Skip to content

Robert Pattinson Never Read Water for Elephants

I don’t know why I care, but I do. I loved the book Water for Elephants and I loved the movie in spite of Pattinson’s sub-par performance.

I just watched Robert Pattinson on the Jimmy Kimmel show and Jimmy asked Pattinson why the movie was called Water for Elephants, and he replied with, “I don’t know.”

You know why he didn’t know? Because the movie never addresses what the movie does, that no one actually brings water to elephants, you have to bring the elephants to water. Elephants require too much water… blah, whatever, read the book and you’ll know.

What’s remarkable and offends my sensibilities is that Pattinson was paid millions of dollars to act in a BIG movie that is based on a bestselling book, and in his preparation he couldn’t even be bothered to read the book that tens of thousands (maybe more?) of people had read.

Maybe Pattinson can’t read? Maybe Pattinson mistakenly believes he is a talented enough actor to not research a role? I won’t ever know, nor will I particularly care, but his utter lack of preparation may help explain a lackluster performance.

17 thoughts on “Robert Pattinson Never Read Water for Elephants”

  1. This is so funny. I saw that last night and I was stunned that he would even admit to not reading it. Wasn’t he ever even curious about the title of the film and what it meant?!

    Based on the previews not only do I not want to see the movie, it actually pisses me off every time I watch it. The book had this gritty, rough, tough feel to it and the movie seems to be slick, beautiful and clean. The casting seems wrong to me as well.

    The only thing that has swayed my opinion a little bit was your previous review but after watching that interview last night, I think I was pushed over the edge and won’t pay good money to go.

      1. in Robert's defence...

        Why would you let someone else’s opinion control you?

        Here’s another opinion – “The movie is amazing.”

    1. I think you are jumping to conclusions. They were talking about the movie not the book. Jimmy asked Robert why the movie is called Water for Elephants and Rob said he was not sure. The title makes sense for the book but not for the movie because they never really explain this in the movie. It was mentioned as an inside joke in passing in the movie when Jacob first met August but if you didn’t read the book, you would blink and miss it. Rob stated many times that he read the book after he met Tai and read the script, and he love it. I tend to believe him. He is an avid reader and even read Twilight (eek). He wouldn’t miss reading Water for Elephants. He is very thorough when it comes to his roles. He studied old movies
      to adapt jesters and movements,
      and watched documentaries to learn more and get into the spirit of that time period in order to portray Jacob as
      truthfully as possible. I found
      his performance in the movie to be spot on just like Jacob from the book.

  2. He did read the book after he met Francis and Tai.He explained that he had excepted the part based on that meeting and reading the screenplay. Then he read the book and realized how popular it was. he like the book very much.

  3. I didn’t read the book or see the movie. But I can relate to your rage. My mother’s very favorite book was Little Women. She related to the main character, Jo. I think the fact that the book portrays a family dealing with poverty spoke to her. And the fact that Jo was a tomboy was important to her.

    Winona Ryder portrayed Jo in the movie. I know that a star signing on maybe the only reason why some projects get made, so of course, their opinion counts for a lot. But she totally changed the character of Jo. I read an interview with her where she said she just couldn’t stand girls like Jo, and wanted to portray her as more demure. But Jo’s personality, outspoken and bold, was integral to the book.

    It seems silly now that I have written it. But the fact that she purposively misinterpreted the character that meant so much to my mother really pissed me off.

  4. Didn’t see the movie. His “performance” in Twilight was enough for me to know I don’t ever want to see another movie that he is in again. He strikes me as the epitome of silver-spoon privileged actors who have no idea how they got to their place or even the remotest idea of how to stay there.

    Warhol called. Pattinson’s 15 minutes are up.

  5. I hate coming out of a movie saying, “The book was better.” Knowing that Mr. Patterson didn’t even bother bugs me. Seems… sloppy. Like not preparing for an interview. At least I’ll save myself the trouble. Without even seeing it, I’m fairly certain the book is far better than the movie.

    1. in Robert's defence

      What bugs me is that you believe what others say, baselessly, and let others make up your mind for you. The movie is beautiful & amazing – your loss. Robert IS Jacob J. You can’t see where Robert begins and the character ends. But you’ll never know this because you let someone else’s bias control you.

    2. in Rob's defence...

      PS: the book will always be better. Because, you fill in your own imagery as you read, so the book ‘becomes’ an existensial part of you. Movies are someone else’s imagery limited by what can be acheived with time, money, and reality restraints.

  6. in Rob's defence...

    Why such dislike for Robert? He has addressed this Q many times.
    He read the book. He is brilliant and has in fact reading al the time. All of the people he has worked with says he is always reading some book or other between takes. If you see pics/video of him arriving/departing the airport you will see him carrying at least one book. So for you to ask whether or not he can read with that tone is completely wrong and belittling to yourself.

    Now to clarify: he said he didn’t read the book at first because he thought it sounded like it would be a sequel to Like Water for Chocolate. Once he read the script and found out it was completely different, he went back and read the book and fell in love with it.

    As for not understanding the Water for Elephants title: he knows there was no water carrier for elephants. That is surface knowledge. He was searching for a deeper meaning as to why it was chosen for the title.

    As for your sensibilities…do you have a job? At a company? I hope you have read the biography of your boss, lest you offend his/her sensibilities that they pay you good money and you haven’t even read about or know how/why the company is profitable.

    Seriously this is rediculous. He is an ACTOR. This is entertainment, not life/death.

  7. You should get your facts straight. Have you seen any other interviews with him (Pattinson) regarding this movie, making it and all the preparation? He spent several months working with Tai, to prepare for this role. He also read literature specific to this period and traveling circuses to understand this role better.  
    Clearly your life must be super boring and you have nothing else to write about, but negative comments about others! Pathetic!!!

  8. I didn’t read the book.  I tried, ended up with a migraine two pages in.  Picked it up a few weeks later and another migraine.  It’s the whole circus thing.  I just can’t do it…no matter how many people love it.  

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *