‘Eclipse’ Final Trailer

Published 4 years ago by , Updated March 3rd, 2014 at 6:28 am,

Eclipse Poster Eclipse Final Trailer

A new trailer for the next entry in the ultra-popular vampire/werewolf series The Twilight Saga: Eclipse premiered this morning on Oprah’s talk show and we have it here for your viewing pleasure.

Eclipse, like its predecessors Twilight and New Moon, is based off the book of the same name by author Stephenie Meyer and was adapted for the screen by Melissa Rosenberg.  However, David Slade (30 Days of Night) will be holding the directorial reins this time around and – if the new Eclipse trailer is any indication – has raised the action quotient significantly from the previous Twilight films.

Have a look for yourselves:

-

The string of murders mentioned in the trailer is the work of an army of vampires led by Victoria (played now by Bryce Dallas Howard, replacing Rachelle Lefevre from the first two films), a vampire whose equally-undead lover, James, was killed by Edward (Robert Pattinson) in Twilight.  Victoria is now on a quest for vengeance against both Edward and his mortal lover, Bella (Kristen Stewart).

So – as you likely picked up from the trailer – the werewolves are recruited for battle against the army of evil vampires wrecking havoc on Seattle, Bella faces her impending graduation from high school, and the Volturi (from New Moon) are in town and wondering why Bella hasn’t been turned into a vampire yet.

Of course, all of this other activity just complicates Bella’s attempt to choose between an immortal life with her glitters-in-the-sun true love, Edward, and her occasionally hairy, unwaveringly loyal best friend, Jacob (Taylor Lautner).

The Twilight Saga Eclipse Latino Review image3 Eclipse Final Trailer

And you thought Meryl Streep had it rough in 'It's Complicated.'

Eclipse looks like it will have its fair share of scenes with CGI-beasties and vamps duking it out – not to mention an overall darker visual style and faster, more action-driven pacing than either of the first two Twilight films.

Of course, let’s not forget that the Bella-Edward-Jacob love triangle will still be the centerpiece around which the rest of the plot revolves – something that I suspect the designer of this new trailer was going out of their way not to emphasize.

So what do you Twilight fans out there think?  Are you even more pumped for Eclipse than before?

The Twilight Saga: Eclipse hits theaters on June 30, 2010.

Source: Collider

Get our free email alerts on the topics and author of this article:
TAGS: eclipse

44 Comments

Post a Comment

  1. Not impressive at all. The special effects have not even been improved. The wolves still look silly. And the blatant “wire fu” fighting always looks silly to me.

    Too bad, I like David Slade. Hard Candy was a great flick and 30 Days of Night was a TRUE vampire movie. I wander what he felt when he went from a true horror depiction of vampires to the “pop” version of vampires?

    I am truly trying to give this series a chance but it's just not happening. These movies are awful; the horrible source material is partly to blame but so is the truly annoying cast of bad actors.

  2. “an immortal life with her glitters-in-the-sun true love, Edward” now that really funny!hahaha.

    as for film i think it well done in box office and rumors says there will be 2 more film,so we have to bare it for a while.

  3. Anyone else get a zombie feel with the “evil” vampires walking out of the water?

  4. Question, why are the vampires walking out of a lake? Did they just hang out there until it was time to come out? It makes no sense!

  5. I admit that the thought crossed my mind as well.
    Especially since I believe that George A. Romero's most recent zombie flick, “Survival of the Dead” had zombies coming out of the water (albeit, in that movie, the ocean) in a similar fashion.

  6. Why do the depressed/dreary/all black wearing/gore obsessed/often suicidal ppl in the world feel like they have a monopoly on what a “true” vampire flick is? That's the Q. I am a fan of both 30 Days of Night and the Twilight franchise….and it's just entertainment. Not about selling out and all of this crap about being “pop.” Having the approval of the so-called “true” (blood-spraying killing ugly vamp fetish) vampire movie fans such as yourself is not going to pay D. Slade's bills…why should he not continue to develop his craft and get paid? Oh wait, to have “street cred” with an uneccessarily vocal minority (i say uneccessarily bc if a twilight movie has burned you once don't spend anymore $ investigating the franchise…just shut the F up about the movies and don't watch them).

  7. I don't know, it looks alright to me. I was idly curious about the look of the wolves, and they seem to be an improvement from the previous movie. Seems like the color and shading blends a lot better in with the environment than they did in New Moon. Still ridiculously huge wolves, but the they're easier on the eyes. Sort of like how Gollum in ROTK gelled better on-screen than in TT.

    I'm just glad there isn't AS MUCH brooding and pouting in the trailers.

  8. Calm down and take your medicine. No need to attack my opinion.

    And thanks for making yourself look like an ass by pulling labels out of nowhere and applying them to someone you don't even know.

    I'm not a some emo goth vampire fetish guy. I'm a regular guy who enjoys a good movie and a good book. The Twilight franchise is neither. I'm stating my opinion.

    As for the “true” vampire thing, I admit that it's very objective but at the same time it's pretty stupid for vampires, the creatures that drink the blood of humans, to be some sentimental tweens who sparkle in the sunlight. It makes no sense. If they were some other kind of creature, or a mix, fine. But they are continuously labeled as “vampires”. I understand we're talking about made up, mythological creatures but there should be a line drawn somewhere.

  9. i agree at some level, i mean i think of vampires as, you know, afraid of the light/sun and got fangs. but they are mythological creatures and they'll constantly be changed in a way we like or not. it is just the same with any other creature, like werewolves and yeah. if vampires and werewolves were the same as when they were first described then it would be boring. it was a curse and they had no control of their thirst. you can say they were zombies, tho not fast nor strong, and werewolves would never be able to change, or control themselves, just as vampries. so you see, they have changed for the better and worse, you just gotta pick which ones you like, and respect the other “versions”

  10. exactly. made up mythological creatures….so they can be whatever who is creative enough to write/develop choose to make them. and i'll just have to be an ass…it makes no difference.

  11. I'm all for “suspend your disbelief” but it has to remain logical within that realm. How/why would the vampires evolve from being killed by light to magically sparkling in it? How/why would they evolve from being underground/hidden creatures to attending public schools and being doctors? That's my problem I guess. I fully respect different versions of vampires when it's at least somewhat logical.

    Blade 2 had a similar “evolution” concept where the vampires evolved into truly monstrous creatures. Daybreakers had them evolve into “human-like” creatures once they wiped out the human population and there was nothing more to hunt. All these concept make sense to me. Twilight doesn't. I understand why Twilight appealing, sure; it's a tween-friendly, mtv generation vampire with feelings and constant The Hills-like drama in their lives. Of course the young generation will eat it up. But please don't tell me the sparkling, and all that nonsense is somehow logical or makes sense. It doesn't

  12. You know, I've never seen Twilight, never had the desire to, but this trailer wasn't to bad. If they cut down on the diabetes-inducing sappy stuff, I may check this out.

    And no, I am not giving up my man-card!!! :-)

  13. Man I gotta tell ya….that just looks awful. When will they stop this crap series of movies. That whole WWE battle royale with the giant SHEEP DOGS had me ROFLing for 5 minutes.

    I guess naive tweens and over emotional types need something to watch in theaters too

  14. Careful now, some people would say that's along the same lines as admitting you want to watch Pretty Woman….. BY YOURSELF. j/k

    I have to disagree with you, the trailer was pretty bad in comparison to the last trailer, it's the sheep dogs more than the generic crap ass love story that kills it

  15. SciFi is SciFi what a fun story line, glad to see it go to R, Breaking Dawn needs 2 movies to get it all in. Took my 14 yr old niece to all so far & i'm over 50 kids. Its just Fun and did not have the budget of Avitar. LC

  16. Thank you for having some sense. Too everyone else, just because something is made up doesnt mean you can change it however you like. Superman is made up, does that mean I can make a movie about a Serial killer with powers who wears all black and call it superman? No, there are lines that have to be drawn.

  17. I'm not really a fan of Twilight (I saw the first two movies more out of boredom than a real desire to see them), but I thought this trailer looked pretty good too. I just wonder how much of the movie is going to be like what we saw in the trailer, and how much is going to be like the first two movies?

  18. I'm probably in the minority on this web site but I enjoyed the trailer. I really liked the books and the movies. I appreciate the writers of Screen Rant keeping those of us who like the series in the loop. Thanks. My two cents.

  19. you're wrong. there are no lines or very vague ones when it comes to fiction, except comic books. if i wanted to start writing about vampires with wings, or that could spit flame or something like that, i could, like make up sometihng totally weird and new.

  20. its a trailer, a lot of the scenes doesnt. wait til you have the bigger picture.

  21. Not buying your analogy. If something is made up you can totally change it any way you like as long as it does not violate copyright and trademark laws. No one has intellectual property rights on “vampires”….unlike your superman hypo (which would violate IP)….nice try, but epic fail. onwards to the eclipse….for better or for worse…but i'm guessin, better.

  22. If you don't like it, don't watch it.

  23. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. SciFi is SciFI and Twilight Saga still sucks anyway u slice it.

  24. I won't be, and we have the right to rant about it

  25. Gasp, Twilight with, dare I say it, a plot!

  26. I have a feeling you're going to watch it (bc you have way to many posts on this page to be just a neutral hater of twilight….you're something like an “invested hater”). but you're right…rant on.

  27. Dumb! It's very Blade II meets X-men 3.

  28. I have a feeling your feeling is denied.

  29. One part of your comment that doesn't make sense, in Twilight, no one ever said that the Vampires EVOLVED fom what they were, to how they are in the series. It isn't evolution of vampires if this is a completely new IP. It's not like Dracula exists in Twilight, and if he did, his skin would shimmer like diamonds in the light.

    It's not evolution when it's how they have always been, at least in this series.

    In Daybreakers, the vampires didn't evolve into human-like creatures, they just became human-like. You see, they didn't have an era in which vampires were like we see them in our historical books, they see them as they do in there world, because that's how the author wrote it.

    Not trying to bash or anything, just stating how I read your post.

Post a Comment

GravatarWant to change your avatar?
Go to Gravatar.com and upload your own (we'll wait)!

 Rules: No profanity or personal attacks.
 Use a valid email address or risk being banned from commenting.


If your comment doesn't show up immediately, it may have been flagged for moderation. Please try refreshing the page first, then drop us a note and we'll retrieve it.

Be Social, Follow Us!!