david slade eclipse

Two nights ago, /Film’s Brendon Connelly unearthed an old interview segment in which David Slade said he would rather get shot rather than view Twilight during that film’s theatrical release. This was an interesting stance, since Slade is now slated to direct the third film in the Twilight saga, Eclipse. Slade related a Twitter message he had made from his now-deleted account, in which he described his decision-making process for whether or not to see the film:

Twilight drunk? No, not even drunk. Twilight on acid? No, not even on acid? Twilight at gun point? Just shoot me.

Naturally, this created a firestorm of criticism in the Twilight community. Slade was recently compelled to respond, and Twilight Lexicon has published an e-mail from Slade in which he repudiates his previous remarks. It reads, in part:

When I made these comments, I had neither seen the film nor read the books. I was promoting a comedy short film that I had made for Xbox and every pop culture subject was seen as a possible comedy target. I was being silly and none of the statements were from the heart.

Of course, I have since seen the movie and read the books and was quickly consumed with the rich storytelling and the beautifully honest characters that Stephenie Meyer created.

I would like to reassure everyone involved that I am invested in making the best film that I am humanly capable of, and that I am acutely aware of the power of the original books we serve.

These remarks by Slade were completely necessary and understandable; in fact, it’s hard to imagine him responding in any other way (and doing nothing was not an option). Nonetheless, our viewpoints about Twilight are pretty clear at this point, and for Slade to claim that he became a convert after reading Twilight’s source material really stretches credulity.

While I’m sure many of us would like to see Slade re-iterate, rather than repudiate, how many of us feel about the Twilight franchise, the fact of the matter is that Slade is just at the beginning of what will hopefully be a fruitful career as a talented thriller/horror director. If doing Eclipse means he gets the chance to make something better and more original down the line, then I’ll definitely try not to hold it against him. Much.

David Chen can be reached at davechensemail(AT)gmail(DOT)com.

  • Travis McGee
    I tried to read the first book. I got 100 pages and that couldn't go any further. It was utter garbage...
  • hey! you were still brave enough to read the first 100 pages! I still refuse to read the book...
  • B33
    You beat me. I couldn't get past the first page.
  • Cat
    Twilight sucks and does this director so theyre a perfect match.
  • Flax
    He's lying. He just wants a paycheck
  • Doing it for the paycheck would suggest he's already "made it big" and just wants some extra cash; but I'm assuming he's taking the opportunity to further his career. Whether it's Twilight or any other high profile film franchise, it put's him in a higher rank of sorts.
  • Tyler J
    I always assumed trying to make money was the concern of people who haven't yet hit it big since they often get paid less and get pictures with lower budgets.

    You don't see Tarantino directing Fast and the Furious remakes (though, admittedly, they would be 100x better if he did).
  • Money is money, but some people place success over money; that is to say they just want to have the success before they start worry about the money. Now I don't know David Slade, he could be in it for money or he be like "Hey, here's my shot at something big--oh, and I'll be making a good chunk of change." But I don't think he's in any position to worry about a paycheck... He's stepping in big shoes. If he does well and cranks out a quality product and shows his worth, then I could see how money would play a bigger role in his career.

    And it could be argued that Tarantino is an auteur, "hit it big" almost immediately, and has no need to get a big pay day.

    I don't even know why I'm sticking up for Slade, I don't think his films are that great; in fact I hate Hard Candy.
  • alex
    I love hypocrites and bullshit laced backtreading
  • luke_test
    I believe him when he said that he made the comments without seeing the film or reading the books

    I don't believe him when he says 'I have since seen the movie and read the books and was quickly consumed with the rich storytelling and the beautifully honest characters that Stephenie Meyer created.'
  • Ingeyla
    i totally agree wid Adam dat i don't believe dat he is a convert now. he is juz saying dat cuz he has to. Y did summit even hire him in da 1st place after his comment ugh!
  • And people wonder exactly where the delineation lies between being real and being a Hollywood shill...
  • Um... Brendon Connelly is a slashfilm writer. David Slade is the director of Eclipse.
  • D.A.
    instigators..instigators..that sucks guys

    twilight fanatics are crazy, you guys should know that.
  • haha, he's just pretending to apologize. We all know how he REALLY feels.
  • nelson
    rich story telling? you sure he isn't on acid when he wrote that
  • The letter should read:

    I would like everyone to understand that those comments were made before Summit Entertainment was paying me. At this juncture I would like to keep my money, so I didn't really mean those comments, LOL JK.
  • HAHAHA!!!
  • Damn i wish people would stick there guns and grow some balls and quit apologising for shit they said . If your going to say something you dont mean think twice before you end up with your foot in your mouth.
  • if EVERYONE did that, every single person in L.A would be out of a job ;-)
  • "David Slade said he would rather get shot rather than view Twilight"
    That's one rather over the line I'd say.
  • What did I miss?
  • Sara D.
    See sometimes money is more important than pride.
  • I hope he butchers the franchise. I saw Twilight and I don't get how a girl falling in love with a disco ball is romantic. And no I haven't read the book, all the reviews from non 13-year old girls is enough to keep me away from the 'rich storytelling.'

    I honestly hope this third one turns out to be a pile of shit, hell even the second one.
  • Alex
    yeah he hated that movie alot for having not seen it, having seen it I'd rather get shot than see it again

    worst director in recent history, even with such a lame story it could have been good had they gotten semi-average director
  • matt
    Ha, I had the same thought. Beautifully honest characters? Are we talking about the same books?

    I wonder if the twi-fans will be convinced?
  • LoL, I thought he went a little far with that comment, but the comments over at the Twilight Lexicon are positive. I think that the more level headed commenters are leaving comments today. Yesterday was maddness, but a part of me finds the tortured spoiled cries of twihards amusing.
  • I think given time Twilight will become the next Troll 2. I was certainly laughing a lot more at Twilight than I was expecting to. That vampire girl pitching is one of the funniest things I have ever seen.
  • alex
    the fact is that this movie will make big bucks regardless. and the best part for slade is that he can half-ass the whole thing and still be assured the money
  • All he wants is his paycheck. If he was doing something else he would have totally been like. Those comments are true from the heart
  • Darder
    never read the books or saw the movie, don't care to looks horrible just from the trailers but i'd direct that if someone paid me!
  • 790
    Why couldn't they give Twilight to Mcg, he could change things around and maybe work in some Harvestors or moto-terminators.
  • Slade, you blew it. This really took him down quite a few pegs for me. He should have just said "Yeah, I said those things: I'm going to take the franchise to a new, vastly improved place. Watch out."
  • bb6640
    I think the qualifier here is "humanly capable of". That should give him a get out of jail free card...
  • Well he can certainly use this movie to jump-start his career. I can't really blame him.
  • Shaun
    This guy is backpedaling. I love the Twilight books and the movie was okay. I just think that he was being honest with his true feelings when he first said that, now I think he is having a bunch of Summit people browbeat him into taking it back. If you don't like Twilight, fine, but don't go directing it either. Have some integrity.
  • I was really hoping he wouldn't apologize, but it was evitable and the first part of the letter I do think is mostly sincere, but the part about him now being a fan, hm, I don't know, maybe. Eclipse is by far the most entertaining of the 4 and has more action and sideline gore which I hope will remain because it blances the romance.
  • Twilighter for Life
    OMG, this is a Twilight hating site. You all are hilarious. You all sound like a bunch of men who can't get any. Never had a girlfriend. Wouldn't understand love if it slapped you in the face...oh, yeah, that's why you can't get past the first 100 pages, LOL! You womenless men who hate Twilight just don't get it and will never get it. David like so many ignorameouses never read the books nor seen the movie but slammed it at every chance they get. If you men were anything like Edward, women would be better off. You all keep your "balls" the ones you said David doesn't have and may they stay blue! LOL!!!
  • matt
    I'm assuming this is a troll but....

    I have read the book, and they're far from romantic. Bella and Edward's relationship is non-existent. They fall "madly in love" after meeting about 3 times, never actually having any meaningful conversation or connection. Bella's attraction to Edward is purely physical, as his appearance is teh thing constantly commented on. There is rarely any description of his personality. And what personality he does show is...scary. He breaks into her room to "watch her sleeping". In a later book he locks her in a car so she can't see jacob because he's jealous. He's horribly controlling and creepy. Oh and of course lets remember this guy is 100 years old. Let me say that again, 100. years. old. And he's hitting on teenage girls. That's creepy as hell.

    Also this is ignoring all teh horrible mormon promotion Meyer does in the books, women being submissive and how their lives aren't important till they have a man (doesn't she go into a coma when Ed leaves in teh second book? Because she's "nothing" without him). No sex or kissing or anything fun before marriage, marry young and then have lots of kids straight away!

    Now, I have no problem with girls saying they like the books but accept that they're horribly trashy and rather crappy. My girlfriend, and I assume most other girls, loves Edward and the descriptions of Edward, but admits the rest of the book is crap. What I have issue with is A) girls who think this is genuinly "great literature" or B) girls who actually think Edward is romantic and that the girl would want anything like that relationship in real life.

    The series is the teen equvilant of a Mills and Boon book.
  • rjupiter
    I honestly, through all the bad press, read the books cause I wanted to know how bad it all really was. I never expected to even remotely like them, but I kind of do. I am not claiming in anyway that it is "great literature" just like I would not say the same of a Jackie Collins novel. And I will freely admit that some of the overall neediness of lead female is annoying but it also very much what a 17 year old girl does, obsess over boys. That being said I can see what Meyer's was trying to do with the relationship and sometimes it does not translate well.

    However, most people are very quick to point out that the idea of Edward and Bella is "creepy" together but yet no one had a problem with same relationship when it came to Buffy. If you think about Buffy was a bit worse her love interest was a vampire that was over 200 years old in a 27 year old body and Buffy was 16. Angel in the series also stalked Buffy and "watched her". So if you liked Buffy and watched it I am not sure how you find that show/relationship ok and the book creepy.

    Also, a lot of people claim that Meyer is pushing a Mormon agenda and well some people may see it that way and some people may see it as having morals or values. Yes, there is kissing and groping in the book and I am not sure why it matters that they don't have sex before they get married? That is some people's choice, it may not be popular and too conventional but it is a choice. Also it is explained, at some length, in the book(s) why their relationship does not progress further even though Bella would like it too.

    I do agree that the idea that ones life is not complete without a "man", that has never been my view, but I also think that Meyer was trying to express a view of a kind of epic love that got a little lost sometimes. Also if were to change Edward from a man to a woman would the book still read the same? Or would it be defined as tour de force for woman's lib and gay rights?

    its all about perspective. You can read many things into stories/books and its only our ideas and preconceived notions (whether we think we have them or not) that change what we ultimately see/interpret.
  • matt
    I'm not sure why you brought up Buffy, I never mentioned it and never claimed it I thought that was fine but Twlight wasn't. Imo yes the Angel/Buffy relationship was creepy as well. The only plus point was that Buffy wasn't a a horribly underwritten, self insert character whose sole purpose was to fall in love with Edward and shoot out kids for him.

    As for the mormon issue. I have no problem with people wanting to wait till marriage for sex. It's just the whole way it's presented in the book. It's not that they want to get married, it's almost as if they have to get married, at a ridiculously young age, before bella has finished high school. And then when they do the main reason Bella wants to seem so to be for sex. And then she gets pregnent after 1 night of sex, wtf? They don't use protection? And then we have this horribly heavy handed "bella can hear the babies thoughts before its even born oh its a real person not just a feotus!" pro-life stuff. Again, nothing against pro-life supporters but the way its handled is horribly heavy handed. As is the suggsetion that bella has to get married, and its more important than her school life. And that you should ignore the fact that you might not be ready for a baby and just have unprotected sex at a young age because that's what women are for, right?

    Sidenote: And seriously, how annoying is it that, after all the "oh noes I don't want to turrn you into a vamp" bella is turned and is completely fine? To this ridiculous extent where she can control her hunger and powers 10 times better than any other first time vampire. Bleh, reads like fanfiction.


    "Or would it be defined as tour de force for woman's lib and gay rights?"

    Erm, nope it wouldn't. I've really no idea where you're going with this point. Unless you're suggestion that we're reading her submissive nature to Edward as being a promoted as representation of the best kind of male/female relationship, when it's just meyer's attempts to be all romantic and it'd be the same if Edward was a woman? I've really no idea, the story is so majorly "male/female" and draws on so many of those old cliches that you can't really just change Edward's sex, because the story would have been written completely different. I'd imagine Bella would still be read as a terribly boring, submissive, "oh i'll do anything for you now the rest of my life isn't important" character though.

    "its all about perspective. You can read many things into stories/books and its only our ideas and preconceived notions (whether we think we have them or not) that change what we ultimately see/interpret."

    Accept Meyer is so heavy handed and baltently "this is what i think" with much of the plot and points that it becomes difficult to read the book as anything other than what she wants it to be?
  • rjupiter
    I brought up Buffy to make a comparison is all, I did not imply you liked it or had seen it.

    Actually in the book it is Edward who wanted to get married and not Bella. And the reason why for the marriage was not for sex, initially on Bella's part, it was so she could get turned into a vampire. Also why would you use protection on your honeymoon with your husband? Also it was not more important then her school or her family that she get married. In fact throughout the book(s) Edward kept trying to get her to hold off and go to college.

    Bella can't hear the thoughts of the baby, this is not stated at any time in the book. Again the marriage had nothing to do with having kids or sex, it was not the main focus.

    Also my parent were married out of high school and my mom is a strong woman who raised me to be independent. So I don't see how getting married at a young age, while maybe not the best thing, is also not that big of a deal, for me.

    Again, there were a lot of "oh nos" in the beginning but it was more from Edward and his fear about his and Bella's soul, it being lost/damned. He didn't want that for her not that he didn't mind that she became a vampire. I also think that people didn't like the way the books finished because it was positive and not nihilistic. This day in age people don't want happy ending, not traditional ones anyway, and if they are in books etc... they see it as sappy, crap, fanfic drivel and so on. People I believe have gotten to bitter and jaded and want everything to always be crapped up, it makes them feel better about their crappy lives. So when she becomes a vampire and is able to do all the control and finally be "strong" you see it as "annoying" and "fanfic drivel", interesting.



    I am not sure I see her as being totally submissive. She is pretty stubborn in a lot of the book(s) and always wants to do things her way. Granted this is to protect her family and Edward but it does not make her super flat or totally submissive. But I also read her as a 17 year old super shy girl that had a gorgeous unattainable guy take an interest in her and she kind of went head-over-heels. I mean she is 17, what did you think about when you were 17?

    Like i said its about perspective. I can see it a bit differently and that might just have to be due to how I was raised or know what it was like to be a 17 year old girl. And I also did not come with the knowledge or preconceived notion about Mormon religious undertones or anything real knowledge about the books.
  • Nice.

    I didn't know you people were real, thought it was just South Park being hyperbolic.
  • Two words: Sell Out.

    It's a shame. Hard Candy was a nice piece of cinema.
  • "Of course, I have since seen the movie and read the books and was quickly consumed with the rich storytelling and the beautifully honest characters that Stephenie Meyer created."

    False.
  • TJ Rossmeissl
    Personally I liked the Twilight series and just finished the 4th book. The first movie was terrible, I hated it... and I'm disappointed to see this developing the way it is, I'd much rather see someone who gives a damn do the project or someone actually invested in doing the movie well. But I have a feeling it'll be another disappointment. It makes me cringe to see all the hating going on.
  • "rich storytelling and the beautifully honest characters that Stephenie Meyer created."

    lol look at that damage control
  • jason B
    how cool would it have been if he said:

    "i stand by every word i said..."
  • HL82
    Twilight drunk? No, not even drunk. Twilight on acid? No, not even on acid? Twilight at gun point? Just shoot me. BIG MONEY? I'M IN!!
  • Twilighter for Life
    Matt,

    Don't delete my comment then become a punk and send me a nasty email. Keep your comments public like I did. Your email and this article tells me everything I need to know about your manhood. Godbless your so-called girlfriend.
blog comments powered by Disqus