Twihards Vs. Potterphiles – It's Nerdmageddon

By now you know that “The Twilight Saga: New Moon” shattered box office records over the weekend. It took in more than $72 million on its first day of release, an all-time record. And it made over $140 million over the course of the entire weekend, good for third-best all time, and it was the best opening ever in the tweenage pale vampire subgenre. Hollywood keeps many specific records.

Well, some people are not so pleased with the raging success of Stephanie Meyer’s vampire saga, and it’s not confined merely to teenage boys who willingly went to “New Moon” with their girlfriends in order to cop a feel later on. No, I’m talking about Harry Potter fans, who are kicking up their broomsticks over the fact that the “Twilight” saga has now replaced their beloved Hogwarts hero as the top fictional literary character among young people who otherwise don’t care for reading. The LA Times reports on several Potter fans going online to register their disdain for all things “Twilight,” calling it “crap,” “unoriginal,” and that it, “sucks cash from your pocket.” Which the Harry Potter saga totally doesn’t do. I heard that “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hollows” was split in to two films strictly to help benefit stem cell research.

When I was a kid, there was a similar fantasy film beef between warring factions: “Star Wars” vs. “Star Trek”. And, to this day, that schism remains, especially now that George Lucas made three truly awful “Star Wars” movies at the turn of the century, and JJ Abrams pumped out a “Star Trek” movie this year that kicked a whole lotta ass. You’ll get Israel and Palestine to coexist before you settle that debate.

One of the annoying things about being a teenager is having the desire to want other people to love the things that you love, for your tastes in music and movies to be validated by the love of others around you. It’s not until you get older that you realize that it doesn’t matter if someone else likes the things you like or not. YOU like it, and that’s good enough. Which is why it’s so fun to see people create a rivalry between fictional sagas that needn’t ever exist. So, with that in mind, I will attempt to divine who would win in a fight between Harry Potter and Edward Cullen. WIZARDS VS. VAMPIRES. THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE. Let me break out the Pro and Con lists to decide – QUIEN ES MAS MACHO:



-Boyishly handsome.

-Can do lots of things merely by pointing a stick at something and talking in made-up, Latinish sounding words.

-In a fight between two men, always pick the guy with dead parents. They always have a better reserve of anger strength.


-British, which kind of makes him a wuss.

-Are we talking First Year Harry Potter, or Seventh Year? And does he have his Cloak of Invisibility? And a Marauder’s Map? Does he have his Firebolt? Can he consult Ron and Hermione in between rounds? All of this stuff MATTERS on my imaginary battlefield.

-Difficult to fight while wearing school-issued robes.



-Already dead.


-Can fly.

-Ginny Weasley would dump Harry for his pale ass in no time flat.


-Vegetarian, so he’s kind of a wuss.

-Played by a British actor, so he’s kind of a double wuss.

-Sunken eyes, may be Armenian.

-Ooooh! You’re gonna bite me! Oooh, I’m so scared! But can you conjure a Patronus on cue? No? Then cram it.

VERDICT: Sorry, Ed. I go with the guy that can make fireballs and lightning and stuff. However, it should be noted that Han Solo could kick both these guy’s asses.

Contact Us