Comments on: Twilight Replaces A Pale Chick With An Even Paler Bryce Dallas Howard

By: ElizabethLautner

ElizabethLautner — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 23:36:36 +0000

I'm toatlly up for the debate and everything going on. To every one their own opinion but when you start trashing people's religion or beliefs its gone a little far. dont ya think

By: ElizabethLautner

ElizabethLautner — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 18:36:36 +0000

I'm toatlly up for the debate and everything going on. To every one their own opinion but when you start trashing people's religion or beliefs its gone a little far. dont ya think

By: ridinghood7

ridinghood7 — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 17:40:24 +0000

Twilight Replaces A Pale Chick With An Even Paler Bryce Dallas Howard,no way they can`t replace
Rachelle Lefevre her role in Eclipse,may be short,if it`s true to the book,but she has to be in the fight scenes,it`s important key to the story, her rage against Bella, her revenge for James.
Eclipse will total suck without Rachelle Lefevre, without our Victoria our love, hate relationship with her,it will lack the luster of the true story.

By: RobHunter

RobHunter — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 19:53:31 +0000

You really thing Howard is more "well-known" than Stewart? Even before Stewart appeared onscreen in Twilight she was more recognizable than Howard. And Howard's addition means nothing to fans of the series, and the series means nothing to people with taste. It's not as if she's made a name for herself doing stellar acting in brilliant films.

Slade never made a movie called 40 Days of Night. Fans of his film 30 Days of Night however still won't necessarily care about Eclipse.

And poor source material doesn't preclude a huge fan base. Something can be shoddily written and still attract a large audience. Just look at the bible.

By: Cole_Abaius

Cole_Abaius — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 18:30:45 +0000

My point has nothing to do with Stewart. She's a great actress, but she and Robert Pattinson were up-and-comers cast as teenagers for a movie. They are alongside an entire cast of no-namers who just got a very well-known actress thrown in the mix. Let's not kid ourselves that Howard's inclusion is not a step up in the name recognition value of the cast.

And I'd contend Slade did confuse some because here, suddenly, was this guy who made 40 Days of Night (a movie that a lot of fan boys loved) and he was signing on for that stupid, girly vampire movie? It got more of a reaction than you think.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt since you've read at least a chapter of Eclipse, and I'm with you on Twilight being a terrible, horrible film, but there are millions of people out there that disagree. The source material might be structurally bad by standards, but it resonated with its audience. Isn't that what art is supposed to do? Communicate and elicit an emotional response from the audience? If the film captures that, I think it will have succeeded - and certainly succeeded over the boredom festival that was Salvation.

By: RobHunter

RobHunter — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 18:02:52 +0000

How exactly is Howard any more legitimate than Kristen Stewart? Shmuck. Stewart has been in better movies than Howard, more movies than Howard, and I'd argue she's at least as good of an actress as Howard. (And she's definitely cuter.) Slade as director didn't confuse anybody aside from you… he's a working director who takes jobs for the paycheck sometimes. And it's only his third film so it's not as if he's truly in a specific niche yet anyway.

And as bad and troubled as Salvation was, the odds are Eclipse will still be worse. Just look at the source material.

By: teknokracy

teknokracy — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 17:36:04 +0000

I'm sorry Cole, but people don't “think” that Twilight is a piece of crap – it fucking well is. I'm not a teenage girl, and I tried to watch the film and give it a bit of a chance, but it was cinematically terrible. It looked like something that belonged on MST3K. In fact, I've seen better 80s Schwarzenegger movies – they had better acting, more solid locations and plots, and better dialogue. The book itself was terribly written, what were people expecting from the film?

By: Cole_Abaius

Cole_Abaius — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 17:21:59 +0000

Wow. As usual, you miss the main point of the story. Howard's inclusion is a semi-stamp of legitimacy to what most people think is a series of schlocky drippings from a shallow pre-teen fantasy. David Slade directing confused a lot of fanboys, and this has to do it even more.

Even though she's only done comic book, sci-fi and fantasy, I imagine there will be a lot of people that feel confused and itchy about her going over into this franchise.

And then, it'll be even more fun to see fanboys having to admit that Eclipse is better than Terminator Salvation. There's a chance Eclipse could be as awfully, terribly, epically bad as Twilight, but there's also a chance that it's a solid movie - and with Howard's inclusion, those chances just got better.