Who's Directing The 'Twilight' Sequel This Week?
Filed under: Romance, Sci-Fi & Fantasy, Casting, RumorMonger, Remakes and Sequels
There's a real communication problem going on with the follow up to the vampire romance Twilight. Everywhere you look there are conflicting casting announcements, different release dates, and even one of the stars was shocked to find out that he had a job until 2010 -- so you'll forgive me if this seems a little confusing. Twilight newcomer Kellan Lutz recently spoke with MTV and spilled the news that not only is Drew Barrymore out, but Summit might have already hired and lost another director for the third Twilight installment, Eclipse. Lutz tells MTV, "I actually heard rumors that they did have a third director, and he fell out, and then they saw more people." According to Lutz, another director has already been hired, but unfortunately, he just isn't sure who it is: "I would say [the name] if I could remember it. But I know it was a guy." So why has it been so hard to find a new director for Eclipse? I know it wasn't exactly a surprise when Catherine Hardwicke did not return for a second film, but you would have thought that there would be a bunch of folks lining up, willing to take a shot at the franchise. One theory that's emerged (for better or for worse) is that finding a director has been difficult because a woman is better suited to handle the hearts and flowers of the story, and the sad truth is there just aren't many working female directors that studios are willing to take a chance on. (Wow, here we are in 2009 and the best we can come up with is "chicks are better at the mushy stuff"?)
Luckily I'm not the only one who isn't buying that excuse. Lutz also told MTV, "I don't think there's any difference between male or female directors, as far as who can relate. There's no big difference of who can do what, or who is better with romance."
So it looks like the production could finally be ready to get into gear, but nothing seems to last when it comes to Twilight, so stay tuned to Cinematical for the final word -- if it ever comes. But for now, I want to hear your theories: why do you think Summit hasn't been able to hold on to a director?
Girls on Film: Domestic Violence and Media
'Spider-Man 4' Villain Rumor: Rachel McAdams as Black Cat
Original A-Team Making Cameos in New Movie?
Is the 'Avatar' Budget Approaching $500 Million?_thumbnail.jpg)
Exclusive: Poster Premiere for 'Extraordinary Measures'
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
3-09-2009 @ 4:45PM
Cincinnati Mike said...
whatever happened to Mimi Leder? The Peacemaker and Deep Impact weren't bad at all. Deep Impact was certainly better than Armageddon!
Reply
3-09-2009 @ 4:46PM
Germain said...
I wonder if that James Mangold rumor that was floating for about 20 seconds last month will come true.
Reply
3-10-2009 @ 7:51AM
Howie said...
Catherine did a fantastic job (apart from the awful flashbacks) but there are a lot of male directors out there who could carry the baton, come on Tom Hooper ...?
Reply
3-09-2009 @ 6:40PM
jessica said...
I heard a rumor that Paul Weitz was directing the third one. This would make some sense considering his brother is directing New Moon.
Reply
3-09-2009 @ 7:09PM
A.J said...
Sofia Coppola! Don't big blockbuster adaptations always work best when it's art house meets big budget? See: Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban and The Dark Knight.
Reply
3-09-2009 @ 7:09PM
fred said...
It's probably all about finding a director who will put up with basically only having visual input, or performance input, as the studio will basically make every other artistic direction for them.
Reply
3-22-2009 @ 8:39PM
HollywoodStar1 said...
I just saw the movie. I didn't read the book, so I can't comment on how true to the original story it was. This film was definitely geared toward the teenage girl marketing mecca, not a 40 year old man, however, Harry Potter was a kid's story right? Yet, it was catching to all age groups, it told the story and it told it well. I thought Twilight suffered from pacing issues, it also didn't make the good vampires scary enough, come on, vampires are all sparkly in the sunlight? It kind of romanticized the notion of a vampire in a candy coated, cool way, not the living madness that being a vampire is that Interview with a Vampire was suppose to be. A film that is willing to talk about the metaphor of the girl's blood as being, "...like a drug, a personal heroin" but not really pushing the boundaries of anything that threatening. The girl's Dad, a Police Chief, the character arc was almost non-existent and the performance flat lined all the way to the end. There was obviously some issues with their relationship that never was resolved or even explored that much. The special effects were good, with fast moving shots and the cinematography and locations were very good. The town was portrayed as a typical small Northwestern town, with good people, even the vampires are good.
I think a sequel needs a little more magic, brand the story with more relationship development, a little more threatening, complex, give it some horror. The flirtatious teen romance can stay, to a point.
I give the movie Twilight a 5.5 on a scale of 1-10.
Reply