Is "glitteriness" a word? I don't think so. Oh well. My wife decided to do a rewatch of the Twilight movies before Breaking Dawn part 1 comes out, so I decided to watch it with her. I do this only to be able to mock it properly when people talk about it. I was wondering if there was any reason whatsoever to make the vampires glitter in sunlight instead of burning up like regular vampires. Is there a scene in the books where a vampire HAS to be out in the sun without burning to a smoldering pile of ashes? The glitteriness is stupid, but if it's EXTREMELY necessary then I'll kind of accept it for the story. Of course, the author shouldn't have needed to make something really stupid like that up to deal with a writing issue, IMO.
I guess there's really two questions here - why they survive/aren't hurt by direct sunlight, and why they sparkle instead. The former is just a decision Meyer made, I guess, to make her vampires less obviously vulnerable, and to make human interaction with them somewhat easier. Her vampires are supposed to be virtually unkillable except by other vampires (or werewolves) - and as a result are not in the least afraid of humans, under any circumstances, nor afraid to venture outside in the daytime.
But then of course there has to be something explaining the paleness and disinclination to walk in sunlight - leave those two things out and you can really barely call them vampires anymore. And that's where the sparkling comes in - walking in sunlight doesn't hurt them, but it draws a lot of (usually) unwanted attention.
As for Breaking Dawn part 1, the first half of that book was hilarious, mostly for being so outrageously absurd. I rather hope the movie will follow that pattern, but I'm afraid it won't, and that they'll try to work in some "cliffhangers" involving the immensely boring plot of the second half. Still, it should be the most entertaining movie of the series, if they don't mess it up too badly. I kind of want to see it.
Twilight Glitteriness.
- 06/11/2011 02:55:22 PM
1001 Views