|
|
Post by Bre on Jun 5, 2009 13:31:33 GMT 10
I agree with Beck. She was really bad.  I don't mind that the HP series changes directors. They still have the same overall magical feel, just little things are different. Maybe if this new guy is good with New Moon, they'll keep him. |
|
|
|
Post by Loz on Jun 5, 2009 16:55:56 GMT 10
Yep - she was shocking I think it was good that the HP movies changed directors. Bought fresh ideas, feels and tones to the films i thought. I love them all but the later movies are far superior  |
|
|
|
Post by Lizzie on Jul 29, 2009 16:07:44 GMT 10
Summit Entertainment announced today that actress Bryce Dallas Howard, most recently seen in McG's Terminator Salvation, will be replacing Rachelle Lefevre in the role of Victoria for The Twilight Saga: Eclipse, the third film in the series directed by David Slade (30 Days of Night). The reason given for the casting change was Lefevre's scheduling conflicts for another film to which she was committed.
|
|
|
|
Post by shred on Jul 29, 2009 19:33:16 GMT 10
Any reason why they changed director?
I've seen 30 Days of Night and I enjoyed it. Would be interesting to see how Slade would tackle Eclipse since this would be so much more fluffier than 30 Days.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lizzie on Jul 30, 2009 12:47:23 GMT 10
Summit Entertainment announced the replacement of “Twilight Saga” star Rachelle Lefevre in the series’ third film, “Eclipse,” on Tuesday night – and fans weren’t the only ones surprised by the news — Rachelle was shocked as well!
“I was stunned by Summit’s decision to recast the role of Victoria for ‘Eclipse,’” Rachelle said in a statement to Access Hollywood.
On Tuesday, Summit announced that Bryce Dallas Howard would be taking on the role in “Eclipse,” due in May 2010.
“I was fully committed to the ‘Twilight’ saga, and to the portrayal of Victoria,” Rachelle continued, explaining the turn of events that led to the casting change. “I turned down several other film opportunities and, in accordance with my contractual rights, accepted only roles that would involve very short shooting schedules. My commitment to ‘Barney’s Version’ is only ten days. Summit picked up my option for ‘Eclipse.’ Although the production schedule for ‘Eclipse’ is over three months long, Summit said they had a conflict during those ten days and would not accommodate me. Given the length of filming for ‘Eclipse,’ never did I fathom I would lose the role over a 10 day overlap. I was happy with my contract with Summit and was fully prepared to continue to honor it. Summit chose simply to recast the part.”
The star concluded her statement with a regretful tone.
“I am greatly saddened that I will not get to complete my portrayal of Victoria for the ‘Twilight’ audience. This is a story, a theatrical journey and a character that I truly love and about which I am very passionate. I will be forever grateful to the fan support and loyalty I’ve received since being cast for this role, and I am hurt deeply by Summit’s surprising decision to move on without me. I wish the cast and crew of ‘Eclipse’ only the very best,” she said.
Wow, 10 days? Good work Summit.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bre on Jul 30, 2009 14:29:52 GMT 10
I don't care. She kind of bothered me anyway. Most people in that movie bothered me actually. I don't remember, is Victoria in New Moon at all?? |
|
|
|
Post by shred on Jul 30, 2009 20:48:14 GMT 10
I don't remember much about Victoria in Twilight either. She isn't much in New Moon, I don't think.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lizzie on Jul 30, 2009 21:18:50 GMT 10
Yeah she's not in NM for long.
More news!
We at Summit Entertainment are disappointed by Rachelle Lefevre’s recent comments which attempt to make her career choices the fault of the Studio. Her decision to discuss her version of the scheduling challenges publicly has forced the Studio to set the record straight and correct the facts.
* Ms. Lefevre's representatives were advised as early as April that THE TWILIGHT SAGA: ECLIPSE was expected to start shooting in early August.
*If Ms. Lefevre was, as she describes “passionate,” about being part of THE TWILIGHT SAGA, we feel that she and her representatives would have included us in her decision to work on another film that would conflict with the shooting schedule of THE TWILIGHT SAGA: ECLIPSE.
*It was not until July 20th that Summit was first informed of Ms. Lefevre’s commitment to BARNEY’S VERSION, a commitment we have since been advised she accepted in early June. Summit had acted in good faith that she would be available to fulfill her obligations both in terms of rehearsals and shooting availability for THE TWILIGHT SAGA: ECLIPSE. We feel that her choice to withhold her scheduling conflict information from us can be viewed as a lack of cooperative spirit which affected the entire production.
*Furthermore Ms. Lefevre took a role in the other film that places her in Europe during the required rehearsal time, and at least ten days of THE TWILIGHT SAGA: ECLIPSE’s principal photography. This period is essential for both rehearsal time with the cast, and for filming at key locations that are only available during the initial part of production.
*Contrary to Ms. Lefevre’s statement, it is simply untrue that the Studio dismissed her over a ten day overlap. It is not about a ten day overlap, but instead about the fact that THE TWILIGHT SAGA: ECLIPSE is an ensemble production that has to accommodate the schedules of numerous actors while respecting the established creative vision of the filmmaker and most importantly the story.
The fact remains that Ms. Lefevre’s commitment to the other project - which she chose to withhold from Summit until the last possible moment - makes her unfortunately unavailable to perform the role of Victoria in THE TWILIGHT SAGA: ECLIPSE.
Well I don't know. Summit did want to replace Taylor, maybe they saw the chance to replace Rachelle with a bigger star? Also, if it is true - wouldn't that be breach of contract, and Summit would be able to sue Rachelle?
|
|
|
|
Post by shred on Nov 23, 2009 22:15:20 GMT 10
Who has watched New Moon? Was it good? Bad? Worst or better than Twilight?
And I hear that the next one is out in June next year. Anyone know if they'll be doing the last book?
|
|
|
|
Post by Bre on Nov 24, 2009 3:34:10 GMT 10
It was a hell of a lot better than Twilight. Still not the best movie ever, but still enjoyable I thought. Kristen Stewart's acting was still "Wtf?" a lot of the time, but her chemistry with Taylor Lautner is much more believable than with Robert Pattinson. This time, whoever adapted the screenplay did a much better job with keeping things from the book and removing what wasn't necessary.
|
|
|
|
Post by Loz on Nov 24, 2009 6:30:31 GMT 10
She acts? Is that what that's called?? In all fairness to the moron though (i say she is a moron because in every interview i've ever seen with her she is a personality free zone dumbass) Bella is a total twit - its not like she could make her appealing in the slightest  Because i want to keep up the fight against the horror that is these books and films i will go and see it. But i'm waiting for the fangirls and twits to thin out a bit. Or i'll just get it on DVD. Or steal one of my loser friends who like its copy. Don't really want to give them any money. |
|
|
|
Post by Bre on Nov 24, 2009 8:32:07 GMT 10
See I liked Bella in the novels. I could connect with her on some level, but Kristen Stewart gives me nothing. I can't connect at all. She never looks any of the actors in the eyes and so it's a bit hard to believe that the characters love each other.
I agree she is weird during interviews. But when all three (Pattinson, Lautner, and her) were on Jimmy Kimmel at once, she had some personality. I think she's just shy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lizzie on Nov 26, 2009 11:01:59 GMT 10
It was a hell of a lot better than Twilight. Still not the best movie ever, but still enjoyable I thought. Kristen Stewart's acting was still "Wtf?" a lot of the time, but her chemistry with Taylor Lautner is much more believable than with Robert Pattinson. This time, whoever adapted the screenplay did a much better job with keeping things from the book and removing what wasn't necessary. D'you think? I agree that she has good chemistry with Lautner, but I think I preferred Twilight. I would give New Moon at C+ and Twilight a B. I get that they have to show that they're completely in love with each other, but the little groans and gasps when they kissed were slightly off-putting. Melissa Rosenberg wrote the screenplay for both (and did Eclipse as well). I found this one more drawn out? I dunno, perhaps I need to watch it again (though I'm not really in a hurry). Canada is beautiful and the movie was quite pretty. I watched Twilight recently so it was fairly obvious (from the sets - Bella's house/room, the Cullen's house) that they'd moved production from Washington. |
|
|
|
Post by Bre on Nov 26, 2009 14:05:00 GMT 10
Yeah. I just do not believe the chemistry between Bella/Edward. Bella seemed much more herself when she is with Jacob.
I don't think this one was drawn out. I think the characters were much more appealing and seemed more .. alive ...? I don't know. Twilight sucked. New Moon was average.
|
|
|
|
Post by Loz on Nov 26, 2009 16:08:00 GMT 10
So after hours and hours of shopping i thought i would duck in and see how many people were going to the next premium session of New Crap. The answer was 4 so i thought that was safe and headed in.... I didn't hate it but i didn't like it. All in all i thought it was better than Twilight by a long way. But that was never going to be hard. Kristen (who desperately needs a new eyebrow sculptress - they cut off before the end of her eye!) was somewhat improved and Taylor was ok. Patto continues to suck hard. Wow that guy is a bad actor. And so very unattractive to me  Charlie is very well cast. I like the guy a lot and he does a good job. As does the chick who plays Alice. The casting of Rosalie is flat out wrong. She is simply not attractive enough for a character said to be the most beautiful woman you have ever seen. I really think there has been a conscious effort by the screenwriter to take away a lot of the things i despise about the books. While Bella is still insipid and in need of ambition, direction and a personality she isn't quite as vapid in this outing. She is also not as emotionally whipped and abused by Jacob and Edward as i remember her being in the book (though i think the worst of that is in Eclipse from memory). The best parts of the whole film are when the pack is around but the effects are atrocious. They look like big fluffy dogs I'm in no hurry to see it again, and i will continue the fight, but it could have been much worse. |
|
|
|
Post by Bre on Nov 26, 2009 16:29:17 GMT 10
I totally agree about her eyebrows!!  It bugged me the whole time. And I agree with you on the casting of Rosalie. I like that the pack looks like big fluffy dogs. I'm glad they aren't creepy werewolves, because they are descended from wolves, so they should look more like wolves than "werewolves". |
|
|
|
Post by Loz on Nov 26, 2009 17:22:47 GMT 10
I didn't think they should look like Underworld werewolves or anything because they aren't werewolves are they? They are supposed to be shapeshifters i thought.... But anyway they didn't look like wolves, they looked like big German Shepherds |
|
|
|
Post by Bre on Nov 26, 2009 17:34:42 GMT 10
Yeah I guess they do look more like fluffy huskies than wolves. |
|
|
|
Post by RebeccaR on Nov 28, 2009 8:28:04 GMT 10
The few people I know that have seen it are total Twihards so they loved New Moon, although one said that something about the movie just didn't sit right. Something about Jacob being too emotional and deep, and trying to get all the important parts of the book into the movie, but not spending enough time to make them seem important.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bre on Dec 3, 2009 9:27:30 GMT 10
Huh I don't anything in the movie is too deep. Maybe not deep enough...
|
|
I don't mind that the HP series changes directors. They still have the same overall magical feel, just little things are different. Maybe if this new guy is good with New Moon, they'll keep him.
It bugged me the whole time. And I agree with you on the casting of Rosalie.