A piece of shit article (if we can even call it an article) was written about Rob the other day. We gave it no credence here but I did, however, enjoy reading this from a site that has not been necessarily pro-Rob in the past. The author, Brad Sturvidant, doesn't get Rob's appeal. Yet he wrote a great counter-argument post that was fair and sound - something lost in many online publications.
A recent report came out that Hollywood executives have labeled Robert Pattinson “Rip-Patz” because of his recent box office struggles, post-Twilight. The Daily Mail (not always the most reliable source, so believe what you will) is pointing to the recent flops of BEL AMI and the UK release of COSMOPOLIS as the proof that his career isn’t going to be able to take off after the Twilight series is finished. I’m not sure BEL AMI and COSMOPOLIS are the best examples to show whether or not an actor is bankable, but the news struck me as an interesting turn for one of the most popular stars on the planet. Personally, I’m not sure what the public sees in him and I never thought of myself as a Robert Pattinson fan, but I also don’t like it when publications and Hollywood executives make generalizations about someone without considering all the facts.What a breath of fresh air to read something from a credible source that didn't make a hasty generalization about Rob's career and began to acknowledge the unfair standard Rob's being held to by some. And from someone who admittedly isn't a fan. I wanted to help spread this post to counter the other crap that was circulated and discussed.
Let’s review the films of Robert Pattinson, excluding the Twilight series and HARRY POTTER AND THE GOBLET OF FIRE. He had HOW TO BE and LITTLE ASHES before Twilight, both of which made virtually nothing at the box office (and if you click the titles, you can read our reviews). Focusing on post-Twilight films, he had REMEMBER ME ($19m domestic gross) in 2010, WATER FOR ELEPHANTS ($58.7m domestic gross) in 2011 and BEL AMI ($82k domestic gross, but still in theaters) in 2012. Granted, those aren’t great numbers for any star, but I want to point out that all of those films are niche dramas from virtually unknown directors. I couldn’t see any of them being box office smashes with any star. In fact, the argument could be made for some of them that without Robert Pattinson, those films wouldn’t have been seen at all.
If we’re going to judge R-Patz on the performances of his dramas, then why not hold other stars accountable or their under-performing dramas? George Clooney (THE AMERICAN, $38m, among many others), Brad Pitt (SEVEN YEARS IN TIBET, $38m, among many others), Tom Cruise (MAGNOLIA, $22m) and Bruce Willis (STORY OF US $27m, among many others) have all had their share of dramas that struggled at the box office. And sandwiched in all of their films have been big budget blockbusters like MISSION IMPOSSIBLE, DIE HARD, OCEAN’S 11, etc. Isn’t the same true with Robert Pattinson and the Twilight films? He has his money-making films and then he has the niche dramas that he wants to make.
The point is that we don’t know what Robert Pattinson can do at the box office post-Twilight because Twilight has consumed almost all his time up until now. But now that he doesn’t have any commitments to the Twilight universe, he can focus his time on quality films with talented directors. On the horizon, he has several projects, including the military interrogator drama MISSION: BLACKLIST, THE ROVER with Guy Pearce, an untitled re-teaming with David Cronenberg and a biopic on The Band. If all of those films fail to impress critics and audiences alike, then maybe we can start writing his Hollywood obituary. But until then, let’s give Robert Pattinson a fair chance to prove he’s more than Edward Cullen.
If you need a refresher on what Rob has to say about art house films and their audiences, this interview is necessary.
I, for one, love the roles Rob picks. Sure, for obvious reasons (I'm an unshakably supportive fan) but because I'm intrigued by his interests (Rob is Oprah). I also like that his name brings attention to projects that people might never hear about. Would MTV have reported on Cosmopolis if Rob wasn't in it? Would mainstream media be talking about Jean-Stephane Sauvaire and David Michôd's films to the extent they are without Rob's attachment? It's something to think about and Rob's worth isn't dying, it's evolving.