Please visit the new home of Majikthise at bigthink.com/blogs/focal-point.

« Leopard claws | Main | Morning Coffee - 23 June 2009 »

June 22, 2009

Take that, Twilight

Buffy the Vampire Slayer takes on creepy Edward Cullen the panty-sniffing vampire from Twilight in this mashup by Rebellious Pixels. Pure genius. This clip encapsulates everything that's awesome about Buffy and everything that's wrong with Twilight.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c61e653ef01157140dbe0970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Take that, Twilight:

Comments

Twilight is one of the worst movies I've ever seen. It should have just been a CW made for TV movie.

If you want a great new vampire movie, see the Swedish movie "Let the Right One In".

LISANOVA does TWILIGHT

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLqNjlx6-MM

Edward Played By: LisaNova

Bella Played By: Ceciley Jenkins

Well, that's just the coolest thing ever.

Cute! He could sniff my panties anytime! He doesn't do that though!

Lindsay Beyerstein -

I haven't read any Twilight books and I haven't seen the movie.

What makes Edward Cullen "panty-sniffing"?

Edward the vampire is attracted to Bella the otherwise unremarkable human because she smells irresistible to him. Smell is one of Twilight's main metaphors for forbidden sexual attraction.

Hmm

That is one large-sized clip --sharp-- not youtube -- who did that? Who is Rebellious Pixels?

Do we know how he smells to her? Is that even supposed to matter?

I don't think we know learn exactly what Bella smells like to Edward (i.e., it's probably not spelled out that she smells time him like a juicy steak or warm blankets from a dryer or freshly baked cookies, O positive blood, or whatever).

We're told over and over that he finds whatever her smell is to be irresistibly desirable--because he longs to feed on her blood, even though he's an ethical vampire who has chosen not to feed on humans anymore.

Sorry, that was one of those "how does your dog smell" moments... I was wondering if *he* has any observable smell to her (you know, other than the usual gamut for teen boys... unshowered/too much Ax/old gym shoes...)or whether it is considered enough for teen girls to be the objects (and not the instigators) of passion.

twilight was awesome.. especially the books. dont hate.

Pregnancy -

The mashup isn't by Lindsay Beyerstein. It's by Rebellious Pixels aka Jonathan McIntosh.

Bleagh. neither character appeals to me much. I had friends who liked Buffy, I guess the premise doesn't resonate with me. Anyway the dialogue between these two people seems to imply a life or death conflict about connection. About how obsession is criminalized. Or a male attribute.

Obsession is a mental disability and afflicts all humans not one sex. So the mashup line about obsession as criminal equates to a larger social rule about disability makes people criminal. Or other. Crazy people deserve what they get so to speak.

What is abuse structure in society? How do people hurt and inflict pain on others? The work place is supposed to legally protect people against abuse. That's what twist our society. Real abuse as opposed to pretend abuse like vampires is re-enforced and made significant. Such as the ever present cop show, or military ethos for resolving social problems. Cops shoot to kill for real, and our military kills hundreds of thousands in the name of our empire but that is not abuse?

All this runs through my mind looking at this mashup.

The mashup doesn't imply that obsession is an exclusively male attribute.

Obsession isn't necessarily a disability or an illness, though it can be a feature of some disorders.

Besides, Buffy doesn't kill Edward to punish him because he's obsessed with her. She kills him because it's her mission in life to kill vampires (and her obsession). Vampires in Buffy's world are generally evil parasites that oppress humanity, but they are not necessarily any crazier than anyone else.

The point of the mashup is to satirize the rather creepy premise of Twilight--that stalkerish obsession is normal and even romantic.

Reminds me. One of these days I have to remember to pick the T-shirt that states "and then buffy staked edward. the end". BTVS had its angsty teen moments, but was never anywhere near as insipid as Twighlight. Clever, snappy dialogue was its calling card. Dumb on down, you're the next contestant on the price is shite!

Anyway the dialogue between these two people seems to imply a life or death conflict about connection. About how obsession is criminalized. Or a male attribute.

Obsession is criminalized? I think you're confusing it with stalking, which is a behavior, as opposed to a mental or emotional state. (And actually, most of the things stalkers do still fall within the range of what's legal, or just slightly illegal in most states.) Most of us have been obsessed with another person at some point, but we don't have the sense of entitlement that our feelings must be reciprocated, and we don't, correspondingly, feel the need or license to terrorize and control the person we're obsessed with. That's stalking. And while it is much more common in men than women, more to the point is the way its usually handled in pop culture: female stalkers belong exclusively to the horror movie, while male stalking is often portrayed as something romantic, flattering to the victim, and completely within the bounds of normal lovesick behavior.

Both "Pregnancy" and "lida" above are spammers trying to drive up page rankings.

And Twilight sucks, but then again, so does Buffy (the TV Show - the movie rocked).

New Buffy movie IS coming out, and Joss Whedon isn't involved. It'll probably still be better than Twilight. No Cullen though...

According to Edward, Bella's blood smells like freesia and lavender. You, too, can smell like Bella with the official Twilight Perfume.

The most important difference between Twilight and Buffy is that, in Joss Whedon's version of things, the female lead actually does something rather than being gooey-eyed in love and totally helpless?

That seems like an important distinction to me and it's largely the reason that I'd let my daughter watch Buffy anytime and actively disdain the Twilight franchise despite everyone's insistence that Twilight is somehow more wholesome.

Cass writes;
Obsession is criminalized? I think you're confusing it with stalking, which is a behavior, as opposed to a mental or emotional state.

Doyle;
Getting court intervention in stalking cases is criminalizing obsession pure and simple.

Cass writes;
Most of us have been obsessed with another person at some point, but we don't have the sense of entitlement that our feelings must be reciprocated, and we don't, correspondingly, feel the need or license to terrorize and control the person we're obsessed with.

Doyle;
True enough most of us control ourselves. And some can't. Further romantic love is the main criteria of sexual connection in a legal sense in the U.S. That is also a common source of obsessive behavior in the public. Which rather than be able to examine the premise of romantic love as open to abuse, obsession is blamed. Obsessed people do not define the social mores. Their well being is sacrificed for an unrealistic social order.

this clip looks really stupid..there's no way i'd spend $$ to see it. the only thing i really, really, REALLY liked was Edward's eyes...whoa..they blew me away!..ohh yeah, that stare.. lol

this is just about the best thing I have ever seen on the Web. Thanks, Rebellious Pixels.

...And Twilight sucks, but then again, so does Buffy (the TV Show - the movie rocked)...

Oh, togolosh. I, too, once believed this (re: Buffy; Twilight can kiss my ass) to be true and resisted the TV show for years. Nothing can touch Donald Sutherland's Giles or Paul Reubens' death scene, but the show is a whole different thing and is, in fact, genius. Consider them as two entirely separate things which happen to share a title (and perhaps start with season 2; season 1 is the weakest), and you, too, can become one of the Joss Wheadon-worshipping hordes. (Seriously, I tried really hard to resist.)

Getting court intervention in stalking cases is criminalizing obsession pure and simple.

Crap. It's criminalizing terrorizing someone else by violating their privacy and behaving threateningly because of your obsession.

Obsessed people do not define the social mores. Their well being is sacrificed for an unrealistic social order.

No, their wish-fulfillment is sacrificed for their victims' well-being. Your stalking-apologetics are reprehensible and foolish.

And obsessed people DO damn well define the social mores. They are usually much more powerful than their victims and their vision of what "love" is dominates pop culture.

The comments to this entry are closed.