when vampires attack!

posts about #whenvampiresattack more →
Why Is Entertainment Weekly So In The Tank For Twilight?

Your version of Internet Explorer is not supported. Please upgrade to the most recent version in order to view comments.

Dsmvwl Admin Promote to frontpage Approve user Ban user ×

sunny_d
11/14/08

In reply to Why Is Entertainment Weekly So In The Tank For Twilight?
Isn't this just a lame ripoff of Buffy for people who don't like self-referential irony, allegorical subtext and pop-cultural in-gags (ie dicks)?

Joss Whedon would sue, if he wasn't so busy laughing his ass off.
Reply

sunny_d was starred sunny_d was unstarred

TheUptightMidwesterner
11/14/08

@sunny_d: I kind of agree. It is Buffy/Angel for the promise ring set.
Reply

ObtuseIntolerant
11/14/08

In reply to Why Is Entertainment Weekly So In The Tank For Twilight?
I think the books are terrible...am I the only one?

They are pretty much fanfiction...

I am just a killjoy aren't I?

Well here's one vagina that is thoroughly OUT of the Twilight game. I guess I'm more "tween" than "teen".
Reply

ObtuseIntolerant was starred ObtuseIntolerant was unstarred

Limecrete
11/14/08

In reply to Why Is Entertainment Weekly So In The Tank For Twilight?
It gets worse. Not only does EW fawn over Twilight in that November 14 issue (I mean, I assume they fawn - I didn't actually read the damn thing), but the article is sandwiched between Diablo Cody's column about the new 90210 and a two-page article on One Tree Hill. It's like they're slowly morphing into Tiger Beat. I guess we should start looking forward to the Jonas Brothers pin-up pics next week.
Reply

Limecrete was starred Limecrete was unstarred

ObtuseIntolerant
11/14/08

@Limecrete: Uh, except the Jonas Brothers DON'T suck like all that other stuff, sorry, duh. (Well performing they are awesome...their Tiger Beat pictures are admittedly pretty nast.)
Reply

ObtuseIntolerant was starred ObtuseIntolerant was unstarred

Steverino Begins
11/13/08

In reply to Why Is Entertainment Weekly So In The Tank For Twilight?
EW is like Hillary Clinton in May 2008, desperately trying to latch onto any constituency that will keep them alive. Vampire-loving 12-year olds will do in this case, I guess.
Reply

Steverino Begins was starred Steverino Begins was unstarred

onehotmess
11/13/08

In reply to Why Is Entertainment Weekly So In The Tank For Twilight?
i read all FOUR of these books in like a 2 week period (no, i didnt have a social life for that entire time, if thats what youre wondering...) and i must say, i fell in love with edward.
im ashamed.
but i want to have sexy times with robert pattinson. damn hes hot.
Reply

onehotmess was starred onehotmess was unstarred

minou
11/13/08

In reply to Why Is Entertainment Weekly So In The Tank For Twilight?
I have never read any of the Harry Potter books, nor have I seen any of the movies. Mostly, of course, to prove that I don't have to. I plan to do the same with this series. There's only one problem: I like vampires. So it's gonna be tough and I may need a sponsor.
Reply

minou was starred minou was unstarred

Smackdown
11/13/08

In reply to Why Is Entertainment Weekly So In The Tank For Twilight?
I was talking to my sister about these night before last and trying to get her to explain the appeal since she's read them and her kids like them.

She began telling me what they were about and how the chick lead is a simpering needy whiner and I heard my 13-year-old nephew start yelling at her in the background how she was "misrepresenting" the books and that it wasn't fair for her to tell me about them, because I needed to read them myself to form an opinion. He sounded like he was being personally insulted by her critiques.

This movie is gonna be huge.
Reply

Smackdown was starred Smackdown was unstarred

Cheap Shot
11/13/08

In reply to Why Is Entertainment Weekly So In The Tank For Twilight?
I can't understand why there isn't another type of Entertainment Weekly. I used to actually read that crappy magazine. The music section improved but the rest is more advertising as editorial for studios.

My friend swears that HBO's True Blood is a vehicle to turn young women into bi-sexuals. I question her sanity.
Reply

Cheap Shot was starred Cheap Shot was unstarred

xxlobster
11/13/08

In reply to Why Is Entertainment Weekly So In The Tank For Twilight?
I don't care if this gets me executed, but these books are damn good. And sexy. Though for those of you who have read the fourth book: I wonder how many Twilight-themed weddings we'll see in the years to come? Bejesus, I'd love to be present at one of those.
Reply

xxlobster was starred xxlobster was unstarred

Mary Mouse
11/13/08

@xxlobster: ZOMG SPOILER ALERT! I'm still on the first one!!

I'm totally enjoying it, given that I am the very definition of a sad lady shut-in, and I love me some neck-biting.
Reply

Mary Mouse was starred Mary Mouse was unstarred

llamalash★
11/13/08

In reply to Why Is Entertainment Weekly So In The Tank For Twilight?
My 12 year old daughter is obsessed with the books. Then I read on here from other commenters that there are no strong female leads, which makes me think I'm going to have to break down and read the damn things myself. But, with this movie, it may just be 2 hours out of my life instead of a week!
Reply

llamalash★ was starred llamalash★ was unstarred

Sulky Girl
11/13/08

@llamalash: Some obsessed friends insisted that I read these after I made countless "teen vampire" jokes. I tried. I absolutely hated the 1st book & didn't finish it. I wanted the female narrator to go ahead and die. She was totally passive. Also, what the hell kind of shitty immortality is it to have to go to high school again & again & again?

Things I like: vampires

Things I don't like: books written in the first person, teens, pulp romance, teen pulp romance.
Reply

Sulky Girl was starred Sulky Girl was unstarred

emilyanne
11/13/08

@llamalash: there really are no strong female leads. I had to read the first two to write a piece and I have serious problems with them, not least with the fact that the heroine essentially desires only to have the heroes undead vampire baby even though it will probably kill her. Then again when I was your daughter's age I was reading VC Andrews and these books are nowhere near as a crazy or effed up as My Sweet Audrina.
Reply

emilyanne was starred emilyanne was unstarred

Meggers
11/13/08

@emilyanne: I got sucked into the V.C. Andrews books in 8th grade, I have been hooked on crap books ever since.
Reply

Meggers was starred Meggers was unstarred

emilyanne
11/13/08

@Meggers: yeah me tool. I try and balance it out with the good stuff but trash fiction is pure crack to me. And trash tv, this is why I can not break my Gossip Girl addiction either.
Reply

emilyanne was starred emilyanne was unstarred

emilyanne
11/13/08

@emilyanne: me too. Not me tool. Although I suppose me tool as well.
Reply

emilyanne was starred emilyanne was unstarred

Spirit Fingers
11/13/08

In reply to Why Is Entertainment Weekly So In The Tank For Twilight?
Am I the only one predicting major suckage for this flick? I'm a vamp movie connoisseur, and this my friends, is going to be ass-chapingly hard to sit through. It already looks like that other suck-filled movie about the boy witches...what was it called, The Covenant, right? Yeah, well, let us not forget that the belle of this suck-ball, Stewart was in another supernatural farce called The Messengers (Why, Dylan McDermott, why?) so I have absolutely no faith in this Harry-Potter-for-VampireVirgins movie.

Bring on Laurell K. Hamilton's Anita Blake series, if she's gotten her head out of her non-thinking place, and decided to pen a good script.
Reply

Spirit Fingers was starred Spirit Fingers was unstarred

BK_KT
11/13/08

@Spirit Fingers: I think this movie could go either way. I think Pattinson and Stewart are perfectly cast, but the rest of the cast and their bad dye-jobs, and the cheeserifficly bad promo photos on imdb have me worried...
Reply

BK_KT was starred BK_KT was unstarred

the supergoddess
11/13/08

In reply to Why Is Entertainment Weekly So In The Tank For Twilight?
Are they just a bunch of vamp-obsessed nerds?

Actually yes that's exactly it.
Reply

the supergoddess was starred the supergoddess was unstarred

BK_KT
11/13/08

@the supergoddess: Vampires are so hot right now! Have you been to the teen section at a Barnes and Noble? Geez!
Reply

BK_KT was starred BK_KT was unstarred

whoneedslight
11/13/08

In reply to Why Is Entertainment Weekly So In The Tank For Twilight?
Wait, there's no sex?
Reply

whoneedslight was starred whoneedslight was unstarred

Mount_Prion
11/13/08

@whoneedslight: All the penetration happens via neck.
Reply

Mount_Prion was starred Mount_Prion was unstarred

PrincessKashmir
11/13/08

In reply to Why Is Entertainment Weekly So In The Tank For Twilight?
I'd be a lot more interested if the dude who played Logan on Veronica Mars played Edward. Or Joshua Jackson. Or the guy who plays Sawyer on Lost.

Dammit, this post opened the floodgates!
Reply

PrincessKashmir was starred PrincessKashmir was unstarred

Tammany_Fall
11/13/08

@PrincessKashmir: Where IS Joshua Jackson, that tasty D-Creek Treat?
Reply

Tammany_Fall was starred Tammany_Fall was unstarred

violettefay
11/13/08

@Tammany_Fall: He's on Fringe! It's like being 15 again...he even gets to say all the sassy lines.
Reply

violettefay was starred violettefay was unstarred

Tammany_Fall
11/13/08

In reply to Why Is Entertainment Weekly So In The Tank For Twilight?
Anyone know her position on Proposition 8? Whoever heard of a homophobic vampire?
Reply

Tammany_Fall was starred Tammany_Fall was unstarred

morninggloria
11/13/08

@Tammany_Fall: She's in favor of neck sucking, but not cock sucking.
Reply

morninggloria was starred morninggloria was unstarred

Earlier discussions Other discussions Show all discussions Show featured discussions only Start a new discussion

#whenvampiresattack

Gawker

SUBSCRIBE TO Gawker

Why Is Entertainment Weekly So In The Tank For Twilight?

Login

Reset Password

Register

Submit Your Comment