answer this question

Twilight Series Question

Do you think its unfair to recast Rachelle in Eclispe???

 jazzypoo posted over a year ago
next question »

Twilight Series Answers

AdaLove said:
Okay.I suppose that I am the only one here,that I agree with that change.It isn't that I don't like Rachelle.Anything like that.Be optimistic guys.What bad things a change should bring?Nothing bad.Rachelle will be replaced by Bryce Dallas Howard,an excellent actress(I've seen her palying at SPIDERMAN 3),she is a very sweet person with excellant traits and with the help of the director I am sure she will make an excellent Victoria.All you guys are like "Call Summit,send mails,omg Bryce is awful Victoria,bring Rachelle back!" It isn't that I don't respect your opinion but I think you should wait and see her playing.She maybe makes a better Victoria.Why you want that badly Rachelle playing her?Okay she has got all the cat-like appearance the red hair.Victoria was described as feline or cat-like with long, swirling red hair that was usually described as looking like wild fire. She possessed a terrible beauty and had a soft, high soprano of a voice that contrasted with her fierce appearance.Why,only Rachelle has these characteristics?With the suitable help I am sure Bryce will be the same good.The people of Summit has reasons for this replacement.And we are going to change their mind?I don't think taht they hear the fans complains.Then I am sure that they don't bring Rachelle back.But easy guys.New Moon hasn't be played in theaters yet and we have already started moaning for an replacement that it isn't that unfair as you say.Again I don't want to offend Rachelle's fangirls.Chill out.
select as best answer
Okay.I suppose that I am the only one here,that I agree with that change.It isn't that I don't like Rachelle.Anything like that.Be optimistic guys.What bad things a change should bring?Nothing bad.Rachelle will be replaced by Bryce Dallas Howard,an excellent actress(I've seen her palying at SPIDERMAN 3),she is a very sweet person with excellant traits and with the help of the director I am sure she will make an excellent Victoria.All you guys are like "Call Summit,send mails,omg Bryce is awful Victoria,bring Rachelle back!" It isn't that I don't respect your opinion but I think you should wait and see her playing.She maybe makes a better Victoria.Why you want that badly Rachelle playing her?Okay she has got all the cat-like appearance the red hair.Victoria was described as feline or cat-like with long, swirling red hair that was usually described as looking like wild fire. She possessed a terrible beauty and had a soft, high soprano of a voice that contrasted with her fierce appearance.Why,only Rachelle has these characteristics?With the suitable help I am sure Bryce will be the same good.The people of Summit has reasons for this replacement.And we are going to change their mind?I don't think taht they hear the fans complains.Then I am sure that they don't bring Rachelle back.But easy guys.New Moon hasn't be played in theaters yet and we have already started moaning for an replacement that it isn't that unfair as you say.Again I don't want to offend Rachelle's fangirls.Chill out.
posted over a year ago 
*
It's SO unfair, she had a 10 day shooting for another movie and they re cast her. COME ON, those people are the gayesr kind of people. HOMOS
my_heartx posted over a year ago
*
it's not that i don't RESPECT ur opinion girl.i said nothing against u!really calm down.that;s my opinion and u have to respect it.
AdaLove posted over a year ago
KaterinoulaLove said:
I don't think this is too unfair cause we haven't seen her yet playing this role!I mean when we'll see her we may think that she's better that Rachelle...we don't have to be mean in her from now! we don't have even watch the new moon;it hasn't even come out! we have a long time in front of us until Eclipse!

It might be weird that we would have seen Rachelle
in twilight and new moon and suddenly in eclipse we will see Bryce;it's a kind of annoying to change the characters in the middle of movies...
Also as I can see in her photos she looks sooo kind-hearted,and I think she reminds me something of Alice's style but I still haven't seen her playing this role so I'm not gonna criticize her in a bad or in a good way...

I really liked Rachelle in the role of Victoria;she was on her own a little wild,and cause of that she was really good as victoria.
But I also beleive that the people of Summit had a reason to recast Rachelle in Eclipse..And I think for doing this they will be prepared to drive her to do the best job as Victoria!
select as best answer
posted over a year ago 
*
Nice answer!
AdaLove posted over a year ago
*
thx ada! ur rocks too
KaterinoulaLove posted over a year ago
*
thx u hon
AdaLove posted over a year ago
*
:* *hugs*
KaterinoulaLove posted over a year ago
kalonarocks said:
yes the puishment was to harsh they should have just lowered her pay or something! she was the best, im gonna really miss seeing her in the movies!
select as best answer
posted over a year ago 
sinai114 said:
Yes. I honestly and truly do believe that it is an injustice for the twilight saga and for all the fans that Summit has decided to recast Rachael. I believe if they would've done it for the best of the films and thought that this newly selected actress was going to bring more life to the film then I believe that it would be a great decision. But in this case, it involves monetary interests,(which I don't know why they would go for cheaper if the twilight franchise is already worth tons and they are going to have tons and tons of bling bling!!)... and not only the fact that Rachelle's physical appearance suits the written description rather than Dallas', also we the fans have re-read the books with the image of Rachael Lefevre in our minds, and to change it...?? Is just not right.

Unfortunately, despite Rachael's talent and her effort she put into letting important roles go, and Summit repaying her this way...well lets just say...Hollywood just takes over everywhere saddly...

except Robert Pattinson. Cz that hollywood lifestyle hasn't got to him yet & i am grateful for that.
select as best answer
posted over a year ago 
*
Besides, i think that they thought it would be okay since there wasn't much of an uproar when they changed Embry and Quil...but they turned out pretty...hot.......But still Rachael is victoria. the end.
sinai114 posted over a year ago
*
I called Summit a few times today regarding this situation, and they said they were going to call me back. But they didn't. lol They were pretty polite too. But when I called the second time, I was transfered to a machine. Right now, they duking this whole thing out with the lawyers. It could get messy. But I'm excited to see how all this turns out. Summit's the bad guys here. And I'm thinking that all the fans' pleas and complaints are being heard.
mandapanda posted over a year ago
Edwella01Fan said:
yea! totally. she was the best victoria and its going to effect the movie becuz shes been in already twilight and new moon and she is very deticated to being victoria and even shunned some movie roles that were being given to her to be victoria and the people that got rid of her are idiots!
select as best answer
posted over a year ago 
shelbysblood00 said:
Well I think she was a entresting person. But in twilight books she is such a 2xbitch. Haha thats all.
select as best answer
posted over a year ago 
stepphy-rox said:
yes! everyone will be effected by this it will suck coz everyone has seen her before but hopefully they find someone that looks similar.
select as best answer
posted over a year ago 
Hellohoudini said:
well everything I've read says that she was replaced because of 'scheduling' issues....did she have something more important to do other than Twilight? Not to be mean...but most people had never heard of her until Twilight...I think she should have been alittle more loyal....she knew that there was a possibility that all 4 books would be made into movies....she should have been prepared for that. Dont get me wrong I'll miss her...I'm just saying that she could have been alittle more loyal. :)

Part of Summit's statement released yesterday:

"It was not until July 20th that Summit was first informed of Ms. Lefevre's commitment to Barney's Version, a commitment we have since been advised she accepted in early June," the statement continued. "Summit had acted in good faith that she would be available to fulfill her obligations both in terms of rehearsals and shooting availability for The Twilight Saga: Eclipse. We feel that her choice to withhold her scheduling conflict information from us can be viewed as a lack of cooperative spirit which affected the entire production."
select as best answer
posted over a year ago 
*
Kinda agree with you there! :)
Bandgeek_XP posted over a year ago
*
it was a ten day schedulin conflict, summit could've rearranged that. It wasn't because she was unloyal, it was because they thought it would be so much cheaper to recast
sinai114 posted over a year ago
*
Even though I liked Rachelle..it kinda sounds like the fame went alittle bit to her head. Sorry...just my opinon.
Hellohoudini posted over a year ago
TJHestia said:
If you go with the last Summit statement, they have a right to be mad; if she knew about the part since June and just decided not to tell them till the last minute, then it's her own fault. If shooting schedules are set for all actors involved, they really can't just change those schedules on the fly. Many have other things in and around that shoot.

No matter what we say or what Summit does, most of us will probably go see it anyway. Actress changed don't affect that much; sometimes they are for the better, sometimes they aren't. We're just gonna have to deal with it.
select as best answer
posted over a year ago 
*
I agree.
Hellohoudini posted over a year ago
musiclikelove said:
I don't think that it's unfair so much as completely ridiculous. i think that it really was a big misunderstanding. does anyone really think that Rachelle would purposely double-book herself? i feel like they are making a big deal out of something so small. i don't care who's fault it is, summit needs to swallow their pride and fix it. recasting for a sequel is just so 90's! this isn't clueless! we don't want different actors playing the same characters unless their is a tragic accident and that person is unable to play the part. or something else dramatic. but seriously? 3 months to film this movie and a 10 day conflict is enough to fire someone? it's really not too much work to change what they are filming on those ten days to something they were going to film on a different ten days. the only real problem would be the location, but even then, that can be negotiated. summit has tried recasting people (taylor) for small things before, so i doubt that people will just take this one sitting down.
select as best answer
posted over a year ago 
XChatterbox14x said:
yep i think its unfair, and i think 'work commitments.' was a unfair excuse, she was a really good victoria, and now - where she is most needed in Eclipse she's replaced, which is going to cause confusion. It's unfair the actress got dragged out of the movie, when it was supposed to be her big moment.
select as best answer
posted over a year ago 
next question »