Will 'The Host' inherit the 'Twilight' audience?

The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part 2 comes out this Friday in over 4,000 theatres. Before the movie, audiences will see a trailer for The Host, which recently surfaced on the Internet. Like the Twilight series, the movie is based on a romance novel by Stephenie Meyer. Unlike Twilight, the book is not part of a franchise. The release date has been pushed back a few times, and distributor Open Road now plans to open the film March 29th. I think it's a smart decision to wait until the Twilight series has concluded to release the movie. Fans may not have prioritized seeing The Host just before or after a Breaking Dawn, but come March, they will be in Twilight withdrawal and welcome another adaptation of Meyer's work.

 

 

The sci-fi romance takes place in a future where alien parasites have taken over the bodies of all humans, turning the irises of their eyes bright blue. One girl, Melanie, (Saoirse Ronan of The Lovely Bones) manages to escape implantation, falling in love with a fellow human rebel (Max Irons, the son of Jeremy Irons). However, the girl is finally taken and the soul of an alien or "Wanderer" is put into her body. It doesn't take. Both souls are still alive in the body, and there ends up being a love triangle, as both Melanie and the Wanderer share the same love for the boy.

The trailer shows off some great special effects, especially the technology that "heals" an injured Melanie. While a lot of the narrative in The Host takes place inside the head of Melanie/Wanderer, the trailer, at least, fills in the gaps with voiceover and excerpted monologues. Will aliens have the same pull as vampires? Moreover, will Open Road successfully market the film and mobilize the Twilight audience?

 

Slow but steady future for 3D films, says PricewaterhouseCoopers

By Sarah Sluis

The move to 3D, in terms of film history, should play out more like color than sound. All films transitioned from silent to sound in a snap--just a few years. To not convert was to become a box-office failure. But color, like 3D, was reserved for specific genres, like historical epics, fantasy, and children's movies, before becoming more widespread. I took a few of PricewaterhouseCoopers' predictions on the future of 3D movies and gave my own take on how it will all play out.

"Most 3D live-action production will be limited to sci-fi, horror and concert genres" Yes, but this is changing. Avatar is sci-fi, but it's also a tentpole, an awards hopeful, a James Cameron movie and an action/environmental/romance movie. As films with multiple genre identities are made in 3D, it will become easier for those "romance/action/comedy" movies to be made. Just today, Variety announced that the sequel to Zombieland, a horror/comedy will be filmed in 3D. The next Jackass sequel, a documentary/action/comedy, will be made in 3D. With its emphasis on live, improv events, Jackass is a cousin of the concert film, a popular choice for 3D, but certainty not part of the genre itself.

"3D-animated slates at Disney and DreamWorks will be closely scrutinized by rivals." Maybe. As far as I'm concerned, animation is already a lock for 3D. Animation is a medium grounded in fantasy, not reality, making 3D a very natural variation. I would worry if these animation studios decided to make a movie in 2D, which would indicate a slipping in 3D's profitability. As it stands, both Pixar and DreamWorks Animation are committed to producing all their upcoming films in 3D.

"Slow growth through 2014...because of lingering budgetary and creative concerns" You can look at this from the production side, but the audience side is just as important. A lot of people are resistant to seeing 3D movies because of their stereotype as a gimmicky concept that takes away from the narrative. That's not the case. As a former skeptic myself, watching movies like Coraline, Up, and even The Jonas Brothers 3D Concert Experience "glasses on" made those movies better. In the case of concert movies, 3D helps amp up the spectacle and gives a heightened sense of reality. No, you don't actually feel like you're there, but the dimensionality gives you a sense of the landscape, and the camera movements always make sure you have the best seat in the house. Up, compared to Coraline or Monsters vs. Aliens, uses very restrained 3D. The filmmakers either didn't author it in 3D from start to finish, but added it in later, or they chose to avoid having the images pop up and behind in a striking (and perhaps detracting) way. Takeaway point: 3D is flexible. It's not always about making you think something is coming right at you, but subtly adding depth of field. If 3D is adopted by dramas, comedies, and romances, I suspect this restrained look will be the norm. Regardless, watching a film with glasses is on its way to becoming a normal part of the moviegoing experience.