This weekend "the saga" is ending and, and geeks everywhere can only hope we can now go back to enjoying our fandom, cons, and culture without having to cater to the all too prevalent Twilight fan base. Of course, we know (probably more so than they) that this is a pipe dream, and inevitably Hollywood will find a way to pull all of them back in for years to come until they become yet another embarrassing sub staple on our identity. I tried to like Twilight, I really did. It was about two years ago I sat down and got about 30 minutes into the first film before I lost my cool. That DVD was in the trash quicker than you can say, "hold on tight spider monkey."
There are plenty of reasons to hate Twilight, but I try to stray away from the more common gripes as I tend to disagree with most of them. The fans of the series (when they aren't obsessing on the film) are much more normal than say your average geek. Robert Pattinson showed his acting prowess in Cosmopolis this year, and Kristen Stewart won me over a long time ago with Adventureland. My hatred for the series lies primarily in the thought of the series itself and everything it stands for, which I believe is the perfect argument for me and any other person wishing to never fully indulge in an entire movie with a Twihard. When that day comes (and it will), have these arguments at the ready to shut down any argument your misguided friend may offer.
3. It's Not A Saga.
Sagas by their original definition are Norse prose written in the 14th century. If you are a big smart ass and don't really give a s*** about the person you're speaking to, this will show where you stand on the matter quite quickly and almost guarantee they ignore you for quite a while. For the sake of argument, let's draw on a much broader interpretation of the word which labels it as a "tale of heroic achievement rife with drama and a series of events." While the series is rife with drama and a series of events (or so the summaries say) there's little to nothing heroic about it. In fact the attitude, characterization, and idea of Bella in general sets women back 70 years. She's not strong, independent, or even free thinking when compared to the Scheherazades (1001 Nights) and Katniss Everdeens that serve as much more fitting of the role of heroics. What about Bella, who is the primary focus of this entire story, is heroic? Her willingness to birth a vampire baby? To play the field amongst mystical characters? Even in the larger context of the novel, Bella is more or less a bystander/witness to events greater than her. In summary, all the drama created in this novel is created entirely due to the main character who then always requires the aid of others to save her when she's in over her head. Not a strong view of a woman, and certainly not a saga.
2. It Completely Asserts A False Fantasy Of The Competing Love
This is by far a much simpler case to make if you are a guy because any man will understand this, and likely most women, although some like to feign ignorance. When you have two guys that fawn over one woman and compete for her love, there is no way that all three of them will ever band together for a just cause. In any real world situation, Jacob would not want anything to do with Bella after the wedding, and Edward would most certainly have some issues with the two continuing their friendship whether he would admit it or not. Let's not even get into the "protective" attitude that Jacob has for the child that they birth...it wouldn't get that far. Any rational werewolf would mope about for a couple months, maybe rebound with a few bad romances, and then move on. Saves a whole lot of drama, heartbreak, and sadness in the long run. In a world full of Sparkling vampires, this is the ridiculousness I have the hardest time accepting...which reminds me.
1. Stephenie Meyer Takes 300+ Years Of Tradition...And Pisses On It With A Terrible Story.
Perhaps the most frustrating thing about the Twilight series is that author Stephanie Meyer could have actually pulled the whole thing off. Long before Bram Stoker wrote Dracula and frightened readers in the 1800s, there was a vampire craze of sorts going down in the 1700s. The first known literature about the subject is a poem written by Heinrich August Ossenfelder known as The Vampire. The work itself outlines a situation in which a man threatens a pious woman who rejects his love that he will visit her in the night, suck her blood, and give her a seductive kiss to show his hedonistic lifestyle is far better than the Christianity she clings to.
Wow. That actually sounds pretty interesting and a great plot for a story. Hell, it's even vague enough that you can make the argument that this idea could fall right in line with the Twilight series and with the controversial aspect of love vs. religion. You would have a book burner for the ages that would long be remembered as a truly remarkable tale. Instead you have a world created more or less upon the concept of cannibalistic fairies that aren't really fairies (because there's no mass audience for that) and lazy storytelling that instead of taking the intricacies and challenges of staying true to the foundational work that set a precedent for 100s of years within a genre...says "F*** it." and does what it wants.
It doesn't present any noteworthy themes relevant to society today, it plays upon a fantasy scenario that is not true or even an imitation of basic human emotions, and ignores 100s of years of literature, all seemingly to hop on a bandwagon craze and make a quick buck. In principle, it's not art...it's contemporary word porn that will become irrelevant long before many other worthy novels of our time. These are 3 completely legitimate reasons to hate Twilight, and more power to you if you do.
Editors - Bonus Video:
Supercut of Robert Pattinson talking about how bad "Twilight" is. Compilation of clips from various interviews.