Last night I watched the new extended trailer for “New Moon,” the movie based on the second book in Stephanie Meyer’s Twilight saga. It looks great, and seems to be loads better from the first movie. Now, I’ve read the entire series twice, all four books once before even the first movie came out. I’m a huge Twilight fan and am anxiously awaiting the new movie. It made me wonder, though, if the movie would even come close to the book, no matter how good it is.

I’ve always maintained that when movies are made based on books, the movie can never be as good as its novel counterpart. Take Harry Potter for instance. The movies are terrific, especially with all the graphics and animation. Sometimes it’s pretty amazing to see how they can transform Rowling’s world onscreen. However, unless the movies were 7 hours long (and it still wouldn’t cover everything), the books could never be perfectly transpired onscreen. Rowling has too many minute details that end up being so significant in the end. Although the movies do stick relatively close to the books, parts of the plot and some of the characters are not seen onscreen at all, simply due to the limitations the theater puts on the story.

The same with Twilight. I must say, as much as I love Robert Pattinson’s interpretation of Edward Cullen, the first movie did not capture the lore and center of Meyer’s story. I remember being extremely hyped as I walked into the theater and then as I was watching the movie, I was thinking to myself how different and unparallel it was to the book. I’m glad I read the books first because it enabled me to see the Twilight world in my own eyes rather than in Summit Entertainment’s eyes. But isn’t it funny how that always works out? That the movie, no matter what, is never as good as the book it is based on. Could be I’m just partial to reading.