Okay and here come the articles who I might like to term as “fence sitters” – you know if WFE is a huge success then they will say – oh yeah I predicted that, but then if it’s not – they will claim that too. According to Kim Palacios of Hollywood News:
“I know what you’re thinking: Robert Pattinson is already a huge star. But, could “Water for Elephants” make him even bigger? Opinions are split on whether “The Twilight Saga” was just the beginning for Pattinson, or whether playing Edward Cullen was the beginning of the end.
According to Pattinson’s fans (Maria: That would be us), the star’s acting talents surpass what can been shown through his portrayal of Edward Cullen in the “Twilight Saga” movies. The same fans believe his arrival as one of the most respected actors in Hollywood is only a matter of time.
Yet another group who enjoyed Pattinson in the “Twilight Saga” films, is more cautious, if even optimistic. “Remember Me” did not do as well as anticipated in the box office, despite Pattinson’s timely popularity. Such lackluster numbers could jeopardize Pattinson’s career if such performance becomes a trend. Add in the inevitable typecasting that will cause Pattinson to be passed over for certain roles, and the star could fail to achieve longevity.
Yet, “Water for Elephants” could save the day for Pattinson by exposing his talents to a much wider demographic. The Sarah Gruen novel continues to be a bestseller, and the audience is far more mature. Add in the fact that Oscar Winners Christoph Waltz and Reese Witherspoon may be greater draws than Pattinson in getting viewers interested in the movie, and “Water for Elephants” could be the only kind of film apt to give Pattinson the cred he deserves.”
Okay so this isn’t really a bad rap for Rob, but let me point out a few problems for me with this article.
1. ”Yet another group”. Um what group is that Kim? Are you talking about film critics? Twihards? People you polled on the street who happened to NOT see Remember Me? I’m just a little confused. I really hate those kind of sweeping statements – I mean how am I supposed to believe that when there’s no evidence of who these people are? You could be talking about the people you share office space with for all I know. Also, whilst your explaining to me who this “other group” is can you also explain how you can be “cautious” and “optimistic” at the same time.
2. Remember Me didn’t do as well as WHO anticipated? I know for a fact that the people involved were really happy with how RM faired. Oh hang on I will back up my “sweeping” statement and be specific – Nick Osborne – the producer. I don’t know who these people are that claim it didn’t do well – budget was USD16 million – according to The Numbers it made USD56.5 million worldwide and sold over USD11.5 million in DVD sales – that doesn’t seem too much of a failure to me? Oh but that’s right I fall into the category of “Pattinson’s fans” *facepalms* – of course I already expect Rob’s success.
3. “Inevitable typecasting“? Oh yes Kim – of course what was I thinking – Georges DuRoy and Eric Packer are SOOOOOO Edward Cullen or Jacob Jankowski. Rob’s portrayal of Eric Packer could easily be confused with Tyler Hawkins – yes yes – so much typecasting for Rob.
4. “the audience is far more mature”. I’m not sure whether I should be offended by this comment. No wait I am because according to Kim – Bel-Ami and Cosmopolis clearly are not for mature audiences and hence only WFE will give Rob any credibility.
You know the problem with this article … it’s doing my head in because every time I go and reread it I find something else that proves not much research has been done. Kim just so you know, Rob doesn’t need to be a huge Hollywood Megastar to be a respected actor in Hollywood. I’m sure Steve Buscemi is respected and yet – there’s no Times Square Billboard with him on it – is there? I guess I better go and do some research …
