Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
behaviour???

"Twilight" Sequel Sets New Opening-Day Record

309 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Rosewin

I think it is more about S. Meyers abuse of the written word, inability to produce and well a real plot or a remotely likeable, developed character.

I am sure I will like the books even if they are written more simply than most books I prefer since the concepts behind the book appeal to me. My favorite book though, Cup of the World, is also written quite simply and I have read at least one person criticize the main protagonist, Phaedra, as not being developed enough, unable to sympathize with her. I sympathized.

For a movie there is enough plot and developed characters to sympathize with as far as my opinion goes. I am not very fond of Hollywood either, most of these other movies some people love simply bore me: Transformers (love the comic and g1 cartoon), Lord of the Rings (maybe I will read it someday), Chronicles of Narnia, Harry Potter etc...just different preferences not that those other things are all rubbish...just not me.

I prefer fantasy movies like Bridge to Terabithia, Pan's Labyrinth, Stardust, etc and love things like the classic 1969 Romeo and Juliet and 1939 Wuthering Heights.

Edited by Rosewin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stormcrow

I think you missed the point...

It was to say that Meyer can't write better than a thirteen year old turning in her first draft for an eighth grade English assignment. She isn't original. She can't develop characters. She can't write. She just is not an author. My brother can write better than her, I swear it, and he has a 50% in English. His advantage is he knows what is reality. I don't give a damn if it's fantasy, every ounce of good fantasy has realistic elements.

Edited by Ebonykrow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rosewin
She just is not an author.

I think I love her imagination. Has anyone read her sci-fi book? If it is anything like Crest of the Stars I will so love it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Drago

Actually some still do consider Romeo and Juliet as the epitome of romance. The New Moon story is also loosley based on Romeo and Juliet. I would not want to be with a girl who would not want to die for me without me and vice verse. Yes, very romantic.

Maybe you missed my point. Romeo and Juliet is only nominally a romance. If you look under the surface it's about the rashness, irrationality, rebelliousness and just plain stupidity of youth. Romeo and Juliet barely knew each other. They had not the time to develop the kind of connection that could be called 'love'. What they were feeling was lust. Their feelings were guided by youthful rebellion - they'd been told "You are never to speak to that boy/girl!" so of course the first thing they do is decide they're madly in love and have to run away together.

And then, humor of humors, the boy sees the girl asleep, and his first thought is "She's dead! I have to join her!" Whereupon he does the English version of committing seppuku. Over a girl he barely knew. Over a girl he simply lusted over.

Then the girl wakes up, sees the dead boy, and does the same!

There's nothing truly romantic about this series of events to anyone willing to look deeper than the simple maudlin story used to present the events.

"On the rebound one passes into tears and pathos. Maudlin tears. I almost prefer the moments of agony. These are at least clean and honest. But the bath of self-pity, the wallow, the loathsome sticky-sweet pleasure of indulging it — that disgusts me." - CS Lewis

Romeo and Juliet killed themselves out of a sense of self-pity, not love. They decided they couldn't live without their lust object and took their lives because they were silly children. It's not romantic, it's a morality story - Check to make sure they're actually dead before falling on your own sword.

It would have been a nice story with pixies as well.

I would have preferred pixies. Pixies could have made the story more interesting. The fey need more attention from modern-day writers, and since they aren't used as often, the writer wouldn't be destroying the concept of pixies in using them in such a manner.

I find old fashioned girls, especially that dress in dresses and nice femine clothes (fashionable pants and nicely cut blouses), quite appealing. A dying breed for sure, sadly.

Modern, independent women are fine too if they realize they do not have to lose their womanly charms and grace. Dressing like a guy and worse, acting like one, is sad.

The 1920's had the flappers who were quite modern, and hawt too.

Yeah, I don't think Ebony was referring to the physical look of the 1920s and 30s. In fact I'm fairly sure Ebony meant the mental image of women back then. Subservient to the point of slavishness, bound to the home, raising the kids and cooking the meals and nothing else, because men were the breadwinners because women were inferior. THAT image.

Edited by Drago

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stormcrow

Here's a very small list, 99.9%, of the things that are wrong with Twilight.

Spoiler tag because, despite it being a small list, it is gigantic.

The book views the following as being positive:

- Beauty is what is important. Outer appearance is the only meaningful thing in a human being, personality, opinion, or the makings of the inner mind have nothing to do with friendships or relationships or being human at all. Bella falls "in love" with Edward before she even knows who he is, and becomes utterly obsessed with his physical characteristics. Count how many times his appearance is mentioned in the book. Count how many times his personality--and which traits--are mentioned.

- Arranged "marriages" and child brides (imprinting), or pedophilia. Jacob becomes obsessed with Bella's child to the point of planning his marriage to her even before she is even two years old.

- Controlling behavior. Edward doesn't want or allow Bella to visit her friends or family. For one example, he removes the battery from her car so that she can't.

- Stalking. Bella follows Edward's every move, even though he expresses dislike for her and doesn't want her around. Vise versa, after the relationship is engaged, Edward stalks Bella and breaks into her house to watch her sleep at night without her knowing or consent.

- Teenage pregnancy. Yes, eighteen is still a teenager. "Legal adult" doesn't cut it. Most eighteen year-olds do not have enough worldly experience to take care of a child; let alone the maturity to do so.

- If you are a woman, when you enter a relationship, you must drop everything like it's hot and commit entirely to your relationship. Bella lets go of all of her life's ambitions once she meets Edward. She doesn't plan a career, or go to school; her only interests are Edward and her baby.

A couple of other things that Twilight sees as being big positives in a relationship:

- "Real" men are violent predators that women tempt.

- "Real" men are the decision makers.

- Your husband/boyfriend is worthy of worship.

The book is also very demeaning to women. Women have been viewed as unequal to men for centuries, it wasn't until the 1920s that women were given the right to vote in America. Even today, many women are treated as inferiors. The United States is the only developed nation to have NOT ratified the CEDAW (Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women).

So, all the women out there, let's go ahead and thank Twilight for bringing us back to the 1900s, when women couldn't think or act for themselves. Really, a great round of applause, it deserves it.

- Women are chattel.

- Weakness is prized in women.

- A woman must lessen herself for her spouse.

- A woman does not have a voice in a relationship; all decision making is done by the man.

- Women tend to be taken over by base instincts and it is up to the man to keep her under control. (See the non-sex scenes in the book and movie.)

But what about Meyer herself?

- Meyer is a Mormon, and the book is supposedly mean to teach Mormon beliefs. Somethings appear to be of the Christian faith, but are they all? Not in the least. Most are rather hypocritical. Case in point: Meyer also claims to be anti-human (along with Bella! But that's no surprise), but if this is so, then she is ultimately anti-Jesus and anti-God, as Jesus is human (based on the Old Testament) and God is the creator of the human form. After all, humans were created in His image. Thus, she should either be making a damn good excuse, or she should be excommunicated. It doesn't make sense. How can a Christian be anti-Human...? What is she, pro-Extraterrestrial?

- The book is about Meyer from Meyer's perspective. Meyer is Bella, in every way, shape, and form. Everything from train of thought to appearance, Meyer is Bella. Hell, Meyer even had the dream that caused her to write the books, and anyone taking classes in basic psychology can tell you that dreams are the windows to our subconscious.

- She is a dreadful writer, that can't put words into better phrases than a thirteen year old writing their first short story for English class. Purple prose and lengthy descriptions with repetitive phrases and words are all Twilight is made of. Meyer is not creative, she is not a genius, she is not original. AT ALL. She gives modern day writers a horrible name.

- She can't pick up an Encyclopedia to do simple research. One example of many idiot mistakes: Bella drives her truck on black ice. One, you cannot see black ice (which, in telling from first person, she would have had to have seen it to know it was there at all). Two, you can't drive on black ice...

- Meyer breaks her own rules. Vampires can't have children, but apparently Edward is so amazingly special he can?

- She is a giant, epic crybaby. If she can't handle the criticism, she shouldn't be an author. PERIOD.

On a separate note, I will also add that unlike ANY other book, Twilight does NOT have morals or symbols. This is what makes a book a book. Morals, symbols, learning lessons... books are not really books without them. Meyer has stated plain and clear that Twilight does not have any of those. You really can't argue with this, as it came straight from the horse's mouth. Meyer said it doesn't have life lessons, need I really say more?

---------------------------------------------------

Additionally, here's some awesome crap about vampires.

The term "vampire" was coined by the Christian church in the 17-1800s (possibly in the Balkan region, influenced by the word "vampyr", Slavic. Look it up. I'm not your history teacher). The word was used to by the church to describe a demon. On the rare occasion that a person had sinned, they would return to the living as a vampire as punishment. What was their punishment? The eternal slaying of kin, and the consumption of their blood and flesh.

Additionally, vampires did not have fangs and they did not suck blood. Vampires could be identified by inspecting a recently buried corpse for signs of life. Hair or fingernail growth, blood around the mouth, bloating, or repositioning within the coffin. (All of these are easily explained today as natural processes in decomposition. However, many people were so afraid that corpses were coming back to life that hysteria broke out. Comparable to the witch hunts of the 1700s, graves were eviscerated and corpses mutilated to make sure that they didn't return as vampires.)

A vampire could only be dispatched by burning, or by exposure to a holy relic. The use of garlic was an old belief, where the essence of garlic was used to deter evil spirits.

In some cases, vampires were believed to be spirits, however it's questionable where this particular myth originated. The belief that these vampire spirits did not possess a body led to the myth that they did not have a reflection, did not cast a shadow, and could not be captured on film. Note that these particular myths are not associated with traditional vampyric lore. (So, a vampire does have a reflection, does cast a shadow, and can be captured on film because they do possess a physical body.)

The vampire was, of course, not incorporated into the Bible. Many people use this as an excuse to morph them into whatever they please. However, take into consideration that the seven deadly sins were not either. Based on the idea that if something is not incorporated into the Bible it is not a part of the religion is not an excuse.

Many people believe that God speaks through the church, so the creation of the vampire in this way should not (theoretically) be considered a thought of man himself.

However, research has uncovered the truth of the vampire's creation. During this time people were, if you will, falling out with the church. Temptation was easy to come into, and people were regularly sinning. They stopped going to services and stopped praying. So, what was the church to do? Threaten the community!

We now know that the vampire is, in essence, a scare tactic used on unruly Christians. (This was also true for the myth of middle European werewolves.)

Many movies and novels of the modern era have, I think, purposefully ignored these facts and modeled the vampire into something completely different. Please remember what the vampire IS and what it is not. If only for the sake of everyone else's sanity.

First you demantel and disrespect one portion of one religion, and soon it becomes an all out riot. You ignore one aspect, and it soon becomes clear you can ignore all of the others.

Religion is nothing more than mythology, a foundation for belief and faith. Religion and mythology are, quite frankly, the same thing. To change one is to change the other.

A quick summary for the traditional vampire:

- Vampires are dead. They are purple, bloated, and smelly. They're decaying, so their skin is hanging off their bodies and they, essentially, resemble zombies. They're not cute.

- Vampires have no feeling other than anger, sadness, and vengeance. They cannot love, they cannot befriend something, they cannot feel pity, etc. Their lack of feeling is additional punishment for their sins, so they can only express themselves in a way that is, of course, appropriate for someone who is being punished.

- Vampires do not have fangs. Bram Stoker is guilty for this. Hollywood simply liked the idea.

- Vampires do not have superhuman abilities. They're dead, so clearly, it would be impossible for them to have superhuman strength or anything similar. About the only thing special about them is they are reanimated. Vampires are reanimated through a dark magic thanks to the devil, however, their punishment is not to be spectacularly powerful, immensely handsome, charismatic creatures. Keep that in mind. A vampire is incredibly easy to dispatch, and are extraordinarily weak. Think, zombie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stormcrow

Yeah, I don't think Ebony was referring to the physical look of the 1920s and 30s. In fact I'm fairly sure Ebony meant the mental image of women back then. Subservient to the point of slavishness, bound to the home, raising the kids and cooking the meals and nothing else, because men were the breadwinners because women were inferior. THAT image.

Exactly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rosewin

Maybe you missed my point. Romeo and Juliet is only nominally a romance. If you look under the surface it's about the rashness, irrationality, rebelliousness and just plain stupidity of youth. Romeo and Juliet barely knew each other. They had not the time to develop the kind of connection that could be called 'love'. What they were feeling was lust. Their feelings were guided by youthful rebellion - they'd been told "You are never to speak to that boy/girl!" so of course the first thing they do is decide they're madly in love and have to run away together.

And then, humor of humors, the boy sees the girl asleep, and his first thought is "She's dead! I have to join her!" Whereupon he does the English version of committing seppuku. Over a girl he barely knew. Over a girl he simply lusted over.

Then the girl wakes up, sees the dead boy, and does the same!

There's nothing truly romantic about this series of events to anyone willing to look deeper than the simple maudlin story used to present the events.

"On the rebound one passes into tears and pathos. Maudlin tears. I almost prefer the moments of agony. These are at least clean and honest. But the bath of self-pity, the wallow, the loathsome sticky-sweet pleasure of indulging it — that disgusts me." - CS Lewis

Romeo and Juliet killed themselves out of a sense of self-pity, not love. They decided they couldn't live without their lust object and took their lives because they were silly children. It's not romantic, it's a morality story - Check to make sure they're actually dead before falling on your own sword.

Sadly, you are wrong, that is just one type of love. In fiction it is called courtly love. While this is not the type of love that can be sustained for years after the initial courting, it is definitely something attainable during the early stages, and the willingness to want to die when separated by your lover, the one you have chosen for life, is not some strange concept either.

It is sad some do not find this romantic. It is maybe even sadder that some have never met anyone they would just die if they could not be with, the purpose of living vanishes without the other, you do not have to know someone for a long time for this to develop and after that that feeling will never go away.

I am sure quite a few people have been through this and I definitely know me and my wife tell each other we wish to die at the same time and that we would not want to live without each other. Who knows maybe our grieving period will last longer than others if something terrible occurs but we do know statistics show that when one elderly spouse dies the other usually dies soon after for they do not have the will to live. I want to live and get old and gray with my object of lust and leave the world soon after she does.

I would have preferred pixies. Pixies could have made the story more interesting. The fey need more attention from modern-day writers, and since they aren't used as often, the writer wouldn't be destroying the concept of pixies in using them in such a manner.

The sidhe definitely need more attention. Even so these are my favorite vampires ever. I have not really ever found a type of vampire to like until now. For some reason every other vampire in every other story or piece of film I have encountered I just did not totally love with the exception of the Legacy of Kain video game series and that one movie with the Pink Power Ranger. OK, I lied, Lost Boys.

Yeah, I don't think Ebony was referring to the physical look of the 1920s and 30s. In fact I'm fairly sure Ebony meant the mental image of women back then. Subservient to the point of slavishness, bound to the home, raising the kids and cooking the meals and nothing else, because men were the breadwinners because women were inferior. THAT image.

Well I do not think anyone should be like that either. I do think though that many people are just anti-romance thus anti-Twilight. Tis my 10 year anniversary this month so maybe it is just a romantic time of the year for me =) My wife also loves the idea of the olden times...I still do not believe every women back then was a slave and that true love did not exist then. I am sure it did and in spades.

Edited by Rosewin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stormcrow

Maybe in fiction, but in the real world, it is in fact called "lust".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rosewin

It can be love and you can definitely lust after the one you love. The difference is when you are in lust with someone they looked the best the moment you first met them. When you are in love they look better to you everyday. Nothing wrong with lust either. Me and you baby are nothing but mammals...as the song goes.

Edited by Rosewin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stormcrow

I'm so confused. So after reading Romeo and Juliet (and the overly simplified, dumbed down version Twilight), there's nothing wrong with lusting over a stranger? I mean, ssuuureee, you might commit suicide for them and everything, but in the end, there's nothing wrong with it, right? Yeah. Okay. Makes complete sense to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Drago

There is most definitely something wrong with lust when it leads to a double-suicide. :\

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stormcrow

There is most definitely something wrong with lust when it leads to a double-suicide. :\

not in fiction!!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rosewin

I'm so confused. So after reading Romeo and Juliet (and the overly simplified, dumbed down version Twilight), there's nothing wrong with lusting over a stranger? I mean, ssuuureee, you might commit suicide for them and everything, but in the end, there's nothing wrong with it, right? Yeah. Okay. Makes complete sense to me.

There is most definitely something wrong with lust when it leads to a double-suicide. :\

It was not lust in either Romeo and Juliet or Twilight. It is about love. Maybe not the love some approve of or have every experienced. Love nonetheless.

If you want lust maybe those other vampire movies, shows, and books full of sex scenes? Second movie and still no love scene. I love purity too <3

Edited by Rosewin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stormcrow

Yes. It was about lust. You cannot physically love someone until you actually know who they are. Love comes from the heart. Lust comes from the nether regions that speak for you upon first meeting someone. They say, "HOLY CRAP this person is freaking hot, talk to them," or they say, "OH GOD get away get away get away". Love comes after. Love takes longer than a day to create.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rosewin

Romance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Drago

Sadly, you are wrong, that is just one type of love. In fiction it is called courtly love. While this is not the type of love that can be sustained for years after the initial courting, it is definitely something attainable during the early stages, and the willingness to want to die when separated by your lover, the one you have chosen for life, is not some strange concept either.

It is sad some do not find this romantic. It is maybe even sadder that some have never met anyone they would just die if they could not be with, the purpose of living vanishes without the other, you do not have to know someone for a long time for this to develop and after that that feeling will never go away.

I am sure quite a few people have been through this and I definitely know me and my wife tell each other we wish to die at the same time and that we would not want to live without each other. Who knows maybe our grieving period will last longer than others if something terrible occurs but we do know statistics show that when one elderly spouse dies the other usually dies soon after for they do not have the will to live. I want to live and get old and gray with my object of lust and leave the world soon after she does.

Again, you're missing my point. Romeo and Juliet did not spend time together. Their 'love' was formed over a few minutes furtive whispering and seeing each other distantly in public. Their families were death-feuding, they knew each other only by the 'reputations' their families gave each other as they spat accusations and malice at each other. There was no time for anything but childish rebelliousness leading to simple lust. Courtly love and courting were long, formalized processes - they did not have the time together. Instead they felt a physical attraction to one another that drove their actions and made them act irrationally - in other words, simple lust.

Thinking Romeo and Juliet is 'just a romance' is an insult to Shakespeare. He never wrote a play that was 'just a' anything. He placed lessons and stabs at society in every possible nook and cranny.

And that's perfectly fine that you and your wife say you want to die at the same time. If that's romantic to you, more power to ya. What isn't fine is, say, the two of you deciding to commit suicide together to make SURE you do, or one of you committing suicide if the other dies. That's just unhealthy.

Some of us would prefer our significant other to long outlast us and have a full, fulfilling remaining life should we die. That's another side of romance. I think it's a lot more romantic to see Grandma still cooking for her grandchildren and enjoying her life years after Grandpa's passing than it is to see Grandma and Grandpa in the ground with dark-dressed people standing over them mourning their passing.

Well I do not think anyone should be like that either. I do think though that many people are just anti-romance thus anti-Twilight. Tis my 10 year anniversary this month so maybe it is just a romantic time of the year for me =) My wife also loves the idea of the olden times...I still do not believe every women back then was a slave and that true love did not exist then. I am sure it did and in spades.

Seriously, just because we don't like Twilight we have to be anti-romance? What the Hell? o_0 I'm anti-Twilight because the characters, plot, situations and writing were terrible. I'm anti-Twilight because vampires are one of my favorite supernatural creatures and Rice and Meyer have completely deformed them from total monsters into neurotic obsessive-compulsive humans with powers.

Not because I'm Love-Scrooge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rosewin
neurotic obsessive-compulsive humans

A few of us can relate.

As far as love and whatnot I guess living long after your loved one is another kind of romance...I am also guessing this is harder to put into an interesting story. I doubt this kind of love is stronger than the cannot live without you type. Of course you shall wish your love to live long past you. Of course if your love dies you shall want to die too. This is my view it is fine to have another and neither is wrong as far as I am concerned since not all can love the same.

What isn't fine is, say, the two of you deciding to commit suicide together to make SURE you do, or one of you committing suicide if the other dies. That's just unhealthy.

Committing suicide together is one thing but doing so because you think the other dead is quite romantic. Call it unhealthy but if someone is going to commit suicide over what you call 'lust' and not 'love' then it is likely they have far worse problems in their life that caused them this including lack of support from family and sometimes that is not even enough.

I guess you hated the part in the Last of the Mohicans when Alice jumped to her death off the cliff? It was quite nice I thought.

Romeo and Juliet is still romantic. Regardless of your seemingly overqualified opinion others shall think otherwise.

Edited by Rosewin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Drago

Yes. It was about lust. You cannot physically love someone until you actually know who they are. Love comes from the heart. Lust comes from the nether regions that speak for you upon first meeting someone. They say, "HOLY CRAP this person is freaking hot, talk to them," or they say, "OH GOD get away get away get away". Love comes after. Love takes longer than a day to create.

"Lust takes a glance; Love takes a lifetime."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stormcrow

This topic is going to give me a stress-induced ulcer. ohnoes.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stormcrow

I am also guessing this is harder to put into an interesting story.

I disagree. It's much more compassionate and human--not to mention realistic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HerNibs

"Lust takes a glance; Love takes a lifetime."

:tu::tu::tu:

Perfect.

I find very little romantic in Twilight, New Moon, etc.

Controlling is not romantic. Stalking is not romantic. Lying to your family is not romantic. Being a girl and considered less of a partner in a relationship BECAUSE you are a girl. It isn't nearly as romantic to die for your partner as it is to live with your partner equally.

Married 20+ years. Hubby understands romance. He understands that it begins with honesty and respect.

Neither in Twilight.

Nibs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rosewin
"Lust takes a glance; Love takes a lifetime."

Guess some of you never heard of love at first sight. I am sure it does not exist for all...does not mean what some have is not as real as others. You all act as if people who might have issues cannot love or are not worthy of it. Some just love harder and faster than others. Lots of things happen in love that are not OK but it continues and if you are lucky it gets better and softer as time goes on. Does not mean it is not romantic.

Perfection is only an act. Imperfect love is romantic to me because that is how it works in the real world for many. Living with your partner equally and wanting to die at the same time is way romantic and you can do both. It is not a one or the other type of deal always.

Got with my wife in high school in 1992 when I was 17 and she was 16 and married years later in 1999. Been together since then and our ten year anniversary in like a few days. While it has not been perfect it has and we are learning to treat each other better and better understand each other as the years go by.

Of course I believe in the magic of Twilight. Fast hard crashing love that lasts forever. It is what I most desire and always have.

Edited by Rosewin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy

I'm disappointed in you Sheri!

Twilight was the worst film I have seen in my life, the plot is near none existent, the protagonist has no personality, 1 facial expression and isn't even attractive to make up for it. Bella is superficial, unpleasant and an idiot who is unfriendly to everyone to fawn over a stalker style vampire boyfriend.

Its horrifically bad fan fiction.

Ah! well, sorry Matty, I liked it ...... I guess the love story part got me.. My family teases me mercilessly if that's any consolation to you...:P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Drago

I guess you hated the part in the Last of the Mohicans when Alice jumped to her death off the cliff? It was quite nice I thought.

No. It was a dramatic moment. Neither do I hate Romeo and Juliet; Shakespeare weaves a good tale. I just don't think two people who're practically children acting immaturely and killing themselves over a misunderstanding is romantic. I think it's a rather pointed lesson aimed at people who of course never got the lesson because they were too busy finding the whole thing dreadfully romantic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rosewin

No. It was a dramatic moment. Neither do I hate Romeo and Juliet; Shakespeare weaves a good tale. I just don't think two people who're practically children acting immaturely and killing themselves over a misunderstanding is romantic. I think it's a rather pointed lesson aimed at people who of course never got the lesson because they were too busy finding the whole thing dreadfully romantic.

We have loved Romeo and Juliet since middle school. I am sure you have a greater grasp of the play itself and your appreciation and understanding might be sadly lost on me :/

Claire Danes as Juliet <3

Though the 1969 version is way better and first seen.

Edited by Rosewin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.