MTV has a great article that looks at the real reason Summit may have decided to move The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part Two to November instead of releasing it earlier in the summer. Check it out below:

“The lesson is that it’s all about positioning a film at a time when it will face as little direct competition as possible,” explained Phil Contrino, editor of BoxOffice.com. “Summit was wise to stay away from summer 2012, because it’s shaping up to be a record-breaking season.”

“The Avengers,” “Madagascar 3″ and “Men in Black 3″ are all set to drop that May, followed by “Star Trek 2″ in June, and then new installments of “Spider-Man” (which already occupies the Fourth of July slot held this year by “Eclipse”), “Ice Age” and “Batman.”

“Why compete with an amazing slate like that if you don’t have to?” Contrino added. “I’m sure ‘Breaking Dawn, Part 2′ would still open very well during a summer that crowded, but its audience would be devoured very quickly.”

The point, then, is not that summer is a poor time to release a “Twilight” film but that fall simply presents less competition, which is not to say that there will be no box-office battle in autumn. “Breaking Dawn, Part 1″ is set to open against “Happy Feet 2″ on November 18, 2011, while the second in the two-part finale will compete with “Monsters Inc. 2″ on November 16, 2012. But when you consider the more jam-packed summer season and the fact that an entire year will have passed between “Twilight” flicks — as opposed to the eight months between “New Moon” and “Eclipse” — the fall 2012 release date makes perfect sense.

“There’s a mood and spirit to these movies that make them play really well in the fall. They’re darker, they’re more emotional than standard summer fare, and thematically, fall is a great fit,” said John Singh, a box-office analyst for Flixster. “It also allows the audience to build even greater anticipation — rather than seeing the follow-up just a few months later. This gives them a full year to anticipate the final film in a series that has generated hugely positive response from its fanbase.”

Read more here.

Interesting! Plus the effects can only improve with extra time.

What do you think of these thoughts on Breaking Dawn?

Read On

The LA Times has a very interesting article that looks at the timing on the release of Breaking Dawn Parts One and Two and what the length of time between them means to the franchise. Read more below:

We were already a little perplexed that the first “Breaking Dawn” was being held for November 2011, putting nearly a 1-1/2 years between installments. With this announcement it’s clear what Summit is thinking: Stick with the autumn and avoid the summer.

It may not be the worst move from a seasonal standpoint. Despite bringing out “The Twilight Saga: Eclipse” in an expectation-laden summer, Summit has been able to gin up only marginally more business for the David Slade film than it did for the November release of “The Twilight Saga: New Moon.” (Domestic grosses at a comparable point in the release cycle sit at $288 million, compared to $277 million for “New Moon.)
But in taking its time between the movies, Summit is increasing the risk that that fans will get distracted or lose some enthusiasm.

Warner Bros.’ Harry Potter franchise was able to wait longer stretches between a few of its installments — for much of the film series, a stream of new books kept the property front-of-mind. “Twilight” doesn’t have that. It has to hope interest carries over between films all on its own, and that filmgoers don’t outgrow it or move on to a new phenomenon in between.

Read more at the LA Times here.

(Thanks Marichelle!)

Tell us your thoughts! Do you think the timing is better this way for Breaking Dawn then it was for Eclipse? Is there too much time between Parts One and Two or does it work well this way?

Read On