From Hollywood Crush:
There have been a lot of back and forth rumors regarding the final installment(s) of "The Twilight Saga," and the latest comes from Mike Fleming over at Deadline: New York. He reports that sources close to him have disclosed that Bill Condon, one of the three main directors Summit Entertainment had short-listed for "Breaking Dawn," is negotiating with the studio to helm a two-part "Breaking Dawn" back to back, starting in the fall.
It's a pretty loaded declaration, similar to one his colleague Nikki Finke reported earlier this year. Summit was quick to shut down the rumor that "Breaking Dawn" was set to be two films (not saying it wouldn't, just saying it wasn't set), but now, two months later, it seems like Nikki won't end up being too far off. In light of Summit coming out later today and shutting down Mike's report as well, we'd like to weigh the pros and cons of Bill Condon helming "Breaking Dawn."
Pro: He's a well known director
The Beyonce-starring, Oscar-winning "Dreamgirls" got a lot of attention when it came out in 2006, as was Bill's other better-known film "Kinsey" in 2004. Bill has only directed five films over his 23 year career, but he still would be considered an A-list director in today's Hollywood. The only problem is the last time he directed a project was in 2006 for "Dreamgirls," though he does have two other projects lined up for 2011 (not including "Breaking Dawn").
Con: He's better known for his screenwriting
Bill is an Oscar winner, but it was for his 1998 screenplay for "Gods and Monsters," not for any of his directing attempts. He also earned a nomination for his screenplay for "Chicago," but lost to "The Pianist." And while we aren't trying to knock any of his achievements, we're just saying maybe he would be better off replacing Melissa Rosenberg as screenwriter than helming the final, potentially two, installments.
Pro: His strength is dark and twisty
We'd toss "Chicago" in the "dark and twisty genre," as well as "Gods and Monsters" (Bill's film which chronicles the final days of the director of "Frankenstein's" life) and "Candyman: Farewell to the Flesh" (a you-get-what-you-pay-for 1995 horror film). All of this will lend really well to the way too many dark and twisty moments that occur during the course of "Breaking Dawn." We're sure Bill could film a vampire c-section way better than Sophia Coppola and Gus Van Sant combined.
Con: He's never made a film about teenagers before
This is our biggest qualm with Bill directing "Breaking Dawn": He's never dealt with any of its content during the entire course of his career. Catherine Hardwicke had "Thirteen," which lent itself very well to the teen angst in "Twilight." Chris Weitz had "About A Boy" and (yes, we'll go there) "American Pie," both of which dealt with various aspects of teenage life. David Slade was the only director with previous vampire experience with "30 Days of Night," which lent itself to the action elements in "Eclipse." Even Sophia and Gus had films that showed they understand the teenage mentality ("Marie Antoinette" and "Elephant," respectively). But Bill has us worried. Sure he's done some good films in the past, but we aren't quite sure he has proved his worth in being able to adapt a passable film interpretation of "Breaking Dawn."
