Confusion.

Posted by: Kim

Last week sometime Jen and I discussed the phenomenon that is Twilight and how thus far this has been another instance of us living under some rock while the rest of the world pees its collective pants about something pop cultural.

This time, though, we came to the conclusion that this might be a bandwagon we could jump on, because we love vampires and pretty people, and the preview for the upcoming Twilight movie looks incredible. Incredible as in good, or incredible as in so bad it comes back around to awesome, well, that is to be determined. But, vampires. Pretty vampires.

Cut to Sunday morning, when I was impulse-purchasing heels at Marshalls (in my defense, Marshalls - I got two pairs that retailed at $85 and $125, respectively, for $40. Total.) and I noticed Twilight the book for sale in the checkout aisle for $7 and I really don't need much enabling, so, I bought that too.

Ahem. I have finished it. Hi, world? Pants-peeing, vamp-lusting, fangirly world? It's not good. And yet, I sort of get it. It's not good, it's not well-written, it's not well-developed plot-wise, and the heroine is rather absurd. But I couldn't put it down, and omfg, it's a series? I need the rest of them!

Right, so it's not good. As I was attempting to explain so to Jen, she said, "so is it bad like The DaVinci Code is bad?" which is the singlemost intelligent, best question she could have asked, and the answer is both yes and no.

Jen and I are the only two people I know who hated The DaVinci Code, but I refuse to believe we are wrong on this. Sorry, Mr. Brown, but you wrote a crappy book that snuck its way atop the best-sellers list and at least two people noticed. Like you care anyway. Enjoy the millions. However, I look up to you as a historian. See, my (and Jen's, though she can correct me if I am wrong) main problem with The DaVinci Code is that it was chock full of incredibly interesting historical (or biblical, if you prefer) allegories and "facts" ... that were then left abandoned and drowning without a prayer amidst an inane, retarded story. End result on my part? Rage. I had to force myself to finish it.

Twilight suffers from a similar problem, in that the historical perspective on the vampire clan, particularly when told from the perspective of the members of the tribal reservation (not to mention their own folklore) is really cool. Aaaand there's about, I don't know, 12 pages dedicated to it out of the 500-plus worth of relatively blahhhh teen drama and somewhat creepy "love" story. However, unlike with The DaVinci Code, teen drama and creepy love stories hold my interest, and so I kept tearing through the pages waiting for the awesome to come. It never did, really, but I'm intrigued enough to keep going. Of course, I'll probably be spitting nails by the time I finish the last book and they've all been shitty. But whatever.

As far as the movie goes? WHEN CAN I GET MY TICKETS?! OMG I CAN'T WAIT TO SEE EDWARD ON SCREEN! EEEEEEEEEEE!!!!

But, alas. A question:

WHAT?


Okay, of the 500-whatever pages of this book, approximately 492 of them are dedicated to reveling in Edward the sparkly (yes, sparkly - there is an entire passage in which he is sparkling in the sun and it is discussed at length), broody vampire boyfriend's insane, otherworldy beauty. Ummm ... I'm no expert, but Jen and I do also love zombies and we did dress up like zombified versions of the main characters of our favorite TV show of all time (I'll let you envision what you wish) for Halloween, and, um, Edward is really looking a little zombie here. I mean, you know, like early stage zombie, before the decaying is totally complete, and clearly he didn't get bit in the face (as I did, on Halloween), but still. Zombie-esque. AND ZOMBIES AND VAMPIRES ARE NOT THE SAME! To break it down, vampires = hot, zombies = not, this poster = not, this poster = not vampire. Yes? Yes.

Also, quick research informs me that this young man, Robert Pattinson, is in fact about 400 times hotter than this poster conveys. I mean, he's hot in a dirty, mildly creepy "I don't have to shower because I am dirty British rockstar-esque and that is my thing, with my hair grease and cigarettes" kind of way that never totally gets me all hot and bothered but certainly seems to do it for plenty of chicks. But point is, I've seen the preview, and now I've read the book, and while I probably would have sought out Henry Cavill or perhaps Chuck Bass himself, I approve of the casting. I get it. Edward is a vampire, and he is physically supposed to be perfect and painfully beautiful but he is not human, so they had to get someone who is, as I put it earlier and Jen approved, kind of fuckity beautiful. They couldn't just cast Chace Crawford and call it a day. It had to be someone kind of bizarrely attractive, someone variable, who, from the wrong angle or in the wrong light probably runs the risk of coming across as downright ugly, but in the right light and at the right angle is stunning. And I feel like they got it.

SO WHY IS THIS YOUR AD CAMPAIGN?!!!!? OMG.

It gets worse:



WHAT.

Also of note is that they both totally dyed their hair between poster/EW cover? Wtf. At least Bella is a total super-hottie on the EW cover. TOO BAD EDWARD IS NOT AND HE IS SUPPOSED TO BE THE DEFINITION OF HOT. I am just so confused. His belt is kind of cool, though.

Oh yeah, also, Re: Bella, I don't really care. I don't really care about Bella. I wouldn't be friends with her character in real life, I am pretty sure. This chick appears fine for the job.

I can't wait to see this movie.

And Jen? Vampire B&S? It could work ...