Host Haste
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
Recommended Videos
The "Soul" aliens are basically the Yeerks from the Animorphs series. I'm pretty sure there was even a book in that series where one of the main characters gets possessed, learns to cooperate with her parasite, and eventually parts with it on reasonable terms. I'm not sure "novel" is what I'd go with to describe the story of The Host, maybe "an underutilized trope" or something similar.
I'm going to see the movie, like I saw all the twilight books, because I'm a sad, lonely and most of all, extremely bored person.
And I doubt I'll enjoy it much.
But have to say
And I doubt I'll enjoy it much.
But have to say
I never really got the impression of 'intelligent' from peggy while watching that show. Was I the only one?
Eh...she's not STUPID, she does know enough to keep her teacher credentials up. She does not, however, know how to speak Spanish, no matter what she may think, and she is *VERY* naive.Psykoma said:
Side note, does 'naive' feel like it should be 'naieve' to anyone else?
I don't know... When an author has a body of work that all seems to incorporate similar themes, how can one not start wondering about the author's issues? I mean, yeah, the whole "armchair psychiatrist" thing gets old, and people are perhaps more than a little glib and flippant when it comes to presuming to make deep, piercing insights about the people behind works of different media. But the whole thing kind of circles in on itself in ways that are pretty disturbing on their own: are the observers making assumptions about Meyer's issues with violence and sexuality and gender roles because of their own deep-seated antagonisms with certain traditional assumptions that come from their own upbringing, etc., etc. And are people uncomfortable with that because of various characteristics of the target of the examination- Meyer is a woman, Meyer is a Mormon, Meyer is a stay-at home mom- while they're all too comfortable assuming things about issues like racism, classism, or misogyny in the work of targets that aren't afforded a degree of protection by similar characteristics?
So your saying hate the game not the player?
Bob that goes against everything society has ever told me.
Bob that goes against everything society has ever told me.
Even though my tastes and opinions don't always align with his, I have to respect Bob for his rigorous self-examination and quest for personal betterment.
I understand that sometimes something strikes you as so bad, you can't help but nitpick and tear it apart on every level. And then I also remember one of Film Critic Hulk's essays about how a lay audience can realize a work is bad, but the majority don't really have the knowledge or training to really explain or understand the fundamental reasons why it was bad, and so end up harping on a superficial things they'd probably forgive in a better work.
I think the argument is that if you scratch deeply enough, you can plainly see all art and fiction is artifice and illusion, and all of it has some plot holes, or inconsistent characterization, or factual errors, etc. In works that "work", you bother your enjoyment [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FridgeLogic]. But in works that fail fundamentally, almost every little thing will become a glaring flaw.
With regards to Twilight, I have no problems with people bringing up the stupid characters, the plots where nothing happens, the sexual politics, etc. I get annoyed when people start arguing "vampires and werewolves don't work that way", as if zoologists have observed these fictional creatures in their natural state and made broad conclusions about them. I get this from the vampire LARPers I used to hang out with, many of whom perfectly accept that vampires from different fictional universes almost never work exactly the same, but for some reason Twilight is the one singled out for this.
CAPTCHA: It is different.
You're damn right, Captcha!
I think the argument is that if you scratch deeply enough, you can plainly see all art and fiction is artifice and illusion, and all of it has some plot holes, or inconsistent characterization, or factual errors, etc. In works that "work", you bother your enjoyment [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FridgeLogic]. But in works that fail fundamentally, almost every little thing will become a glaring flaw.
With regards to Twilight, I have no problems with people bringing up the stupid characters, the plots where nothing happens, the sexual politics, etc. I get annoyed when people start arguing "vampires and werewolves don't work that way", as if zoologists have observed these fictional creatures in their natural state and made broad conclusions about them. I get this from the vampire LARPers I used to hang out with, many of whom perfectly accept that vampires from different fictional universes almost never work exactly the same, but for some reason Twilight is the one singled out for this.
CAPTCHA: It is different.
You're damn right, Captcha!
This is why I mostly hate critics. If someone makes millions with books and movies there has to be something about them that people like.
The first movie I liked the second was not that good, but still better than a lot of movies I?ve seen and I saw many. And by many I?m probably in your category. Anyway, the third I haven?t seen it yet. My critic isn?t only about Twilight but about movies which make many million, but critics still hate them.
But let?s get to the point. No matter what anyone says if that many people were paying for a third movie. Then they had to like the others and no matter how you turn it, this is art. Even if it goes against everything that defines art and even if every critic in the world hates it. In the end that?s their problem because it has to do something right or so many people wouldn?t watch it.
I understand that critics should present a deeper knowledge about the material, the acting and the presentation of movies. But like all art rules don?t apply to it. And most critics judge by predetermined rules. But art cannot be judged.
I don?t say you have to like it but as a critic you have to accept it as art even if you don?t understand it or like it.
(The last sentence made me laugh. I hope you understand why
)
And by your statements I am happy that you slowly get to understand this.
If there are many big errors in my text let them be. My written English is still bad
The first movie I liked the second was not that good, but still better than a lot of movies I?ve seen and I saw many. And by many I?m probably in your category. Anyway, the third I haven?t seen it yet. My critic isn?t only about Twilight but about movies which make many million, but critics still hate them.
But let?s get to the point. No matter what anyone says if that many people were paying for a third movie. Then they had to like the others and no matter how you turn it, this is art. Even if it goes against everything that defines art and even if every critic in the world hates it. In the end that?s their problem because it has to do something right or so many people wouldn?t watch it.
I understand that critics should present a deeper knowledge about the material, the acting and the presentation of movies. But like all art rules don?t apply to it. And most critics judge by predetermined rules. But art cannot be judged.
I don?t say you have to like it but as a critic you have to accept it as art even if you don?t understand it or like it.
(The last sentence made me laugh. I hope you understand why
)And by your statements I am happy that you slowly get to understand this.
If there are many big errors in my text let them be. My written English is still bad
bearlotz said:
Huh, I pegged it as a "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" if-they-won fan fiction...batti said:
I don't personally dislike Meyer more than i dislike, say, Michael Bay. She wrote some bad books that shouldn't have become successful that were adapted into some slightly better but still pretty bad movies that shouldn't have been sucessful either. But Meyer is not the problem.
Smarter people than me have to sort out why a book with such negative values als Twilight got so popular but Meyer is not to blame. Don't shoot the messenger.
Smarter people than me have to sort out why a book with such negative values als Twilight got so popular but Meyer is not to blame. Don't shoot the messenger.
So, uh, is the take away here 'Stop being so mean to Stephanie Meyer'?
Yes, personal attacks are out of line. Yes, the line of thought that she's 'just a housewife' and therefore too stupid to see what she's doing is objectionable, but I think she'll be fine, she can't hear us yelling at her over the sound of her bank account filling up.
Her writing is terrible, her impact on our culture is almost entirely negative (I'll give you the possibility that her books might get more people reading who may then go on to less unpleasant fare) and, while I don't think it's fair to blame her directly for it, the fanaticism with which some of her readers attach to an extremely unhealthy relationship is downright disturbing.
I don't want to get into a whole 'thing' but she and her writing are absolutely deserving of the criticism they get.
Yes, personal attacks are out of line. Yes, the line of thought that she's 'just a housewife' and therefore too stupid to see what she's doing is objectionable, but I think she'll be fine, she can't hear us yelling at her over the sound of her bank account filling up.
Her writing is terrible, her impact on our culture is almost entirely negative (I'll give you the possibility that her books might get more people reading who may then go on to less unpleasant fare) and, while I don't think it's fair to blame her directly for it, the fanaticism with which some of her readers attach to an extremely unhealthy relationship is downright disturbing.
I don't want to get into a whole 'thing' but she and her writing are absolutely deserving of the criticism they get.
bearlotz said:
batti said:
And the Goa'uld from Stargate.The Gentleman said:
The body-snacher parasite alien concept is not original, but it's usage here as a protagonist, and the setting after the human defeat, ARE very unique takes on the trope.
It really leads to the thought that Meyer wrote it after first hearing about the concept, before learning more details about how the subgenre usually follows, so she simply didn't know that she is doing anything unusual by making the alien the POV protagonist or by using it for a four-person-three-body love triangle.
Reminds me of Peter Molyneux a bit, the way he has no idea about popular modern genres, so he makes games that are a mix of incredibly basic tropes with weirdly unpredictable applications.
I'm inclined to agree with Bob. Everyone and their mother has commented on how backward Twilight is as a moral vehicle and how clumsy it is as a piece of fiction, but Meyer can't possibly be some sort of one-woman conduit for regressive attitudes and odd sado-masochist tendencies. Take a look at Twilight, at the Host, at Fifty Shades of Grey - and you realize that there's a certain subset of the female gender that's beginning to speak out.
I think Meyer's more the result of a kind of reactionary bent at how, among other things, Disney has been trying to twist its "Princess" line-up into a strong, positive set of role models. They'll never retcon Cinderella into a career woman or Sleeping Beauty into an overworked female tycoon, but you definitely get the sense, starting with Ariel and going up to Tiana, that Disney has been trying to leave the whole "submissive woman waiting for her prince" angle behind for a more can-do approach to things. It makes sense, as this is what women have turned out to want and need. Nobody wants to grow up to be some sort of June Cleaver mom-slash-Homemaker of the Year. At least, not anymore.
And, well, Meyer and her ilk feel like a sort of reaction to this; like there's a group of women going "You know what? We actually do miss the romantic and slightly dangerous aspects of being submissive and meek or unable to sort ourselves out without a man! Isn't there some kind of mystique behind the thought of finding your very own troubled Prince Charming and fixing him with your gentle love?"
I don't agree, of course, but I think it makes sense, culturally. For every big change in every society, there's going to be people nostalgically looking the other way. While we're moving ahead with our stronger female characters on the whole, there's an entire social strata that needs and wants something that feels like an excessively serious take on "The Story of O".
Plus, don't forget that very sane women who wouldn't want to be abused or treated like dirt sometimes end up wanting to read stories where this happens to female protagonists. This is more or less what structures the entire romance novel industry, and it's a pretty basic part of escapism.
I'm intentionally simplifying, of course - but boys like to escape to power fantasies and *some* normally very contented and capable women like to escape to fantasies of emotional needs not being fulfilled, and to see that fictitious demand addressed in a dangerous manner. Something along the lines of the Cullen-Swan couple is obviously going to feel a lot more exciting and dangerous than your average Happy Joe and Jane Normal couple, no matter how scummy it might feel.
I think Meyer's more the result of a kind of reactionary bent at how, among other things, Disney has been trying to twist its "Princess" line-up into a strong, positive set of role models. They'll never retcon Cinderella into a career woman or Sleeping Beauty into an overworked female tycoon, but you definitely get the sense, starting with Ariel and going up to Tiana, that Disney has been trying to leave the whole "submissive woman waiting for her prince" angle behind for a more can-do approach to things. It makes sense, as this is what women have turned out to want and need. Nobody wants to grow up to be some sort of June Cleaver mom-slash-Homemaker of the Year. At least, not anymore.
And, well, Meyer and her ilk feel like a sort of reaction to this; like there's a group of women going "You know what? We actually do miss the romantic and slightly dangerous aspects of being submissive and meek or unable to sort ourselves out without a man! Isn't there some kind of mystique behind the thought of finding your very own troubled Prince Charming and fixing him with your gentle love?"
I don't agree, of course, but I think it makes sense, culturally. For every big change in every society, there's going to be people nostalgically looking the other way. While we're moving ahead with our stronger female characters on the whole, there's an entire social strata that needs and wants something that feels like an excessively serious take on "The Story of O".
Plus, don't forget that very sane women who wouldn't want to be abused or treated like dirt sometimes end up wanting to read stories where this happens to female protagonists. This is more or less what structures the entire romance novel industry, and it's a pretty basic part of escapism.
I'm intentionally simplifying, of course - but boys like to escape to power fantasies and *some* normally very contented and capable women like to escape to fantasies of emotional needs not being fulfilled, and to see that fictitious demand addressed in a dangerous manner. Something along the lines of the Cullen-Swan couple is obviously going to feel a lot more exciting and dangerous than your average Happy Joe and Jane Normal couple, no matter how scummy it might feel.
The way Bob put the whole "it can't be possible that she hasn't noticed these problems" combined with how other works - "50 Shades" or "Beautiful Creatures" (men choose destiny, women fated) - along with the frankly astounding phenomenon of the uproar over how insane the last Twilight movie turned out (written by the same woman who did all the other films and is currently running the show "Red Widow" which features a bad-ass mom/assassin) gives me this really weird feeling that this is all intentional subversive trolling: these women ABSOLUTELY know the problems with these stories are obvious and stupid and are producing them to piss off those who actually care about equality and empowerment and create cultural change for the better....or maybe not, but good God could you imagine?
Her twisting of the trope is unusual (but not entirely unheard of; the Tok'ra of Stargate are essentially the same thing on a species-wide level) and there's nothing wrong with the idea. However, I really doubt that she did not have a decent understanding of body-snatchers or internal arguments in possessed people, because those are pretty common themes. I'm pretty sure she knew that she was making something unusual, just as she knew that turning vampires and werewolves from sexy monsters into sexy sometimes-dangerous people was an unusual spin.Entitled said:
Bearlotz: I thought of Yeerks too.