It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Abducted - new Taylor Laughtner movie

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by Gazrok
 


Its just the teen version of true blood + sparkles.


Wouldn't True Blood be the adult version of Twilight - sparkles? Correct me if I'm wrong since I don't watch or read either respectively. But didn't the whole Twilight rage make way for true blood and the other shows/movies of its ilk?

It may seem like a minor quibble in semantics but I think True Blood is based or at least draws a bit from the Twilight well. Definitely not the other way around.




posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Neysa
reply to post by Gazrok
 

You are so right!
Who cares if he can act? Can you say Eye Candy?
I am thinking that most of you did not complain about the acting on Baywatch. Am I right?


I did yes. Well, as I got older, when it first aired originally I was young and nowhere near my teens so I ignored it for being a bad show (I was a smart kid lol)

And yeah, Megan Fox is hot but I hate her horrible acting so I avoid anything featuring her if possible. Eye candy with talent, I'll go with that. Someone used just for their looks? No thanks.

Now while I'm not gay or bisexual, I can appreciate when a guy is good looking (Johnny Depp, Maksim from DWTS, WWE wrestler John Morrison, Chris Hemsworth for example) but Taylor Lautner......he looks exactly like a Mormon guy I knew in college and nobody thought he was particularly attractive.

Is it the fact Taylor has abs or do people look at his expressionless face that looks like he was carved out of wood and sometimes talks to a grasshopper in a top hat?

I can imagine the movie doing well despite the really poor reviews because certain types in society buy tickets based on how damp their panties are but then again, who knows. I mean, a stinker of a movie like 300 and its parody Meet The Spartans were both box office gold somehow so what do I know?

Taylor was a horrible child actor in one of the Spy Kids movies and he's apparently still just as bad now. He's on a par with Daniel Radcliffe as far as acting, only difference is Daniel was the lead in a series of films based on books that people have heard of that had an abundance of great acting talent to make up for the fact that Radcliffe was and still is a personality black hole that can't act to save his life.

Taylor has.....what? One or two great actors stuck in a stinker of a series alongside a woman whose facial expression never changes and another who looks and acts like he's perpetually deceased even off screen (which is ironic since R-Patz had his best role when he was killed off in Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire as Cedric Diggory)



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by curious7
since R-Patz had his best role when he was killed off in Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire as Cedric Diggory


I agree with you on this. He was OURS (HP fans) and now he's theirs **points to Twilight fans**. I don't blame the people who made the Twilight movies, though, the books they based the movies on aren't exactly literary masterpieces


edit on 27-9-2011 by Casandra because: Spelling



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 08:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Casandra

Originally posted by curious7
since R-Patz had his best role when he was killed off in Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire as Cedric Diggory


I agree with you on this. He was OURS (HP fans) and now he's theirs **points to Twilight fans**. I don't blame the people who made the Twilight movies, though, the books they based the movies on aren't exactly literary masterpieces


edit on 27-9-2011 by Casandra because: Spelling


Well when even the mighty Stephen King calls the Twilight books "some of the worst and most shoddiest pieces of literature I've ever had the misfortune of reading" (total paraphrase, forget his actual words) and pretty much hints that they're a blight on the world of writing, you know you have something horrible on your hands.

Stephanie Meyers' vampires can't go outside in daylight or they'll glow and make them stand out? How terrible is that? What next, werewolves who walk around in human form without shirts on? Oh....



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 08:27 PM
link   
reply to post by curious7
 


Actualy, I think it's said in the books that they are not real werewolves, but shapeshifters.


"So there are real werewolves?" I asked. "With the full moon and silver bullets and all that?" Jacob snorted. "Real. Does that make me imaginary?"

Bella Cullen and Jacob Black, p. 745


Source

So not only do they have sparkly vampires, but also fake werewolves.



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 04:55 PM
link   
reply to post by FEDec
 


True Blood is DEFINITELY not Twilight.

The vampires in True Blood are vicious, for the most part, and the sex and violence would make the sparkly vamps in Twilight pee their pants.

Twilight is retarded for so many reasons, but the primary one being that if all that happened in sunlight is that they "sparkled", then there'd have been NOTHING to stop them from completely taking over the world in the past. The sun weakness is the primary check and balance. To take that away, makes your mythos completely unbelievable and implausible (as if vampires weren't already).....

Those movies were all but unwatchable. I saw them all on disc, and because my wife said I'd probably actually like them... I went into it with an open mind, but ughh...were they BORING....


edit on 29-9-2011 by Gazrok because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 12:04 PM
link   
reply to post by nixie_nox
 


Nah, he just has the look of someone who struggles with his weight alot...



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join