Lionsgate Debunk 'Twilight' Reboot Rumors, But How Soon Is Too Soon For Franchise Do-Overs?

Features

by Oliver Lyttelton
June 18, 2012 12:18 PM
11 Comments

The "Twilight" series has not yet had a stake through its heart. The fourth installment, "Breaking Dawn Pt. 1" was as big as ever, and the fifth, "Breaking Dawn Pt. 2" is still five months from release with a new trailer is set to debut on Wednesday. It's still a major cash cow for Summit (recently acquired by Lionsgate for $400 million, with the franchise as the crown jewel of the buyout), even as the parent studio's "The Hunger Games" has arguably eclipsed it in returns and press of late.

But the trouble is, that stake is a comin': Stephenie Meyer wrote a definitive end to her four-book saga, and once the last film hits in November, there's no more material to adapt. At present, at least, there are no more "Twilight" books, and no way of continuing Bella and Edward's story. The cash cow is running dry. The goose is no longer laying golden eggs. Stop your weeping at the back, it'll be alright.

But it wouldn't surprise many to learn that contingencies are already in operation: Bloody Disgusting reported over the weekend that internal discussions have already begun at the studio as to a continuation of the franchise. According to the site, it could take the form of a spinoff, a sequel, or possibly even a remake/reboot of the series, with new actors and a new take. There are clearly no firm plans in place, and Summit have already denied it, telling Deadline that, "We are not remaking 'Twilight.' We will happily support Stephenie Meyer if she decides to proceed in any way. But this will be the last one unless that should change." This would not, however, be the first time that a studio has denied something, and it's almost unthinkable that Lionsgate/Summit are sitting around crossing their fingers waiting for Stephenie Meyer to write another book. It may be a few years off, but we'd be very surprised if we didn't see a sixth "Twilight" film of some shape and form wasn't announced in the next few years.

But the question is, what should it be? The potential for a spin-off is already there. The novella "The Short Second Of Life of Bree Tanner," focusing on a minor supporting character for third novel "Eclipse" was released in 2010, and Meyer was working on a book called "Midnight Sun," which retold the events of the first novel from the perspective of Edward Cullen, until an internet leak of the first twelve chapters caused her to cease all work on both it, and any other "Twilight" novels that might have been in the works. Either -- a spin-off focusing on Bree, or an adaptation of "Midnight Sun," should it ever be finished -- could plausibly form the basis of another book, even if the latter in particular sounds like the single most pointless endeavor in the history of literature.

Features

More: Lionsgate, Summit, The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn - Part 2, Twilight Saga

11 Comments

| Reply
Rhia | June 20, 2012 1:21 PMReply

Two statements indiewire either won't or can't accept:

-It seems only men-driven idiotic comics' adaptations can have respect from male dominated media.

-Neither Harry Potter's actors nor the ones of The Hunger games reached the iconic level of the amazing trio
The Bandsaw Vigilante | June 20, 2012 6:43 PM

The Nolan Batman films are "idiotic"? In which alternate universe?
Christopher Bell | June 20, 2012 2:37 PM

I don't give a shit about comic-adaptations sans Batman, but what those movies do provide is spectacle. "Twilight" revels in low-grade CG work. That's the difference.
dave | June 20, 2012 1:37 PM

1) The Hunger Games is not a "men-driven idiotic comics' adaptation." 2) Iconic? On what grounds?
Lee | June 19, 2012 9:18 AMReply

there's no way they'll adapt Midnight Sun, it's practically remaking Twilight #1! Although, even if it happened I couldn't care less, all I have to do is choose to not watching it. All the hoo-haa right now is still bearable, the one that make me cringe is couple years from now, this series will be labeled as Classic. Remember Grease?
p | June 18, 2012 7:25 PMReply

the hunger games has done well domestically, but the movie haven't done as well as the twilight series overseas. either way lionsgate is going to get richer from both franchies.
Mi | June 18, 2012 5:00 PMReply

It seems only men-driven idiotic comics' adaptations can have respect from male dominated media.Don't worry, after Twilight the territory of blockbusters will come back to you,will be all yours.
Lucy | June 18, 2012 2:36 PMReply

I can't wait until the day I stop hearing about Twilight. But now I have to keep hearing about fifty shades of whatever. I think all my friends sex lives must suck because they go on and on about that damn book.
Michael | June 18, 2012 2:19 PMReply

I don't care what they do with the awful Twilight but, in the fullness of time, would like to see another attempt at the Harry Potter series. Hopefully they would satisfy the one necessity.... a decent screenwriter. The hack Steve Kloves couldn't even be true to the characters and their relationships so it's little wonder the movies were just a pale imitation of the wonderful books.
oogle monster | June 18, 2012 12:26 PMReply

The good news is that these awful movies and their awful source material will never touch the success of Harry Potter. Even Hunger Games is better and that's saying something. Actors and directors included.
Freya Magritt | June 18, 2012 1:38 PM

Neither Harry Potter's actors nor the ones of The Hunger games reached the iconic level of the amazing trio.