web
counter
 

The Crossover Box-Office Appeal, or Lack Thereof, of the Twilight Leads

By Dustin Rowles | Posted Under Box Office Round-Ups | Comments (25)



Bella,Edward_and_Jacob.jpg

This week’s box-office was another test for the crossover appeal of the Twilight cast, as Robert Pattinson took another turn in a major picture, starring in Water for Elephants. The results weren’t exactly inspiring. In fact, for the three major stars whose careers were essentially created by Twilight — Kristen Stewart, Taylor Lautner, and Robert Pattinson — the results haven’t been particularly encouraging at all. Granted, Elephants was only the sixth movie released starring one of the three outside of Twilight and Lautner — who only has a bit part in Valentine’s Day to his credit — is the one being pegged as the next big superstar from the group (he has a big action film, Abduction, out later this summer, is attached to a Michael Bay project, and at one point was linked to a Tom Cruise project).

The box-office grosses so far:

Valentine’s Day (Lautner): $110 million

Water for Elephants (Pattinson): $17 million opening weekend

Remember Me (Pattinson): $19 million

Adventureland (Stewart): $16 million

The Runaways (Stewart): $3.5 million

Welcome to the Rileys (Stewart): $158,000

Credit goes to Stewart for at least trying to use her Twilight success for the benefit of smaller films (she’s also due to star in an On the Road adaptation). Lautner obviously had little effect on Valentine’s Day, and I suspect the mediocre success of Water for Elephants can just as easily be attributed to Reese Witherspoon and the popularity of the novel upon which it was based.

In other words, it’s really too early to say. But I like saying it anyway: Nobody cares about these three beyond Twilight. My guess is that a similar pattern will befall the cast of Harry Potter in their post-Potter attempts at legitimacy.

Meanwhile, none of this has anything to do with the number one film at the box-office this weekend, Rio, which landed in the top spot again, holding well and racking up another $26.8 million to bring its two-week total to $82 million. Tyler Perry’s Big Happy Family grossed $25.8 million, which was good for Perry’s fourth best opening. I have plenty more to say about Perry in my review of Big Happy Family due later today (Monday).

In third place, Water for Elephants put up a respectable $17.5 million, far more than I expected given the painfully dull marketing of the film. Thanks to Easter weekend, Hop actually had an uptick in its 4th weekend, running past the $100 million mark. The news wasn’t so good for Scream 4, which plummeted 62 percent, grabbing only $7 million in its second weekend, dimming anyone’s hopes of another potential trilogy. It looks to make only half of what Scream 3 mustered.

Finally, African Cats, the Disney Wildlife Documentary that I didn’t even know existed until last week, landed in sixth with a solid $6.4 million. I suppose that means someone has to review the goddamn thing.









Each Time You Like, Share, Tweet or Stumble a Pajiba Post, An Angel Does the Paul Rudd Dance



Eloquent Eloquence: Figgy's Swan Song | The Gospel According to Coco Chanel by Karen Karbo









Comments

OOOOOH my comments are now being held for REVIEW?

niiiiice

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at April 24, 2011 11:15 PM

My guess is that a similar pattern will befall the cast of Harry Potter in their post-Potter attempts at legitimacy.

Except that the HP cast has a decent amount of actual talent.

Posted by: bonnie at April 24, 2011 11:31 PM

I really enjoy reading these round-ups on Sunday evenings. I'm always in a hurry to find out how the movie I paid to see did. This weekend however, I saw nothing so whatever.

Posted by: Larold at April 24, 2011 11:43 PM

My guess is that a similar pattern will befall the cast of Harry Potter in their post-Potter attempts at legitimacy.

Well, when you think back on most of the major movie franchises, few of the leads escaped them with a better career than they had. Off the top of my head, I can only think of Harrison Ford (Star Wars) and Orlando Bloom (Lord of the Rings) as getting bigger and better afterwards. And in both instances, they had the advantage of another major movie franchise right on the previous one's heels to help them out (Ford had Indiana Jones, Bloom had Pirates of the Caribbean).

So I'd say you're probably right that it's unlikely that either the leads of Twilight or Harry Potter will amount to much beyond their series. My money would be on either Lautner or Emma Watson as the likeliest candidates for superstardom. That doesn't mean the rest won't have careers, but it's likely most will feature in theater or TV and be OK.

Posted by: Fredo at April 25, 2011 12:02 AM

Of course, Pattinson did start out in the Harry Potter franchise. He also makes no bones about not particularly wanting to be an actor, and preferring music. I have no idea if he has any major talent in that area, we'll see.

Rupert Grint, I predict, will have some success in the UK film market. Probably not as much in the US. I don't know if he wants it.

Emma Watson seems to be looking forward to stepping out of the limelight, at least a bit, when the HP franchise ends. I see her doing some modelling and then perhaps getting a Hollywood career if she wants it, and if she can improve a bit on her dialect work. She does have the Hollywood looks and charisma, and seems more comfortable with it than Pattinson.

Stewart, I think, considers herself as a serious actress. I wouldn't be surprised if she does a lot of indie movies/plays for the next little while. I don't know if she has what it takes to turn that into a long-term career.

Taylor Lautner will probably have a brief career as a heartthrob/action-type and then burn out or fade away, then end up on Celebrity Big Brother 7 years from now.

I find Daniel Radcliffe to be the most difficult to predict. He seems to want a Hollywood style acting career the most. He also seems the most diva-esque. It's hard to know where he will go. He has already done some stage work, if he's smart he'll go back to that for a while to hone his chops. And hopefully dial back his ego a bit.

Posted by: koj at April 25, 2011 2:37 AM

The header pic displays their full acting range.

Posted by: Dingles at April 25, 2011 5:05 AM

I still have hope that Stewart will become a real actress. Not sure why, but I like her (probably looks).

Posted by: The_wakeful at April 25, 2011 8:50 AM

The_wakeful: so you like she-males who are moody, vulgar and bitchy?

Posted by: ddd at April 25, 2011 9:28 AM

"moody, vulgar and bitchy"

I'm trying to see the downside there.

Posted by: , at April 25, 2011 9:50 AM

Here's a review for African Cats-Film opens on a beautiful sunset of the African landscape. Audience is introduced to a family of cats (cheetah, lion, or leopard). We go through the trials and tribulations of growing up in Africa. The dry season is especially difficult and prey is hard to find. Kill or be killed. Kitties rip into baby prey animal. Disease and hyenas take the life of some of the kitties we've come to love. Matriarch cat fights of rogue male cat. But momma cat eventually prevails and raises most of her litter who have kittens of their own. The End!

Not that I've seen this movie. I imagine it has to follow along the lines of every Nature show I've ever seen about cats.

Posted by: Dingle Berry at April 25, 2011 10:35 AM

“ Welcome to the Rileys (Stewart): $158,000” the fuck! Hell, a fucking methadone clinic director makes more than that.


p.s. Rowles, I will excuse pajiba for not reviewing Tyler Perry's new movie. I will treat it as an unintentional oversight.

Posted by: Pookie at April 25, 2011 11:00 AM

If the review of Tyler Perry's new movie consists of nothing but a torrent of obscenity, I'd be cool with that.

Posted by: Adam C. at April 25, 2011 11:10 AM

OOOOOH my comments are now being held for REVIEW?

niiiiice

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at April 24, 2011 11:15 PM

BSlim, do you want the name of my lawyer? Well he’s not technically a lawyer because he was unfairly disbarred. But he does handle some legal work for a couple of firms.

Posted by: Pookie at April 25, 2011 11:12 AM

lautner cudn't have made a more asinine move by starring in Abduction. You need to build yourself up first before going for the major action roles if you dun want the masses to reject you.

Look at wat RDJ did before he was Stark. you gotta build your street cred first!

And no, Lautner, you're not a serious actor just coz you wear a suit to every talk show now.

Posted by: haplo at April 25, 2011 11:58 AM

@ddd:

Yes.

Posted by: The_wakeful at April 25, 2011 12:09 PM

who are these people? just kidding! i know who they are. i just don't give a shit. so there.

Posted by: splinter at April 25, 2011 12:13 PM

"She-males"? Really?

Ugh.

Posted by: Anna von Beav at April 25, 2011 12:14 PM

I kind of like Robert "Sparkles" Pattinson. He seems down to earth and like he isn't taking this Twilight b.s. too seriously. That said, Godtopus help me that I know enough about him to mitigate against the shittiness of Twilight and his character. Lautner I can do without.

Posted by: BalladofMaxwellDemon at April 25, 2011 12:14 PM

Twilight is a complete guilty pleasure for me. Terribly written,rediculous dialogue. It seems like she sat there with a thesaurus looking for big words to fill in her book. As a vampire purist, I thought I would hate it. I ate that shit up!
I don't really care what anybody says, I was totally engrossed in these books as an escape during a particularly rough summer.
What I think prople don't really get is if they are trying to follow the characters in the book, they deserve Oscar's. All of them. Bella is as boring and fidgety as Kirsten plays her. Edward is as stone faced and rigid as Robert plays him. Jacob, is well, he has nice abs like Taylor does so it works.

Posted by: daria at April 25, 2011 12:30 PM

I have no problem at all with Sparklepants Pattinson. He seems (?) like he is cool to his fans, tries hard to keep his womance (say it like Elmer Fudd)under reasonable wraps (waps) and that can't be all bad, right? I did see some non-vampire B movie he was in on DVD and he was not bad at all. He can sing and play guitar.

Plus he's weirdly handsome.

Posted by: klingonfree at April 25, 2011 12:35 PM

KS thinking she is a serious actress is the biggest joke here. She thinks she is too good for acting classes because they would ruin her.

Posted by: lana at April 25, 2011 1:39 PM

I second everything koj said. Adding on to the Radcliffe bit: If he wants to be an American leading man, he's going to have to fix those eyebrows. They're fine when you're the quirky, plucky, British kid wizard. Opposite Zooey Deschanel, people will just be asking if those caterpillars come alive at night and devour the souls of evil carnival workers.

Posted by: RobP at April 25, 2011 3:26 PM

None of them are worth a dollar in ticket prices. For some reason directors like the Stewart girl so she'll continue to work. Taylor Lautner might have what it takes to be the next Keanu. Keanu is getting old. Robert Pattinson will go first. There's nothing there but a pout. Water for Elephants was supposed to plead his case. We get it---the man is terrible. The Harry Potter clan can always take comfort in the fact that they made a movie series to be proud of. The Twilight clan earned multiple Razzies for worst actors. No clear achievement. Spot on.

Posted by: Junorumo at April 25, 2011 11:46 PM

I still think that stewart has potential. That minimal role in Into the Wild still tells me so.
Pattison, also, maybe.
Lautner? Must be kidding.
Radcliffe, I dunno.

Posted by: martin at April 26, 2011 2:55 PM

There is clearly a lot to know about this. I suppose you made some good points in features also.

Posted by: Carroll B. Merriman at June 19, 2011 7:38 PM