Did you know that it's the same guy that played Cedric Diggory? I'm not getting the "overwhelmingly handsome" thing from him. The casting for the movie is terrible. Much like the writing.
Actually, I think the choice of him as Edward is perfect- knowing how bad the books sucked, he still managed to act in it. (Not that I've read the books (bar about half the first) or seen the movie- just that anyone who can still do something they're aware is sucky has got balls.)
How do you know he's aware that it's sucky? No matter how bad the movie is, it'll still be huge because of the Twilight mega-fanbase. It doesn't have to do with having balls, but it was a smart decision on his part because the movie will make buckets of money.
But I'm basing this off the idea that I know my tastes have changed dramatically over past ten years. This is such an embarrassing example to use, because it makes me sound like a crazy person, but here we go: When I was 14-16, I thought Davy was the cutest Monkee. British charm, puppy-dog eyes, crazy unibrow (this is not something I noticed at the time, but it REALLY bothers me now) and a snappy dresser. But now, at my ripe old age of 24, I think Mike is the cutest Monkee. Because he's tall and got great cheekbones and Texan. Southern is hot. I use this example because the Monkees on my DVDs haven't aged or changed at all. Those TV episodes from the 1960s are exactly the same as they've ever been. But I have grown up, and I have changed, and I no longer see things the way my younger self did. So I'm wondering if my 14 year old self would "get" the Pattison hots, but my 24 year old self just can't see it anymore.
Lots of words, don't think I actually said anything of substance. Oh
I get what you're saying. Maybe our adolescent selves might find him attractive... I was pretty silly at 14 (back in the Nsync Backstreet Boys days! how embarrassing), but I think devastatingly handsomeness should transcend age barriers.
At any rate, we should go see the movie and mock it together.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Maybe we don't get the devastating handsomeness because we're too old? I mean, he's like 16 or something in the books, right?
Reply
Technically in the books he's like 100 =) But I don't think us being old should have an affect our ability to judge attractiveness.
Reply
But I'm basing this off the idea that I know my tastes have changed dramatically over past ten years. This is such an embarrassing example to use, because it makes me sound like a crazy person, but here we go: When I was 14-16, I thought Davy was the cutest Monkee. British charm, puppy-dog eyes, crazy unibrow (this is not something I noticed at the time, but it REALLY bothers me now) and a snappy dresser. But now, at my ripe old age of 24, I think Mike is the cutest Monkee. Because he's tall and got great cheekbones and Texan. Southern is hot.
I use this example because the Monkees on my DVDs haven't aged or changed at all. Those TV episodes from the 1960s are exactly the same as they've ever been. But I have grown up, and I have changed, and I no longer see things the way my younger self did. So I'm wondering if my 14 year old self would "get" the Pattison hots, but my 24 year old self just can't see it anymore.
Lots of words, don't think I actually said anything of substance. Oh
Reply
At any rate, we should go see the movie and mock it together.
Reply
(The correct answer is YES. Be in town that Friday!)
Reply
Leave a comment