comment #1

Rich S. says ...

Come on, now. There's only four books and this latest film is going to open at or near $100 million. How much could these things possibly cost to produce? They even take place for the most part in the Pacific Northwest, a current mecca for cheap filmmaking.

The only real cost has to be salaries, and if Pattinson or Stewart balks, they'll just plug in someone new. These things made a star out of Sharkboy, for crying out loud.

Like Nitti's henchman tells the saloon keeper in The Untouchables, "It don't have to be good; it just has to be bought." The "Twihards" will buy at least two more.

comment #2

Eloi Manning says ...

[Fixed -- thanks for the correction.]

comment #3

Rich S. says ...

[Fixed -- thanks for the correction.]

comment #4

TL says ...

This is why Summit shot this one and the next sequel at the same time, and, IIRC, will release the next movie this summer. Somebody obviously knows the score and is trying to wring this franchise dry before its rapidly approaching sell-by date.

comment #5

btwnproductions says ...

TWILIGHT was OK, but I find it immensely difficult to care about any of this. I guess Chuck just sucks this time out.

comment #6

Eloi Manning says ...

It's a moronic article.

1. The fans know exactly what's going to happen already. They've read the books and evidently didn't find them boring, so they'll go and see the films.

2. Again, the fans already knew that Pattinson would be absent for most of this film. That's why Lautner was promoted so heavily. They'll be fine, because they know he's going to be back in Part III.

3. Twilight fans won't give a fuck who is directing the film. And besides, the next one is done by the 30 Days of Night guy so it'll probably be more exciting and stylish anyway.

4. There are only four Twilight films. They're all being released close together, while the hype machine is still hot. Harry Potter has been going for 6 movies now and is still doing well.

5. Such a moronic paragraph it's barely worth expanding on.

6. Miley Cyrus does not control the minds of every teenage girl in America. Twilight has clearly been doing alright so far without her endorsement.

I hope it's meant to be tongue-in-cheek because otherwise it's a fairly dismal piece of journalism.

comment #7

frank_delsa says ...

Miley Cyrus dissed twilight because she claims it promotes the occult. I'm pretty sure her Jay Z statements stem from the same fundamentalist Christian vein. I hope to God she doesn't have the power to sway teenagers mind, otherwise it would be quite scary...Much scarier than a 15 year old girl swooning over Pattinson or Lautner...

comment #8

corey3rd says ...

Miley Cyrus is over. kids are digging Demi Lovato and that iCarly girl. Miley is so '08

comment #9

Sabina E says ...

Corey, I think the iCarly girl (Miranda Cosgrove) could have a real future in TV if she has a good manager to help manage her career.

But I think Miley's star is starting to fade. I smell the same for Demi, so she's better off making mediocre music.

comment #10

Eloi Manning says ...

Miley Cyrus is all over the place with that Party in the USA song. I don't think her star is fading at all. She's probably just transitioning into a slutty pop queen after the wholesome thing dies out.

comment #11

LexG says ...

Miley Cyrus:

WHY does EVERY country hick have to be RELIGIOUS? CHRIST. Just once I wish there was a country person who was an Atheist and all Libertarian and didn't give a FUCK about family values or BULLSHIT.

Shit, I know at least some of you guys were raised Catholic or under some kind of bullshit religion. Do you remember this new-fangled bullshit where you have to PROTEST MOVIES and wait for some GOD BLESS THE USA shit before you'd see a movie?

I was Catholic as a kid and still saw every slasher movie and titty comedy and didn't give a FUCK; What's this new bullshit where the Prejeans and Palins and Cyruses have FAMILY VALUES dictate their moviewatching habits? Is this some new bullshit?

Because I was raised all over "the heartland" and everyone I knew, ever, watched R Rated movies from the time they were 9 or 10. Since when does being a religious YAHOO dictate what you can and can't watch?

comment #12

Sabina E says ...

Well, what about Garth Brooks? He's a legend in the country music biz and he's liberal as hell. I don't know if he's an atheist, though.

Or how about Willie Nelson...

comment #13

btwnproductions says ...

What we might also be talking about is what a dreadful selection of Thanksgiving movies we're stuck with this year (and that includes THE ROAD, an unnecessary movie if you've read the book and not a very good one if you haven't). Worst holiday ever.

comment #14

nightheat says ...

My girlfriend dragged me to the first Twilight, and I enjoyed it. Catherine Hardwicke annoys me though. She tried to take credit for the entire thing, and it was obvious it was all Stephanie Meyer's fans, the same goes for "New Moon"... doesn't matter who directs the thing, as long as it resembles the book at least 50% of the time, the fans are gonna love it, and the fans will flock to it. Guaranteed. Its a genuine pop culture moment, not really about what the critics think or for white males over 30. stop thinking about it.

comment #15

liz says ...

I still think it will still go down better with faagirls than with critics. Half the fans hated the original Twilight anyway and New Moon the book has never a fan favourite. It will still have a decent opening but it may not get repeat viewings due to the absent vampire. Nothing changes here.

comment #16

Mark says ...

Miley Cyrus is 16 going on 35-year old billionaire. Hardly representative of her age group.

comment #17

ketut says ...

Lex: WHY does EVERY country hick have to be RELIGIOUS?

It's their base.

No God, Country & Apple Pie = no $$

comment #18

corey3rd says ...

Ninja Assassin is going to crave up Thanksgiving.

comment #19

caslab says ...

Doesn't everyone hate the last book anyway?

comment #20

THE MovieBob says ...

"Twilight" isn't built to last as a phenomenon. It'll have enough hardcore fans to get big openings for the remaining two movies, but it has the approximate shelf-life of N*Sync.

The "mainstream crossover" element that made it this massive success was that it hit the bullseye for the current generation of girls on edge of puberty - once that base hits 16-17 and have been brought down to earth by interacting with actual (read: dissapointing) men, the series will hold no lasting appeal.

comment #21

dkaye says ...

I have no particular axe to grind against this franchise and actually found the first one to be passable enough on DVD. But this one was just one long, boring slog, with lousy acting all around (even Stewart, who I like, never changes her expression in the film), no pacing, no suspense, no ending, lousy effects and mediocre cinematography. It's just poor filmmaking, and it's sad that most of the fans just won't care.

comment #22

indysanj5 says ...

ha ha. we've turned into a "if myley says then..." culture. awesome. Sanj

comment #23

DeeZee says ...

Even if this shit's lucrative, the longer the wait time between films, the more likely you'll see a declining interest in the series in general. Someone was citing Harry Potter, but the new film actually did worse here than world-wide. And that's gotta be an even bigger kill-joy for a smaller company trying to get new product on the market.