They moved this movie up on it's release date after the latest "Harry Potter" was pushed back to summer of '09. I read in a few places the studios expected near close numbers because of the fan base.

Bolt changed its date too after Potter moved. Does that mean Disney was expecting it to pull in Potter numbers? No.

Hating the movie is one thing, but it's digging pretty deep to say this is a box office disappointment.

Um, was "Bolt" a best selling book like "Twilight"? No. And did I say "Twilight" was a box-office disappointment?? No. But the studio fired Hardwicke for a reason.

The Twilight series is very popular, yes, but still doesn't have nearly the following as the Harry Potter books.

It was moved up a few weeks, not months. [3 Weeks]

Summit is thrilled with this film. Thrilled. After the failure of Sex Drive this is exactly what Summit needed.

Seriously, for someone to say Twilight was a box office disappointment is absolutely delusional. The movie already made back for than 4 times its budget and is still holding strong in the box office.

Yeah, the drop is big. For the cost of the film and box office cash it has...it's a success for the studio. A failure in the standard face value in cash going down but this film made more than it needed..so it's an A+ for them.

$130 in 2.5 weeks is hardly a failure. Many movies wish they made that much on such a low budget. Look at Bolt - Hannah Montana CGI film aimed at kids at its made roughly $80 Mil. How much did that one cost?

I never said this was moved up several months. But the fact that Summit moved it up at all to fill in Harry Potter's slot is still trying to fill some pretty big shoes. Also, I never said it was a failure. After seeing the advance ticket sales, I actually expected this movie to make twice as much at this point. And I bet you a million bucks with a new director and better special effects, the next installment makes 50-100M more than "Twilight".

So glad Hardwicke is out for New Moon. Everyone I know who even LOVED Twilight referenced the directorial choices as pretty shitty...people who usually don't notice that kind of stuff but did this time. Great move on Summit's part - now hopefully they'll get someone decent for the sequel (although to me, almost anyone would be better than CH).

They didn't move it up to fill Harry Potter's slot (or shoes). They moved it up because they knew that, with Harry Potter moved out of the schedule, they had a chance to make more money by showing the film over the Thanksgiving Day weekend than they would by leaving it at its original release date.

Isn't that what I said? By filling shoes, I didn't mean to appease Potter fans. I meant to take advantage of the extra $$$ it could make.

You implied that the filmmakers expected to make as much money as the Potter film would have, by opening three weeks earlier. I don't think any such expectation ever existed on their part. They did take advantage of the vacant slot, and I have no doubt that they did make some extra money as a result.

I didn't imply anything. I said I read on one or two sites that the studio had hoped to get near numbers as HP. With HP out of the way. They were just analysts saying it could be possible with "Twilights" rabid fanbase. And possible repeat viewings.

Unless they hire Bret Ratner I don't see this being anything but a good move.

Even Brett Ratner is a step up. You could hire a chimpanzee with cerebral palsy and it would do a better job than Catherine fucking Hardwicke.

They were smoking some serious stuff then.

QoS was also moved up with HP6 got moved into next year. These studios are smart enough to try and avoid a film like HP6 if they can.

Yes, the comparison is absurd. The Harry Potter books (and movies) have a much broader fanbase than the Twilight series.

Although it has fantasy elements involving vampires, it isn't a book about vampires, it is a romance! There is a large segment of the population (mostly male) that denigrates romance as "chick lit" and "chick flicks". It is hardly surprising that many here didn't like the movie (or book, for those that read it). But to set up a "straw-man" argument that since Twilight didn't do as well as the Harry Potter movies it wasn't a success, is ridiculous.

I reading the series right now. I am almost through the second book "New Moon". It is definitely a page turner. I disagree with Lizard saying that the book isn't about vampires -- it is a romance. The book does have quite a bit of romance, but don't let that scare you away. They are vampire books, and it extends out a little more but I will not spoil it for you.

I am a 30 year old male and I am really digging the series so far.

wlj

These are pretty funny...

http://www.slashfilm.com/wp/wp-conte...ightecard1.jpg

lol

mwahahah!

Re: Twilight
 

Finally caught a showing of the movie yesterday with a friend of mine who loves the books. I've only read the first two, but oddly enough I didn't have high expectations for a movie adaptation.

I actually enjoyed the film and whether or not it was supposed to be intentionally campy was a highlight for me. As another poster in this thread had mentioned, not once did I feel bored during the film's run time. It wasn't a perfect movie nor did it do a good job in filling plot holes, but it was fun.

Only things I didn't like was the random ass Stephanie Meyer cameo and the fact that the actor who plays James looks like a co-worker of mine :)

Re: Twilight
 

Finally saw this at the bargain theater. Having read the book prior, I will say the script is very good, in that it manages to condense Meyer's sprawling mess of a book into something that more or less works. Some things were unavoidable... the 'plan' at the end of the book is still completely stupid, but the screenwriters were smart to amp up the action and show the confrontation (where Meyer simply dodged the whole climax of her own story).

The main problem with the film version is that the fx and many of Hardwicke's decisions were failures in their own right... the supposed 'wow' moments (the sunny sparkle, the superhuman powers) weren't just anticlimactic; they came off as silly.

So while the film improves on a lot of the book's problems, it creates several new problems of its own.

Re: Twilight
 

Stumbled across this online, and watched it last night. I will admit I was not bored - but the dialogue was laughable, the acting even worse, and there was absolutely no real heat generated between the two leads. Serviceible if unimaginative direction and cheesy made-for-tv quality special effects didn't help. (Wait - I'll take that back - made-for-tv stuff generally has <i>better</i> special effects.

So why have the books and now this movie grabbed the fancy of all those pre-pubescent and not-quite-legal fans?

For the answer, simply refer to Lisa Bonet in <i>Angel Heart</i> - <i>"It's always the bad-ass that makes a girl's heart beat faster."</i>