Twilight?

[James Steven Beverly]

Is all the hype about this movie just that or what? I'm just now hear this thing may go through the roof but I find it odd I've never even HEARD of it before now. Am I just outta touch or is this something very recent? I REALLY like Kristin Stewart's work and always thought she was one breakthrough movie away from mega stardom so I hope it does well I just find it weird I never heard of this film before literally today. What's the dealio??!!

[Benson Marks]

Is all the hype about this movie just that or what? I'm just now hear this thing may go through the roof but I find it odd I've never even HEARD of it before now. Am I just outta touch or is this something very recent? I REALLY like Kristin Stewart's work and always thought she was one breakthrough movie away from mega stardom so I hope it does well I just find it weird I never heard of this film before literally today. What's the dealio??!!

 

I think it's just hype. I haven't read any of the books, but, judging from the advertising, I'd rather spend my $10 buying a couple of lattes at Starbucks than going to the cineplex.

 

The film's director is Catherine Hardwicke. Her biggest movie was the docudrama "Thirteen," which was well received by critics but didn't do so well at the box-office. Her other movies haven't been really good thus far. "Lords of Dogtown" was not very well received. "The Nativity Story" felt more like an advertisement for who the reason for the season is than compelling drama, which should've been the latter. Looking at her record, I'm not so sure she can pull this off. And if you've seen the TV ads for "Twilight," it doesn't look good. To give out a reason why, one should just listen to the main dialogue in the ads:

 

Boy: So, you know who I am, don't you?

 

Girl: Yes.

 

Boy: Say the word.

 

Girl: Vampire.

 

Boy: Say it again.

 

Girl: Vampire.

 

Umm... OK, whatever.

Edited November 20, 2008 by Benson Marks

[Benson Marks]

Also, I just checked the early reviews. So far, Rotten Tomatoes has it at a not-so-fantastic 45% rating. You need to be over 60% for a movie to garner a fresh rating. Okay, so it isn't a horrible rating but with all the hype going on. That's a bad sign.

[Scott Bryant]

Basically you're out of touch.... if you aren't reading young adult books. ;) My girlfriend is a middle school english teacher so I've been hearing about these books for a while. I don't really think you could have known about it unless you really do read young adult novels. Basically it's a Harry Potter-esque vampire series. The kids eat it up and apparently so do some of the parents. Vampire teenage love story, what's not to like.

Edited November 20, 2008 by Scott Bryant

[Benson Marks]

Basically you're out of touch.... if you aren't reading young adult books. ;) My girlfriend is a middle school english teacher so I've been hearing about these books for a while. I don't really think you could have known about it unless you really do read young adult novels. Basically it's a Harry Potter-esque vampire series. The kids eat it up and apparently so do some of the parents. Vampire teenage love story, what's not to like.

 

Sorry, but this is a movie we're talking about, not a book. Just because it's based on a book doesn't mean it's going to be good. Prince Caspian wasn't great. The first few Harry Potter movies were ok, but still not very good. To be fair, we don't know how this movie's going to turn out. I might be wrong and it could be a great movie. I could be right and the movie will turn out to be a disaster. We just don't know how it's going to turn out until everybody has seen it.

 

It's also worth noting that the two mediums are vastly different from each other. Movies are supposed to be a visual work. In other words, you use images to create an art. Books, on the other hand, are a literary work. They use words to create an art.

 

To show you how incompatible the two mediums are, read "The Count Of Monte Cristo," and then watch the movie version. In the end, they're both great, but which one is better? (Now how out of touch am I?)

[Josh Bass]

It's not that it's suppposd to be that great on its own merit, but it has a HUGE built-in audience guaranteed to make it a hit.

[Benson Marks]

It's not that it's suppposd to be that great on its own merit, but it has a HUGE built-in audience guaranteed to make it a hit.

 

Don't say that too soon. It's still up against James Bond who did really well this week at the box-office. It's also facing Bolt, which is getting very good reviews as I speak. That could sway some families to watch Bolt over Twilight (FYI, around 80% of moviegoers tend to be families.). So even if it has a large audience, it still has the possibility of failing at the box-office. Keep in mind that the box-office won't dictate how well it does in the end. An awful lot of movies made the top at the box-office and turned out to be stinkers. See: Spider-Man 3.

[SpikeUM]

I just saw it with my daughter and I was like 1 of 10 guys in there. Everyone else were teen girls and they wooed and ahhhh throughout the whole movie in a packed decent sized theater. It wasn't the best movie but for who it was for I think it hit the mark and will make some dough.

[Benson Marks]

Spike, you need to change your name on this site. The rules and regulations section says to use your full name (First and Last) or else, your account will be disabled or something like that.

[Darryl Richard Humber]

The sequel has been greenlighted. It cost 37 million to make and opened yesterday with 37.5 million. It had the fastest pre ticket sales since "The Dark Knight."

[Benson Marks]

The sequel has been greenlighted. It cost 37 million to make and opened yesterday with 37.5 million. It had the fastest pre ticket sales since "The Dark Knight."

 

I wonder how many will see the sequel if this one turns out to be a bomb. Right now, the ratings at IMDB for Twilight have already reached a low of 5.3 stars out of 10. I've also heard that the sequels in the book series are worse than the first one which is now on the big screen for all to see. I don't know if that will effect how the next one will turn out, but it does make me wonder.

[Josh Bass]

It just seems to me that if you're young enough and or devoted enough to the source material, you kind of turn a blind eye to the actual quality of the film. You multiply that by enough folks, and you have a hit.

 

I don't understand the comment about Spiderman 3. You're saying it started out making money and then quickly tanked?

[Benson Marks]

It just seems to me that if you're young enough and or devoted enough to the source material, you kind of turn a blind eye to the actual quality of the film. You multiply that by enough folks, and you have a hit.

 

I don't understand the comment about Spiderman 3. You're saying it started out making money and then quickly tanked?

 

Well, Josh, I'm 18, and I'm far from interested (That's in your young enough range, isn't it?). I think this movie is going to drift off sort of like "Sex and the City did. By now, I think all the fans have seen it (37 million dollars makes a lot of people, don't you think?) and it's also Thanksgiving week, where it will be competing against Australia and Transporter 3. So, I think it's going to drift off next week considering the outcomes.

 

As for your question on Spider-Man 3, no. What I meant was that even though it made a lot of cash (It made number 1 on the top ten box-office moneymakers of 2007.), it was still a stinker. In fact, Spider-Man 3 is probably the worst of all three Spider-Man flicks.

[Sean Lyons]

Just to throw in my input. I found it entertaining enough. It served its purpose and reached out and grabbed who it was focused for. I did it's job and thats it. Not a great movie but ok. Worth a watch. I would give it around a 6 out of 10

 

And on the spider man 3 topic.....

 

8 out of 10 people shake their heads in shame when "spiderman 3" comes into a conversation.

 

"Swing!...and a miss!" :lol:

[Scott Bryant]

Sorry, but this is a movie we're talking about, not a book. Just because it's based on a book doesn't mean it's going to be good. Prince Caspian wasn't great. The first few Harry Potter movies were ok, but still not very good. To be fair, we don't know how this movie's going to turn out. I might be wrong and it could be a great movie. I could be right and the movie will turn out to be a disaster. We just don't know how it's going to turn out until everybody has seen it.

 

It's also worth noting that the two mediums are vastly different from each other. Movies are supposed to be a visual work. In other words, you use images to create an art. Books, on the other hand, are a literary work. They use words to create an art.

 

To show you how incompatible the two mediums are, read "The Count Of Monte Cristo," and then watch the movie version. In the end, they're both great, but which one is better? (Now how out of touch am I?)

 

 

Benson, I wasn't claiming it would be automatically be a good film just because the book was "good." I was saying that there has been a cult like following among students from middle school and up to college in many cases. So when there is such a frenzy over a book (that people have midnight dress up opening night parties for) i would expect them to flood the theatres to see it (if for no other reason than to get as much twilight as possible). I completely agree with you that one shouldn't compare book and film. Also, my quip about being out of touch was supposed to be taken in jest as it would seem most of us were our of touch about a book who's target audience was middle school students. No harm meant.

[Benson Marks]

Alright, I'll take those. They're your opinions. You may be right that the film did its job and that most of its fans were satisfied. However, this may actually prove my point that this whole Twilight deal is just simply hype. The question that, I think, should be asked is "Will this attract more people into reading the books after they've seen it?" I haven't seen the movie, but judging from the ratings at IMDB, and seeing that it's audience dropped 62.1% this week (The movie made number 1 last week, remember?), I think the answer is no, and it's just hype.

 

Now to Sean, by 8 out of 10 people shaking their heads in shame I'm assuming you think most people liked it. Well, watch this:

 

(You'll understand at the 0:47 mark)

 

Also, have you ever been to the IMDB before, Sean? Look at the ratings of the first two Spidey flicks and compare them to the third one. Number 3 is clearly the worst.

Edited November 30, 2008 by Benson Marks

[John Brawley]

Also, have you ever been to the IMDB before, Sean? Look at the ratings of the first two Spidey flicks and compare them to the third one. Number 3 is clearly the worst.

 

 

I think the conclusion is that the books have a huge following and the films will do well no matter their content and as now seems to be shown by it's BO.

 

Also, pointing out an IMDB rating simply shows that *people who bother to rate films on IMDB* thought spiderman 3 wasn't much chop.

 

It still made a bucket of cash. It doesn't really matter what us informed types think...

 

You know, word of mouth makes it so easy to cut through hype. Once the film is released hype doesn't matter. WOM takes over. Mobile phones and instant messaging means people are telling their mates while the films still screening. So SOMEONE must be enjoying it enough to then tell their friends to go see it.

 

jb

[Jonathan Bowerbank]

Saw it at a $5 drive-in near Joshua Tree this past weekend, with very low expectations. I felt for what it was, it wasn't bad. Take it with a grain of salt that tastes sort of like an After School Teenage Drama.

[Daniel Porto]

Well, Josh, I'm 18, and I'm far from interested (That's in your young enough range, isn't it?).

 

Well thats only one out of how many teenagers do we have in this world? I personally never had any interest at all to see this movie, however, a majority of the girls that I know (not necessarily hang out with) have seen this or want to see this film

[David Desio]

Okay, gotta jump in here.

 

I saw the movie with my girlfriend and as the lights went down I found myself in a sea of tween girls and their awkward boyfriends. The movie started and all the oozin'ahhs from the audience almost drowned out the dialogue.

 

So my take on the movie was this:

The direction was a bit weak, like she was trying to really drive home the point that it was a vampire love story with overly long montage sequences of the 2 leads kissing and cuddling and climbing up trees, then kissing and cuddling a little more.

 

The acting was...ehhh. No real sense of depth to the characters but they were believable for the most part.

 

The story was a bit of a gloss-over but I guess thats expected from a book-to-movie translation. There was a really cool fight scene that never really happened. I say this because about 1/3 of the movie builds up to it and it's over in a very short time, the bad guy gets it but its done off screen as the 2 leads coddle each other while some mention of love is made.

 

In the end we are set up for a sequel much like an old episode of saved by the bell set up a 2-part story. I was actually waiting for the text "to be continued..." to appear.

 

There were a few good threads that, had they been explored a bit would have made the plot a little more interesting; but alas they kind of fall by the wayside in favor of the montages.

 

Overall the audience left the theatre gushing over the movie and it seemed to do what it was supposed to do so...good job on that.

 

Its a good date movie if your girl, or guy is into the books. Just don't expect too much and it's sufferable.

 

Dave

[Tom Lowe]

Kristin Stewart is hot, but that's about the extent of my interest in the movie.