Naomi Creason Reporter email

Print

Share

• Email to a friend
• Add This

Feeds

• Lunchtime Blog
• Editorial
• Andrea Ciccocioppo
• Rich Lewis
• Guest Editorial
• Letters to the Editor

Article Rating

Current Rating: (

0

/5)

Low High

(Rated

0

times)

By Naomi Creason, Sentinel Reporter, November 19, 2008

Last updated: Wednesday, November 19, 2008 1:50 PM EST

The frenzy surrounding the “Twilight” series will hit its peak Friday morning when fans are seated in theaters across the country, excited for the midnight premiere of the first movie, with more undoubtedly on the way.

In the midst of all this furor and claims of its ultimate blockbuster potential, I still know quite a number of people who don’t know anything about the series. In other words, many of the men I’ve talked to couldn’t care less about its premiere.

The concept of the film and books seems to appeal only to a female audience. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if the opening-night audience looked very similar to the “Sex and the City” crowd, though in slightly smaller numbers and featuring groups of tweens.

For those who still don’t know about the so-called “phenomenon,” the series is pretty much like “Romeo & Juliet.” It features two star-crossed lovers who defy their respective families to be together. Except in this version, the third-wheel Paris is a werewolf, Juliet is the school “outcast,” and Romeo sometimes gets the urge to drink his beloved’s blood.

That last bit tends to cause a speck of trouble, but not in the way “Twilight” novices will think.

When I say vampire, a certain image comes to mind — ashen face, cold skin, lust for blood and, in a more modern view, looks to die for.

And regardless of all of the other myths out there, that’s all you get in “Twilight.” Granted there are some new things involving life mates, special powers and a sure-fire death of being ripped apart (instead of a good old stake to the heart), but the vampires in “Twilight” aren’t so much vampires as they are pretty superheroes with a taste for human blood.

I’ll give credit to Stephenie Meyer for creating a very different look to classic movie monsters, but it’s sort of like throwing out all of the intriguing bits that made Dracula good and just using all of the superficial vampire stereotypes to spruce up an otherwise lackluster plot.

I find it much more interesting to watch a vampire turn into mist, control wolves and battle his own conscience than to watch a vampire control inexplicable magical abilities and have his or her battle with redemption reduced to teenage angst.

And I still can’t get over the fact that the book completely disregards the human vs. beast struggle in werewolves, which pretty much defines the character. It’s not nearly as interesting if the turned werewolf is coherent and the process of changing is painless. Give me Remus Lupin from “Harry Potter” over Jacob in “Twilight” any day of the week.

But in the end, vampires and teen idols sell, and a lot of people (maybe too many people) have tried to cash in on that interest. It could have been the “Buffy” and “Angel” TV series that re-sparked that vampire intrigue for the average moviegoer, but since then, there hasn’t been anything really big in pop culture to fill those shoes, despite three “Underworld” flicks and a big-budget makeover of the Dracula saga in “Bram Stoker’s Dracula” and “Van Helsing.”

However, if the amount of Edward Cullen flair on Facebook is any indication, “Twilight” succeeded in making a rather big splash among vampire fans, and most entertainment media are predicting it will do just as well in theaters.

I can only hope that a “Batman Begins” or “Casino Royale” type of movie will come along and bring back the horror and drama that once belonged to vampire and werewolf stories.