“I am down. I wanna do it. I understand why they’d wanna do it,” she told MTV in a recent interview. “The story absolutely warrants two films. But I think you could do it with one. It just depends.”
Kristen shared that, if “Breaking Dawn” were split, the shoot would be six months instead of three — a shoot she was informed would start in November.
She added about her preference for two films, “It would be much more satisfying to do [two films], because we wouldn’t have to drop so much of the story; it wouldn’t be like, ’Well, we didn’t get to do this scene, this scene or this scene.’ You’d get less of that — which would be good.”
One thing she couldn’t wrap her mind around, however, was the rumor floating around that “Breaking Dawn” would be shot entirely in 3D, like “Avatar.”
“I think ’Breaking Dawn’ should just be a normal movie,” she said after weighing the possibilities (press play on the video above to hear more). “But who knows?”
She quickly countered with, “Watch, it’s going to end up being a 3-D movie, and [I’ll have to say,] ’No, it’s a great idea!’ So, it’s a great idea.” But still, she was every adamant that she would not want to see the birthing scene in 3-D (we wouldn’t either).
This all ties back to James Cameron’s statements when we spoke with him earlier that it shouldn’t be the studio saying, “Make a 3-D movie to make it a success like ’Avatar’!” but rather a choice made by the filmmaker. While Kristen said she thought some scenes would be suited for three dimensions, we tend to agree with her that “Breaking Dawn” should just be shot normally.
As for what Kristen has coming up in 2010, she said the only film on her slate is “Breaking Dawn.”
“’Breaking Dawn’ is supposed to happen in maybe November, I think,” she said, “but until then, I have a clean slate, and that’s rare for me, so that’s actually cool. It feels good, like I have no idea what I could do.”
What are your thoughts on “Breaking Dawn” in 3-D?