Not turn this blog into all Twilight, all the time, but after I'd read (and reviewed) all of the books, I remembered that they'd made one of the movies already. I'd never seen the trailer for it, other than some tidbits in online ads and TV commercials, and having read all of the novels, I was curious to see how the film adapted the work. Not curious enough to see the movie; I just wanted to get a two-minute look at the vampires and the girl they picked for Bella, etc.
So I searched for Twilight on the apple trailer site, and in addition to the
first film's trailer and teasers, there's already a teaser out
for movie two, which is due this November, a year (or so) after the first film. A movie a year? Is #3 due out next year, and then 4 the year after? Damn, they are milking that golden cow as quickly as they can, eh? Probably a wise choice, since unlike the Harry Potter novels, the Twilight books aren't actually any good, so I doubt they'll have the shelf life.
The age thing is funny, since the events in the four Twilight books take place over about 18 months, and most of the main characters are ageless vampires, but since they're all in their late teens or 20s-30s, the actors wouldn't age perceptibly over the 6 or 8 years you'd expect 4 (or perhaps 5, if they double up the last, most plot-filled book/film) films to take. Compare that to the Harry Potter films, which were consciously not rushed to crank them out one per year. A decision that has probably contributed to the movies all being pretty good. The first HP film was released in late 2001, and the last is set for 2011, so the actors aged about 10 years over the cycle. Most of them started out a bit older than the book characters they're playing, too, so it's probably lucky that it worked out as well as it did. They further lucked out on Hermoine turning into a beauty; a stroke of fortune only partially offset by Harry topping off at a jockey height that requires them to film from careful angles and with him standing on boxes and stuff.
Digression!
As for the Twilight trailers, I'm only blogging about it since I watched them and was surprised at how bad they looked. Not so much the visuals... well yes, the visuals. But more over, they both give the films such a TV-movie feel. They seem very small and simple and amateurish. Every conversation seems to be filmed from from the side, with the actors face to face. Every action scene is in slow motion, with corny, gaspy-music like you hear when someone's (unsuccessfully) running for their live in a slasher flick. There are way too many closeups and cheesy low level shots of pretty 20-somethings walking towards the camera. It's all just so remedial filmmaking 101, looking on par with an afterschool special.
I remarked several times while reviewing the novels that they were amateurish and very simplified in narrative and structure. I was frustrated by that, but it's quite possible that it works to their advantage, since the Twilight series is drawing in a lot of inexperienced readers who want formulaic simplicity. No fancy writing tricks to distract from the basic romance and simple character interactions.
I don't think that's such a good idea for the movies though, since occasional book fans are quite likely very heavy duty movie fans. And while they might not intellectualize their analysis and displeasure with the (apparent) mediocrity in the craft and construction of the films, everyone viewing them will notice, and have their enjoyment correspondingly reduced.
Other than the smallness of the look of the films, I was surprised by the casting. It was not possible to get actors who look like the vampires are described in the books, without doing some special effects touch up on every frame of the film. After all, in the books there are hundreds of descriptions of Edward and his family as being impossibly beautiful, almost beyond words in their grace, charm, and elegance, gifted with incredibly pale, porcelain skin, etc. I have no ability to judge male attractiveness, but I've heard enough tabloid reports of fangirls mobbing the actor who plays Edward that I'll take it on faith that he'd good looking. That said, he's far, far, far less beautiful than the character, as described in the book. I'm really surprised they let him be all stubbly and capped with that ridiculous pompadour; I would have expected much more of a Greek God look, as Edward was described in the novels. The movie guy looks like a good looking Eastern European chess prodigy. Or possibly figure skater.
His sister is shown in the second trailer, and if not for her role in the birthday party scene, and her short, spiky black hair, I'd never have guessed who it was. She's cute, but nothing like the goddess described in the book. Which is a problem since they cast a very pretty girl for Bella, and as a result she's as pretty or prettier than any of the vampire women. A major theme of the books is that Bella always feels insecure and undeserving of Edward since he and the the other vampires are all impossibly gorgeous, while she's just a typical 17 y/o girl. They might have removed that bit of psychological depth in the films, and if not they should have, since the all-too-human actors don't live up to their intended appearance. Even the Cullen's house falls short; the books describe it as an architectural masterpiece, which Edward's sister is constantly overdecorating for any occasion. And in the trailer it looks like somebody's basement.
Finally, what the hell is up with Jacob? The werewolf, I mean. He's decently muscled (though the book werewolves were described as being body builder like), but he's short? And white! The whole point in the werewolf mythology in the books is that it's a genetic, inherited thing in the Native American community. And furthermore, all of the guys who became werewolves (well, shape shifters, since they can turn into really large wolves on command, without any connection to the full moon or losing themselves in a murderous rage) go through crazy growth spurts, shooting up to about 2 meters tall, in human form. Admittedly, its probably hard to find half a dozen, basketball player-tall, hugely-muscled, Native Americans actors who are under 20 y/o and good looking enough to be in this teen romance fantasy movie series, but still... they could have done better than
Marky Mark, circa 1987.
And how about that wolf transformation? And the wolf itself? The transformation is much as it (unimaginatively) was in the book, with them basically just exploding from human into wolf, with their clothing shredding off in the process. (Though I kept wondering why they didn't go with elastic shorts, since wolves are fairly wasp-waisted and their upper thighs aren't thicker than a man's. Dignity, perhaps. Think how silly a wolf would look wearing bike shorts?) The CGI wolf in the 2nd trailer wasn't as silly as that, but it's not very convincing, or impressive. It looks like a realistic stuffed animal, rather than an actual living creature.
Anyway, these aren't the worst trailers ever made or anything, but they certainly didn't impress me or live up to my expectations, and I'm not even much of a fan of the books.
Labels: movie trailers, twilight
