» News
More Wolf Action in New Moon Clip
We have already seen Jacob transform in the trailer for New Moon, but the scene in which he leaps over Bella is placed immediately after a scene where Bella is cornered by Laurent which suggests a scene that was not in the book.
However thanks to this little clip we get to see more of that scene with another wolfpack member Paul losing his cool and wolfing out first, then Jacob in his brief but effective leaping out of your shorts transformation.
The Wolves are my favourite part of this book and I look forward to seeing more of their mythos explained on the big screen. And while I am looking forward to the Volturi, its the Newborn Army battle that I can’t wait to see in the third film.
i belive this was actally a scene from the book. im not sure though. anyways with any luck this might be an ok movie
yes, it is right out of the book.
How can you accept such bad CGI quality for something so important in the movie. On one side I really don’t give a crap about this series of glittering vampires movies but at the same time I hate when anyone gets taken out of the experience because of bad special effects, whatever the movie is…Wolverine anyone???
And personaly for me Werewolves should not look like big dogs but a cross between a human and a wolf, like in Underworld.
This isn’t Underworld, and there is no reason that EVERY Werewolf in every film has to follow some set of rules.
I like that they are fully big ass wolves! And I like that the vampires are different. Why have the same old mythos repeated a billion times? Someone does something new and different and people cuss, and those are likely the same people who get all bent when a remake comes out.
The CGI is fine. Consider that this is a trailer, and likely not finished product for the scene, and even if it is… it looks fine.
This is no where near the low quality that was Wolverine’s claws in Origins.
I have to agree with Rodney.
Shinobi,
I also didnt like that they were dogs, but after going through the book it was explained that THIS is what they looked like, my friend.
I think the CGI looks just fine… where did you see the CGI fail? I think it looks good.
I would go into why the wolfs and vampires in Twilight need to be different, but Rodney pretty much said it^^^
If youre still confused as to why they turn into big dogs, they explain why in the books. Has to do with their tribe, the Quilletes (but i dont wanna ruin anything)
BY THE WAY
I love how Sam is trying to call them down, and fucking Seth is laughing saying
“Do it now!”
xD
I don’t care what mythos they’re following, but I have to agree with Shinobi in saying that the special effects look very, very poor. They may be unfinished, and may look amazing in completed form, but in their current phase they look terrible. Not quite as bad as Wolverine’s claws, but not much better either. They are both really fake looking special effects that nobody will ever mistake for anything in real life. That does effect my personal viewing, I can’t care about the character, can’t fear for their life, all I’m thinking is “oh look the blob of pixels is in danger…… NOOOOOOOOO!!!”. Totally takes me out of the movie, personally.
Im sorry, I just watched it again. Theyre just wolves! Whats wrong with their CGI?
They look just like big, monstrous wolves, I looked to see if there was a flaw in the CGI or a glitch and found nothing. This is very simple graphics
In the movie theater it will also look a lot more realistic. Like you said, the CGI is not done yet (i think it looks fine…)
The only flaw I found, was that when he jumps over her… his knee almost took out her whole head. THAT is the part that worries me.
I’m wiht James and Rodney on this one. the CGI is fine for a teaser. besides, it isn’t going to be the same definition on a computer monitor as it will be on the big screen. So long as they don’t look like they stepped out of a scene from who frames roger rabbit (as the bathroom claws in Wolverine did) I could care less. Who is really going to this film for the FX anyway? We all know that most guys will be dragged to see this by their girlfriend and then use it at a later point as an excuse to then drag her to see a action/explosion extravaganza later on. Yes I am playing to the cliches, but that’s how I roll!
Cheers,
If you had read the books you’d know that they’re not “werewovles” as the world to has come to know them today. The wolves in the Twilight books are just that, wolves. The story is that at times when the tribe is in danger, certain individuals transform into wolves to protect the tribe until the danger passes. They even mention in the first movie that the tribe is supposed to be descended from wolves.
in the book series it follows more the of the native tradition of what werewolves. They see them as men who have wolve spirits and can go back and forth between both bodies. Kind of a two for one deal with that.
Ask any of my students and they will tell you how much I HATE the Twilight series, but I have to admit that this trailer actually looks pretty BA. I agree that the wolves were the best part in the book, and while I agree with Rodney that not every mythical creature has to ascribe to the main mythology, vampires shouldn’t sparkle in the sun. They should turn to ash.
Either way, this is a trailer and as such it only shows 30 seconds from a much longer film. While this scene looks cool, I still have very little hope for the movie as a whole. I do think they are trying to make it more exciting than the first, filled with more action and less cheesy “spider-monkey” lines.
Turn to ash like Blade, Underworld, Let The Right One In, Van Helsing, and fifty thousand other vampire movies?
As for the wolfs being the best part, I agree BUT the Volturi are SO underrated!
TEAM ARO!!
>=O
there are other ways to adjust the mythology without turning vampires into glittering goobs! Look at Guillermo del Torro’s book The Strain. It is a revamp of the Vampire novel and it changes the mythology while still making Vamps the bad-a creatures of the night that they are. In Twilight they are not even really vampires, they are simply mutated humans that were attacked by pixie dust. Turning to dust is cliched for sure, but when your are virtually indestructible you have to have an Achilles heel. Of course if Meyer’s vampires were prone to sunlight there would be no story so … i guess there is your answer.
So you can adjust the mythology as long as it appeals to you?
There is nothing wrong with Meyer’s take on the vampire/werewolf mythology. Its different. You don’t have to like it, but that doesn’t mean its wrong.
The Vampires DO have a weakness, blood and werewolves.
If vampires were real there wouldnt be an Achilles heal, theyd just fucking kill us everytime.
Yes, they are vampires.
1) They need to feed on blood 2) They are dead 3) The only thing that can kill them is a Werewolf or 3 other vampires
Sounds like theyre vampires.
Well…technically they can also be killed by tearing said vampire into a bunch of pieces then set on fire…
..per book 1
Absolutely, personal appeal plays a huge role in everything that we like or do not like whether we are a critic or not. It is unavoidable. But, that is not the only reason why I disagree with Meyer’s version of what a Vampire should be. I recognize that for the sake of story she had to make certain adjustments and I’m fine with that, it doesn’t mean that I have to agree with it. My main gripe is that within the novels she never provides an adequate explanation for why she changes the mythology. At least in del Torro’s book he talks about the varying myths and placates the reader so that they are more willing to buy into his take.
And claiming that in order to take down a vampire you need to be either another mythical creature or a collection of three undead amigos is not a weakness its like pitting a mastif against a chihuahua. Their aversion to sunlight is the ONLY real tool at humanities disposal that can provide even a semblance of security. When you are the prey (and one capable of fighting back) you should have a something you can use to fight. (that is crappy logic that sounded better in my head then when typed! Doah!)
Cheers,
And they never explain why Bill Murray relives the same day over and over again in Groundhog Day and it didn’t ruin the film.
And as far as the “required weakness” you think MUST happen, James’ point was that Vampires are not invulnerable, but highly resistant to physical damage and rapid healers. That it takes a werewolf or three vampires (as he describes it) is just saying they are resillient, but not invulnerable.
Its been proven a number of times in the books that vampires are more than capable of being destroyed.
Im sure that with enough leverage, Edwards head WILL snap off.
If you put Edward in the Moon, he will die in 20 days from lack of blood. Period. Or maybe hell go into a weak coma and wake up when you drip blood in his mouth.
Why do you want Twilight vamps to have a weaker “Achilles heel”? because you want an 8 year old kid to kill them like in The Lost Boys?
These are more realistic then most vampires.
Vampires arent real, there is NO book that says how vampires are SUPPOSED to be. Theyre fake, dude.
Unless anyone here knows a vampire and can ask him for his input.
He is not indestructible, he is made of diamonds.
@James “He is not indestructible, he is made of diamonds.” This is without a doubt the funniest thing I have read all day. Thanks guys for indulging me in this discussion thread. I enjoy playing devils advocate and stirring the pot from time to time. It really helped me pass the work day!
Cheers,
Price
I fail to find the humor in this.
Their skin is as hard as diamonds which explains why light shines off them when they go into the sunlight. A great way to involve the sun and their strength, rather then just saying “Theyre strong! And they explode when they see the sun!”
I mean, their skin is obviously not real diamonds or else they wouldnt be able to move, but its a more realistic explanation then any other vampire myth.
The “diamond” thing explains both of those factors (strength, sunlight) with a lot more logic then most vampire adaptations.
The book never said they were ACTUALLY made out of diamonds, dude.
My point is this:
If their strength really CAN be compared to this rock, then I am sure that with enough force, their skin would easily rupture.
Groundhogs Day is not changing a mythology that is centuries old either. Her vampires are only capable of being destroyed by other vampires though, which is a problem I think in the narrative. Humans really are just cattle to vampires, and if you imagine it that way the whole Bella Edward relationship is awkward at best. By giving them a weakness that, even marginally, levels the playing field creates a more dynamic relationship between groups and a needed depth (even if unexamined fully) to the story.
Really? Because there is an absolute on how a MYTHICAL creature is supposed to be? There are thousands of itterations on what the mythos is supposed to be, and Twilight does a fair job of identifying with how those legends fit with their versions.
The fact still remains that your only criticism is that change is ok, as long as you change nothing. Or that changes are ok if it fits your narrow view on a creature that doesnt exist.
And Vampires are not only capable of being destroyed by other Vampires. Thats never been asserted. Just that a more powerful vampire might be capable of performing the amount of force required to damage these resillient creatures.
There doesn’t need to be a level playing field. The point is that Twilight vamps ARE physically superior in all ways to humans. Thats just how they are in the story. They don’t have to have some catastrophic weakness to make things fair. Who says it has to be fair? Where is that law written? Thats what makes the Cullens so noble in their efforts. They dont have to live that way, they choose to. There is the depth of the story.
You are dwelling on the things you dont prefer and labelling them as “wrong” because you want it to be different.
You don’t have to like it, but you have only illustrated why you dont, not why its wrong.
we are arguing semantics at this point, and through it all I have been fairly clear that this is my opinion. No, I don’t expect that everyone will agree with me; but that is the beauty of opinion, It sparks discussion and debate. I never said that what Meyer did was “wrong”, just that I didn’t agree with what she changed. Obviously someone people like the books, and the first film was widely successful despite its flaws (which you even agree are abundantly present), and yes it does add some changes to the lore that, arguably, create am intriguing new vampire. But, for me, and I’ve only shared my perspective, it does make the story less engaging. But that is only one minor piece in comparison to an repertoire of ill conceived narrative elements present in the rest of the saga. I am the first to admit that the movies far surpass the books in every way, but, and you said this yourself, I don’t have to like them or their take of the lore. I also don’t have to keep my opinion to myself simply because someone else disagrees.
If we are arguing that it is their differences from traditional vampires that makes them “better,” “more interesting,” or even “noble” then how is their superiority physically or in any other way really that great? You are arguing that they are “noble” because they choose not to feast on humans but instead on animals, but in context do we think that it is noble for a vegetarian to give up meat? This entire discussion is based off of non sequitur and red herring fallacies and to be frank they are a bit blown out of proportion.
I think its important to note however that changing certain characteristics of any mythical creature has its limitations.Every creature has certain qualities that make it what it is. For instance, if say Edward had all his current “special powers” but didn’t at all drink blood, no one in there right mind would call him a vampire. Thats because the need to drink blood is how we identify him as a vampire, it is a qualification so to speak. Well I think that for many peole(including myself) the characteristic of being vulnerable to sunlight is also a sort of qualification for being a vampire. Thus it would seem that the title of vampire is used inaccurately.
SPOILER
they’re not werewolves, they’re shape shifters, does anyone had read the book?….. dammit!
And yet in that book you claim to have read, they use the term Werewolves many times.
Just sayin.
Rodney, they do but they arent.
Mike, youre right… but way to fucking spoil it for those who havent read the books.
Oh
And I would PAY to have Kristen Stewart hit me on the face that hard.
=0
“I am the first to admit that the movies far surpass the books in every way”
Dude, there’s only been one movie out so far. No one has seen the 2nd yet. Or third. Or fourth.
Personally, I think the first book was far superior to the first movie.
BTW, in that clip, I don’t buy the part where she ducks or falls down BEFORE he jumps her/transforms. Looked way too fake and planned out. It did not look believeable at all.
Wow… the acting is laughable and those guys are nothing but pretty faces up there. Does every guy need to be shirtless? Twilight is soo pointless
It explains in the book why they have to be shirtless..
Take a look at the new “The Wolfman” trailer just released….then look at this one. I do not need to comment further.
The trailer is posted on this site. There is nothing in Wolfman that shows any greater detail than these wolves.
In fact the trailer is very careful never to actually show you the whole creature.
That you might prefer that movie to New Moon is irrelevant.
The topic here is Twilight, not “What do you think is better than Twilight”
Its irrelevant.
Tim
If “The Wolfman” were to go toe to toe against any member of the wolfpack he would DIE.
Rodney….the Twi-”LIGHT” short was less than steller at best. And with out a doubt relevant. Great Actors vs…..? Great story vs……Great CGI vs …… And James do you mean box office receipts…..or staying true to the Cinematic craft?