"Eclipse" might not be poised to make more money than its predecessor "New Moon" did, but many fans and cast members believe that the film is the best of the three "Twilight" installments. A large part of that is thanks to director David Slade, who took his edgy, emotional skills from "Hard Candy" and the thrilling vampires from "30 Days of Night" and combined them into something that most viewers are getting behind.
In fact, Slade's success got us thinking about "Breaking Dawn." Yes, we already know that Bill Condon is set to direct both films, and it seems like he will probably play it pretty close to the book like Chris Weitz did on "New Moon." But what if someone else got his hands on "Breaking Dawn" -- someone a bit less expected? What would the longest and, frankly, weirdest installment of "The Twilight Saga" look like in the hands of a 3-D guru like James Cameron or a gritty crime specialist such as Martin Scorsese?
We decided to have some fun with the idea and guess how "Breaking Dawn" might look if directed by some of Hollywood's most elite filmmakers -- even if these filmmakers aren't necessarily the likeliest fit for the franchise.
With "Kill Bill," Quentin Tarantino already proved that he can tell a story over two parts, and his knack for telling a story out of chronological order and from different perspectives would actually come in handy when directing "Breaking Dawn." Twi-hards will already know the story and won't be confused when it's told out of sequential order. Besides, everyone else is really just coming to see the vampire cesarean on the big screen -- something that could be quite dangerous in Tarantino's hands -- so there's really no problem throwing around the chronology a little bit.
Tarantino could open "Part 1" with Bella facing off against the Volturi, then jump around and end the film with the birthing scene. He might even toss in a scene of Alice and Jasper out on their quest for good measure. Then, "Part 2" could open with the honeymoon on Isle Esme and give viewers a reason to see the second film (read: SEX), and let the insanity go from there.
If Slade's "Eclipse" was half-thriller, half-romance, then Martin Scorsese's "Breaking Dawn" would be all edge-of-your-seat, nail-biting suspense. The happy wedding and sexy yet unintentionally abusive honeymoon would only be set-up for Bella's terrifying pregnancy and violent birth.
The second half of Scorsese's "Breaking Dawn" would spend less time with Bella getting to know her new vampire powers and more time on the final showdown against the Volturi, which -- unlike in the book -- would actually end with a battle of epic proportions, and everyone dead except Mark Wahlberg, who'll state, "Say hello to your 'Twilight' mother for me."
As the king of the
world Hollywood blockbuster, James Cameron would definitely know how to make "Breaking Dawn" big and epic. Hopefully he would be able to make us feel for Bella and Edward in "Part 1" the way he made us care about Jack and Rose in "Titanic," but the biggest plus of having Cameron on board would be how he dealt with "Part 2."
There has been a lot of speculation about "Breaking Dawn" being filmed in 3-D, with the newly minted vampire Bella seeing a brand new world in three dimensions. Cameron has already proved with "Avatar" that he could make an amazing 3-D world, and he would really be able to make the world of a vampire -- seen through a vampire's eyes -- visually interesting.
Yes, I know Stanley Kubrick is dead, but a girl can dream, can't she? There seems like no better film auteur past or present who should be allowed to convert graphic and gory vampire birthing scenes and true love between a 17-year-old werewolf and a newborn half-human/half-vampire than Kubrick.
Let's face it: "Breaking Dawn" boasts some twisted, uncomfortable material buried within all of the lovey dovey stuff. With Kubrick at the helm, the expression on Taylor Lautner's face when he imprints on Renesmee would probably look a little something like this. If Kubrick had been around to direct the film, Summit would have undoubtedly inverted that ratio of female-to-male "Twilight" viewers.
On second thought, no. No, let's not go here.