Twilight (contains spoilers for all books and the movies)

larry-411 · 08 Dec 08 :: 04:14

SUMMIT BEGINS SEARCH FOR NEW MOON DIRECTOR
Los Angeles, CA, December 7, 2008 – Summit Entertainment and director Catherine Hardwicke jointly announced today that the filmmaker will not be directing the next installment in the newly minted TWILIGHT film franchise. Summit's targeted end of 2009 or early 2010 release of the film, NEW MOON, does not work with Ms. Hardwicke's required prep time to bring her vision of the film to the big screen. Thus as has been done before with many successful film franchises, the studio will employ a new director for NEW MOON.
"I am sorry that due to timing I will not have the opportunity to direct NEW MOON," said Hardwicke. "Directing TWILIGHT has been one of the great experiences of my life, and I am grateful to the fans for their passionate support of the film. I wish everyone at Summit the best with the sequel– it is a great story."
"Catherine did an incredible job in helping us to launch the TWILIGHT franchise and we thank her for all of her efforts and we very much hope to work with her on future Summit projects," said Erik Feig, Summit's President of Production. "We as a studio have a mandate to bring the next installment in the franchise to the big screen in a timely fashion so that fans can get more of Edward, Bella and all of the characters that Stephenie Meyer has created. We are able to pursue an aggressive time frame as we have the luxury of only adapting the novels into screenplays as opposed to having to create a storyline from scratch."

BiggestChrisMarquetteFan · 08 Dec 08 :: 04:56

I really like Catherine Hardwicke, she's a great director! I hope they find another really talented director to make New Moon.

Illinoisguy1 · 08 Dec 08 :: 16:05

Well that's the official reason.

According to this site, here is the reason.

UPDATE: Summit Entertainment Co-Chairman/CEO Rob Friedman just phoned me to add: "Catherine and Summit have agreed to part ways on the sequel because our visions are different." The start-up studio's hastily prepared statement (below) notes: "Summit's targeted end of 2009 or early 2010 release of the film, New Moon, does not work with Ms. Hardwicke's required prep time to bring her vision of the film to the big screen."
EXCLUSIVE: So the rumors are true. I've confirmed that Summit Entertainment has rejected Twilight director Catherine Hardwicke from heming the sequel in this big new franchise. No doubt my news will speed up the studio's announcement, and Summit will surely spin this as all going down amicably along the lines that "she couldn't fit the film into her time frame". (Summit does want a ridiculously speeded-up sked for the next installment.) But this terrible news for Hardwicke comes just as she and the Twilight cast are on their European press tour. Tomorrow's interviews in France will now focus entirely on what, if anything, Catherine did to deserve this treatment.
This also could blow up into a scandal for Summit if it chooses a male director over Hardwicke, whose Twilight easily beat Mimi Leder's 1998 Deep Impact box office gross as the biggest opener for a female director. That was a record embraced by Hollywood feminists as a sign of growing gal power. ["To think that the people at Summit are sexist is insulting," an insider there replies to me.] This wasn't a good weekend for female film directors because Lexi Alexander's Punisher: War Zone bombed, earning less than half what Hollywood thought it would. As to whether Hardwicke's career will be damaged by this very public firing is up for grabs because, even though the pic was skewered by critics, it is already a $160M low-cost blockbuster. Summit has started preparing the sequel New Moon, based on Meyer's second book in the series, and, to contain costs, the studio is considering making third book Eclipse back to back.
The word from inside Summit is that Hardwicke, the acclaimed Thirteen and Lords of Dogtown and The Nativity Story director, "was 'difficult' and 'irrational' during the making of Twilight," one insider explains to me. "That doesn't mean anything when you're talking about a filmmaker because they all are, but still..." (Joe Roth and Sony kept saying that about Julie Taymor on Across The Universe. Yet she made a cult classic and is now directing Marvel/Sony's Spider-Man for Broadway.) But an outside source also informs me, "Summit didn't like her. They're saying the DP [director of photography] Elliot Davis is the one responsible for the film's sumptuous visual look, that the editor Nancy Richardson had to save the film in post-production, and Summit thought Hardwicke's [CAA] agent Beth Swofford was alternately ineffectual and hysterical. It certainly demonstrates, while CAA agents boast of their vast influence, how little clout and muscle they actually have, or are willing to use, to protect their artists."
I'm told that the studio has even had quiet talks with other CAA directors for the last week. "And Swofford never told Hardwicke about that and that she was about to get kicked to the gutter," an insider tells me. "To add insult to injury, Hardwicke can now look forward to being grilled by the press for days on end, in front of the cast, about why she's getting shit-canned." Adds another source: "Catherine is the consummate professional so she's continuing the press tour."

http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com/h … franchise/

TheCentralScrutinizer · 08 Dec 08 :: 16:14

Wow, that's some ugly political crap, huh?

TeeJay · 08 Dec 08 :: 18:19

If I didn't know who this was, I don't think I would have recognized either Kristen or Robert. And, uh, Kristen? White dress? Bad idea. This was taken at the Germany premire in Munich, apparently. I don't get why they premiere the movie a month before it comes out, though...

-TeeJay

domesticelefant · 08 Dec 08 :: 18:28

Wow, they were/are in Munich? And I didn't even know! LOL When was that? It's really strange that the premiere happened a month before the movie comes out here. Well, who can understand film business?
Uhm, I guess I would recognize Kristen, but Robert looks indeed somehow strange. The hair is even worse than at the LA premiere, I would say. My mom would not let him go to such an even with that hair style.

TheCentralScrutinizer · 08 Dec 08 :: 18:29

She got dressed in the dark. LOL!

TeeJay · 08 Dec 08 :: 18:31

I don't know when the Munich premiere was. The photo was linked in the hires_hunks community on LiveJournal that I'm watching. You know, in case they ever post photos of Chris...

And while we're talking about Robert's hair, I think it looks horrible. But I thought the LA premiere was worse, if that's even possible.

-TeeJay

magicalturkey · 08 Dec 08 :: 18:39

I think Rob said once he hasn't washed his hair in over four years :puke:.

And yeah... that dress was a bad idea. Looks like a slip.

domesticelefant · 08 Dec 08 :: 18:47

TeeJay wrote:

I don't know when the Munich premiere was. The photo was linked in the hires_hunks community on LiveJournal that I'm watching. You know, in case they ever post photos of Chris...

If they don't start that soon, they must be blind!

TeeJay wrote:

And while we're talking about Robert's hair, I think it looks horrible. But I thought the LA premiere was worse, if that's even possible.

I actually think the Munich premiere is worse because that looks just like a total mess and the LA hairdo looked at least like the beginning of a hairdo. I don't know how to explain it. LOL But messy hair seems to be his trademark, according to imdb. If he likes it - okay. Not really my problem. I just wanna know if he plays a good Edward and that has - thank God - nothing to do with the hairstyle he prefers in real life.

TheCentralScrutinizer · 08 Dec 08 :: 20:11

Why would someone not wash their hair for 4 years? Is he nuts? And who would date someone with 4 years worth of filth in his hair? Can you imagine the insect life that could exist in there? Why am I flashing on the South Park ep where there was a lice ourbreak?

OK, I'm officially grossed out now.

domesticelefant · 08 Dec 08 :: 20:23

I guess somebody who doesn't wash their hair in four years IS nuts. And I hope he's not one of them. LOL

CappuGirl · 08 Dec 08 :: 20:25

Are you guys formilliar with deviantart.com? I've just browsed houndreds of pictures the searchterm "Twilight" brough up, and giggled like nuts. Even for the pictures made by so weirdos that don't get Twilight. Must be some dumb guys disguised as girls, huh? Anyways, there's hilarious comics of many kinds and these MEME's make my belly hurt, that's how much I laugh at them. :rofl: Check them out.. Here's a few...
http://zaphaire.deviantart.com/art/Twil … e-88033144
http://diskofaery.deviantart.com/art/Do … c-65099237
http://loleia.deviantart.com/art/Twilig … e-96737669 ***Breaking dawn spoiler***
http://loleia.deviantart.com/art/Twilig … -100008010
http://rainbowthief.deviantart.com/art/ … s-90370431
http://pouncersd.deviantart.com/art/Twi … t-85317300
http://loleia.deviantart.com/art/Twilig … e-74910345
http://alicexz.deviantart.com/art/Twilight-II-104817841

Some people are amazingly talented. Some people just have a great taste in humour.
I lack of both but enjoy the fruits of their imagination.

domesticelefant · 08 Dec 08 :: 20:36

I can't see Twilight as a comic adaption, but I like the drawing from the last link (which is not comic, of course).

larry-411 · 08 Dec 08 :: 22:12

Illinoisguy1 wrote:

Well that's the official reason.
According to this site, here is the reason.http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com/h … franchise/

Some of that is true. I actually saw that about 5 minutes after she posted it. I sent it out as a bulletin on my MySpace and posted it on IMDb and then went to verify what I could. That's when the release was issued. I have more information I might post.

Meantime, here is more:

No Hardwicke for 'Twilight' sequel
Timing conflicts cause for director's departure
By ANNE THOMPSON
Summit Entertainment has wasted no time moving ahead with the next installment in Stephenie Meyer's bestselling "Twilight" series, "New Moon." But in an unusual move after the successful launch of a franchise that has already generated $138.6 million, the upstart distrib is not bringing director Catherine Hardwicke back to direct the picture. Summit and Hardwicke cite Summit's wish to rush the movie into production as one reason for their split. Summit wants to release the picture, which will demand substantial CGI work, by the end of 2009 or the start of 2010. A former production designer, Hardwicke wanted more prep time.
"Twilight" scripter Melissa Rosenberg handed in a draft of "New Moon" the weekend that "Twilight" opened. Hardwicke wanted more time to work on it; Summit announced it was going ahead with "New Moon" on November 22, with no director attached. Negotiations lasted two weeks before Hardwicke formally passed on the film Saturday.
As word spread through Hollywood agencies that the talks might not result in Hardwicke's return, reports surfaced that Summit was checking out other directors for the "Twilight" franchise while they insisted they were still negotiating with Hardwicke, who delivered the biggest opening weekend ever for a woman. (CAA denies that they were soliciting other directors.) The movie is still going strong as the director and cast promote it overseas; it came in second this weekend with $13.2 million, grossing a total $138.6 million.
The problem that stalled negotiations was that Hardwicke had strong opinions about what to do with the next installment, and so did Summit. The debate was how to focus the adaptation of the second book, which deals more with giant werewolves than vampires, as well as the long depression of Bella Swan (Kristen Stewart), after her vampire lover (Rob Pattinson) leaves her. One issue was how to get more of teen heartthrob Pattinson into the film. (Rosenberg has figured out a device to achieve this.) But Hardwicke, burned out from her "Twilight" labors, simply wasn't willing to jam this movie with a script that still needed months of development.
"I am sorry that due to timing I will not have the opportunity to direct 'New Moon,'" said Hardwicke. "Directing 'Twilight' has been one of the great experiences of my life, and I am grateful to the fans for their passionate support of the film. I wish everyone at Summit the best with the sequel -- it is a great story."
"Catherine did an incredible job in helping us to launch the 'Twilight' franchise, and we thank her for all of her efforts and we very much hope to work with her on future Summit projects," said Summit production prexy Erik Feig. "We as a studio have a mandate to bring the next installment in the franchise to the big screen in a timely fashion so that fans can get more of Edward, Bella and all of the characters that Stephenie Meyer has created. We are able to pursue an aggressive time frame as we have the luxury of only adapting the novels into screenplays as opposed to having to create a storyline from scratch."
Hardwicke has other balls in the air, including two projects in the works with Groundswell Entertainment's Michael London, who produced "Thirteen."

http://www.variety.com/VR1117997013.html

LA Times take on it:

Why 'Twilight's' director got the boot
02:47 PM PT, Dec 8 2008
Hardwicke2There's no way to put a pretty frame around this picture. After Catherine Hardwicke delivered an immensely lucrative franchise starter with "Twilight," a film that will put Summit Entertainment on the map, wiping away all the company's other losses and missteps, she was rewarded by being pushed aside, with Summit making it clear over the weekend that it's beginning work on a "Twilight" sequel without her. There is an enormously complicated back story to the events, but what really happened here was another example of the age-old collision between art and commerce.
Director of such indie-style films as "Thirteen" and "Lords of Dogtown," Hardwicke is an incredibly gifted filmmaker who gave "Twilight" an emotional intensity that helped the movie capture the heart-racing intoxication of Stephenie Meyer's novel, making the film a must-see for teenagers everywhere. (It's now grossed nearly $140 million in 18 days of release.) But Hardwicke is also a notoriously difficult, high-maintenance filmmaker who wears her emotions on her sleeve. This emotional intensity cuts both ways--it brought something special to the movie, but it made life a vertiginous roller-coaster for many people working on the film, from crew to executives.
On an indie film, prickly auteurs are a dime a dozen--they come with the territory. But in a shockingly short time, "Twilight" went from a quirky cult project, aimed at a teen subculture, to a massive, mainstream franchise. The indie movie suddenly became a mass-production product. The day after the movie opened, Summit announced that it wanted a sequel by late 2009. As Anne Thompson reports in today's Variety, Melissa Rosenberg, who wrote "Twilight," delivered her first draft of the sequel the weekend "Twilight" opened. Summit chief executive Rob Friedman, who deserves a lot of credit for supporting a project that had been put in turnaround by Paramount, the studio where he was a top executive for years, seems to have made a classic studio-style risk vs. reward decision: The sensitive artist who was the perfect filmmaker to launch the franchise was the wrong person to run the show once the project became a blockbuster franchise.
Hardwicke supporters say she had long ago soured on the prospect of being involved with the kind of franchise where a release window takes precedence over a finished script, saying she didn't want to be involved with a sequel, believing it would be more an assembly-line product than an artistic challenge. But after "Twilight" became a box-office phenomenon, her reps at CAA gently tried to persuade her to stay on board, especially if Summit would grant her creative control on the sequel. Like any filmmaker, Hardwicke felt a lot of love when "Twilight" swept across the pop-culture landscape, not to mention a pride of authorship in its success. But when she registered a lack of enthusiasm in the new script, it quickly became obvious that Summit would seek a more pragmatic filmmaker to helm the follow-up film.
What does this tell us about Hollywood? And was there a guy-girl conflict behind Hardwicke's departure? Keep reading:
Rob Friedman insists that the "Twilight" sequel, "New Moon," was not being rushed into production. "We love the draft she turned in," he says. "Melissa has worked very hard on the material and was an integral part of what made the original film such a success. This is not a rush job. The movie only gets released when its finished. I'd like it to be next year, but we're not going to put out a bad movie to hit a release date."
On the other hand, Summit can't dawdle. Unlike with "Harry Potter," whose characters aged with each book, the characters in the "Twilight" series remain young forever, so if the studio is going to rely on its newly minted stars, Kristen Stewart and Rob Pattinson, to carry the entire series, it has to move full speed ahead. Summit has options on its lead actors, but since they are now in demand for other films, if Summit doesn't press ahead quickly, it could lose them for months on end to other productions.
Hardwicke's abrupt departure has also fueled rumors that she clashed with the all-male hierarchy at Summit. It's a charge often leveled at Hollywood's largely all-male executive ranks, which has a woeful track record of hiring female filmmakers on mainstream studio projects. Friedman insists there were no gender issues. "It's an insult to me personally as well as to our company. I'm the father of four daughters. When I was at Paramount, we did Kathryn Bigelow's 'K-19: The Widowmaker.' I was the person who marketed Mimi Leder's 'Deep Impact' [often cited as one of the most commercially successful films directed by a woman]. Here at Summit, one of the first films we've bought was 'The Hurt Locker,' which is also directed by Kathryn Bigelow. We would definitely make another film with Catherine Hardwicke, just not the sequel to 'Twilight.' "
Still, given the choice, most studios prefer to keep the director who started the franchise rolling, whether its Sam Raimi with "Spider-Man," Steven Soderbergh on "Ocean's Eleven," Brett Ratner with "Rush Hour" or Jay Roach on "Austin Powers." On "The Dark Knight," Warner Bros. has made it clear that the franchise will only proceed when Christopher Nolan, who brought the Batman franchise back to life, says it's ready to go. Summit's handling of Hardwicke's departure is more reminiscent of what Universal did with its "Bourne" series, which was also in the hands of a prickly indie filmmaker. Doug Liman launched the franchise with his dazzling "The Bourne Identity," but he went way over schedule and drove the studio crazy with his improvisational perfectionism. Even though the movie was a big hit and seemed to carry Liman's personal stamp, the studio ditched him, bringing in Paul Greengrass, a filmmaker with equally indie-minded credentials who could better deal with the deadlines and demands of a studio environment.
Summit's challenge will be to find a filmmaker to take over the "Twilight" series who has artistic credibility but who can handle the challenge of a ramped-up filming schedule (Summit's goal is to film both the second and third books in the series next year.) The most closely watched part of the decision will be the gender component. If Summit picks a guy, it will be open to criticism from the female filmmaking community, which is already furious over how few studio jobs go to women. But the female filmmaking gene pool is small. Most successful female directors are indie filmmakers, not studio pros, which would put Summit back in the same awkward situation of hiring a personal filmmaker who can't--or won't--embrace the by-the-book filmmaking model of most franchises.
Maybe I'm blinded by my fondness for Hardwicke's style of filmmaking, but I'm betting she won't have any trouble finding new projects to helm. If nothing else, the success of "Twilight" proves that a fiercely independent filmmaker can make a hugely successful commercial film. That's not just good news for Hardwicke, who now has some box-office clout to go with her art-house cred (even if she's probably getting deluged with bad vampire scripts as we speak). But it might even open a few doors for some other indie filmmakers eager to prove they can make good movies that make money too.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/the_big … ht-di.html

Last edited by larry-411 (09 Dec 08 :: 05:14)

BiggestChrisMarquetteFan · 09 Dec 08 :: 05:04

magicalturkey wrote:

I think Rob said once he hasn't washed his hair in over four years :puke:.

If that's true then that's nasty! I'm soo grossed out right now. Double yuck! :puke:

CappuGirl · 09 Dec 08 :: 09:54

Twilight High School Musical (a parody)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nv4SCfEuYqg

This was hilarious. And great singing. I think these might be real actors. They were good. And good quality.

CappuGirl · 09 Dec 08 :: 11:57

Robert Pattison- interview (apparently in a hotel room by a fangirl). He says a lot of interesting things and is his charming self, humble and all.

part1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IgddMTBWyKs
part2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSPRpWdF2H8
part3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7iGNgLfU0k
part4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4WN7DdLqOzQ

Well, if I had Rob alone on a coutch... I wouldn't take out a camera and start a third degree.....
I never fell hard for Edward but Rob is a whole another story... :drool:

CappuGirl · 09 Dec 08 :: 12:20

More pics from the German premiere...

Uh, that lip biting should be illegal....:drool: Love the Wolverine look Big fan of Wolverine. If they ever make another Wolverine movie I guess we know who's gonna win the lead!

Last edited by CappuGirl (09 Dec 08 :: 12:21)

TeeJay · 09 Dec 08 :: 12:41

I'm sorry, but there is nothing sexy about this dude in those photos. Nothing whatsoever. All the screaming 16-year-olds can have him for themselves.

-TeeJay

domesticelefant · 09 Dec 08 :: 13:03

Okay, that definitely does look like he hasn't washed his hair in four years. Or even longer. I am officially grossed out now.

I can't watch the interview videos right now, since I'm at work, but I might watch them later (and try not to think about the hair. LOL)

magicalturkey · 09 Dec 08 :: 14:02

Well, he at least combs it because it's not a matted mess. His hair looked pretty clean in the movie, so maybe he just uses waaaaay too much product.

I think when he said he hasn't washed his hair, it was an interviewer asking how he got that "unwashed" look and he just said he doesn't wash it. Which makes since. But Rob also apparently has a stupid sense of humor so who knows.

domesticelefant · 09 Dec 08 :: 18:03

You think that hair looks combed? Really? To me it doesn't look combed at all. I rather think he's just too lazy to comb it every morning. And I hope that the statement about the unwashed hair was really a joke. That's just too gross. I don't think anyone would bear not to wash their hair for four years!
And hey, maybe the hairstylists washed it during the shooting of Twilight. Maybe they got grossed out too!

magicalturkey · 09 Dec 08 :: 18:16

It doesn't look freshly combed, no but I've seen guys who really don't wash their hair and it's all matted up. Rob's hair is obviously a mess, but it's not matted.

magicalturkey · 09 Dec 08 :: 18:43

Found this on the Twilight IMDb board, 101 ways to annoy Edward: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1099212/boa … 649269?p=1

Chris Marquette Message Board

#576 08 Dec 08 :: 04:14

Re: Twilight (contains spoilers for all books and the movies)

#577 08 Dec 08 :: 04:56

Re: Twilight (contains spoilers for all books and the movies)

#578 08 Dec 08 :: 16:05

Re: Twilight (contains spoilers for all books and the movies)

#579 08 Dec 08 :: 16:14

Re: Twilight (contains spoilers for all books and the movies)

#580 08 Dec 08 :: 18:19

Re: Twilight (contains spoilers for all books and the movies)

#581 08 Dec 08 :: 18:28

Re: Twilight (contains spoilers for all books and the movies)

#582 08 Dec 08 :: 18:29

Re: Twilight (contains spoilers for all books and the movies)

#583 08 Dec 08 :: 18:31

Re: Twilight (contains spoilers for all books and the movies)

#584 08 Dec 08 :: 18:39

Re: Twilight (contains spoilers for all books and the movies)

#585 08 Dec 08 :: 18:47

Re: Twilight (contains spoilers for all books and the movies)

#586 08 Dec 08 :: 20:11

Re: Twilight (contains spoilers for all books and the movies)

#587 08 Dec 08 :: 20:23

Re: Twilight (contains spoilers for all books and the movies)

#588 08 Dec 08 :: 20:25

Re: Twilight (contains spoilers for all books and the movies)

#589 08 Dec 08 :: 20:36

Re: Twilight (contains spoilers for all books and the movies)

#590 08 Dec 08 :: 22:12

Re: Twilight (contains spoilers for all books and the movies)

#591 09 Dec 08 :: 05:04

Re: Twilight (contains spoilers for all books and the movies)

#592 09 Dec 08 :: 09:54

Re: Twilight (contains spoilers for all books and the movies)

#593 09 Dec 08 :: 11:57

Re: Twilight (contains spoilers for all books and the movies)

#594 09 Dec 08 :: 12:20

Re: Twilight (contains spoilers for all books and the movies)

#595 09 Dec 08 :: 12:41

Re: Twilight (contains spoilers for all books and the movies)

#596 09 Dec 08 :: 13:03

Re: Twilight (contains spoilers for all books and the movies)

#597 09 Dec 08 :: 14:02

Re: Twilight (contains spoilers for all books and the movies)

#598 09 Dec 08 :: 18:03

Re: Twilight (contains spoilers for all books and the movies)

#599 09 Dec 08 :: 18:16

Re: Twilight (contains spoilers for all books and the movies)

#600 09 Dec 08 :: 18:43

Re: Twilight (contains spoilers for all books and the movies)

Board footer