Jump to content

Talk:Twilight (2008 film)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1


Cast section

If anyone can provide citations for the uncited cast members from a reliable source that mentions the roles in the context of prose, like this and this, that'd be appreciated. I didn't really find any reliable hits in a quick Google News search. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Here is an article that gives a good description of each member of the Cullen family. Andrea (talk) 17:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! I've added some descriptions, but feel free to tweak if necessary. All the bases should be covered now. It's probably a good thing that this film's based on a popular series -- helps get the sources for the article! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


Here is a Twilight Character Guide posted by Rotten Tomatoes that goes into more depth for the main cast of characters, perhaps more info can be added to the page? - Jen 20:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rottenjen (talk • contribs)

The author has a cameo in the film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.250.34.88 (talk) 17:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Citation dump

Some headlines. Feel free to use, Andrea. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 04:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Another. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Andrea (talk) 19:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Another headline. —Erik (talk • contrib) 03:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Plot synopsis

I've removed the content of this section because it is a word-for-word copy of the Synopsis section on the official website. The text is copyrighted under the studio, and we cannot duplicate it exactly as it is. What can be done, however, is to write in our own fashion the basic details of the synopsis that is offered on the official website. Words like "action-packed, modern day love story" are marketing terms, so when rewriting it in our own words, we must strive to be neutral and not sound promotional of the film. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikitable

I was thinking of changing the section into a wikitable to make it look less cluttered, but I just wanted a second opinion first. With this format of cast listing, you can add more detail about who the character is. If we did it in the wikitable, it would look better, but we might have to sacrifice a lot of the info about the characters. Any ideas? ~ Bella Swan? 20:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I would discourage a wikitable because like you indicated, it restricts the information, and a simple list is easier to edit. I think that when time goes on, we'll be able to expand on the Cast section and the Production section. With a simple list setup, the Cast section could look like Sunshine (2007 film)#Cast, having real-world context about each actor and role. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 04:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I have to agree with Erik. I'm a fan of wikitables because I think it would make it look much neater, but I'd hate to lose the character descriptions. Hopefully at some point in the future when more is known about the movie, we can change things. I'm going to bold the actor and character names though, I think that will improve its appearance at least a tad. Andrea (talk) 06:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Professionalism

Listen, I dunno where to put this, so I'm going to ask it right here! As far as we're concerned here on Wikipedia, What is canon!?! Book or movie?! I would think book, but that's just me.... Now, as far as I remember the absolute ages go like this: Edward is 107, Carlisle 362, Esme approx. 10 years younger than Edward, Rosalie is 75, Emmet is a few years younger, Jasper is 164(he was 17 on joining the Confederate Army in 1861) and I can't remember Alice off the top of my head.... Signed, Noble Korhedron 01.01.2009. (Source: Twilight, S. Myer,2005, Pub. Atom). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noble Korhedron (talk • contribs) 00:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

ninety-something-year old? Could we bit a bit, ehem, more professional about Rosalie's age? If were judging from 2008, then she would be 83! Princess Rebel (talk) 22:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

It isn't about professionalism, we have to use the information that articles on the film provide. For all we know, she will have a different birth year in the movie than in the book. So far, the only sources that have mentioned her age have said "90-something". While it's very possible that they're rounding her age up to 90, we can't guess at what her real age might be until some other source (or the actual movie) mentions it. Hope that helps. Andrea (talk) 14:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The other characters have exact ages, not something-something like Rosalie.

I may sound like a bit of a pighead, but i am very stubborn. Princess Rebel (talk) 22:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Edward and Bella are the only 2 characters with exact ages. Since they are the main characters, we have obviously been given more detailed information on them. Carlisle's age has been stated to be 400, though that is most likely just an estimate (like Rosalie's). Andrea (talk) 04:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I still think that we should put in the ages according to the book until other sources (like the movie) comes out. It makes the article seem more professional, not like some fansite. Princess Rebel (talk) 22:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but this article is about the film– not the book. We should therefore only include information that is definitely true to the movie. It hardly makes it seem like a fansite to not have an exact age. If you'd like, we can just take out the mention of her age altogether. It isn't exactly important, anyways. Andrea (talk) 15:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that would be a good idea. Until we have other official sources we should delete all the ages. I mean, this is an article about the film, not the book, and i totally agree with you on that.

should i delete the ages or do you wanna?

p.s you do know you are debating with a twelve-year-old? Princess Rebel (talk) 22:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I wasn't under the impression that we were debating at all. I took out Rosalie's age, since it's the sketchiest and the one you seem to have issues with. Edward's and Bella's are exact and more important, so they should remain. Carlisle's is a also a bit important, because he is so much older than the others. Andrea (talk) 18:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, Carlisle's age is important

I'm sorry if I sound obnoxious, cause I'm not at all. I just have strong views. Princess Rebel (talk) 22:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, did you know that you're not the only 12-year-old here? Anyways, anything that's not cited or notable should be taken out. Especially the "sketchy" ones. We're on an encyclopedia here, a "free" one, but an encyclopedia nonetheless. IceUnshattered (talk) 00:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Ha, ha, it's nice to know that there's another twelve year old out there. I'm, uh, 12 years, four months as of the 10 of June, 08. Princess Rebel (talk) 13:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

And five days Princess Rebel (talk) 13:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I presume you're american? Princess Rebel (talk) 13:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but that's not specifically relevant to the discussion. Things like these are to be discussed on talk pages. I feel that this disucssion is basically closed. The matter is resolved, and replies are unnecessary. IceUnshattered (talk) 21:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


Yuppo, sorry, I do get a bit carried away, I am a bit excited that there is someone my age into editing. So, uh, this is officially closed, kay? I don't have to keep checking on it?

So, let's continue our chat on my discussion page... (you know where it is)

Princess Rebel (talk) 13:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikitable (2)

I've been thinking that this section looks a little disorignized and messy. I'm thinking we use a wikitable to organize it but.. we'd probably lose the info about the characters, which I actually think would be for the best. I don't think a despcription of each character is really needed. ~ Bella Swan? 01:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

No, the information on the page is very important. Especially when the movie comes out, if there are any changes from the novel, we have tou make sure they are noted onto Wikipedia. Princess Rebel (talk) 22:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Like I said just a few sections above, a wikitable would not permit details of any sort, and it's unnecessary to involve coding in laying out the cast members. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Layout

I think using wikitables would be better to use and it'll make the section look much neater. I was also thinking that the cast should be categorized i.e. The Swan family, The Cullen family, Nomadic Vampires, Forks students, etc. What do you guys think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ning723 (talk • contribs) 22:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think a wikitable is the best idea. The unfortunate issue is that the image in the Cast section does not have a sufficient fair use rationale. In the realm of Wikipedia, it's purely decorative. Non-free images need to show their significance through secondary sources. I would have removed it in the past, but I figured that the fan base would keep pushing for the image. Maybe it's time to remove it, and we can add a link to some image gallery in the External links section. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
The cast list is far too long for the wikitable to make it look neater. And if you add all secondary characters that appear in Twilight, you'd have a extremely large task on your hands. Farslayer (talk) 00:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Trailer spoofs?

On YouTube, there are probably thousands of spoofs. One- mine. xD Is that relevant? Emilynkaylee (talk) 19:17, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Ummm, I don't really get what you're asking. If you're asking whether or not we should write about all the trailer spoofs out there, that would be a no. YouTube isn't considered a reliable website, and we should use information from it in articles, unless the article directly pertains to YouTube. ~ Bella Swan? 13:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
If there is a reliable source that says, "Twilight has been spoofed numerous times on YouTube," then it could possibly be worth including. It'd be hard to fit, though -- there should be a section about fan involvement with this film, also from reliable sources. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
That could get a bit messy. Searching it, all I can find is actual YouTube videos, no article or anything that mentions Twilight YouTube spoofing. ~ Bella Swan? 14:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Something I noticed that I'm not sure where it goes: in a released 2 minute clip of the movie, there is a brief moment where Robert Pattison catches an apple and it looks just like the cover for the book —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.56.4 (talk) 20:13, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Books/Film

One Series. Same Vampires. Not "Vampire (Twilight books)".

Vengeance is mine, saith the Prime • 02:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Technically we have almost no idea what the vampires will be like in the film, and all of the information in the Vampire (Twilight) article is taken directly from the books. From what I've heard the film will be quite true to the books, but we still don't know for sure until the movie comes out or something is directly said about it. Andrea (talk) 02:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes. (Same with characters.) Change template first (or just wait)?
Vengeance is mine, saith the Prime • 03:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, same with characters, but it's more of a normal practice to link to them. The character pages more clearly explain that they are about the characters in the novels (by even mentioning the film adaptation). I think linking to the Vampire (Twilight) page should wait until a section about the differences between book and movie could potentially be added, but...I really don't care enough about something so minor to debate it any further. They'll probably be identical in the movie anyways. Andrea (talk) 03:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

...They spelled Emmett wrong in the credits.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.170.92.123 (talk) 00:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

January 7th, 2009?

Word on the street is that it's actually January 9th in the UK, and I found an article that states this. I added the reference to the article. Andrea (talk) 17:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Cluttered cast section

The cast section looks really cluttered and messy. I was thinking that it should be reorganised to make it look neater, like under titles such as The Cullens, Other Vampires and Humans, or something similar. The section could be made to look similar to The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian#Cast and characters which included character descriptions and still looks neat.

And, I was wondering if anyone else thought that the group Cullen image should be moved to the right, as it kind of splits the cast section. Also, perhaps the amount of actor names in the plot synopsis could be reduced to just Stewart and Pattinson, because it seems like there are too many for that small section, and they're all included further into the article. 86.10.75.40 (talk) 21:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I tried fixing the picture, and moving it to the right puts the picture below the movie's infobox, and moves the text with it so that there's a huge gap in the page. I added sub-headings, but I think it makes the page look even more cluttered with them. We need to find a solution to the picture problem before anything else. ~ Bella Swan? 23:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I moved the image so it's below the infobox, and depending on how wide your internet page is it's either next to Humans, Other Vamps or The Cullens. I'm wondering if the list of actors in the infobox could be shortened to just the main two characters because then when your page is full view the image is much closer to The Cullens. I'll leave them there though, and you can test to see whether you agree.
I also split up the Cullens and the nomads because it makes it easier for people (not familiar with the books) to identify the 'good' guys and the 'baddies'. Those were the 'major' changes if you like, the other ones were just tidying up the character and actor links in the synopsis. What we really need is for the image to be beside the infobox, not beneath it. I don't know how to do that. I guess that when the synopsis and production sections are expanded, it will move the cast section further down the page and hopefully down far enough to be in line with the right part.86.10.75.40 (talk) 21:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I shortened to list of actors in the infobox, you were right, they weren't ll needed, and it looks a bit better now. ~ Bella Swan? 00:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

In the list of characters it lists James as being the leader of the group of nomadic vampires. This is incorrect, Laurent is the leader of the coven. This is implied in the book "Twilight" pages 328-332, and by the film. I changed this once and it was changed back. It should say that Laurent is the leader, and James and Victoria are part of the group. Does anyone disagree?Cricketmad5Wk (talk) 17:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

In the book, the nomads intentionally make the Cullens think that Laurent is the leader. However, this is soon revealed as false. To quote Laurent from p. 400 in the hardcover edition, "'He's absolutely lethal. That's why I joined his coven.' His coven, I thought, of course. The show of leadership in the clearing was merely that, a show." What in the movie implies anything different? Andrea (talk) 23:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Yep, your right. Sorry about that, thanks anyway for correcting me Cricketmad5Wk (talk) 21:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I have a quick question regarding the division of characters. For example, why are the Sawns and the Cullens listed together, and why are Jacob and Billy listed under human when they are werewolves. Listing the Swans and Cullens together makes it look like both families are vampires, and the Blacks clearly need a tab for themselves. Could anyone do this?--71.237.249.236 (talk) 00:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

The Swans and Cullens are listed together since Bella + the Cullens comprise the main characters. As for Jacob and Billy, neither is a werewolf in Twilight (Jacob becomes one in New Moon, and Billy is never a werewolf). I don't think listing the Swans and Cullens together makes one assume they are all vampires, since the descriptions distinguish between the species, but I don't necessarily think they are organized in the best possible way right now. Andrea (talk) 12:53, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Twilight Task Force

This is a note saying that a Twilight Task Force might be in the works. A poll is currently being held here to see who would be willing to join. If you would like to join, please participate in this poll. Thanks, ~ Bella Swan? 13:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Filming Locations

In NE Portland I am pretty sure there was filming at Madison High School, I remember them being in my journalism room for some time. Maybe add that to the filing locations? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Honortheroll (talk • contribs) 22:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Rating

If anybody knows it, maybe we should add the Movie rating. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.214.203.72 (talk) 02:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

What rating? Classification? How can anyone know it when it's still a month away from the US and 2 from AU/EU? Farslayer (talk) 04:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC) This is going to an awesome movie!!!! and the books are awesome?!!!!!!!

Not the place to discuss your opinions. 66.65.173.67 (talk) 16:25, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The rating is PG-13. Oshun blue (talk) 22:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Question

Is this movie only based on the first novel, or all four? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.17.51.198 (talk) 22:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

It is only based on the first novel, Twilight. Andrea (talk) 23:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! I can't wait to see it, but I think that the book will be better. They usually are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.17.51.198 (talk) 02:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes reviews page

Can we add the Rotten Tomatoes page for Twilight to the main article? We will be seeing a Tomatometer rating the week of release, Nov. 21. The Twilight page is Here. We'll also have interview coverage to add to the Twilight film Wiki this week; is leaving a note in this discussion the best way to add that info? Thanks. - Jen 20:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rottenjen (talk • contribs)

Huh?

"The film was primarily shot in Oregon during the winter and spring of 2008." Last time I checked, it ain't winter yet. It was filmed in the future? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.219.23.97 (talk) 03:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the majority of "winter 2008" was at the beginning of the year (from Jan-Mar). Filming began at the end of February and ran through March and into the spring. Andrea (talk) 03:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Per WP:SEASON we shouldn't be using season names anyway to enforce "hemisphere neutrality". It was only winter/spring in the Northern Hemisphere - it was the opposite in the south and around the Equator they don't even have specific seasons. —97198 (talk) 07:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
It was winter in Oregon though, and it does state the movie was filmed in Oregon. I agree however that it is confusing, especially since there are technically two winters during 2008 in Oregon, the 2007-2008 winter and the 2008-2009 winter. 92.236.245.163 (talk) 01:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

New Moon Confirmed

The official website of Twilight film has now confirmed that Summit is making a film of New Moon as well. Source: BellaAndEdward --88.115.63.242 (talk) 19:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Please See New Moon for information on the film. ChaosMaster16 (talk) 19:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

Total Film Box Office Sales

The official count is $70.6 million. Source: [1] (some sources say $70.5 mil) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MC1171611 (talk • contribs) 22:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Visual effects

Twilight: A New Take on Vampire VFX —Erik (talk • contrib) 14:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Critical Reception

I see the following critical reception paragraph:

Based on 128 reviews collected by Rotten Tomatoes as of November 24, 2008, the film has received an overall approval rating of 44%, with a weighted average score of 5.4/10.[63] In describing the critical consensus, it stated: "Having lost much of its bite transitioning to the big screen, Twilight will please its devoted fans, but do little for the uninitiated."

I should note that this book is currently the top seller on amazon, but this paragraph implies otherwise. Perhaps we should balance this section with a reference to the book's sales? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.234.124.133 (talk) 19:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

How does it imply the book isn't a best seller? I don't get what you mean? The paragraph seems fine to me92.236.245.163 (talk) 01:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
The only thing belonging in an article's "Critical Reception" section is it's critical reception. It should be sourced ratings from a reliable source like Rotton Tomatoes and if a quotation is necessary, have it source too. It cannot be a point of view, which adding a "but the book is a bestseller so the movie rating low rating is balanced by the books good reception." statement would be inappropriate , the current quote from RT alludes to the fact the book did better. Sincerally and truly yours, C6541 (talk) 10:04, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
From reading the article it seems to me that there would be very few people who would watch a movie that does "little for the uninitiated" would want to go out and buy the book, but I am surprised to see that the book is the #1 seller. Seems a little misleading to me, but the little guy like myself who doesn't have hours to argue on wikipedia doesn't have much of a say here... Do whatever you want guys. Nuzz604 (talk) 19:24, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

That quote "Having lost much of its bite transitioning to the big screen, Twilight will please its devoted fans, but do little for the uninitiated." is straight from the rotten tomatoes consensus section for the film, so i would say that it is a good piece of information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.236.154.70 (talk) 07:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Um, I didn't have a full story, but since I am a queen, I feel I should resolve this. Twilight (the book) was very well recived by book critics, but Twilight the movie was not. Her Majesty Queen Padmé Amidala (talk) 11:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Plot and future revision

Hi, fellow editors! I just wanted to make note of a couple of things. I have become a recent fan of the film and have taken on the task of doing a major revision of the article with hopes of making the article an FA. It's already in great condition, so I'm sure that I won't have a lot of work to do but then again, there is always room for improvement on Wikipedia. Also, someone has recently edited the plot and greatly expanded it. While this is excellent, the new plot is full of grammatical errors that should be addressed. In addition, the plot needs to be broken up into several paragraphs in order to increase the quality of readability. I don't want to undo the edit because I believe that it is a substantial addition. If no one is able to tackle this soon, I'll start on it later this week (finals have me bogged down until Friday). Happy editing and I look forward to possibly working with the editors already here. Leave me a message if you have any questions/comments/complaints. – Ms. Sarita Confer 23:06, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Book

This movie was not based off of the book in some places like when Charlie talks to Bella in the car he doesn't talk about Bella's present; the truck. Jacob and his dad brings the truck over later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.194.203.145 (talk) 02:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The film did not adhere to the book in many different ways. However, this is partially explained in the article already. – Ms. Sarita Confer 06:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Now Rotten Tomatoes says "Twilight" has a 50% rating, not 45%. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valeria P (talk • contribs) 18:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Rating and Comparison

    • Now Rotten Tomatoes says "Twilight" has a rating of 50%, not 45%.

Also, you should add a section that discusses the book version vs. the movie version, like most books-turned-movies pages on your site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valeria P (talk • contribs) 18:08, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

blu-ray release

{{editsemiprotected}} Best Buy will not have Twilight on blu-ray until May 5, 2009. I received this email from Best Buy after I pre ordered this blu-ray disk: There's been a change to the release date for your pre-ordered item.

The new release date is 05/05/2009. Your order details are listed below.

Get more information on this order by checking your order status.

You can also call us toll-free at 1-888-BEST BUY (1-888-237-8289) with any questions. For faster service, tell us the order number when you contact us.

Thank You. Best Buy Customer Care

Alright, it shouldn't read like an advertisement anyways so I took out the store names. Once confirmation can be provided concerning Best Buy, we can change the reference as well. Thanks for the info! Andrea (talk) 03:07, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protect

Due to persistent and possibility of vandalism, I think that this article should be semi-protected. If there are any replies, please post them on my talk page. Thanks! Montgomery' 39 (talk) 19:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


Japan Release

The movie Twilight is set to be released in theatres on April 4th. Some of the cast members, Rob Pattinson, Kristen Stewart, and Taylor Lautner, already went to the premiere in japan in the middle of march. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.218.120.160 (talk) 19:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I feel this should not be inside another section, since they have nothing to do with each other, so I will fix that now. Queen Padmé Amidala (talk) 11:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

What About Jacob?

I know Jacob doesn't have a very big part in Twilight, but he still is Bella's friend. Shouldn't some one include him?--Nikki3447 (talk) 21:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

He is included in the Cast section, if that's what you mean. Andrea (talk) 00:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Movie Errors/Bloopers

I was a little distracted when seeing this movie, cuz i thought it was great, but there was one thing that i noticed near the end of the movie, where Bella & Edward go to prom. When she is coming down the stairs (cast and all) it looks like her dress is a purple color (if you want to get fancy, like a dark plum color). When she and Edward are at the prom and dancing in the gazebo, her dress looks like a dark blue/green color. I am not sure if it was the material, but i think this is a blooper. Since i was enrapt, i wonder if anyone caught any others in the rest of the movie?? --162.80.36.13 (talk) 21:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Her dress is always blue, as it is in this image; maybe the lighting mixed you up. In any case, minor film goofs are not worthy of noting in articles. Andrea (talk) 22:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


There's another error I noticed the 3rd time I saw the movie, when Charlie is talking to Bella outside, after he got her tires changed. Both Billy Burke and Kristen Stewart are standing in front of her truck and in the window, you can see the reflection of the guy holding the microphone (or the microphone itself). Jocullen84 (talk) 15:00, 01 April 2009 (UTC)

okay a few things that bugged me. 1.when she sees her dad when his friend dies she gets out of Edwards car and does not have her bag on. she put the book that she bought in it, but when she gets home she has her book!!! 2.at the prom you see victoria in the room when they walk through why does Edward not notice or smell her. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.32.52 (talk) 21:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your second complaint, James didn't smell Bella until the wind hit her, and, if I remeber correctly, Edward didn't smell Bella until the fan hit her. It all fits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.26.237 (talk) 15:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Twilight fangirls violence

Is it worth noting that this movie (or the series at all) inspires Twilight fangirls to assault people on the streets who disagree with them? (Yes, it has happened) Cid SilverWing —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.166.178.16 (talk) 22:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I have heard about violent fans, and i do think it's worth noting/having a section in the article. Something like this needs sourcing tho..... IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 22:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Murder?

The plot section mention's James' "murder." Now, I have not seen the movie or read the book, but killing a killer in this situation wouldn't generally be called murder. Can we say death? Or do vampires die in Twilight? Ronstew (talk) 20:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Highest Gross - Female Director

Perhaps someone can get a link together for this, but it surpassed the $183M that What Women Want made to make Hardwicke the highest grossing female director for North America (assuming worldwide as well). RoyBatty42 (talk) 20:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Twilight_(2008_film)/Archive_1&oldid=1140441502"