Earlier today I watched the Hand and Footprint ceremony for Twilight at the Chinese Theater in L.A. (via a live internet feed) where Kristen, Rob, and Taylor were "immortalized". It was pretty cool.
After the ceremony, all three stayed behind for several minutes to sign autographs and take photos with fans. Of all the actors, I noticed that the camera stayed on Robert the ENTIRE time as he mingled amongst fans...
The camera would do a wide shot of the audience but then pan right back to Rob. Not once did it pan over to Kristen or Taylor. Hmmm... curious. I thought, 'well I guess camera guy knows that Rob's the real moneymaker'. Then that got me thinking - Would the Twilight franchise be nearly as profitable today as it would have been without Rob? In other words, could Edward have been played by any one else in the films and still end up being as widely successful as it is today?
This is just speculation of course, but having seen all the films to date, I wonder if Rob is the only reason for the movie franchise's mega success. For Twilight's casting, or even New Moon's, imagine Bella as, say, ....Emily Browning and Taylor as some other actor, I can still envision the franchise being widely successful (in terms of profits and popularity). Without Rob? Not so much. There are certain qualities about him (physical appeal, public persona, British-hunky-ness, take your pick) that make him seem irreplacable. Like, he was the only one who could have brought Edward to life from books to screen. Without his involvement, I personally may not have seen any of the films or read the books (I read the books after I saw the movie), let alone sought out fan fiction.
What do you all think? I know there are campers in the forest who aren't that moved by him (as Edward) and I'd love to hear your opinion as well.
What about Kristen as Bella - could she have easily been cast as someone else and Twi still be as successful?
