By submitting my information above, I acknowledge that I have reviewed and agreed to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, and I agree to receive updates and marketing messages from time to time from Paramore and its record label. For SMS messages, I understand that message and data rates may apply, and that I may receive up to 2 SMS messages per week from Paramore's mailing list.
THANKS!
For Paramore news that is customized to you and your hometown such as local concerts and appearances, please fill out the form. At Fueled By Ramen we are very concerned about our fans' privacy and do not share or sell your information to other third parties.
By submitting my information above, I acknowledge that I have reviewed and agreed to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, and I agree to receive updates and marketing messages from time to time from Paramore and its record label. For SMS messages, I understand that message and data rates may apply, and that I may receive up to 2 SMS messages per week from Paramore's mailing list.
Without knowing what S.M. has written in those books, if she had try to give vampires a cientyfical explanation, that would have been the mistake.
Now, (and this is quite pointless but it works) about males bieng able to procreate while females don't there can be a simple explanation: did you know that there's no actual age when a human male stops being fertile? And did you happen to notice that a female is born with all the eggs she'll ever have, wich means that they DON'T produce eggs, but just release them monthly, wich'd meant that female vampires of a certaing age (around 40-50) wouldn't realease more eggs?
About the 'vampire lore', well, as much as I don't like it, S.M.'s mythos -as I'm kind of a traditionalist-, it's true that a writter can do whatever she likes in his own fictional world as long as it remains coherent with itself, whether it's good reading matterial or not is up to the readers (qualified readers) to determine. And yes, quantity is not quality.
@Lydia
Well of course it's biologically impossible. Vampires don't exist.
Yes, it is an excuse.
"Harry Potter is different, the whole purpose of magic is something abstract that can't be explained by rules of science."
And vampires who sparkle, are practically solid like stone and whose eyes change colour depending on what they eat is completely understandable in scientific terms?
It's fiction. That's all it comes down to. I could sit and write a story right now of an entire vampire family who are biologically related. Mothers, sons, grandfathers etc etc. I could do it and it would be fine because it's fictional.
Well that's only if you take it far enough to say that. You can't know what Stephanie had intended when saying that. She could have meant "They can produce the eggs, their bodies just won't adapt to the babys in the womb". Do you know for certain that she didn't or are you just assuming?
Well no, Carlisle specifically says that she can eat both but prefers blood. Not saying that she HAS to have both in her system or she'll die or anything of the sort. Else when Bella was eating normal food when she was pregnant then Renesmee would have been sustained from it, but she wasn't.
It isn't a flaw at all. It's a bit farfetched in idea but it isn't a massive mistake in the story.
Twilight was a failure of a series way before Breaking Dawn came out, it just didn't help.
@Matt
I said biologically impossible. Which it is. But because it's fiction, she can get away with doing that for the purpose of the story. But using 'it's fiction' isn't an excuse either.
Harry Potter is different, the whole purpose of magic is something abstract that can't be explained by rules of science. Meyer created biological rules for her vampires which were mixed with human biology, they weren't meant to be magical. Just because it didn't say overtly 'Rosalie does not menstruate' doesn't mean she does. It's implied by what is said, that her body cannot change to support the growth of a child in the womb because it is frozen as it was when she became a vampire, therefore her ovaries will be also be frozen. No releasing eggs, (no thickening or releasing of the uterus lining, no period) no baby. Biologically, a whole vampire baby would be impossible, because if it does not need to breathe and it does not need nutrients from actual food to grow, how does it develop within the womb? Meyer didn't say much about vampire DNA apart from this multi-purpose venom, so we can't tell about that. Renesmee still needed food and oxygen because she was half human, the blood wouldn't have been enough to sustain her on its own.
Finding a flaw like that is pretty big, because Bella having a half-vampire baby is pretty much the main plot point of the book, and to carry the story forward and make it believable it has to be authentic within the rules the writer set for themselves. Which is why Twilight is considered by many to be a failure of a series (in quality, not in popularity) because Meyer seemed to put so little effort into researching or properly developing her vampire mythos. It's too easy just to say, 'hey it's not real, so it's okay'.
@Lydia
No, that wasn't a reason. It's pure speculation based on fictional information which you're now referring to as fact.
If Rosalie and Emmett had a baby it would be born vampire so blood would sustain it.
Blood mainly sustains Renesmee when she's in the womb, so that didn't make much sense.
It didn't say anywhere that she couldn't produce ovaries, it's unlikely of course that she can do but we don't know. All that was said on the matter is that vampires bodies won't change to accomodate a feotus because they can't be damaged or changed easily.
They're only traditional because they wouldn't go into changing them much. Buffy for instance gave Vampires a demonic looking face when they were to bite their pray. Angel could impregnate Darla because of the Powers That Be allowed it. That was impossible. Stephanie Meyer didn't give full detail on it all, no, but it's still fiction. If we sat here going over Harry Potter and how it's impossible to make water appear from nowhere etc then we'd be having a Physics field day.
It's fiction.
Make believe.
Not real.
Trying to find flaws in the fictional information based on facts from non fictional sources and speculation is moronic and pretty pointless. I agree with you, it doesn't make sense for Bella to get pregnant but it doesn't make it "impossible" because she clearly had the child.
@Matt
No, I mean the point was that you asked ''why is a vampire child impossible?'' and I gave you a reason why Edward couldn't have impregnated Bella. Rosalie not being able to conceive was a side point.
Yeah, they need to eat blood. Which wouldn't sustain a foetus. The foetus could not grow because it could not be conceived, because for it to be conceived her ovaries would have to produce an egg. Her body is suspended in time, unable to grow or develop any further, so her menstrual cycle would have stopped at the point which it was at when she was changed.
There is a vampire canon. All the traditional details like drinking blood, burning up in the sun, extreme speed and strength etc. Even within fiction you have to stick to the rules of the setting, and if her vampires still have semi-human biology she should have considered actual facts of biology.
@Lydia
No, that wasn't the point. The point was that her body can't adapt to the needs a baby would have. NOT that is couldn't menstruate. They need to eat don't they? They can move etc etc. Aside from that, it is fiction. There's no lore to vampires aside from what is written by the author. You can change whatever you like.
@Matt
Exactly, her body is frozen as it was when she died, therefore it is impossible for her body to change to accomodate a child and it's impossible for a child to be conceived because her body would no longer produce eggs, without that she wouldn't menstruate.
Anyway that wasn't the point, the point was that Edward as a male vampire whose body is also frozen shouldn't have been able to get Bella pregnant. Stephenie Meyer's (poor) explanation was that the venom in the vampires is a magical fluid that works as everything.
@Lydia
They never said that Rosalie didn't menstruate at all. They said that her body wouldn't change to adapt to the body because she's so stone like.
@Matt
If vampire women's bodily functions have completely stopped (e.g. Rosalie can't have the baby she's always wanted because she doesn't menstruate etc) why would a vampire male's still function?
His heart no longer beats, no longer pumping blood around his body which would make him kind of impotent (as my biology teacher said, you ever tried playing snooker with a piece of rope?). His body would have stopped producing sperm, or it would have died long ago considering he's 100-odd years old.
On the other hand, since he's such an ice-cold marble statue, maybe his body worked as a sperm freezer.
This was all debated in my biology class a year or so ago because there was a bunch of Twilight fangirls in it.
And I know it's only fiction, and the science of being a vampire is equally impossible; since Schmeyer messed with the tropes of vampire lore so much, why not make it possible for vampire males to be able to get human women pregnant but vampire women to not be able to get pregnant.
It's just easy to pick at the barely existent plots in Twilight.
@M|atthew
I didn't said it was impossible, I said "so thought impossible". And I tryed to state that it's a thing that has already happen in other "vampire worlds" such as Buffy, marvel (blade) and some other wich I do not want to remember now. And if you try going to a scientific system of how feeding through blood is posible, well vampires are the most efficient animal ever, since vampire bats need to drink lots of blood for their size in order to feed.
Lets keep the part of fiction, wich is uncotrovertible.
@Lydia/MarTe
(MarTe, you reminded me of something Lydia said)
Why is a vampire child impossible? Edward's body is still continuous. He heart doesn't beat but it doesn't mean that he needs it to to produce sperm, does it? He still needs to eat, right? So surely if he needs to eat then some of his other bodily functions are still active? Aside from that. It's make believe. You can do what you want with fiction.
Ah..., vampire child, the so thought impossible thing to happen. We've all seen that already, haven't we?
But, hey, knowing some things won't take from us the exitment of the details wich lead to what we may know.
I hope for it to be a good movie, for I know regardless of my kind of aversion towards glimmy vampires, they are still vampires and I watch almost every vampire movie.
i can't wait to see this! can't believe it's coming to an end. but i have to say am more upset about harry potter finishing, it's a whole childhood coming to an end :(
@Tegan
No, Peter and Elizabeth aren't really good Carlisle/Esme actors/esses tbh. The first film introduced all the characters so awkwardly. It was an appalling film and from that you can't really get into it.
Most actors get to know their characters on so many levels. For instance, Emma Watson knew that Hermione was in love with Ron and Alan Rickman knew Snape was going to die because of how well they knew and became apart of their characters. They've changed massively because of the effect their characters have on them and how well they know them. Daniel Radcliffe thinks of himself as Harry Potter because his personality etc has been changed by the way he's had to play someone else for the majority of his life.
The Twilight cast won't and clearly don't have that. Edward is a cardboard character, as is Bella. There's nothing distinctively amazing about either of them. Alice is the only one with true personality and the next one from that is Emmett.
YES. Bella constantly refers to Edwards beautiful face throughout the book. The majority of every book is probably "I just orgasmed because Edwards yawn was just so beautiful and elegant" and shit like that.
The film's gonna suck. The book was interesting until the "climax" which they then destroyed by having THE cheesiest speech about love and hugging and all that bullshit and then Alice returning with that boy who's like Renesmee.
I'm in shock that they're making it into 2 films. It's full of crap. The 2nd book was my favourite because of the lack of Edward, the 3rd book was a second favourite because it's more actiony.
The whole series is just about Bella and Edward and how they can't control their hormones. It's pathetic
OMGZZZ N00 WAYYYZZZZ TWILIGHTTTZZZ
-__-
I agree with everybody. I saw Kristen's speech and It sounded bad :P And I am not excited for twilight. I am not really a fan. :/ It's all abut how hot they are. I would rather read the books
I'm sadly not excited over the twilight movies any more and I'm afraid the first part will be kinda boring. I agree that Kristen didn't deserve the best female award. Come on, it was very unfair and her speech sounded bitchy. Did you see the look on Emma's face? Priceless!
@Matt
I was just talking about that earlier, the Kristen Stewart thing. I told my mom I thought Emma Watson should have won best female performance, or any of the other girls even. Kristen Stewart made Bella Swan into herself, basically. She doesn't do much "acting" because all the things she does in the movie are the same thing she does in real life. She talks and acts just as awkward and fidgety. There is barely a difference at all between Bella Swan and Kristen Stewart. In comparison to other actresses, who act as characters with a variety of personalities
@Sandy
Agreed. But, it's the MTV movie awards so what can you expect? Natalie won an Oscar so I'm sure shes fine. lol, all the Twilight actors are so awkward when they go up and talk.
Without knowing what S.M. has written in those books, if she had try to give vampires a cientyfical explanation, that would have been the mistake.
Now, (and this is quite pointless but it works) about males bieng able to procreate while females don't there can be a simple explanation: did you know that there's no actual age when a human male stops being fertile? And did you happen to notice that a female is born with all the eggs she'll ever have, wich means that they DON'T produce eggs, but just release them monthly, wich'd meant that female vampires of a certaing age (around 40-50) wouldn't realease more eggs?
About the 'vampire lore', well, as much as I don't like it, S.M.'s mythos -as I'm kind of a traditionalist-, it's true that a writter can do whatever she likes in his own fictional world as long as it remains coherent with itself, whether it's good reading matterial or not is up to the readers (qualified readers) to determine. And yes, quantity is not quality.
@Lydia
Well of course it's biologically impossible. Vampires don't exist.
Yes, it is an excuse.
"Harry Potter is different, the whole purpose of magic is something abstract that can't be explained by rules of science."
And vampires who sparkle, are practically solid like stone and whose eyes change colour depending on what they eat is completely understandable in scientific terms?
It's fiction. That's all it comes down to. I could sit and write a story right now of an entire vampire family who are biologically related. Mothers, sons, grandfathers etc etc. I could do it and it would be fine because it's fictional.
Well that's only if you take it far enough to say that. You can't know what Stephanie had intended when saying that. She could have meant "They can produce the eggs, their bodies just won't adapt to the babys in the womb". Do you know for certain that she didn't or are you just assuming?
Well no, Carlisle specifically says that she can eat both but prefers blood. Not saying that she HAS to have both in her system or she'll die or anything of the sort. Else when Bella was eating normal food when she was pregnant then Renesmee would have been sustained from it, but she wasn't.
It isn't a flaw at all. It's a bit farfetched in idea but it isn't a massive mistake in the story.
Twilight was a failure of a series way before Breaking Dawn came out, it just didn't help.
@Matt
I said biologically impossible. Which it is. But because it's fiction, she can get away with doing that for the purpose of the story. But using 'it's fiction' isn't an excuse either.
Harry Potter is different, the whole purpose of magic is something abstract that can't be explained by rules of science. Meyer created biological rules for her vampires which were mixed with human biology, they weren't meant to be magical. Just because it didn't say overtly 'Rosalie does not menstruate' doesn't mean she does. It's implied by what is said, that her body cannot change to support the growth of a child in the womb because it is frozen as it was when she became a vampire, therefore her ovaries will be also be frozen. No releasing eggs, (no thickening or releasing of the uterus lining, no period) no baby. Biologically, a whole vampire baby would be impossible, because if it does not need to breathe and it does not need nutrients from actual food to grow, how does it develop within the womb? Meyer didn't say much about vampire DNA apart from this multi-purpose venom, so we can't tell about that. Renesmee still needed food and oxygen because she was half human, the blood wouldn't have been enough to sustain her on its own.
Finding a flaw like that is pretty big, because Bella having a half-vampire baby is pretty much the main plot point of the book, and to carry the story forward and make it believable it has to be authentic within the rules the writer set for themselves. Which is why Twilight is considered by many to be a failure of a series (in quality, not in popularity) because Meyer seemed to put so little effort into researching or properly developing her vampire mythos. It's too easy just to say, 'hey it's not real, so it's okay'.
@Lydia
No, that wasn't a reason. It's pure speculation based on fictional information which you're now referring to as fact.
If Rosalie and Emmett had a baby it would be born vampire so blood would sustain it.
Blood mainly sustains Renesmee when she's in the womb, so that didn't make much sense.
It didn't say anywhere that she couldn't produce ovaries, it's unlikely of course that she can do but we don't know. All that was said on the matter is that vampires bodies won't change to accomodate a feotus because they can't be damaged or changed easily.
They're only traditional because they wouldn't go into changing them much. Buffy for instance gave Vampires a demonic looking face when they were to bite their pray. Angel could impregnate Darla because of the Powers That Be allowed it. That was impossible. Stephanie Meyer didn't give full detail on it all, no, but it's still fiction. If we sat here going over Harry Potter and how it's impossible to make water appear from nowhere etc then we'd be having a Physics field day.
It's fiction.
Make believe.
Not real.
Trying to find flaws in the fictional information based on facts from non fictional sources and speculation is moronic and pretty pointless. I agree with you, it doesn't make sense for Bella to get pregnant but it doesn't make it "impossible" because she clearly had the child.
@Matt
No, I mean the point was that you asked ''why is a vampire child impossible?'' and I gave you a reason why Edward couldn't have impregnated Bella. Rosalie not being able to conceive was a side point.
Yeah, they need to eat blood. Which wouldn't sustain a foetus. The foetus could not grow because it could not be conceived, because for it to be conceived her ovaries would have to produce an egg. Her body is suspended in time, unable to grow or develop any further, so her menstrual cycle would have stopped at the point which it was at when she was changed.
There is a vampire canon. All the traditional details like drinking blood, burning up in the sun, extreme speed and strength etc. Even within fiction you have to stick to the rules of the setting, and if her vampires still have semi-human biology she should have considered actual facts of biology.
@Lydia
No, that wasn't the point. The point was that her body can't adapt to the needs a baby would have. NOT that is couldn't menstruate. They need to eat don't they? They can move etc etc. Aside from that, it is fiction. There's no lore to vampires aside from what is written by the author. You can change whatever you like.
Only 6 months. The countdown begins!
@Matt
Exactly, her body is frozen as it was when she died, therefore it is impossible for her body to change to accomodate a child and it's impossible for a child to be conceived because her body would no longer produce eggs, without that she wouldn't menstruate.
Anyway that wasn't the point, the point was that Edward as a male vampire whose body is also frozen shouldn't have been able to get Bella pregnant. Stephenie Meyer's (poor) explanation was that the venom in the vampires is a magical fluid that works as everything.
@Lydia
They never said that Rosalie didn't menstruate at all. They said that her body wouldn't change to adapt to the body because she's so stone like.
@Matt
If vampire women's bodily functions have completely stopped (e.g. Rosalie can't have the baby she's always wanted because she doesn't menstruate etc) why would a vampire male's still function?
His heart no longer beats, no longer pumping blood around his body which would make him kind of impotent (as my biology teacher said, you ever tried playing snooker with a piece of rope?). His body would have stopped producing sperm, or it would have died long ago considering he's 100-odd years old.
On the other hand, since he's such an ice-cold marble statue, maybe his body worked as a sperm freezer.
This was all debated in my biology class a year or so ago because there was a bunch of Twilight fangirls in it.
And I know it's only fiction, and the science of being a vampire is equally impossible; since Schmeyer messed with the tropes of vampire lore so much, why not make it possible for vampire males to be able to get human women pregnant but vampire women to not be able to get pregnant.
It's just easy to pick at the barely existent plots in Twilight.
i cant wait to see it! ;) totally excited!
Ewwwwwwww
@M|atthew
I didn't said it was impossible, I said "so thought impossible". And I tryed to state that it's a thing that has already happen in other "vampire worlds" such as Buffy, marvel (blade) and some other wich I do not want to remember now. And if you try going to a scientific system of how feeding through blood is posible, well vampires are the most efficient animal ever, since vampire bats need to drink lots of blood for their size in order to feed.
Lets keep the part of fiction, wich is uncotrovertible.
i thought vampires were impotent. ahhh wait no thats True Blood... soo many vampire movies/shows out now
@Lydia/MarTe
(MarTe, you reminded me of something Lydia said)
Why is a vampire child impossible? Edward's body is still continuous. He heart doesn't beat but it doesn't mean that he needs it to to produce sperm, does it? He still needs to eat, right? So surely if he needs to eat then some of his other bodily functions are still active? Aside from that. It's make believe. You can do what you want with fiction.
I cannot wait to laugh and be immature :')
Ah..., vampire child, the so thought impossible thing to happen. We've all seen that already, haven't we?
But, hey, knowing some things won't take from us the exitment of the details wich lead to what we may know.
I hope for it to be a good movie, for I know regardless of my kind of aversion towards glimmy vampires, they are still vampires and I watch almost every vampire movie.
Kind of excited for this :) More excited for the final HP movie. It might end up being better.
@Luci
Well, it is true.
http://cdn.thefrisky.com/images/uploads/kirsten_stewart_emotional_chart_...
I lol'd. :')
The video is broken for me, but reading through the comments am I to surmise that Hermione is turned into a vampire in this one?
Sad. I really liked her as a character.
i can't wait to see this! can't believe it's coming to an end. but i have to say am more upset about harry potter finishing, it's a whole childhood coming to an end :(
@Tegan
No, Peter and Elizabeth aren't really good Carlisle/Esme actors/esses tbh. The first film introduced all the characters so awkwardly. It was an appalling film and from that you can't really get into it.
Most actors get to know their characters on so many levels. For instance, Emma Watson knew that Hermione was in love with Ron and Alan Rickman knew Snape was going to die because of how well they knew and became apart of their characters. They've changed massively because of the effect their characters have on them and how well they know them. Daniel Radcliffe thinks of himself as Harry Potter because his personality etc has been changed by the way he's had to play someone else for the majority of his life.
The Twilight cast won't and clearly don't have that. Edward is a cardboard character, as is Bella. There's nothing distinctively amazing about either of them. Alice is the only one with true personality and the next one from that is Emmett.
YES. Bella constantly refers to Edwards beautiful face throughout the book. The majority of every book is probably "I just orgasmed because Edwards yawn was just so beautiful and elegant" and shit like that.
The film's gonna suck. The book was interesting until the "climax" which they then destroyed by having THE cheesiest speech about love and hugging and all that bullshit and then Alice returning with that boy who's like Renesmee.
I'm in shock that they're making it into 2 films. It's full of crap. The 2nd book was my favourite because of the lack of Edward, the 3rd book was a second favourite because it's more actiony.
The whole series is just about Bella and Edward and how they can't control their hormones. It's pathetic
OMGZZZ N00 WAYYYZZZZ TWILIGHTTTZZZ
-__-
I agree with everybody. I saw Kristen's speech and It sounded bad :P And I am not excited for twilight. I am not really a fan. :/ It's all abut how hot they are. I would rather read the books
yesss! Then the movies will be OVER! YEAH!!
I'm sadly not excited over the twilight movies any more and I'm afraid the first part will be kinda boring. I agree that Kristen didn't deserve the best female award. Come on, it was very unfair and her speech sounded bitchy. Did you see the look on Emma's face? Priceless!
I agree with @ThisHear_ItBeats
Yeah, I'm also a huge Harry Potter fan books/movies are the best and Emma Watson should've won!!
PARAMORE do another song for twilight>>>>>
@Matt
I was just talking about that earlier, the Kristen Stewart thing. I told my mom I thought Emma Watson should have won best female performance, or any of the other girls even. Kristen Stewart made Bella Swan into herself, basically. She doesn't do much "acting" because all the things she does in the movie are the same thing she does in real life. She talks and acts just as awkward and fidgety. There is barely a difference at all between Bella Swan and Kristen Stewart. In comparison to other actresses, who act as characters with a variety of personalities
@Sandy
Agreed. But, it's the MTV movie awards so what can you expect? Natalie won an Oscar so I'm sure shes fine. lol, all the Twilight actors are so awkward when they go up and talk.
hey,kristen steward and robert pattinson win for the best kiss in MTV award
it must be better than before (the movie)
Pages