'Twilight': What does Catherine Hardwicke's exit bode for 'New Moon'?

By now, Sunday's sudden and stunning news that "Twilight" director Catherine Hardwicke would not return to helm "New Moon" has had time to sink in.

Consider what her departure means for the franchise.

Hardwicke was key in casting Kristen Stewart and breakthrough star Robert Pattinson as the young lovers in Stephenie Meyer's romantic vampire saga, and she's got a proven track record in dealing with themes and issues concerning young people ("Thirteen" and "Lords of Dogtown.")

Perhaps more important, Hardwicke, who in fact is still on the promotional tour for the film, which has grossed almost $140 million in the U.S. alone, is something of a "Twilight" fangirl herself. The night before the Los Angeles premiere, she visited fans in line -- many of whom had been there for a couple of days -- posing for pictures and signing autographs. She was also at least partially responsible for getting the film's initial script, which she compared to "Charlie's Angels," nixed in favor of a more faithful telling.

Now she's gone and fans what to know what happens next. There are few schools of thought:

Not to fret, different directors can keep a series fresh. Just look at the "Harry Potter" movies, which began with the straight-forward adaptations of Christopher Columbus, went through a darker if more emotionally powerful period with Alfonso Cuaron ("Prisoner of Azkaban"), got an adrenaline boost from Mike Newell ("Goblet of Fire"), and have matured under David Yates ("Order of the Phoenix" and the upcoming "Half-Blood Prince.") Ditto other successful franchises such as "James Bond," the "Bourne" movies.

Movie watchers have already begun discussing who should take over. RopeOfSilicon.com has five female suggestions, among them Kimberly Pierce, who directed "Boys Don't Cry," and Mira Nair from "The Namesake." Earlier this month, Film.com weighed in with its top choices, including young upstart Sarah Polley and long-shot Sofia Coppola.

It doesn't matter who's behind the lens, as long as screenwriter Melissa Rosenberg sticks around. Rosenberg is credited with condensing 500+ pages of story into a two-hour film, helping to eliminate some of Meyer's clunkier passages of prose and injecting more humor into Meyer's story (i.e. the exchanges between Charlie and Billy, the dialog among Bella's human pals, details such as the wall of graduation caps.) Critics who had positive things to say about the film were grateful.

On the flip side, taking such liberties infuriated some Meyer devotees, and could do so to an even larger extent in "New Moon." Rosenberg reportedly achieved a way to squeeze in more screen time for Edward, even when he's supposed to go MIA for the majority of the second book.

The cast will be back -- what could go wrong? Pattinson and Stewart aren't going anywhere. Does anything else matter?

We have a problem, Forks. Whether or not you fell in love with Hardwicke's vision, the director's finger was on the pulse of "Twilight" fans. She relentlessly scoured Oregon for Bella's and Edward's perfect meadow, the pivotal scene for most readers. She made sure Stewart and Pattinson would steam up the screen -- on her own bed, no less. She made sure the book's many characters were all accounted for, even arguably expendable folk such as Eric.) She even went so far as to film a scene from "Midnight Sun," Meyer's as-yet-unfinished retelling of "Twilight" from Edward's perspective, which will be included as a bonus for fans on the film's forthcoming DVD. Will Summit Entertainment be able to find another director so in touch with teens and just as passionate about the source material?

What do you all think? Is Hardwicke's exit a good or bad thing for "New Moon"? Does it make a difference? Who do you want to see take over? 

-- Denise Martin

Related:
"Twilight" sequel "New Moon" gets the green light from Summit
Complete "Twilight" Countdown coverage

Photo: Catherine Hardwicke. Credit: Getty Images

Comments

[Joshua]

Excellent news! "Twilight" is a commercial success DESPITE Hardwicke's direction, not because of it.

[Becca]

Stop with the sob story. Hardwicke did a terrible job. Its one of the worst directed films I've ever seen and the editing was atrocious. I'm thrilled she's gone.

I hope Summit stop being so reverential to Meyer's work. New Moon's mid section is incredibly repetitive and boring.

The need to revisit Bella and Edward's relationship at the start of the film as so few initimate emotional scenes were included in Twilight. I still feel I dont know them at all. Also develop Edward's relationship with his father and the other Cullen's. Most of Bella and Jacob's scenes are repetitive in the middle of the book. Use some time to follow Edward's story ie tracking Victoria or a temptation to hunt humans again. Get Carlisle having to work hard to keep Edward on the straight and narrow. I also want to see Edward's visit to the Volturi fleshed out. Thats such a dramatic moment that if we only see it as a vision I'll feel cheated.

I'd love them to bring in a director like Paul Morrison who worked with Pattinson on ittle Ashes. Thats a stunning film and made for just £1.4 million. He could create something remarkable for $40 million.

[anne a.]

Frankly, I'm concerned. I really liked what Catherine did in Twilight and that's because she was very passionate about the book and the story. I'm definitely afraid that whoever Summit picks to direct New Moon will not have that same passion. The important thing about these books is the romance. Fans will also hate it if they deviate too much from the source material. Having Edward more of a presence in New Moon is okay with me personally because we would want to see what he was up to while he was away from Bella (and we fans who have read Stephenie Meyer's "outtakes and extras" online know all about this). Just don't kill the romance. This is what makes the Twilight saga extra special. This would be the challenge the next director has to face. And for the record, I don't really care about the gender of the director...why does everybody have to make that an issue?

[dawn0606]

I thought Hardwicke did a great job with raw jagged closeups and that guitar strumming music score used in the meadow scene was really cool and fit the mood. Plus lets not forget about the soundtrack opening up at #1 on Billboard and is still in the top ten coming now in #6. I believe Ms. Hardwick had a lot to do with the soundtrack and putting Pattinson's two songs along with his sister in a song from what i hear.

Well, she's gone now so we must move on. The best director that comes to mind is Joe Wright who did Pride & Prejudice & Atonement. He has a great reputation for working well with young actors and has great cinematogrophers and Music Scores and he is a major Character driven director. He is still rather new to this and probably won't be as expensive as huge blockbuster directors. Wright is my #1 choice.

[sandy]

I think that the studio will have a hard time finding anyone as Catherine was about this project. They need to get someone who is a fan of the novels, and understands the depth of the storyline, so they can set the right tone. Also, I hope the screne writer doesn't cut out some of the better lines/scenes fromt he book like she did in twilight that set up the Edward/Bella relationship, because it made the romance too rushed. I still loved the movie. They should do a director's cut.

[Megan]

I am delighted that Twilight is getting a new director, The movie did not do justice for the book what so ever.

[tara]

As bored as i am im replying. I seem to like catherine. just her spunk seemed to be good enough to direct this movie. But if money is what they want they will have to get someone else. Someone not so close to this movie that will make it good but not really give much care if the fans want steamy love verses action. Opinion out there. I dont much care. I love the books and as long as Roberts in there i wont care much.
ps...kristen sucks as bella...too bad they didnt know that ahead of time. haha

[Twilighter]

I say good riddance! Personally I think CH ruined Twilight, with all the choppy scenes. She took too many liberties and made it unitentionally funny. I hope they get someone who really knows how to do fantasy.

[G]

Maybe now we can get a REAL Rosalie, as opposed to the director's ex-step-daughter/bff/etc.

[SG]

I love Hardwicke's version of Twilight. I've seen the movie 22 times (no, I don't usually do this) since it opened and it just keeps getting better. I plan to buy the DVD because I know it is a result of her work. I am very upset that she is leaving the franchise. I've heard all the negative stuff floating around cyberspace and it just doesn't matter to me. I love her work and I want her back as director. I'm so disappointed that I don't plan to see ANYTHING that Summit is releasing to the theaters. I hope the backlash is huge and terrifying.

[Dolmance]

She made a very successful film that made a lot of money - and her audience loved it. Which means, the series is afflicted with one or more bad and arrogant producers who want more control, not only over the film but over the creative people too. The people responsible for this will find a director who makes the right noises of deference and kowtowing, but the product will suffer. And unfortunately, the producers responsible for firing the director are probably too foolish and narcissistic to ever admit it, even to themselves.

[alexandria l.]

i think a new director makes a huge difference... the fact that Catherine HArdwicke followed the book almost to a tee is simple proof that she should be the only director. In this article it is stated to look at the harry potter series of movies and that they had different directors and survived... and yes, they did have different directors and SURVIVED. but not all of the movies were as captivating. Catherine gets this series. she gets how to film it, how to direct it, how to connect her viewers personally and most importantly how to make the book lovers feel proud that the movie does the book justice. i really truly wich she had stayed on.. im a little anxious abt the next movie.. i hope whoever they pick can fill the huge shoes put in front of them.

[Jen]

I have been wondering what the staffing change will mean. Will the movie lose some of its authentic, indie feel? Or will the new director want/be able to keep that intact?

[twilightgirl33]

This is wonderful news! Every serious problem of this movie, from the misuse of music, the under/overacting of the leads, the use of close-up shots (a cheap way of making things feel intense and dramatic... rather than having the actors do that...) even the use of the blue-filter (for the same cheap effect) ALL Hardwicke's doing! I am thrilled we don't have to watch another film that looks like a bad documentary with kids who are trying to act! Maybe another director will use music to convey emotion, acting to convey emotion and lay off the bad camera work!

Thrilled!

[Donna]

I am very disappointed. Producers have a terrible track record of screwing up fantastic stories for the sake of making it pop. Imagine if this director wasn't on board and another director saw the original screen play for the first film with Bella as a cheerleader!

Like Peter Jackson it really shows when the director is passionate about the spirt of the books. Hollywood is just too good at screwing up a story for me not to be worried about a director coming on board who isn't a fan.

[katie aka twilight mom]

I, ALTHOUGH AMONG THE FEW, WILL BE DISAPPOINTED...AS HARDWICK DID CAPTURE WHAT WAS NEEDED UNDER A LTD. BUDGET.

[Rebekah Irene]

While I have not yet seen the Twilight film, who the director is should not matter. So long as the actors and screen writer remain, New Moon will be an excellent film. People tend to forget that the screen writer is way more important than the director because no matter how good the actors are, if the script is bad, then the film itself is doomed. A bad director can be overcome far more easily once the cast is chosen. Besides which finding good directors is easy. Even if the director is not great, a mediocore one cannot harm a film too badly. Peter Jackson was a terrible director, unnable to cut any film out and dedicating too much energy to epic battle scenes yet his films were still essentially good. Why? The actors and screen writers were talented. Moreover changing directors inserts fresh energy and ideas, often benefiting the series as a whole. The Harry Potter films went from horrendous, bad and good in the space of three short films because the directors built on what the previous ones had done. The studios will not be dumb enough to harm a film that is a guranteed blockbuster by hiring a bad director. So, calm down everyone. Losing a director never hurt anyone.

[kaaat]

this is not good.
i think catherine hardwicke was a wonderful director for the movie and honestly i dont think new moon will be as good without her
and the excuse that the time frame was the reason is totally untrue
it was about the budget. catherine wanted a higher budget to do special effects for werewolves and shoot in rome.
but summit was too cheap to give her a higher budget when they only spent $37 million on twilight and as of today it has grossed more than $138 million dollars
:(

[Anonymous]

Doesn't bode well for the sequels. As a devoted fan, I would hate to see a new person stray even farther away from the plot with NEW MOON than Hardwicke did with Twilight. I appreciate that she was a fan, and know that she did fight to stay true to the core of the novels. Would the next person strive for the same goal? I'm not convinced. I'm just hoping they get someone who is passionate about the project and has actually read the novels the way they were meant to be read.

[Kelly Burns]

She was good for 'twilight' (I really liked her adaption), but 'new moon' is not really hardwick's cup of tea. Although I think she would be able to show bella's pain and sorrow and her friendship with jacob, I think that she would be out of her element with all the ware-wolf scenes, and it would show in the movie. A new director just makes sense.

[Charlie]

I'm glad to see her go. The movie needed so much more. If you are a teen it might have been fine, but lacks so much.

C

[Tom]

Are you sleeping with Hardwicke's publicist? What a bizarre article. Hardwicke is Scorsese all of a sudden? As if!

[Rebecca Jupiter]

I'm so disappointed to hear this. CH has such spunk, so much talent. I'm sure the next film will end up ok, since the actors are still attached, and Rosenberg, but it's such a shame to lose Catherine. She has such a vision for everything she does, and she is an intensely hard worker... I agree that it's unlikely Summit can find anyone who cares as much.

[Virginia]

I'm not sad to see Catherine go - the movie was so bad - but frankly Rosenberg should go too b/c it was definately a lot more than the director that made this movie suck (no pun intended). The dialogue was so cheesy and there was no good transition - a lot of which happens in the actual writing of the screen play. So in my opinion in order to make New Moon successful they need to ditch Rosenberg too!

[dandelion]

it could be a good news ~ i am a fan of the twilight saga and though already prepared that the movie won't put up well with the book, however, the quality just came out even lower than what i expected ~ anyone who hasn't read the book would never understand how bella and edward's love had gone so deep. the movie is so shallow, superficial. the acting is not so good either. pattinson failed to display the confidence and determination that edward possessed. if it wasn't the problem of the director, what else?