The worthy contenders for the awards show’s highest honor were Natalie Portman and Mila Kunis in “Black Swan,” Emma Watson and Daniel Radcliffe in “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows,” Robert Pattinson and Kristen Stewart in “Twilight: Eclipse” and Taylor Lautner and Kristen Stewart for the same film, and Ellen Page and Joseph Gordon-Levitt in “Inception.” Unsurprisingly, Stewart and Pattinson took the prize. The two bucked tradition by not opting to kiss each other during their acceptance speech; instead, Pattinson stormed into the audience, passionately smooched Taylor Lautner, and then dragged Kristen Stewart backstage.

Watch the clip via MTV below:

While our counterparts at Mediaite have been dutifully liveblogging every last moment of this year’s 82nd Annual Academy Awards, we at Styleite gave up before the show even started; we were in it for the red carpet, clearly.

Thankfully, this year’s pre-show fashion fest served up no shortage of sartorial sins, rewarding risks, and, predictably, the usual snoozefest offenders.

The Hits:

Meryl Streep won tonight’s best dressed award, hands down. While our first guess pegged her dress as Valentino, kudos goes to Project Runway alum Chris March for designing such a standout, knockout, all-around stunning dress. Meryl Streep outshone Oscar himself. Period.

Diane Kruger’s cream and black feathered gown was undeniably, iconically, and gorgeously Chanel. Featuring a halter neck, no small amount of Chanel camelias, and a bias cut that would make most actresses run for the hills, Kruger’s dress was a elegant and inspired choice for the red carpet.

Carey Mulligan looked whimsically chic for her first Academy Awards red carpet appearance in a black bedazzled Prada gown.  While many consider black to be a bit drab for the Oscars, Miuccia Prada’s design looked perfect against her pale skin and platinum blonde boyish haircut.  Accented perfectly with impeccably sized chandelier earrings by Fred Leighton, Mulligan’s dress most definitely earned the actress a place among Hollywood’s “Best Dressed.”

Vera Farmiga’s fucshia Marchesa gown was reminiscent of Diane Kruger’s Christian Lacroix Golden Globe’s dress.  The ruffled fanning that spanned from the upper bodice down to the bottom was a unique and perfectly executed accent, which was refreshing considering the red carpet’s surprising lack of originality tonight.  The color choice was daring and divine and the gown fit her body like a glove.

Zoe Saldana’s Givenchy gown sets a prime example for what red carpet fashion could and should be. Exquisitely styled and arguably the evening’s most creative, Zoe’s dress was purple, ruched, ruffled, and huge. Also: it had a sparkly top. Good for her for pulling it off, but more importantly, for having the courage to wear it in the first place.

Up next: The Misses…

In case you haven’t heard, this year’s Vanity Fair Hollywood issue is extremely monochromatic. Over the years, VF has often included at least one, sometimes two, people who can check an ethnic box other than Caucasian, but not this year. The lack of color in the cover story is surprising, and — to be honest — pretty disappointing. Not the least because….well where is Gabourey Sidibe, whose jaw-dropping, and now Oscar-nominated, debut performance in Precious floored just about everyone. Really? Getting an Oscar nom your first time out doesn’t merit a cover nod?

The article opens by describing Abbie Cornish’s “cupid’s-bow lips, the downy-soft cheeks, the button nose.” As  Joanna Douglas on Yahoo’s Shine blog pointed out, there are a slew of non-white actresses (Avatar’s Zoe Saldana? Slum Dog Millionaire’s Frieda Pinto?) who could have shared in the pastel-clad glory on sun-soaked grass.

But that’s not the only curious component to the current VF issue.  Two of the actresses in their “New Decade: New Holly” article were actually  featured in 2008 as “Hollywood’s New Wave.” Yup. Some of yesteryear’s up-and-comers are…still up-and-coming?  Behold:

That would be Kristen Stewart on the left and Amanda Seyfried on the right, both of whom also landed this year’s cover.

So what difference does two years make in budding-starlet time? A lot. In 2008, Amanda Seyfried was best known as the girl in Mean Girls whose breasts could tell the weather, and now, she’s established herself as a presence on HBO’s Big Love, as well as the go-to-girl for remakes of Nicholas Sparks books (Dear John and Letters to Juliet–not Nicholas Sparks but eerily similar–come out within the next few months.)

And as for Ms. Bella Swan? Well, despite the fact that she’s raked in millions and obtained an astronomical level of fame that will allow her to land almost any role she desires, she looked much happier back in ’08. Twilight had yet to break, and in these photos, she seems much happier with her nascent level of fame. Or perhaps it’s because she got to fondle Blake Lively’s derriere:

Either way, the fact remains that both Seyfried’s and Stewart’s careers have skyrocketed since Vanity Fair first pegged them as faces to watch. So why have they once again been named a face to watch? Was there such a lack of talented, actresses that Vanity Fair felt compelled to feature these starlets twice?

You won’t believe this: it has only been one year since the live action stars of teen vampire sensation Twilight infiltrated popular culture. And part of the reason they seem like such fixtures of celebrity already — apart from their impossible good looks, effortless cool and high-powered marketing machine — is their presence in print and command of their image. Flattering pictures may not be hard to come by when you’re young and playing magical characters, but from this charming Vanity Fair spread to the endless tabloid fabrications, the kids always come out looking all right.

With this weekend’s release of the latest entry in “The Twilight Saga:” New Moon, it’s safe to say a new publicity blitz is upon us. Until now, stars Kristen Stewart and Robert Pattinson have been the face of the group, but upcoming covers have been confirmed including new heartthrob Taylor Lautner (who plays Jacob) on Rolling Stone and a cast photo for Entertainment Weekly, but as you’ll see below, newsstands are already bleeding Twilight blood. Does the cast work best as an ensemble or do they have the star power to go out solo? In this edition of Cover Wars, we remember the classic covers from the Twilight franchise, knowing full well that many more are now in print. We’ll call it The Greatest Twilight Cover So Far. Here are the contenders:

Their debut cover, a July 2008 issue of Entertainment Weekly, was initially met with derision by the Twilight faithful, weary of seeing their favorite book series come to life. “That’s Edward?” they thought. But it might have been the final note of dissent — that, or the haters were drowned out by the screaming droves who quickly fell in love. The photo is cheesy, to be sure, but something about it made certain that it was the first of many.

Mediaite Grade (B-): The pale skin is too white. His sandy blonde hair seems off. An apple insinuates an incorrect fairy tale. The pair looks uncomfortable together, not drawn together by irresistible passion. And yet… maybe only in retrospect, but the B-movie feel of the cover is an apt introduction to the campy film, all glittery torsos and vampire baseball. And for Kirsten and Rob, it was the beginning of a beautiful friendship…

Are they the hip young versions of Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie? Probably — at least in the sense that their tabloid covers seem endless. Every time you step into the checkout line at a grocery store Stewart’s big bored eyes and Pattison’s glare are staring back at you, and in that sense, this OK! cover represents a much larger canon of tabloid Twilight. They’re as interchangeable as they are ubiquitous.

Mediaite Grade (C-): If you’re a fan of the celebrity romance, this is an easy one to buy into. It’s vague enough to be mysterious and picturesque enough to make for enjoyable covers. But that doesn’t mean it’s not dishonest. For instance, this issue of OK! uses a staged award show still with the headline “Yes! They’re in love.” And that’s to say nothing of “Obsessed With Each Other” or “Twilight Fight!” or… “Engaged!” Yikes.

>>>NEXT: Kristen and Rob Go Solo!

The Twilight Saga: New Moon opens in theaters almost exactly one year from the date when the first little Twilight movie entered our lives. You know, the one based on a ‘children’s book’ by Stephenie Meyer (in fact it was named one of Publishers Weekly’s best children’s books of 2005), about a teenage girl who moves to a new town and just happens to fall in love with a vampire (happens all the time), the one that single-handedly turned a tiny indie studio, Summit Entertainment Group — previously best known for partnering with Disney/Touchstone on the “Step Up” franchise — into a force to be reckoned with, and pretty much the envy of all of Hollywood. Aside from the once-a-decade type of phenomenon that is the recently released Paranormal Activity ($15K budget; $100 million-plus box office), has there been a more profitable, franchise-creating film in recent years than that first little Twilight movie? I think upon a glance at the box office returns it’s safe to say the answer is no. Let’s consider the numbers.

The first little Twilight movie had a reported budget of $37 million, and its take at the worldwide box office was over $380 million. Not too shabby a return. And these figures don’t count the receipts from the seemingly endless pieces of Twilight merchandise now flooding our economy – the boatfuls of dvds, lunch boxes, and R-Patz tshirts that are being sold (that’s Robert Pattinson for those of you playing at home). And can you imagine if the studio had a piece of tabloid magazine sales based on coverage of the star-crossed, are-they-a-couple-or-are-they-not stars of the movie series? Then we would be talking some big bucks.

Have I mentioned I have not yet seen that first little Twilight movie? Have I mentioned also that I am not a teenage girl? Well, truth be told I have the Twilight dvd in my possession and I swear I’m going to watch it soon, but I guess the point is it really doesn’t matter if I watch it. Sure, Summit will take my money gladly and I bet they secretly hope I have a crush on R. Patz too (sorry, ladies I just don’t see it), but their little business model for these little Twilight movies doesn’t really need to count on the 18-49 male demographic. Did I just type that and mean that? What other thriving Hollywood franchise of any significance can pretty much ignore the entire male movie-going population? (Sorry, Sisterhood of Traveling Pants 2, based on the performance of your last film, you could use every male eyeball you can get). Don’t get me wrong, I fully realize that many male moviegoers are going to willingly tag along as dates with their female companions to see the next installment of Hollywood’s brand-new powerhouse franchise, and that there are many single men of all sexual orientations who will be lining up at theaters tonight. But none of those men matter.

The male moviegoer takes a rare backseat in the world of that little Twilight movie. In fact, when the first little Twilight movie opened a year ago to box office of $69.6 million during its opening weekend, females made up an astounding 75% of the audience. Well, last night’s midnight shows of New Moon topped all that: The debut set box office history, taking in $26.3 million across 3,514 theaters — in just the midnight showing. Tracking indicates that the second little Twilight movie will deliver grosses this weekend never seen outside of summer. We are talking weekend grosses potentially over $100 million. That’s just the first weekend and just U.S. box office. Wow.

To put an opening weekend of $100M in perspective, let’s compare those potential figures to the box office results for the original Star Wars trilogy (the holy trinity of movie trilogies). Keep in mind that average movie ticket prices back when the first Star Wars film was released in 1977 was $2.23 and grew to a wallet-busting $3.15 by the time the 3rd Star Wars film was released. Star Wars Episode IV (better known as the original Star Wars), released in 1977, actually opened in limited release (only 43 theaters) and made $1.5M its opening weekend (an astounding figure based on the limited opening run). Episode 5 (aka The Empire Strikes Back) earned $4.9M in its opening weekend in 1980. Finally, Episode 6 (aka Return of the Jedi) made $23M in its opening weekend in 1983. So even if we consider that average movie ticket prices have basically quadrupled since 1983, a $100M opening weekend for that second little Twilight movie would not only put it in the same rarified air as the Star War series, but it would even outperform the series opening weekend box office results. Again, wow.

It is the teenage girl who rules the school in this case (including the inner teenage girl among Twilight-obsessed twenty and thirty-something women who fixate over the love triangle that is Edward, Bella and Jacob with an equal passion and fervor). They will compete among themselves to lay claim to who saw the film the most times over opening weekend, they will buy every piece of Twilight merchandise possible, they will read and re-read the books in hot anticipation for the next movie in the series (The third little Twilight movie aka The Twilight Saga: Eclipse is already slated for release on June 30th of next year – start lining up now ladies). Yes these Twi-hards or Twilighters or whatever they are calling themselves have become the Star Wars geeks of this generation and in the process have created a new franchise and single-handedly launched a new Hollywood studio powerhouse.

So, yeah, I won’t be lining up tonight. I don’t think Summit Entertainment Group is losing any sleep. They are too busy steamrolling ahead with their plans for the 3rd little and 4th little Twilight movies. And limbering up their calculator-punching fingers to start tabulating the box office receipts as they begin to roll in this weekend. And thinking up Twilight-based theme park rides and video games and cell phone wall paper and coffee mugs and snuggies and…ok you get the point.

p.s. Who makes a better stand-in for Robert Pattinson, Andy Samberg or Bill Hader? Trick question, there’s only one Robert Pattinson.

But from what we’ve seen so far, we narrowed it down to four: the initial EW cover featuring Edward and Bella, the Kirsten Stewart/Robert Pattinson OK! tabloid fare, Stewart solo on Interview and Pattinson doing GQ alone. For her stellar career year and a sleek cover design, we gave the title to Interview and Stewart, but the poll results had a different take. The winner?

Robert Pattinson on GQ

He captured over 50% of the votes, with Stewart’s Interview coming in second place with 33%, and the other two totaling less than 10% each. A lot of credit goes to the RobPattzNews Twitter feed for getting out the vote. Here’s the breakdown in graph form:

It’s not hard to figure out the motivation behind the vampire zeitgeist — with Barack Obama in office and a times-are-a-changin’ vibe as the aughts draw to a close, bloodsuckers represent the Other in a swiftly changing planet. True Blood‘s vamps are Alan Ball’s thinly-veiled metaphor for gay rights. (A “God Hates Fangs” church sign drives the point in with a stake in the opener.) Twilight‘s Edward Cullen is a hero to abstinent teens (and their moms), making scary-sexy palatable for the Rick Warren set. The soon-to-be-developed Anita Blake series casts vampires as misunderstood outcasts fighting for “Preternatural Rights” – a continuation of Laurell K. Hamilton’s bestselling novels (IFC will premiere the show this fall.) To sum it up, vamps are outsiders – and America has a lot of outsiders these days.

But with Halloween around the corner and tween’s fake fangs starting to look a little forced, what spooky creature will next inhabit the popular imagination?

I’ve got a theory, summed up in one word: BRAAAAAIIIINNNS!

Zombies have returned to the popular imagination for a while now, with Simon Pegg’s breakout Shaun of the Dead reuniting the brain-eating genre. Next up is Woody Harrelson’ s Zombieland, which has “cult sleeper/teenage boy-fest” written all over it.

But that’s not all: days after the Zombieland premiere, Random House is backing The Zombie Survival Guide: Recorded Attacks, a graphic novel/zombie primer by Max Brooks (itself a sequel to his original 2003 guide) that will prepare us all from the brain fetishists.

Zombies are also infiltrating YA lit, a sure sign of future teen movie supremacy. There’s Generation Dead: Kiss of Life, about a high school girl named Phoebe dating a zombie version of Edward Cullen, and You Are So Undead to Me about a cheerleader who finds out she’s a beacon for the “living-impaired.” There’s even an early 2009 offering, Zombie Queen of Newbury High, about about a high school prom queen who mind controls her student body into voting for her. And there’s a potential werewolf contender in Bitches, which is hilariously pitched as “Werewolf ‘Sex & The City” and in development by FOX.

Meanwhile, the blockbuster to watch is Quirk Books’ Pride and Prejudice and Zombies it’s already the subject of a multi-studio bidding war. Or will ABC’s lizard-people remake, V, be the supernatural dark horse, putting aliens back in the popular psyche?

I don’t know, but one thing’s for sure: in a recession-addled media culture, the escapism of the fantastic isn’t going away any time soon. Shooting zombies is way more fun than covering the latest foreclosure story.

SLIDESHOW: VAMPIRES & ZOMBIES!: Robert Pattinson, Kristen Stewart, Megan Fox, Evan Rachel Wood, and more!

Jessica Gold Haralson is a writer and a gamer who writes about various topics, including entertainment, pop culture, and new media. She probably spends more time than is necessary playing World of Warcraft.