Originally Posted by KYCat
I think that Catherine Hardwicke really got the emotion of Twilight and conveyed that really well in the movie, but I know that others just thought that it was campy. I think that New Moon director Chris Weitz read many of the critiques of Twilight and knew that fans HATED when things were left out of the movies so he tried to keep everything in. Obviously it's not ALL in there but I think that trying to stuff it all in made for some flow problems, but I still love it. David Slade seemed to be trying to make a really good movie using the book and trying to keep stuff in, but not at the expense of the movie.
That all being said, I don't know how much control the directors have. I mean Melissa Rosenberg has been the screenwriter for all of the movies so maybe she's the one in control? But they do all have very different sensibilities. I was just catching my Twilight fever when they told Catherine Hardwicke that they were getting a new director for New Moon. I'm not sure why they did that, unless they were trying to appease all of the book fans who were displeased with Twilight the movie. (I saw the movie first so I was good.) I know that with New Moon and Eclipse, they needed two directors for the timetable they were looking at because Weitz had to be doing editing and "wrapping the film" and all that other stuff for New Moon while they were shooting Eclipse. I think that getting a director to do half of Breaking Dawn would be tricky so they got one for the whole thing, although I do think that this makes our wait longer since he can't wrap up the first half until the whole shoot is finished.
I was unsure of the different directors, but I like seeing the books through different styles. I lilke all of them.
There's a really great LA Times article I found on the subject of changing directors from Twilight to New Moon.
I really liked Katherine Hartwicke's approach as I said earlier. But I thought New Moon was campier than Twilight!
I also read that in review after review on Rotten Tomatoes.
I just listened to the commentary on Twilight from Katherine Hartwicke this past weekend and I found her so witty, artistic, and engaging. I saw her movie Thirteen ages and ages ago when it first came out. I'll have to revisit that and her other films.
Twilight to me didn't feel campy. It felt more Indie. New Moon to me felt sort of campy/slasherish almost. It was definitely darker in the setting and design, even the make-up.
I think that Katherine Hartwicke really thought about her characters and how to present them. ...like Bella moving in front of the fan to blow her scent towards Edward when she walked into the lab/classroom before being assigned to sit next to him. I don't think that is in the book.
I also think the grand entrance of the Cullen kids into the cafeteria is really well done. That was a more theatrical presentation than the book.
And the apple scene at the salad bar is really pretty cool, too.
So, I like how she played around with the script, but still kept the feel. I also liked the make-up way, way better in Twilight than New Moon, except for Bella.
New Moon didn't depart from the book as much, which may have been a gift to fans. It was more literal to me than an interpretation.
I liked Eclipse - it was well done, too, but it did depart from the book a little more than New Moon. There were many, many gifts to the fans in the dialogue that came more from the pop culture phenomenon of the series than from the books themselves.