LA Times: What Bill Condon Brings to Twilight

Bill condon handThe LA Times has a piece examening why Bill Condon is a good choice for Breaking Dawn.

“In making the choice, Summit, which has gone for a different type of director for each film in the franchise, clearly wanted someone with more Oscar chops (Condon’s won one and been nominated for a second). That’s both because the “Breaking Dawn” material is a little more complicated than the previous books and because with the franchise already an unstoppable juggernaut, they can afford to take a risk, at least a small one.

So what kind of teen-vampire fable will the man responsible for “Dreamgirls,” “Gods & Monsters” and “Kinsey” make? None of his previous directing credits are obvious analogues to this movie (though the initial frenzy over him as a candidate was a little baffling; good filmmakers reinvent themselves all the time. And it’s nothing compared to Rob Marshall, another man known for musicals, taking on “Pirates of the Caribbean 4″).”

See more on the LA Times.


  1. Everytime I see his name, or hear it, I think of Bill Compton.. from TrueBlood. LOL.

  2. i dont know he just doesnt feel right for breaking dawn hopefully im wrong

  3. The reality is folks, it all comes down to STORY STORY STORY. I don’t care who they hire, if they can’t format the book into a reasonable movie format that is halfway compitant, I don’t care of Martin Scorcese directs it, it’s going to be bad. Breaking Dawn, in many ways, doesn’t follow the tranditional form of story telling. While the book was the least favorit of the series, it wasn’t a really bad book, but the methodology of the final book, does not lend itself well to the movie format, no matter what Stephenie says. I don’t think this movie will fail, even if it is dead on the water, the Twilight Saga’s fan base is way too hefty to keep it from sinking entirely. Purests have already shown Summit that a movie can be really bad and still bring in the bacon (Twilight) and out vote better films in Popular Nominations. The first Twilight movie beat out Star Trek and the Dark Knight in several catagories. (SHAME on you for voting James vs. Edward as a better hero vs villian than Batman vs. Joker!!! I still haven’t forgiven you!. :P) Of course I’m kidding. So Summit doesn’t have to worry about not making money. But to me, honestly, that is shallow.

    A director with a lot of clout might give Summit and Stephenie trouble. He might want to reinvent the entire story. As an Oscar winning director, he might really make a good movie, but in truth puriests might cry foul as it will alter things from the book.

    I don’t always fault changes though. A really good example is Jurassic Park. If anyone has ever read the book Jurassic Park it is COMPLETELY different from the movie. In fact the book is VERY adult, with enough big words that it makes the dinosuar names sound easy. You almost have to have a bachler’s degree just to understand the psuedo science that was used to make the story believable. It is a fantastic book none-the-less. Stephen Speilburg though saw a golden oppertunity to make every child’s dream come true. He lightened the story quite a bit. Changed a lot of things around, and almost completely rewrote the entire story. While Crickton was sort of peeved at first, when the final product became (for the time) one of the highest grossing movies ever made, he changed his tune. Jurassic Park was a good book, but Stephen Speilburg new how to make it an even better movie.

    I think the fact that Summit is trying to literally put the book on screen, is one of the biggest reasons the movies, while financially pleasing, aren’t nearly the quality they could be.

    Movies and Books are two different beasts. Movies flow different than books. I felt that Twilight and New Moon both felt like a faster recap of the novel, as opposed to creating its own unique world.

    Harry Potter had the same issues. The first 4 movies were written and made to be movies. They deviant quite a bit from the books, but the core principles remain intact. The movies flowed and felt natural. The last few films, 5 and 6, felt like a “Paint by Numbers” adaptation. Don’t give me the book on screen, give me a good story.

    • No FANGS required says

      No offense but what are you talking about? You lost me? I thought I knew but the paragraph was soooo long …I got confused. Anyhow, Why is this such an issue these days with Breaking Dawn. It will be fine. No matter what because Stephenie is on board to see it through and that is good enough for me since she wrote the books anyhow. Everyone should have peace of mind about it now. πŸ˜‰

    • I don’t agree with some of the stuff you said, and did with some of your other points, my only complaint is the scrip writer—–UGH

  4. Gods and Monsters is an AMAZING movie. I am happy with this choice

  5. This guy is the Wrong choice. He’s a “B” Movie producer. Don’t let the fact he’s won an Oscar fool you… most Oscar winning films are garbage films.

  6. i agree with the person who made the point that breaking dawn is a harder,more challenging book/storyline to adapt to a movie. I dont think that the fans of the franchise understand that films adapted from books cant be the exact copy. I kind blame the fans(not all of them) for the fact that the twilight and new moon movies were lacking in certain aspects. If they demand and nitpick that “the movie better be just like the book” or “every little scene and detail better be in the movie” etc,etc that is why they leave something to be desired. The screenplay is not up to par for good story telling or character development(rob and kristen are awsome,its not their fault the script kinda sucks and it makes them sound lame) they do the best with the crap they have to do the job..All i hear is bickering and complaining,whining,blah blah blah..the films suffer cuz of what certain people want. Those who dont know anything about filmaking or adaptations. We should have demanded amazing storytelling not a recap of the books. It doesnt work to be so literal.

    • And I agree with you for agreeing with me. πŸ˜› I also want to say that people shouldn’t scream at Melissa Rosenburg, especially about how terrible her writing is. EVERYTHING she writes is approved upon by both Stephenie and Summit. Melissa is giving you exactly what you want, the book on the big screen.

      Again folks, as a screenwriter, I’m here to tell you, as I’ve said again and again, that a book is not a movie, as a movie is not a book. What works wonders on the page, usually doesn’t work on screen. Plot changes happen, and while they aren’t always for the best, it usually improves the theatrical experience.

      So my greatest question is… if Bill Condon made changes to Breaking Dawn that would greatly improve its narrative for a feature film, such as using the “Mythic Style” of writing (The mythic patterns is almost always used for fantasy styled stories and was used in such films as Star Wars, Lord of the Rings (film) and so on and so forth) would fans forgive him, if he deviates from the book, in order to tell a better story?

      Your call…

      • Once again I see that fans are Over analyzing everything. Just pay to watch the movie (judge it for yourself) and forget about it. What ever happens ..well just happens. Life goes on. If every little detail written in any of these books were ever to be put on the big screen then it would possibly take at least 5 hours or more to watch them. And just like a real long paragraph to read …after so long…you loose people and they get bored and stop listening or reading or watching it all together. NEVER JUDGE A BOOK BY ITS COVER πŸ˜‰

      • Breaking Dawn in my LEAST favorite book of them all. It broke completely away from the premise of the previous three books. I feel like SM tried to make it epic in scope and ended up making a mess. I think a good director could make it better.

        *OTB ducking from the flying projectiles coming her way* LOL

        I’m just saying…I agree with Noah. Sometimes the changes directors make actually IMPROVE a book and the authors are left wondering ‘hey! Why didn’t I think of that?’

      • Noah, I think it depends on what is changed. I’m not picky if minor changes / additions are made while adapting the book to the screen, like adding the feeding scene in Twilight with James, Laurant and Victoria. That scene added to the movie without affecting the overall plot of the books.
        Compare that to the Volturri fight scene in New Moon, which was entertainign to watch but completely confuses the plot for Eclipse and BD. Those are the types of changes that I have a problem with.
        Based on that scene, Edward’s comments about him and Alice being almost untouchable in a fight wouldnt make any sense. The family should hide both of them behind Bella and Charley when the Vampire army comes. And it will have an even bigger impact on BD.
        Series movies have to keep somewhat on the tracks of the overall plot in order to be able to continue to follow the books going forward.
        Besides, there is 1 reason and 1 reason only that these movies will be a success at the box office – the die hard fans of the books. So why make changes that alienate the very fan base you are relying on in order to try to appeal to “the general public” that has no interest in seeing these films anyway?
        If Summit gives us twihards what we want to see they will be very well compensated for it and everyone will be happy. If they go for awards with this director and gut the storyline of the book alot of us fans will be 1 and done (instead of seeing it 7-8 times) and the movies will tank.

        • i kinda thought the same thing about the volturi part but i was guessing that the volturi were faster and stronger thats why they are incharge

  7. It cant be all Summits fault…

  8. You people are nerds.

  9. Twilight girl says

    “Twilight NERD”. Hmmmm is does have a ring to it..he he , gotta love the comments some times. πŸ™‚

Leave a Comment


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.