OMG. I can hardly remember the last time I stayed up until 4:00 a.m. devouring a novel by flashlight (okay, LED book light), like a schoolgirl after lights out. I think it was ... 1980 ... um, I mean, actually, I think Twilight is my first time. Are You There God? It's Me, Margaret wasn't nearly as much of a page turner.
Well, whatever. Have you seen the trailer for the movie? I did. And it's made me afraid, very afraid. Not of rain-soaked vampires. Of the movie. Watching the trailer for the film, I couldn't help but feel somehow ... crestfallen. Immediately, I got the urge to cover my eyes and ears whilst humming loudly, and to stay far away from theaters in November. (As if I could.)
Sure, if we rounded up the Bella and Edward in every Twilighter's brain and put them in a room (or a casting call), they might not resemble Kristen Stewart and Robert Pattinson. (Bella's voice is way huskier than I imagined.) But having the features of the vegetarian vampire of my dreams redefined by a Hollywood face isn't the real problem. It's that watching the trailer, something seems missing or lost in translation to film (well, film trailer). The Meyer ambiance is missing, that mist of dangerous magic and surreal beauty that perfumes the pages of her books, like the sparkle of immortal skin in a sunlit meadow, or the devastating perfection of vampire beauty. Could this absence be due to the insufficiency of the most magical thing of all (in Hollywood at least) -- money?
Twilight's production budget was a paltry $37 million dollars. Is that enough to launch the film franchise of the most beloved book series since Harry Potter? Especially if the studio behind it, Summit Entertainment, wants to convert audiences who have never read Meyer's books? The Potter series dished out $125 million for its big-screen debut.
Even if we compare bloodsuckers to bloodsuckers, Interview With The Vampire spent $60 million in 1994. Haven't Hollywood prices gone up, way up, since 1994? Then again 30 Days of Night was a mere $32 million in 2007. Is that the look Summit is going for?
True, the U.S. economy is currently in a crunch. But Summit reportedly wrangled more than $1 billion in financing in April 2007, thanks to Merrill Lynch (who could have used some of that cash a few weeks ago).
Yet, most of Summit's releases so far have run somewhere in the $20 million range. On the lower end, Penelope only got $15 million. While on the costlier side, Step Up 2 the Streets got $22 million. Twilight suddenly seems like a bit of a splurge. Perhaps Summit is simply an unusually frugal film studio. Or, they're funneling the remainder of their funding into something more sinister, like a series of Judy Blume-based musicals starring Meryl Streep, starting with Are You There God? It's Me, Meryl. Hmm ... I hope no one in Hollywood heard that.
Yet, for many the heart of Twilight's allure is the book's breathlessly intimate and intense close-up of true, star-crossed love. While a panoramic perspective of Bella's surface surroundings at Forks High, or wherever, reveals a world that's often ordinary and frequently dreary. Would adding more special-effects bling not only be unnecessary, but ruin Meyer's subtle mood? Is Summit saving the sparkle for New Moon? But by then won't it be too late to get the attention of some moviegoers?
Is $37 million enough? Or did Bella and Edward, and their Twilight fan following deserve (and need) a bigger first film allowance or a bigger-spending film studio?
Posts
