MemeWatch: The Twilight Backlash

Ah yes, the backlash. The movement-ized rejection of something that has already achieved great cultural popularity. The backlash as a phenomenon predates the internet... I'm sure there were plenty of people who thought that "Gone With the Wind" wasn't, y'know, that great, but the instantaneous, interactive nature of it has allowed backlashes to gain a much higher level of notoriety. If a huge cultural phenomenon isn't quite up to snuff these days, a backlash is all but inevitable. (the wikipedia article on "backlash" can be found here)

The new film "Twilight" had a better first day on Friday than either "Quantum of Solace" or the most recent Indiana Jones film. It's less than all but one of the Harry Potter movies, and not even close to what "The Dark Knight" did earlier this year, but it's still far and away the most successful opening for a movie directed by a woman (Catherine Hardwicke). For those who have been either living under a rock or in a completely teenage girl-free evironment, "Twilight" is the first in an incredibly popular series of books by Stephenie Meyer that center around the passionate-but-chaste romance of a high school everygirl, Bella Swan, and a particularly hunky vampire, Edward Cullen, mostly set in a small town in Washington state. The thing about "Twilight" that has struck me the most is that the backlash was in full swing before the "frontlash" was even really up to speed. This backlash has the most lash I've ever seen. Okay, I'll stop that now.

I'll be honest here. I haven't read any of the Twilight books, and I almost certainly won't see the movie until it shows up the discount theater, if at all. I know more than one person whose opinion I trust who absolutely loves them. But the critical consensus seems to be one of understanding-at-best (There seem to be two types of reviews, ones that talk about how it might appeal to teen girls and ignore the actual quality and those that are critical of the actual quality), and the internet... well, the internet does not seem to be willing to tolerate it.

A big part of this, I think, is that the Twilight fandom (my favorite term I've seen so far is "Twi-hards") is almost entirely female. It consists of teen girls, from tweens to college age, along with a decent sampling of their moms, the sort who like romance novels. I like to fancy myself a bit of a geek anthropologist, so to speak. I enjoy the inner workings of various fandoms, even for works I myself am not that into. And this is perhaps the most monolithic major geek fandom I've ever seen. Even "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" and "Xena: Warrior Princess", probably the two most female skewing of the major geek fandoms I've previously looked at, had fairly large male bases, as well. This shows it's not just the female protagonist that's at issue, it's the content. "Xena" was an action show at heart, and "Buffy" was at such a high level of quality that it attracted connoisseurs of all types... plus there was karate and stuff. "Twilight" is a romance, through and through.

Also at issue is how good it really is. Twilight is often compared to the Harry Potter novels, another fandom based on a YA book series that seems to have at least slightly more girls than guys. But general consensus seems to be that the Twilight series isn't even in the same league ("USA Today" was roundly mocked for making the suggestion this week). I've never been afraid to criticize JK Rowling's prose, and "Deathly Hollows" drags way too much for what it is, but Rowling does have an intuitive grasp of how to build excitement and when things are happening in the Potter novels, there's nothing like it. As the backlashers are quick to point out, Meyer's prose has at least as many issues, her content has a strong potential to be laughable, and the plot of "Twilight" doesn't really get going until at least 300 pages into the book (It apparently takes over 200 for Bella just to realize that Edward is a vampire). The Harry Potter books and films have, for the most part, manages to avoid a full-fledged backlash despite their gargatuan popularity because most people who read them are hooked.

Let's take a look at other recent phenomena:
-"Star Wars" eventually created its own backlash with the terrible "prequel" movies. I had a friend who at one point was a hardcore Star Wars guy, but mostly dropped it circa "Attack of the Clones" when he "found out that Jar-Jar Binks created the Empire." Many universes grow richer with continued exploration... Star Wars, not so much. The Spider-Man film series probably also fits this model, as it was riding high after the first two films and nearly completely destroyed its own fandom with the failure of the climactic third film.
-"Star Trek" did get richer with continued exploration, but eventually seemed to run its course. The times, it seemed, had passed the mostly-utopian future it depicted by. Plus there was a lot of mismanagement by Paramount... "Enterprise" would sputter on for a few more strange seasons, but the "Trek" franchise as we knew it seemed to end when "Nemesis" opened opposite a Harry Potter film and tanked. People didn't hate "Trek", they just weren't huge fans. But now the new trailer for the JJ Abrams "Star Trek" film has gotten startling buzz, and it's like the franchise never went away.
-"Lord of the Rings" has its detractors, but the books, and especially the films are so seminal and high-quality that there doesn't seem to have been much of a backlash, at least not within the fandom community.
-"Buffy" and "Battlestar Galactica" are probably representative a group of works that were never quite popular enough to create a backlash, but attracted a strong, loyal following due to their high quality. Both have large numbers of online fans who insist that they should be considered for the best TV series of all time... period, and are very influential within the current "geek" community. But they remain relatively lesser known in the world-at-large, and that seems to have helped.
-"Firefly"'s hardcore fans created their own backlash, not the work itself. It would probably be in the above group, except for the fact that an early cancellation created a strong evangelical streak in the fandom. This got them "Serenity", as well as several comic book miniseries, but it also resulted in everyone else on the internet getting really annoyed.
-"The Dark Knight" is probably the biggest geek phenomenon of this year so far, even more so than "Twilight". At first it appeared it might be among that elite that is so good it's just impossible to hate. But as people thought about it more, and it became even more widely seen, it began to be criticized for its relentless gloom. It's a great movie, but the staying power is in question. It recently showed up at our local discount theater, and I haven't gone to see it again yet, and I'm not sure I will until it shows up on DVD.
-"Pirates of the Caribbean" was totally unexpected, and was driven, yes, by young women. Guys liked pirates in the same way they like ninjas and zombies and all those things, but it was hard for them to participate in a fandom where the main debate was immediately whether Depp or Bloom was cuter. Then the second two movies had interesting bits but were overlong and all over the place, and the fandom did not appear to withstand the backlash. Comparable might be "Transformers", which came out of nowhere with a movie (by Michael Bay!) that was really hard not to like. And, Megan Fox and all, it seems to be more male-skewing. But it has the strong potential to have that luster taken off by subsequent sequels, we'll see.

These, of course, are only some of the geek-related examples recently ("Doctor Who" may have so far miraculously managed to be the most backlash-free of all). There have of course been many other kinds of backlashes, but this is where I like to think my "area of expertise" lies. ;) So "Twilight" has the disadvantage of being a female-oriented fandom based on material that already seems to be showing cracks. io9 has been nice enough to round-up some of the most blatant and hilarious examples of recent online "Twilight"-bashing here. Whatever side you're on, this should be good for a laugh. It certainly cracked me up.

TV Is Back: My Own Worst Enemy & Crusoe

Oh, NBC, there was a time when you were the most exciting channel on TV. That's still true to a certain extent. You have "30 Rock," and "The Office," which are far and away TV's two best live-action comedies. You have "Heroes," for whatever it's worth (given the current popularity of super heroes, imagine how many people would watch it if it was GOOD), and "Chuck," which is still so much fun, even if no one's really watching. You have "Saturday Night Live," which isn't as biting as "The Daily Show" these days but has its own loopy place (McCain: "Sen. Obama, my invisible friend Simon can't be appointed to the Cabinet. He's a Unicorn. I think you know that.").

But now you've put out an entire new slate of shows, and every single one of them's a dud, without exception. "Knight Rider" is incredibly awful, and I ended up watching most of the last ten minutes of "Kath & Kim" the other night against my will and there wasn't a single laugh in that entire time. This week came the debuts of "My Own Worst Enemy" and "Crusoe".

"My Own Worst Enemy" is, as a concept, about identity. It's billed as a sort of modern-day Jekyll & Hyde story mixed with James Bond. That probably sounds good to you, but the show simply fails to deliver. Its biggest problem is that it's hard to tell its Jekyll from its Hyde. This is a show whose fundamental premise is that two distinct personalities share one body, that of (very) poor-man's Tom Cruise, Christian Slater. One is supposed to be a cool, dark secret agent who can kill people with his feet, and the other is a normal guy who works in an office. But we're not left thinking the two of them are that different, which is fatal.

The first problem is that Slater is horribly miscast. Some actors could have a field day with dual role. Slater is definitely not one of them. As a secret agent he's stoic, and as a regular guy he's... pretty stoic, actually. He's not really capable of anything else. When he figures out he's two different people, he seems mildly perturbed. Then there's the other issue, which is that the normal guy's life is actual a very Hollywood version of a normal guy's life, which makes it almost as glamorous as secret agent guy's. Secret Agent Guy sleeps with hot women, Normal Guy sleeps with his hot wife. Secret Agent Guy drives a cool new sports car. Normal Guy drives... a cool new car given to us by our friends in the product placement department. Secret Agent Guy hangs out in spectacular hotel rooms. Normal Guy hangs out in... a spectacularly large, nice house.

I am normally good with suspension of disbelief. You want me to believe that we're on the rings of Saturn fighting the aliens with laser beams coming from the eyes of the space whale we're riding, I'm good with that. But I need the actions of characters and groups within the story to make sense. The explanation of why our Secret Agency would go through all the trouble of creating Double Personality Action Christian Slater isn't really there here. And without any basis in reality, we're left with nothing but Christian Slater failing to give us two separate people.

On to "Crusoe," which was probably the best of the NBC bunch so far, though that's saying oh so little. The pilot gives us Sam Neill and Sean Bean, but both are in flashbacky guest roles. The star is supposed to be one Philip Winchester, who spends most of the opening episode showing us his chest muscles, which are certainly impressive. He has his sidekick Friday (Tongai Chirisa), who is a lot like Crusoe, in that he seems to be good at everything and also has nice chest muscles. In any case, I was mildly entertained for about 45 minutes. I soon discovered to my horror that the opening episode was actually two hours long. The plot involved pirates who happen to wash up on shore, many of them ending up killed by Crusoe himself (which I think we're supposed to think is funny), except for the hot sword-fighting chick.

These guys come off as the "Pirates of the Caribbean" understudy company, and that's the whole point of the show. I wondered when the schedules came out where the idea for a Robinson Crusoe series could have come from. Surely it wasn't an extremely late attempt to rip off "Lost"? Thankfully, that's not the case. Just as the original "Battlestar Galactica" was a blatant attempt to capitalize on the "Star Wars" phenomenon, "Crusoe" is a blatant attempt to capitalize on "Pirates." I suppose you can't blame them for trying, though it's so blatant we're left thinking about that rather than the what's going on on-screen.

Neither Crusoe nor Friday end up as much of a character. They're just sort of good at everything. Robinson seems to have some ability with ropes and pullies and inventions. He has a contraption that squeezes five lemons at once. Because you need to do that all the time. He has a bridge over pirahna infested water (go to the NBC website to learn how to build your own!) that consists of a very strange wheel mechanism and a complex series of ropes. I was left wondering why he didn't just build a regular rope bridge. As scruffy pirate guy says, "Seems like you've had too much time your hands."

The series is also pretty much robbed of any sense of reality by its crappy production values that reminded me of nothing more than a Halmi miniseries, or maybe "Hercules"/"Xena" type syndicated shows (which, I was not surprised to find, Halmi was also involved with). So what we end up with is a sort of stilted stageplay on a tropical island that plays like kids making up a story based on all the crappy movies they've seen lately while wearing halloween costumes. It's only really worth sitting through if they're your kids, chest muscles not withstanding.

Bits: Space Herpes Edition

-CleanTechnica has posted an article about a "Magnetic Air Car" that purports to be the world's first fuelless car, and hopes to be available by 2010. Apparently, it uses magnets to send compressed air through an enclosed space. "The resulting airflow is then converted to torque." I think there must be more to this than I'm understanding, since I was unaware of air's magnetic properties.

-Sorry Howard Stern, Stephen Colbert is the new "King of All Media." He will be making a guest appearance in the upcoming "Amazing Spider-Man #573." Apparently, in the Marvel Universe, Colbert is a presidential candidate. Can I go live there? The issue's out October 15.

-CNN has managed to come up with what may be the lamest story ever to believably have the headline "Man Punches Shark After 'Death Scream.'"

-Free TV on the Internet: This past week's "Saturday Night Live," with the now-famous Palin/Couric sketch, along with a debate parody and some decent work from Anna Faris, of all people

-The other candidate for "Headline of the Day"... From io9.com: "Space Herpes Is Final Cylon on Battlestar Galactica"