The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Pt. 1 Review Thread (Spoilers)

[Diesel]

Link

Money talks in Hollywood and Summit Entertainment will be following in the path of The Hobbit and Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows by bringing The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn in two parts. That’s right folks, The Twilight Saga will stand at least five films strong.

Breaking Dawn is the largest of Stephenie Meyer’s Twilight series and it comes as no surprise that Summit is taking this route. We knew from reports late last year after the success of New Moon that they were considering breaking it into two and now it’s confirmed.

One of the hurdle’s in making this happen was bringing back all of the key cast members as they were only contracted for four movies (that and re-negotiating with Meyer). We can assume that they’ll each be getting massive paydays for this but Summit doesn’t care; they can make these films fast and cheap and make a ton of cash very easily to pay them. Heck, New Moon broke the records for largest single-day sales and Friday opening.

Melissa Rosenberg has been working on the script for Breaking Dawn and now must work on making two, with the first having some sort of appropriate semi-conclusion or cliffhanger/lead-in into part two.

The movies will be shot back-to-back in October for the obvious reasons of saving time and money and getting them out as fast as possible. Summit is apparently looking for a “high-end” director to conclude the series so don’t expect directors of any of the previous installments to return. That means, no Catherine Hardwicke, no David Slade (who’s in post-production on Eclipse) and no Chris Weitz who was expected to helm Breaking Dawn for Summit.

The biggest concern about Breaking Dawn is the challenge of adapting its graphic and adult content to the big screen for a crowd of fans that contains a big portion of very young individuals.

Summit’s only issue with their future plans of the Twilight franchise was the lack of source material to build from. This is one solution to get an extra feature out of it and after that it’ll be up to spinoffs.

Now that we know its two movies, the next step is to get both of them in 3D, right?

Expect both parts of The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn to release in 2011. The Twilight Saga: Eclipse comes out June 30th of this summer.

I know there will of course be the obligatory hate replies to this thread, but I know there are at least a few fans here that might want to know.

[detective392]

Can't wait for the movies but hope they leave book 4 like it is with all adult and graphic content left in and not butcher it. Since all the people seeing the movie has most likely read the books.

[metalgeargreed]

I'm not a fan of twilight but..looks like this splitting a movie based on books into two films is spreading like wildfire. Just so they can make a few extra bucks.

[HeManster03]

Originally Posted by metalgeargreed

I'm not a fan of twilight but..looks like this splitting a movie based on books into two films is spreading like wildfire. Just so they can make a few extra bucks.

I don't think it's so much that, I think alot of the directors that take books and turn them into movies are getting tired of getting bashed by fans for cutting out parts from the book that help advance/explain the story. They could NOT possibly squeeze the entire 7th Harry Potter book into a 2.5 hour movie, so they made a decision not to piss off the fans and split it. Same would go with Breaking Dawn. As much stuff that is in that book, they can't possibly cut it out and make a decent product.
I know that alot of people crap on this series, mainly because it is so not what you would think of a typical vampire movie and the romance is just a bit 9th grade, but the books were good and the movies so far have stuck to them. I will be seeing Eclipse in theaters, buying New Moon, and seeing all else that I can about it because the franchise entertains me.

[EricJ]

Originally Posted by HeManster03

I don't think it's so much that, I think alot of the directors that take books and turn them into movies are getting tired of getting bashed by fans for cutting out parts from the book that help advance/explain the story. They could NOT possibly squeeze the entire 7th Harry Potter book into a 2.5 hour movie, so they made a decision not to piss off the fans and split it. Same would go with Breaking Dawn. As much stuff that is in that book, they can't possibly cut it out and make a decent product.

Yeah, but Breaking Dawn isn't the finale, is it?
(I'm asking, you couldn't get me to read the books at gunpoint.)

The Harry Potter stunt has roots back in when Warner still believed they had to transcript every written word in the novels, got to the 600-page #4, and thought they had to make a four-hour movie, because they hadn't yet discovered the joys of condensation. (And #4 turned out to be a much better movie when they had.)
The urge had been lurking in the back of their minds, and when stretching #7 into two movies seemed more like a delaying tactic to Stall the Inevitable, it was rationalized away with "Well, the book has two distinct parts...", which David Yates agreed with.

Here, it seems like the Twilight producers are stretching out two movies because...the Harry Potter movies did first. Which is at the point where it starts to get annoying, because somebody grabbed the wrong end of the stick.
And to which even book fans in general are saying "....Please STOP that. "

[Zero_Cool]

didnt we know this when new moon was out and they found out harry potter was doing the same thing.

[assydingo]

Giving a story time to breathe always sounds like a good idea to me.

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by assydingo

Giving a story time to breathe always sounds like a good idea to me.

In principle, I would agree with you, but in practice, I've seen many films that would have been served well by judicious editing. Peter Jackson's King Kong immediately leaps to mind.

The problem with condensing the Harry Potter novels reallly centers on the third film in the series - the conclusion makes little emotional sense because the movie never explains that Harry's father learned to shape-shift into a stag out of sympathy for good friend and unfortunate werewolf Remus Lupin. At the end of the movie, Harry sees a glowing stag save him from the Dementors and he tells Hermione that he saw his father. It doesn't make any sense to people who haven't read the novels. The whole point of that book was Harry discovering he has living family and his father lives within him. I think audiences could have tolerated an additional 30 seconds to learn the identies of Wormtail, Moony, Padfoot and Prongs.

As for Twilight - the ending of that series is so insanely ludicrous as to be unfilmable.

[Show spoiler]Edward performs a C-Section on Bella with his vampire teeth? Are you kidding me? We're going to see that guy slice open a pregnant belly with his incisors?

Twilight is awful - the books, the movies, all of it. Cigarettes make a ton of money, I've never heard anyone defend them because they turn a profit.

[KingLeonidas300]

Thanks for the update OP.. I have held off buying these on blu hoping they will come out with some box set with all of them. I would rather see an extra film then miss out on things from the story line.

My wife is into the books but she is not a movie person overall, that's why there is no rush to get them on blu.

[Blu Titan]

It is fine to express your opinion about a movie (whichever it may be), but please do so in a respectable manner. Some people dislike the Twilight movies and others enjoy the movies. Differences in our movie preferences make for interesting discussions . Lets keep the posts civil, and have some fun.

[assydingo]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

In principle, I would agree with you, but in practice, I've seen many films that would have been served well by judicious editing. Peter Jackson's King Kong immediately leaps to mind.

The problem with condensing the Harry Potter novels reallly centers on the third film in the series - the conclusion makes little emotional sense because the movie never explains that Harry's father learned to shape-shift into a stag out of sympathy for good friend and unfortunate werewolf Remus Lupin. At the end of the movie, Harry sees a glowing stag save him from the Dementors and he tells Hermione that he saw his father. It doesn't make any sense to people who haven't read the novels. The whole point of that book was Harry discovering he has living family and his father lives within him. I think audiences could have tolerated an additional 30 seconds to learn the identies of Wormtail, Moony, Padfoot and Prongs.

As for Twilight - the ending of that series is so insanely ludicrous as to be unfilmable.

[Show spoiler]Edward performs a C-Section on Bella with his vampire teeth? Are you kidding me? We're going to see that guy slice open a pregnant belly with his incisors?

Twilight is awful - the books, the movies, all of it. Cigarettes make a ton of money, I've never heard anyone defend them because they turn a profit.

Even if some people don't like the series, others do. They'll go see it and it'll make money. That's what people mean when they defend it by saying it'll make a profit.

So far I like the first two movies. I haven't read Eclipse or Breaking Dawn so I don't know what to expect with the last two. If something is really out there in the books maybe they can change it in the movies.

[TokyoLee]

Im Excited for this film and i heard about this getting broken up into 2 flim about a month ago but im not suprised since The Breaking Dawn Book is about 800pages there was no way they could get all the details from a 800page book in a 2hour movie and the book is broken into two parts as well do Im happy because things wont get left out that are important. Cant wait to see these films Books were Amazing

[azdw]

Breaking Dawn in my favorite book in the series by far.

Sure, it's 800 pages, but one should be easily able to slim it down to a two and a half hour feature, by cutting off some of its excessive fat

However, I don't mind a back to back 2 movie feature either.

[DetroitSportsFan]

The studio knows they can milk 2 films out of it, so why not?

[agoofykindasuperman]

Originally Posted by HeManster03

I don't think it's so much that, I think alot of the directors that take books and turn them into movies are getting tired of getting bashed by fans for cutting out parts from the book that help advance/explain the story. They could NOT possibly squeeze the entire 7th Harry Potter book into a 2.5 hour movie, so they made a decision not to piss off the fans and split it. Same would go with Breaking Dawn. As much stuff that is in that book, they can't possibly cut it out and make a decent product.
I know that alot of people crap on this series, mainly because it is so not what you would think of a typical vampire movie and the romance is just a bit 9th grade, but the books were good and the movies so far have stuck to them. I will be seeing Eclipse in theaters, buying New Moon, and seeing all else that I can about it because the franchise entertains me.

Very well said...

And adult content!? Can't wait for the unrated blu-ray!

[EricJ]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

In principle, I would agree with you, but in practice, I've seen many films that would have been served well by judicious editing. Peter Jackson's King Kong immediately leaps to mind.

The problem with condensing the Harry Potter novels really centers on the third film in the series -

But it was redeemed by the fourth and fifth movies in the series:
Two whole chapters...chapters...of World Cup pageantry before the (SPOILER) are condensed and rearranged to ten minutes total, whole needless subplots are dropped (the Dursleys don't even show up), and anything not directly pertaining to this week's Hardy Boys plot is mercifully put aside.
Reader's Digest used to advertise that you couldn't tell where their "condensed" books had been shortened, and in Movie #4's case, an objective first-time observer wouldn't.

Movie 5 managed to take the book's endless broken-record loop of "New rules", and reduce them to quick, easily absorbed montages, and--with one director now on the rest of the series--knew ahead of time to put one subplot (Ron on the Quidditch team) aside for later use where it would more directly focus on the plot.

It's one of the functions of adapting a book for a movie that you're changing the story structure for a smoother visual format--
Putting every danged word of the book onscreen simply means...you haven't read it, but you're afraid of offending those Mysterious People Who Did.

[masoud90]

Damn. The book was almost 800 pages, so this is a good thing.

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by EricJ

But it was redeemed by the fourth and fifth movies in the series:
Two whole chapters...chapters...of World Cup pageantry before the (SPOILER) are condensed and rearranged to ten minutes total, whole needless subplots are dropped (the Dursleys don't even show up), and anything not directly pertaining to this week's Hardy Boys plot is mercifully put aside.
Reader's Digest used to advertise that you couldn't tell where their "condensed" books had been shortened, and in Movie #4's case, an objective first-time observer wouldn't.

Movie 5 managed to take the book's endless broken-record loop of "New rules", and reduce them to quick, easily absorbed montages, and--with one director now on the rest of the series--knew ahead of time to put one subplot (Ron on the Quidditch team) aside for later use where it would more directly focus on the plot.

It's one of the functions of adapting a book for a movie that you're changing the story structure for a smoother visual format--
Putting every danged word of the book onscreen simply means...you haven't read it, but you're afraid of offending those Mysterious People Who Did.

Completely agree - except for the life of me I can't figure out why they couldn't include the entire prophecy in Order of the Phoenix. We're talking a few sentences here. So when Harry shows up in film six talking about being the "chosen one", you don't get the full impact. They also cut from film 5 the scene of Snape overhearing Trelawney give the prophecy to Dumbledore - it was Snape who then related the prophecy to Voldemort, which caused Voldemort to go kill Harry's parents in the first place. All of that is in the book, all of it gone from the movie.

This is maddening. We can take an extra 5 or ten minutes when the information is important (i.e. Moony, Wormtail, Padfoot and Prongs, or Snape's eavesdropping). It's when you have pointless or redundant action that includes no narrative progress, or pretentious self-important dialog scenes about Conrad's Heart of Darkness by cliched Stowaway Jimmy and the Captain -- junk like that causes a movie to bog down. But when a movie has serious narrative and story information to relate, that is always compelling and welcome.

I agree with you in general, but I think films 3 and 5 and 6 mistepped in a serious way by not relating key information, information that would take mere seconds of screen time to explain. Cuaron has time to keep simulating his camera passing through panes of glass, has time to show a bird killed by the whomping willow, but doesn't have time to explain why Harry thinks he sees his dad at the end of the movie? Yates has time for rule-bending broomstick rides over the Thames, but can't spare 5 seconds for the full prophecy, or an extra five minutes to show Snape overhearing it and telling it to Voldemort, leading to the death of Harry's parents?

I mean - some of this stuff is so obvious, such a no-brainer, only an artisan trying to justify his paycheck could talk himself out of including things so completely essential and obvious.

[KilloWertz]

Originally Posted by masoud90

Damn. The book was almost 800 pages, so this is a good thing.

Exactly. Everyone can say Summit is trying to milk the franchise all they want, and maybe they are in a way, but there is so much in the book for Breaking Dawn that it pretty much has to be split into two movies. If they put it into one movie, they would have to chop so much off of the story that it wouldn't even work. I haven't read any of the books, but I know somebody who has and have already had a discussion about Breaking Dawn.

[GreenScar]

As reported earlier, Summit Entertainment has found its next "Twilight" filmmaker and now formally locked up Oscar-winner Bill Condon to direct "The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn." While none of the stars have signed deals yet, the entire cast including Robert Pattinson, Kristen Stewart and Taylor Lautner are expected to return. This is possibly one reason the studio has not confirmed whether, as rumored, there will be one or two "Breaking Dawn" films.

“I'm very excited to get the chance to bring the climax of this saga to life on-screen. As fans of the series know, this is a one-of-a-kind book - and we're hoping to create an equally unique cinematic experience," said Bill Condon.

The fourth book in Stephenie Meyer's popular series chronicles Bella's most advanced initiation into the vampire world to date, but is also seen by many as the most difficult to adapt of all the best-selling novels. Melissa Rosenberg, who adapted the first two novels, would continue in that role for "Dawn." Stephenie Meyer has already met with Condon to discuss the project. She noted in the release, "I'm so thrilled that Bill wants to work with us. I think he's going to be a great fit, and I'm excited to see what he does with the material."

Erik Feig, President of Production and Acquisitions, for Summit Entertainment added, "Bringing Stephenie Meyer's BREAKING DAWN to the screen requires a graceful and intelligent hand and we believe Bill Condon is exactly the right steward, having shown equal and abundant talents of immense creativity and subtle sensitivity."

Condon is best known for directing and adapting the box office and critical hit "Dreamgirls" which was nominated for eight Academy Awards and won two including Best Supporting Actress for star Jennifer Hudson. The film also won the Golden Globe for Best Picture - Musical or Comedy and grossed $103 million at the U.S. box office. The filmmaker won his own Oscar in 1998 for Best Adapted Screenplay for "Gods and Monsters." He was subsequently nominated again in the same category for "Chicago." Condon also received a prestigious Director's Guild of America Best Director nod for "Dreamgirls." More impressive, besides Hudson's breakthrough, he's shepherded Oscar nominations for Ian McKellen ("Gods and Monsters"), Lynn Redgrave ("Gods and Monsters") and Laura Linney ("Kinsey"). And for those concerned about Condon's genre credentials, he's more than happy to discuss directing 1995's "Candyman: Farewell to the Flesh" to anyone who will ask. Most recently, Condon teamed up with producer Larry Mark to produce the 81st Academy Awards with host Hugh Jackman. That show received strong critical notices and was nominated for more Emmy Awards than any Oscar broadcast in history.

Upcoming projects for Condon include the potential HBO series "Tilda" starring Diane Keaton and inspired by notorious online entertainment blogger Nikki Finke. Condon will shoot the pilot for "Tilda" before "Breaking Dawn" begins prep early this summer. The fate of the long in the works "Richard Pryor" biopic and the recently announced drama "Salmon Fishing in the Yemen" is still unclear.

Catherine Hardwicke directed the first "Twilight" which was a surprise blockbuster grossing $384 million worldwide. The follow up, last fall's "New Moon" was shepherded by fan favorite Chris Weitz and made an eye-popping $707 million worldwide. The third chapter, "Eclipse," will hit theaters on June 30 under David Slade's direction.

Production is expected to begin early this fall.