Robert Pattinson, "Twilight" Film News RoundUp
May 08, 2008, 12:39 AM
As many readers will remember, actor Robert Pattinson, who portrayed Cedric Diggory in “Goblet of Fire,” has been cast in the role of Edward Cullen in the upcoming film version of Stephenie Meyer’s novel, “Twilight.” A number of news reports have appeared online recently featuring Mr. Pattinson along with an interview with Ms. Meyer, who talks of the comparisons made with Harry Potter author J. K. Rowling. We now have a few news updates regarding all of this as follows:
First, the teaser trailer for “Twilight” was released earlier in the week, showing Robert Pattinson as Edward sweeping Bella off her feet in the sixty-second spot. You can view Robert and actress Kristen Stewart, who portrays Bella Swan in the “Twilight” film, in the trailer right here. A number of screencaps from the trailer are also available and can be found in our Image Galleries. In addition, Robert can be seen in a new official picture of the Twilight cast as well as the first official poster from the film in our galleries as well.
Next, actors Robert Pattinson and Kristen Stewart gave an interview with MTV during which the Harry Potter novels were briefly discussed. Once again, the comparison between the Twilight series and Harry Potter was made, to which Mr. Pattinson replied:
“[The difference is that each are] using different metaphors for things. The strange thing about this is it’s so deeply entwined with sexuality, much more so than “Harry Potter,” as virtually all vampire things are — mainly because it’s a love story. “Harry Potter” isn’t really a love story, so a lot of the metaphorical stuff [in “Twilight”] is about teen lust…”
Finally, Time Magazine has an extended profile of author Stephenie Meyer and her “Twilight” series containing some discussion and comparisons between her and J. K. Rowling. In the article, Ms. Meyer notes her feeling that ‘her success is a direct result of the way Rowling changed the book industry…’ The profile goes on to say:
’...children are now willing to read 500-page novels, and adults are now willing to read books written for children. But as artists, they couldn’t be more different. Rowling pieces her books together meticulously, detail by detail. Meyer floods the page like a severed artery. She never uses a sentence when she can use a whole paragraph. Her books are big (500-plus pages) but not dense—they have a pillowy quality distinctly reminiscent of Internet fan fiction. (Which she’ll readily grant: “I don’t think I’m a writer; I think I’m a storyteller,” Meyer says. “The words aren’t always perfect.”)’
Readers can see Robert Pattinson in this new project when “Twilight” is released in theaters December 12, 2008. The first three novels in the Twilight series are available for purchase in our own Cauldron Shop.
Thanks to those who have emailed.
This whole thing is so long that I can’t help but comment here.
Quick Add In – My Opinion
I’m not obsessed with either series. I side with HP more simply because I don’t like teenage romance [hence why I really didn’t like have the Harry/Ginny and Hermione/Ron], but I tolerate it. I personally dislike Twilight because, though Meyer herself says that she is telling a story, not writing one, it is not as well written and it is more obviously flawed, not to say that Harry Potter isn’t. Because it is. The ones in Twilight are just easier to pick out and funnier to talk about. I think that sentence that cracks me up the most in Twilight is:
He lay perfectly still in the grass, his shirt open over his sculpted, incandescent chest, his scintillating arms bare.
Simply because it is over laden with unnecessary and pretentious adjectives. I think that Twilight could have been better had Meyer not sat there writing with a computer on one side and a thesaurus on the other. Overdoing adjectives is annoying, though it gives for some laughs. I’m not sure many people know what scintillating means without looking it up in a dictionary. I certainly don’t, and I enjoyed reading dictionaries back in fifth grade, mind you it was a mini abridged one. Another overdone descriptive word for Edward or Adonis-like and god-like.
And I’m not sure if any finds it odd that in all 17 years on Edwards mortal life, he never felt lust. I understand as a vampire, but as far as I understand, 17 year olds have at least found someone of interest to them.
All in all, I did not enjoy Twilight, but I think it’s fine for others to like them as long as they do not classify it as ‘Literature’. And I capitalize literature to differentiate it from general literature which encompasses most writing.
I found Twilight rather creepy, and not in a good way. And I also found it a bit fake. Be it because it’s filled with Mary-Sues and Gary-Stues or because the plotline is stinted, it just was for me. I do have fun teasing my friend playfully by calling her a “vegetable lover”. And I use vegetable in the metaphorical sense.
First topic – Maturity:
Many people here are accusing others of immaturity when they do not realize that accusing people of immaturity can come off as immature when it is worded incorrectly.
1. Calling people ‘babies’ is immature
2. Insulting people is also immature and pointless.
3. Stereotyping people is, again, immature
4. Telling people off for having an opinion is immature
5. Stating something and then doing something to prove your statement false is insane and it doesn’t help your image
6. Telling people how and why they should or should not form opinions is also immature.
Take these into account and think. Feel free to accuse me of immaturity as well if you wish or you think me immature.
Topic Two – How We Persuade People
We don’t persuade people by constantly repeating things or layering on insults at the same time. It’s rather put off-ing. I understand that you, Kerrie and other Twilighters, believe the Twilight is an amazing book, but repeating the same reasons [Twilight is more intense, mature and sexy] is overbearing and redundant. I personally do not understand that line of reasoning since I find Twilight less mature and not sexy in a “I’m trying to write something sexy” way, but to each their own. I also don’t see where HP fans are saying that it’s impossible to love other books. I believe they are merely saying that Twilight is not a good book and are trying to persuade people as such, same as how the Twilighters are trying to persuade people that Twilight is a good book. Both sides are insulting each other, accusing others of immaturity, and giving their opinions in a way that is possibly rude and “in-your-face” when they are at the same time accusing “the other side” of the same conduct.
Insulting + Redundancy = Put-Off from a book. And don’t try to say that people can’t form opinions simply from the people who read the books because often the type of people who read the books are a big clue in on what type of book it is.
Topic Three – Originality
Kerrie, this is directed at you specifically since it seems that you are the main one stressing this point. You have said time and time again that Twilight is original. I’m not saying that originality is a bad thing, but only if it is really there. I, myself, have not divulged much in the whole vampire fandom since I find it clichéd. There. I said it. Clichéd. If you’ve read other vampire books, you’ll find that Twilight is the only one with those concepts. Have you considered Buffy, Dracula, Anne Rice’s novels, Bunnicula, Count Duckula, Ketchup Vampire, ect. The ones listed are ‘vampires have special powers’ which happen to include “premonition”, staying away from the tasty treat out of good will or actually vegetarian vampires. I think a good vegetarian vampire is found in “Necrotamania”. I think suckling rose-buds is pretty good, though the whole sucking plants instead of blood has already been used. It’s pretty.
I must admit that the sparkling vampire thing is original, though a pathetic reason not to go out in the sun. It gives vampires no weaknesses. It makes them seem too good to be true. I think had she balanced out their amazing powers with some weakness that was detrimental, her vampire concept could have been better.
Also, by your insistence that Twilight is more mature that HP because HP is in the children’s section. Perhaps so in the bookstore you go to, but not the one I go to. HP and Twilight are in the same section for me. I’ve seen HP in the Adult section, so I don’t think the section a bookstore shoves a book in is a very good measure of the maturity of the book.
Topic Four – Hot Sexiness
No. Young adults, especially not budding teenagers shouldn’t be exposed to something that a twenty-two year old considers sexy. Rather, I find that Twilight is a romance novel that was microwaved. I think that had the romance been more subtle and there been more development in Bella and Edward’s relationship other than ‘Holy Crow! That guy is hot!’ and ‘Her blood smells delicious’, the story might seem a bit more possible.
I’m not sure how it’s sexy for someone to be constantly be cold or to have your girlfriend’s heart STOP because you kissed her. I think I would completely freak out and tell her that I’m a danger to her not because I’m a vampire, but because I could cause her death by romancing her. I find the romance and the “sexiness” a bit forced in Twilight, but again, what one person finds outlandish may seem perfectly normal for another, so this is debatable on whether or not my opinion is valid.
I suppose I will stop now and just tie it up with a few more comments.
You should know by now that repeating your opinion does not make it an irrefutable fact. Twilight is not more ‘intense, mature or sexy’ because you said it is. Same for the HP fans. Harry Potter is not better simply because you keep saying it is.
Someone mentioned Twilight as being a Sci-Fi novel… But I don’t get it. How is it Sci-Fi. It’s just fantasy. That’s that.
And I’m not sure how many have caught on, but the line ‘Sci-fi for those who don’t like sci-fi’, which was used to describe The Host, has been used for another novel that I can’t quite place my finger on.
And for something like Twilight, the cold, impenetrable guy who has a girl come along and melt him, let us try Pride and Prejudice which is more maturely written and without a complete emphasis on romance and rather using it to poke fun at social structure. Or even Jane Eyre, which was like by my vegetable loving fried [a Twilighter]. I’m sure that both of these are just as enjoyable with a splash of something that Twilight doesn’t have.
Or perhaps to emphasis maturity, let us all read ‘Brave New World’ and ‘Lord of the Flies’ and enjoy it. Or as a complete shocker and to fry romance loving brains ‘Silence of the Lambs’ or something equally as disturbing, but not in the same way Twilight disturbs me.
In the end, opinions are just opinions. Everyone has one, but not everyone wants to see everyone else’s.
I’m sure that all of you preaching that what you’ve said is just an opinion have been just as stingy to the “other side”. And looking back on what I’ve wrote, I’ve probably been stingy as well, but to both sides. You be the judge.
P.S. I read three of the Twilight books and part of the fourth and I read all the HP books, so I think I have a right to speak my own opinions seeing as I have read both.
P.S.S. Comparing Twilight and HP isn’t quite fair because their components are quite different. I think that comparing something like Twilight and Gossip Girl, or something of that sort would be easier because it’s more similar in genre.
Morphy rocks, totally and completely.
To the last commenter, it’s not really fair to compare the movies for the quality… just because Robert Pattinson is more attractive than Daniel Radcliffe (hey, I agree) doesn’t mean Twilight is better than Harry Potter.
“i think that rob and kristen had great chemistry which made the movie and the book better” <— No. The fact that Rob and Kristen have great chemistry (which is debatable) does not make the BOOK better than Harry Potter.
“Plus rob makes it even more interestinger since hes like freakin hot and his sexy hair” <— hotness and hair sexiness do not necessarily make for more interesting. I mean, sure, I like staring at him as much as the next girl, but if this is one of the reasons it’s better, then I don’t know what to say.
One of the reasons I like HP is the fact that there are many characters, all with different personalities, all who change throughout the series, all who seem to exist in time, despite the fact that they’re “fiction.” HP isn’t all about ‘yay we get to stare at / imagine the pretty people, they’re so pretty and they are luminous and other adjectives i need a dictionary for.’ It’s about a real STORY and growing and changing. There just happens to be a mythical element tossed in the mix to make it interesting (just like the vampire element is thrown into Twilight to make it interesting).
I am definitely rambling by now. I just sometimes feel compelled to explain that HP is more complex than Twilight. And better written… if anyone tells me Twilight is well-written, I would like to have some words with them. I enjoyed Twilight… it’s a good light read that you can get through quickly, there’s some fun characters (I’m a big fan of Alice and Emmett and heck, even Charlie and Billy), and a different, almost humorous twist on vampires. But Harry Potter is well developed… the characters change over time… a world is created that you want to exist (not quite to the level of Lord of the Rings, but that same idea)… and J.K. Rowling can WRITE. What a concept.