Thursday, June 24, 2010

Am I the only one who thinks that breaking dawn should not be a three part movie and since it is a trilogy?

Seriously I think they should not make into three movies. It not Harry Potter when Harry Potter and deathly hallows has three times amount of content for them to say it does need two films but breaking dawn not so much. Since when it is a trilogy? I am not a hater in fact I love twilight but I am not going to called something that it is not.Am I the only one who thinks that breaking dawn should not be a three part movie and since it is a trilogy?
no, I think it should be one movie too. but I don't see how it's a trilogy... it says book 1, 2, and three, but it's just a different perspective... but I guess it sort of is...Am I the only one who thinks that breaking dawn should not be a three part movie and since it is a trilogy?
This may be a good thing.


They finish one movie, and run out of money for the next two.


:b


But in all honesty, NO it does not. Eregon may be BIGGER, then Breaking Dawn, and they made it into one, fairly decent movie.
I think breaking dawn can fit perfectly into 1 single movie ... :)
I didn't even know that they're trying to make it into a 3 part movie. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows book was longer than Breaking Dawn. The last Harry Potter book needs more than one part

No comments:

Post a Comment

 
viruses