Nov 13, 2008 03:22 PM
0
Enter your username and password.
New York, 9:49 AM
Wed Feb 10
56 posts in the last 24 hours
As we hear they're having lay offs right now, we're a little reluctant to kick Entertainment Weekly when it's down. But, meh, what the hell. Why is the magazine so ridiculously gung-ho about Twilight? You know Twilight, it's that book series and soon-to-be movie about a cloudy young woman named Bella and the irritatingly chaste relationship she has with a chiseled demigod of a vampire named Edward. Sure it's set a good deal of teen girl and sad lady shut-in poonani afire, but srsly EW? They've had some 50 mentions of the books or the movie in the past six months, including two, count 'em two!, splashy sexy covers.
The one back in August was, sure, OK, servicey enough for not in-the-know people who had never heard of this modern-goth bodice-slightly-tearer. But last week's second cover—three collectors' edition covers, actually—when factored in with all the other yammering about the silly franchise, has just laid it on way too thick. At one point in her most recent interview, the mag claims that the film's star, Kristen Stewart, could be poised on the brink of a Kate Winslet-in-Titanic fame explosion. Um, really? We don't think so. This whole Twilight craze isn't even a quarter of size of the Harry Potter megamachine, and you don't hear too many rumblings about Emma Watson, do you?
And that Kate Winslet comparison is just one bit of the endless series of fawning articles, photo galleries, and various other mentions EW has lavished on the sad girl enterprise. And now they've named the book's Mormon author, Stephanie Meyer, the Number 5 Entertainer of the Year. Wait, what? The "Talking Heads of News" (Jon Stewart, the View crazies, etc.) only placed 10th. In this election and econo-crazy year? What is the effing deal, E-weeks? At least they gave the most recent book in the series, Breaking Dawn, a shitty review. Aside from that, though, their coverage has inexplicably been lopsidedly positive and prolific. Are they just a bunch of vamp-obsessed nerds? Do they have some stake in the rickety little indie company, Summit Entertainment, that's single-handedly releasing the picture?
The real answer is probably the simplest: the Twilight covers have most likely sold like gangbusters on newsstands, as non-subscriber vamp-fiends are ever-hungry for new things to slap up on their walls or jam into their scrapbooks. Once their first coverage became internet buzz fodder (back in March, when a print-edition only photo from the film's set ran), they probably figured they'd bleed the thing dry.
And, aside from the obvious sales perspective, we suspect they're also trying to jump on a budding trend, hoping to earn those sweet got-there-first flag-planting bragging rights somehwere down the road. Trouble is, we just don't see it hitting that big. Sure the movie will probably have a good first weekend (it comes out next week), but this is the Thanksgiving/Holiday/Oscar movie season, a field crowded with some big ticket films that ought to barrel roll through this cult niche wisp of a horror-romance.
Or, heh, at least we hope so. Because we're getting tired of reading about all the smoldering steamy vampire kissing and touching and hungry looks and... and. Wait.
What were we saying?
Send an email to Richard Lawson, the author of this post, at richardl@gawker.com.
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
Start a new discussion