Comments on: Rachelle Lefevre dumped from Twilight sequel

By: Arlette Riera

Arlette Riera — Tue, 21 Jun 2011 06:11:01 +0000

Lastly, a difficulty that Im passionate about. I have looked for data of this caliber for the last a number of hours. Your website is drastically appreciated.

By: Terri-jo

Terri-jo — Wed, 20 Apr 2011 18:27:31 +0000

I have not checked in here for some time because I thought it was getting boring, but the last several posts are great quality so I guess I’ll add you back to my everyday bloglist. You deserve it friend

By: pirated movies online for free

pirated movies online for free — Mon, 17 Jan 2011 22:42:44 +0000

I couldent agree more with the author on this one evem tho there are a few points I have diffrent outlooks on.

By: asmerom

asmerom — Tue, 11 May 2010 14:45:27 +0000

whate evey i never mind…… i just love the movie and can’t wait

By: Lan Pitts

Lan Pitts — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 15:06:28 +0000

I think Summit is beyond right with this one. It’s still a dick move, but still…what ya gonna do?

By: Tucker Stone

Tucker Stone — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 04:26:47 +0000

Bryce Dallas Howard is always pulling this, man. I remember back when she took stole Nicole Kidman’s part for Manderlay–man, that woman is a snake in the grass.

By: Matthew M

Matthew M — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 19:52:45 +0000

It’s TWILIGHT… who gives a Christ?

By: Carrie

Carrie — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 18:46:09 +0000

Awful decision. Bryce Dallas Howard is too old. Rachel fit the part perfectly and was a delicious villianess who played the role wonderfully. Victoria was my favorite character. I think Eclipse is destined to become a “Godfather III”.

By: Sarah S.

Sarah S. — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 18:23:49 +0000

It just always feels so wrong to watch a sequel when the actor/actress has been switched. On the other hand I can understand the urgency in the filming schedule…if they don’t get these movies out quick those vampires that supposedly never age will have a much more visible difference in age from the first to last movie.

By: Geoff J

Geoff J — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 16:36:04 +0000

It’s a money thing….apparently Rachelle got a big rise to play Vicky in the sequels and this saves them alot of money. Thou I’d be pissed if I was a twilighthead, and yr major villianess gets recast. Can’t imagine Harry Potter’s Dark wizard being recast before the big showdowns in the later films can you?

By: Chris

Chris — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 16:01:01 +0000

Contract options = higher salaries.

I wonder how much Summit saved by switching actresses.

By: rwe1138

rwe1138 — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 15:34:18 +0000

That sucks. She was the only thing I cared about in Twilight. I’ve got to support Big Wolf On Campus alumni!

By: nightwingoracle

nightwingoracle — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 15:24:22 +0000

This is ridiculous. Rachel did a great job as Victoria and while i’m sure Bryce will as well, it won’t be the same with the movies coming out so quickly to have a new actor in the role. It’s not like Victoria is in every scene. They could have accomodated this 10 day overlap.

But it does make one wonder if there’s more to the story. Perhaps Rachel had some demands that she’s not talking about that forced Summit’s hand? Don’t know.

In any case, it’s a shame this couldn’t have been worked out. Rachel’s Victoria was sexy and evil and fit the character well.

By: Tre

Tre — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 15:05:22 +0000

This sort of thing happens a lot (Potter movies, Iron Man, etc) and while I get that it’s a tough break for the actress, this rarely, if ever, matters to the majority of fans. It’s like comics in that sense: the creators certainly help AUGMENT the product, but people are often doggedly following the product itself more than the players involved.

By: frinklin

frinklin — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 05:47:33 +0000

Man, this woman has some lousy luck. She was dumped from Life On Mars after the disastrous first pilot episode too.