From The Wall Street Journal:
Is there life after you’ve been undead?
The opening box-office for Robert Pattinson’s new film “Water for Elephants,” a romantic drama that’s set amid a traveling circus during the 1930s, shows the young heartthrob may have reach beyond his blockbuster vampire franchise “Twilight.” Based on Sara Gruen’s bestselling novel of the same name, the film adaptation earned a better than expected $17.5 million, according to early estimates from distributor 20th Century Fox. Industry insiders believed the film would draw in the low-to-mid teens.
“It really over-performed,” said Fox distribution executive Bert Livingston, citing the film’s “old-time filmmaking” as one of the movie’s strongest assets, as well the popularity of the source material. “It’s a book that was on the bestseller list twice, so people had two chances to read it,” he said.
While reviews were decidedly mixed–it averaged a 54 out of 100 on review aggregation site Metacritic.com–the film scored a solid A- Cinemascore rating and strong positive word-of-mouth.
Based on the studio’s demographic exit polls, however, Pattinson’s “Twilight” fans were not big supporters of the movie: 70% of ticket-buyers were over 25.
“Pattinson batted in his wheelhouse, given the storyline and his character,” said Box Office Mojo president Brandon Gray. “Then again, Pattinson is still a relatively unproven draw, and this movie did co-star the more established Reese Witherspoon.”
If Pattinson’s followers may not have turned up in force, the studio is touting the sales numbers as evidence of a strong showing from older audiences, who are often less consistent moviegoers. “Adults don’t come out early for a movie–they take their time,” said Livingston. “So to open this strong is really a good sign for us. This movie will play a long time.”
Pattinson’s previous attempt at non-”Twilight” dramatic acting, 2010′s “Remember Me,” fared poorly at the box office, with an $8 million opening and a $19 million U.S. gross.
Read the rest at the source
Thinking of Rob 
I’m not surprised at all that “Twilight” tweens weren’t mobbing the theaters. First, this is a story set in the 1930’s. If an adolescent teenager did bother to pick up the book, it would have been collecting dust before the first chapter was finished. Not understanding or being interested in this particular era would be like loving Johny Depp in Edward Scissorhands, and not quite “getting” his starring role in Platoon. Both excellent movies; however , completely different audiences. The phenom of Edward Cullen will most likely not venture far from the young adult audience; but Rob will definitely have a career way beyond Twilight.
I agree I’m 16 and most of my friends are amazed of what I read, I actually read WFE a little before rob was casted as Jacob I don’t know much of people that are my age that like rob but I do know people in their 20 and over who do I do see rob with a great career as an actor but not as a teen heartthrob.
When I went opening day it was a pretty full theater, not completely and mainly the age group was later 30’s and up. Men and women. There were a couple groups talking in the hallway after the movie that you could tell were in book clubs and they were discussing the book verses movie. The comments I heard were good.. Yeah, I was listening in. 😉
There was a group of twi-hards that came in, mid to late teens and you could tell.. it was obvious they were there for Robert.
Did I mention the AUDIENCE APPLAUDED THE MOVIE!!! 😉
Pingback: Diario Twilight: ¿Hay vida después de haber sido un muerto viviente?
I can’t believe that u.s. don’t support ROBERT. Remember me and Water for elephants are great, great , great movies and Robert proved that he is very talented and great actor.
Madea happy family, never say never made more money than water for elephants? come on, this is crazy.
Where are the fans of Robert?
Pingback: Revisión Wall Street Journal « Mi Crepúsculo.