+493 Technically it would be impossible to film a movie about vampires because their image doesn't appear on film, amirite?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Vampires aren't real, so it's a moot point.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Is that the correct use of moot? I thought moot meant debatable or contestable... Not undebatable. I'm not trying to correct you; I honestly want to know.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

(scrantoncity):Moot: of little or no practical value or meaning http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/moot It's the second definition under adjective

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Vampires don't sparkle and fuck clumsy little bitches either, but you don't get to choose how you're depicted once you're gone.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

It would be impossible to film a movie WITH vampires, as actors I mean.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

hide yo wife hide yo kids cause them vampires are biting all the cameramen out there

by Anonymous 13 years ago

No, because real vampires don't appear on film. I think they would be able to train them not to bite.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I like how you're using logic in your reasoning

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Vampires don't appear in pictures due to the use of a silver based chemical in their development (according to lore), so in theory they would show up in digital film format.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

No, I think the idea behind the no-photo-or-mirror thing is because those show the person's soul, and vampires have none. Technically, digital film is still showing the person's soul like photo, so they wouldn't be visible.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Maybe Edward will disappear, too.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

TWILIGHT IS A LIE!

by Anonymous 13 years ago

No, I can assure you, there really are people that gay in the world. We just have to learn to cope. Sorry. My hat goes off to the special effects team, though. Who ever would have thought it possible that they could actually make a wolf. A freakin' wolf! A WOLF!? Look gay! A WOLF!

by Anonymous 13 years ago