Will The Hunger Games be better than Twilight?
—Quanta M., via the inbox
Given that The Hunger Games does not feature a spineless doormat in love with a controlling, condescending stalker, yes, I can almost guarantee that The Hunger Games will be better than any installment of Twilight.
But I have more evidence than just Bella and Edward:
Let's break down our analysis by looking at the key elements of any film, shall we?
Twilight featured, of course, Kristen Stewart and Robert Pattinson, two actors whose talent has not been universally praised. Jennifer Lawrence, who headlines The Hunger Games as Katniss Everdeen, has a bit more cred from critics and her peers. (She has scored an Oscar nomination for her breakout performance in Winter's Bone, for one.)
The Characters & Source Material
Did I mention that the characters in Twilight are not exactly role models, or even all that compelling? Good. Because for every bit of hand-wringing or moment of moping in the Twilight saga, The Hunger Games trilogy features a guy, or gal, who refuses to sit around, waiting for a hero. (Or just a wedding.)
For one, the kids of The Hunger Games are kind of busy holding onto their vital organs. But even without a death match at its core, the story is about characters who have better things to do than fret about boyfriends.
The Twilight Saga has had four different directors so far, including David Slade (who helmed 30 Days of Night), Chris Weitz (who is culpable for The Golden Compass and American Pie) and Bill Condon (who actually has an Oscar), and Catherine Hardwicke (who is...Catherine Hardwicke). As for The Hunger Games, we have Gary Ross, who directed Seabiscuit, a film that garnered seven Oscar nominations.
Golden eyes and a Carolina Herrera wedding dress are nice. (No, really, they are. That's in all seriousness.) But Elizabeth Banks' wardrobe alone promises that Hunger Games will offer better eye candy.
What do you think? Let me know in comments.