Twilight continues to count the money and so will the film’s stars Robert Pattinson and Kristen Stewart. Each received a reported $2 million for the first film in Stephenie Meyer’s four book series. Now that New Moon has been put into production, each is looking at $12 million paydays according to the Chicago Sun-Times.
That alone will help push the budget towards to estimated $150 million before you add in the special effects for the werewolves and location shooting in Alaska and Italy.
Now if only the first movie was actually any good…
DC Comics April 2012 Solicitations
PREVIEW: “Jim Henson’s Tale Of Sand”
DC Comics March 2012 Solicitations
Preview: “Darkwing Duck” #18 — Like A Fenton From The Ashes!
Preview: “Daredevil” #6
Preview: Betrayal Of The Planet Of The Apes #1
MARTHA THOMASES: George Lucas, Black History, and African-American Comics
Dennis O’Neil – Sick, Sick, Sick
MIKE GOLD: Stupid Logo Tricks
MICHAEL DAVIS Is Bringing Sexy Back
MINDY NEWELL: “Superman? He Must Be Jewish!”
JOHN OSTRANDER: Ch-ch-choices
MARC ALAN FISHMAN: Trades vs. Monthlies – An Unpopular Stance
Primeval Volume Three, by Robert Greenberger
Busting, by Robert Greenberger
To Kill a Mockingbird, by Robert Greenberger
Transformers: Dark of the Moon, by Robert Greenberger
Star Trek: The Next Generation – The Next Level, by Robert Greenberger
Pandemonium, by Robert Greenberger
Real Steel, by Robert Greenberger
REVIEW: “Dark Victory” (Lady Lazurus #2), by Alexandra Honigsberg
REVIEW: Kamala Sankaram’s “Miranda”, by Alexandra Honigsberg
MIKE GOLD: The Batman Family Feud, by Mike Gold
The first movie was good so shut up ! It wasn't better than the book and it did have some cheesy stuff !!! But with a 37 million dollar budget your not going to get the best actors or effects. All in all it was good and that's my opinion. BUT I THINK NEW MOON WILL BE BETTER THAN TWILIGHT !
what the hell? twilight was amazing!!! best movie i have ever seen! they did what they could with 37 mil and they did GREAT!
i really agree up there with the last comment,, they didnt know what they were working with for the first film and what it would bring in.. and not hiring the big guys and finding different people and all that wound up making the film GREAT i know there was stuff that was wrong and different but oh well it was still cool i have watched it TWICE!!!!
i agree!the first movie was REALLY AMAZING. so if the second movie has a bigger budget, it'll be even better than the first was!
wow.i can't wait for the next movie. just hope the next production would be a better one.it'll be a challenge since the next story will tell a lot about werewolves, their transformations..it intrigues me a lot on how they are going to show jacob in his abnormal growth spurt.yeeesh.the volturi will also be in action!wow can't wait to see the casting!i really really really do hope the new moon movie would be as catching as it was intended to be by the book.because to tell the truth, i was quite disappointed with twilight.i just wish there wouldn't be a second one or a third one and possibly a fourth.goodluck ms. catherine hardwicke!
$150 million?? WOW! can't wait for New Moon then! With that kind of budget, the effects and the wolves should be something to look forward to! yeeey!
Yeah, well, I wouldn't be so quick to count on that budget. Despite the huge payday, Summit remains a fairly small movie studio (although I'll wager that whoever it was at Paramount that allowed the option rights to lapse in 2006 is cleaning out his or her desk about now.) The next film is going to do huge box office whether it's $40 million or three times that, so why spend the extra money? Yes, $150 million has been floated by the director as the ideal budget, but execs have been quoted as not being sanguine (no pun intended) over such elevation. Especially when one considers that part of that projected boost in budget would come from cast members seeking to up their quote from $2 million to $12 million. If the cast tries to hold firm to that, I suspect they'll discover they have far less leverage than they think they do. Audiences are showing up for the property, not for the easily disposable performers. They may think they're hot stuff, and at the moment they are, but heat cools very quickly in show business, and if they don't smarten up then next time out they'll be on the outside looking in. There's plenty of pretty-boy and pretty-girl actors out there to gaze soulfully at each other.PAD
Now if only the first movie was actually any good…I'm a guy, and i liked it (no i'm not gay)..I think they did a great job considering the low budget..And the actors are great and very convincing..And if it sucks, why on earth would it get 4 out of 5 star rankings pretty much everywhere..So would you please just chillax…
And if it sucks, why on earth would it get 4 out of 5 star rankings pretty much everywhere..Because raving fanboyz and fangrrlz were the only people who bothered to rate it at all?In general, that's how a film that got a less-than-rapturous reception from critics gets that sort of "user rating".
I really Loved the Movie Twilight!! Now I know there were differences in the book, but you get that when you change formats from a book to the screen. Some things in the book are not as visually appealing, so you change it up for dramatic effects. I thought they did a great job considering the budget. There are things that were not in the movie that I loved in the book, but you can't have everything in the movie and still keep it at 2 hours. There is one thing that I learned when moving books into film is that you have to see it more than once. The first time you see the movie you will be comparing the movie to the book, which is only natural. The second time you see it, you will be watching the movie for the movie itself. Things tend to flow better and you can really engross yourself into the movie. I have watched the movie Twilight 7 times and LOVE it!! It is my escape, just jump into that world for awhile. I have read the book Twilight 15 times, and the rest of the series 12 times. I love the way she writes her books. There are serious parts and really funny parts. I will be reading and just start laughing and my husband wonders what is going on. It is great!! Her other book "The Host" is really good too. Just remember Edward and Bella are not in it, so don't look for them in it.So for those of you who didn't like it and only saw it once, go see it again. Just enjoy the movie and don't pick it apart. Remember it is for entertainment, you are not getting graded on it. And enjoy the audience around you. Whether it is a group of teenage girls, or a group of adults (men and women). It is a great experience that I would love to do again!!
I read the first book at my daughter's suggestion since she loved it so much, since I was curious what level of writing was required to produce such a phenomenon. And I realized that I could never write a book on par with "Twilight" because I simply cannot write that badly. Seriously, it's terrible. Flat characters uttering banal dialogue, a plot that meanders and doesn't end so much as stop. Fundamental writing mistakes that should have been weeded out by even a semi-competent copyeditor. Ghastly.PAD
So what spoke to your daughter? Are you saying that your daughter is an idiot for liking what she likes? Was she duped? Obviously there is something there beyond marketing, or can mere marketing fool that many people?You don't have to think it's good. But, as a writer, I would think that you would be intrigued to puzzle out the appeal of the Twilight Series. If it's SO badly executed, why is it SO popular? How did it become this phenomenon, and what can you borrow from that formula? I'm surprised to see you off-handedly dismiss something so successful at touching the heart of your own daughter.
So what spoke to your daughter? Are you saying that your daughter is an idiot for liking what she likes? Was she duped? Obviously there is something there beyond marketing, or can mere marketing fool that many people?Well, yes, it can.However, remember that PAD's daughter is part of the target demographic of the book, and he isn't. What a middle-aged male professional writer sees in what's basically a tween romance isnot what said writer's daughter is likely to see.Personally, i'm underwhelmed by the "Harry Potter" books, and haven't yet bothered to see any of the films. OTOH, i have friends and relations who love both. I see the Potter books as, basically, an outsider re-inventing the entire fantasy genre, and being self-consciously "cute" about it, too.And don't even get me started on Madeline L'Engle's vastly over-rated works. You don't have to think it's good. But, as a writer, I would think that you would be intrigued to puzzle out the appeal of the Twilight Series. If it's SO badly executed, why is it SO popular? How did it become this phenomenon, and what can you borrow from that formula?And why should PAD want to "borrow from that formula"? The presumable answer to the "How did it become so popular?" question is somewhat in line with that crack about "…underestimating the good taste of the American public…". There is decent market for comfortable mediocrity with flashy technique in popular culture – Steven Spielberg's career is founded on it.Obviously, you have never thought to yourself "Why is everyone raving about how great that awful [book, movie, CD, whatever], when anyone with half a mind can see it's junk?", right?Did you think the "Goosebumps" books were great literature? How about the typical Harlequin Romance book?I'm surprised to see you off-handedly dismiss something so successful at touching the heart of your own daughter.Nothing "off-handed" about PAD's comment – it was specific and clear.
There's nothing to puzzle out: It's aimed at teenage girls. I'm not a teenage girl, nor have I ever been, so I don't even have an inner teenage girl for it to appeal to. Teenage girls will forgive a good deal. If nothing else, they have a lot of practice since they have to forgive teenage boys.There are some aspects that are simply indisputably inept. The author's apparent inability to use the word "said" in dialogue exchanges, for instance. Instead we get, "he gasped," "she sighed," "he pondered," "she mused," etc. "What do you think you're doing?" he hissed. I defy you to hiss that sentence since it's bereft of the letter "s." When you're younger, you simply don't realize these things. I loved the works of Edgar Rice Burroughs when I was a kid. If I first experienced them now, I'd be put off by the purple prose and likely would have trouble getting through any of them. It happens all the time. Consider "Phantom Menace." Audiences slammed it as being poorly directly, badly acted, badly written, although with great special effects. Yeah, well…so was "Star Wars" back in 1977. But because the FX were so new and visionary, audiences willingly forgave all the other substandard aspects. Unfortunately for Lucas, twenty years worth of FX developments in films left audiences tougher to impress. It was still successful, though. Meyers' most recent novel was largely reviled by its core readership. I suspect it may not have been much worse than the first one; it's just that the readers grew up a few years in the intervening time and their critical faculties may have sharpened. Bottom line: quality of writing is no guarantee of success just as lack of same is no guarantee of failure.PAD
http://pointlessbanter.net/2008/11/22/if-you-are-…
ugh, people ANNOY ME. Of course the movie was not going to be anything compared to the book! Books are always better then movies, and people need to learn to embrace that concept. Think of it as if you've never even heard of the books before. It was a well put together movie, with a good story line. Yes, there were some parts that could have ben fixed, but that's life. My goodness, people really need to have a more open mind about things instead of demanding it live up to their expectations.
The books aren't always better than the movie. Ever read "The Wizard of Oz"? Ever read "You Only Live Twice"? Most of the Bond films, as cheesy and formulaic as they are, are way more entertaining than most of the Ian Flemming novels they are loosely based on.
That's what I'm saying. They just aren't going to be the same, and most people just don't get that.
That's what I'm saying, movies never even come close to being compared to books. Most people just don't get that.
First off, I'll just draw attention that the two articles drawing more comments than any other in weeks on this site are both about Twilight. Mayhap there's an unexpected demographic visiting here.Let me tell a stry, and forgive me if you've heard it. A few years back, I, the wife, a few friends, and my sister all went to see The Faculty, Robert Rodriguez' cotribution to the Body Snatcher sub-genre. It was perfectly good; better than many, not as good as others. We all stood around afterwards discussing it in comparison to other films in the genre, through the eyes of film fans who've seen many similar movies. My sister, OTOH, had NEVER seen a Body Snatcher movie, and loved the HELL out of it. I enjoyed listening to her discuss the film with the enthusiasm of youth.For a great deal of the kids who read Twilight, or Harry Potter or any other young aduly.tween novel, it's the BEST book of the genre they've ever read. And it gets them interested enough to read more. As time and experience expends their knowledge base, they may realize that the first book was not as good from a technical or story standpoint as others they will read. but that won't dilute the pure joy they got from reading that first book.There is some merit in the old chestnut "Well, at least they're reading". Hand a kid Lord of the Rings and they'll balk at the heft of it. But once they've read the Herry Potter series, LOTR will be a walk in the park.Get them interested in reading, and they'll be far more open to reading more (better) stuff.
cant wait 4 the second 1