new)

The acting in the movies were BAD. However, books 1-3 weren't that great to start out with so the movies didn't have much to go on. The last two movies were the best out of the series because in my opinion, the last book was the best. There was more action and Bella was actually doing something.

message 34: by Jesper (last edited Sep 06, 2013 03:04PM) (new) - rated it 5 stars

Jesper As far as movies goes, I think the biggest issue is that the plot doesn't make any sense unless you've read the books. The story in the movies should still stand on its own – but it doesn't. There is too much that's left unexplained, important scenes (in the books) are left out, and so on. It makes it very difficult to understand unless, as said, you've read the books.

The movies are surely also more intended to appeal to fans of the books, i.e. they're meant to show a lot of the nature of Forks, how the different characters would/could look like, the houses, the school, and so on. That way everyone who has the read the books can go "Oooh!" and "Aaah!" when they watch the movies the first time.

In fairness to the movies though, I don't think it's because the filmmakers were bad, it's just that the Twilight story doesn't lend itself as well for movies as it does for books. If you take the first book as an example, then 90% of it consists of discussions, thoughts, feelings, motives, and desires. It's only the last few chapters where you have some actual action going on. And if you look at any Hollywood movies, the action scenes tend to make up for 90% of the movies - not 10%.

I did like the third movie the most though. The whole part with the hiking, the tent, and the subsequent newborns was quite nice. It was the kind of sequence of scenes that worked well for movies (drama, suspense, followed by an all-out action scene).

Veronica The movies suck because
1) there's no story for the first 3 parts.
2) Kirsten Stewart does not act.

Cecilia Carreon for me it was dissapointing with amusement mixed in there. for someone who followed SM from the beginning of her career with book#1 -4 i mean i literally waited in line for those books. The story was part of me.

BUT to see her throw it all away in horrible actors and such a story changing movie it just set me off. and no it wasnt that i just too high of standards i mean the acting is where i can laugh all day and special effects and the actual points they kept and didnt keep just ruined the whole series.

She let me down. :(

Renae Richardson I think peoples should be more fair to the actors they weren't the most horrid. I have seen way worse. Personally they did the novel justice. It is not like the book is an epic piece of literature. For what she wrote I thought they did a pretty good job of bringing to life a love story between an odd teenager and a glittery vampire to life. What else was to be expected.

Leonor I really don't understnd it either. You have some great books and movies and even though they make a huge sucess these movies are allways criticized by the hollywood community. I think the actors did, in fact, a good job.

Kayla Zampino It sucked because outside of Robert Pattison, none of the actors could act.
Also, book 2 and 4 just suck in general. I couldnt bring myself to watch the 4th after how horrible the first 3 movies were. I couldnt believe I made it that far.

message 40: by Renae (last edited Sep 11, 2013 04:18PM) (new) - rated it 4 stars

Renae Richardson There are worse actors. I believe most of it is prejudiced bias. I saw nothing wrong with her acting at all or the characterization. If you referring to the plot when talking about Bella tripping over herself I guess you could say the book was worthless also. To me the book and movie has its place. Some don't like the movie because they don't like who played the characters I think that's primarily bias built from an assault on one's imagination. They pictured it one way and someone had the audacity to depict it another. I find that so intriguing because I wonder if the characters in our imaginations had been solidified into casting would we receive the same level of critique.

I honestly couldn't see any other well respected actress playing the role of Bella without it ruining the image they have built. Shall I say well loved actress. I do believe that Kristen has in a way become Bella. I even saw that in her when she played Snow White. Perhaps the role is what has made others dislike her not the other way around.

For those who thought the casting was absolutely horrid who in Hollywood would you believe could play a earnest Bella. Who comes to mind.

The books were not of a mature sort to me. They appealed to a specific audience and that audience loved it. That franchise was extremely successful. Some of us more seasoned readers far removed from our love affair with juvenile fiction will never see a positive. It has its place. I could see myself falling in love with it if I were a teenager concerned with things other than rounded characters and the like. For me at that point at that age it would have been wonderful. I don't take anything away from its merit because at my stage in life I am sure that I was not the intended audience although welcome to explore. I take that into account when judging its merit.. I don't critique the richness of children's films. For the audience intended it was spot on.

message 41: by [deleted user] (new)


message 42: by [deleted user] (new)

Olivia wrote: "Abbyvich wrote: "*Applaus*"



Jonnathan I didn't like this saga in all its extend, but I do liked some elements in the books, especially in the first one.

The element I appreciate very much was Bella's inner dialogue, for the books where written in almost all it's extend in first person.

That inner dialogue and first person narrative perspective was lost in the translation to the movies, that's the main reason I disliked them, except for Breaking Dawn part 2, who has a pretty cool battle scene (which wasn't in the books btw).

Of course there where other elements like the acting in the most part (with the exception of Cam Gigandet as James, Dakota Fanning as Jane and Michael Sheen as Aro, who did a good job and where perfectly casted), many narrative holes and the girl's fanservice.

Samantha The Escapist Never cared for books or really the movies.

I'm sure a good portion of movie hate comes from disatisfied book fans, but I know a lot of them at least have to be because the movies are simply poorly made. Laughably written, poor effects, and lazilly shot.

Did anyone notice that almost the entire last leg of the story (the Vampinellis are coming!) was told by piling all the actors into a room and handing out a couple lines of exposition? Cue depressing indie music and a few minutes for forest shots.

So I guess I'm with the Olivias and Tara.

To be honest, though the acting is NOT good, it's not the worst part.

Lynne I wish I had never watched the first movie as Kristen Stewart was just SO wrong for the part of Bella. I loved the books but the movie ruined everything. It's a shame, as other characters, like Jacob and Billy were,in my opinion, perfect.

message 46: by Kaytie (last edited Sep 20, 2013 02:19AM) (new)

Kaytie Along with the fact that Kristen Stewart and Robert Pattinson can't act, my biggest complaint is the costuming. Vampires are supposed to sparkle like diamonds, but Edward didn't sparkle, he looked like he was rolled in a sugar glaze. He looked like he needed a good bath to get the sticky off. It was just all bad. The Cullen's were supposed to beautiful, but they just looked weird. Anyway, they needed better actors, better directors, better everything!

JainL I really liked the movies, the only issue with me and the Twilight movies is how cold and unemotional the characters were. I understand why the vampire part are supposed to be cold but Bella was very odd and creepy. It was fun seeing how she changed throwout the movie.

message 48: by Florence (new)

Florence Inferno You can say the same thing for the novels by Dan Brown. How would the movie of Inferno with a different actor who is not Tom Hanks?

Priyamvadha I think movies just give a bad impression on the book.People may not even tend to read the book if they have already seen the movie and don't like it.The movies also skip a few parts which are there in the book.For instance if you take "Harry Potter and the socerer's stone" the part where the hat sings a song is not shown.That's a fun part.But the worst example I can give for a YA-book-made -into -movie is Twilight.

Britty Because Kristen has the acting ability of a potato

« previous 1
back to top