Oh, there’s no business like quote business. Last night, swoopy-haired Twilight star Robert Pattinson spoke to EW’s Carrie Bell at the New Moon premiere in Los Angeles—and linked the name of his vampire franchise with arguably the biggest four-pronged pop landmark of the last 50 years: John, Paul, George, and Ringo.
“You can’t prepare for this. It is just insane,” he said of the well-documented, culture-saturating Twi-frenzy. “I don’t know how the Beatles felt, but I imagine it was perhaps close to this. I think very few human beings will ever get to experience the same feelings and love we feel at Twilight events.”
Though his undoubtedly innocent (and not without merit) comparison is guaranteed to be reduced to breathless “Rob P sayz Twilight = Beatles OMGEEE!!” pull quotes out there in the LOL-osphere, it’s good to remember that John Lennon himself once got into pretty hot soup (record burnings, show cancellations, even death threats) for his infamous “We’re more popular than Jesus” quote back in 1966, at the height of Beatlemania.
Like nearly all pop cultural phenomena, the reign of Edward and Bella et al. will surely wane eventually, though not before a few more sequels—and a few million references in press outlets (this one included). But does it saturate our media and engage young people in part because there’s a dearth of that kind of lightning-rod star power in music now, or even the type of pop-radio mono-culture to support it?
Can a Beyonce or Lady Gaga, let alone a four-piece rock band, ever hope to be as culturally paramount as the Fab Four were (and one could argue, continue to be), and Twilight is today? And years from now, how will the Twi-team be judged by history—Pet Rock or Beatles-level monolith?
(Follow the Music Mix on Twitter: @EWMusicMix.)
More from EW.com’s Music Mix:
New Lady Gaga, ‘Telephone’: Stream it here
Mariah Carey’s ‘I Want to Know What Love Is’ video: Play ball!
Rihanna’s violent, disturbing ‘Russian Roulette’ video: How dark is too dark?
Chris Brown’s “Crawl” video: He feels remorseful about a lost love. Do you care?
‘Glee: The Music, Vol. 2′ track listing revealed!
Solange covers the Dirty Projectors, delivers a little bit of awesome
Comments (1-15) of 39 Add your comment
UMMMMMM NO
Next up on Entertainment Weekly: Robert Pattinson farts gold dust.
Crispy, I believe I first made the Twilight/Beatles connection a couple months back when I questioned the Fab Four being on the cover of Entertainment Weekly when they could have done a cover story on Taylor Lautner underoos. Hey Twilight fans, I got your new moon right here!
*moons*
It’s fine to compare the hype: different generation, same teenage hysteria.
But, please, let’s not compare the work: The Beatles produced high quality music that was innovative, meaningful, influential, and popular. And the Twilight books are badly written romance trash (not that there’s anything wrong with that).
This. Completely agree.
I agree with your statement, but at the height of their popularity with teens, The Beatles were seen as all fluff. They evolved musically and culturally, but let’s not rewrite history by saying that The Beatles were always “innovative, meaningful, influential…” etc, when for a while there, they just sang pretty pop songs.
Sorry but they were different from the beginning. First, the U.S. had NEVER accepted any rock music from Brits before. Second, they were writing their own music from the start (instead of relying on songwriters like every other band) and their sound was a jarring throwback to simple rock and roll at a time when sugary pap from people like Frankie Avalon was dominating the charts. The Beatles were different from the get-go. Why do you think everyone went crazy? (There was also, of course, that issue of their being 4 gorgeous young men.)
it’s doubtful modern artists will reach either the popularity or quality of the Beatles(or their equally worthy contemporaries). music that’s just idiots yelling over machines and female singers who draw praise for how often they change outfits in a video(comment made here by EW reviewer) have zero staying power. they do provide sites like this with daily fodder but will anyone care about Lady Gag in 10 years? nope.
Completely agree with his comparison re: the crazy fans and I really hope the quote doesn’t get misconstrued to appear that he’s comparing his work to the Beatles because he is clearly not and nor should anyone else. He’s bang on, though – Twilight fans might even be crazier than the Beatles fans even because of the internet’s capability of “galvanizing the troops” so to speak.
Well said, He clearly was not comparing himself to the Beatles…just the experience of being caught in an unexpected craze!
I’m sorry but EVERYONE loved the beatles, but for every Twilight fan I can find at least 10 Twilight haters. The Beatles had the same hype, but its just not the same when so many people hate you at the same time
The Beatles had MANY haters at the time of their popularity. They were extremely controversial. So I don’t know what you mean in your comment.
Twilight isn’t controversial. It just sucks.
I want Twilight to go far, far away. Beatles and that other thing should never be mentioned in the same sentence. Let us never speak of this article again.
TWILIGHT shouldn’t BE on any Music Mix blogposts, unless u are referencing sales, or new videos from the NEW MOON Soundtrack, its just another excuse for the EW writers/columnists to be LAZY yet again and mention the damn franchise another time that day. Its getting sickening, even if the new movie opens Friday.
I hope one of the EW editors is reading this. I am well aware of the mentality at your offices. Write an article up on anything TWILIGHT and it either A. increases web traffic to your sight, or B. (LIKE PUTTING THE CAST ON THE COVER) will increase sales of the magazine by attracting a younger demo. I WISH you all would write a post this week about how much the expected increase in sales % you actually got over last week’s Holiday Movie Preview vs. the actual sales numbers! As a subscriber for the past 16 yrs. it makes me cringe how much you bow down the corporate brass these days and push this TWILIGHT stuff down the throats of life long readers in the hopes of attracting younger ones. HERE’S A HINT. THEY DON’T SPEND MONEY. THEY WANT EVERYTHING FOR FREE. THEIR MUSIC (DOWNLOAD ILLEGALLY). THEIR NEWS (THEY READ BLOGS, DON’T BUY MAGS.)Their are some of us smart enough to know this, but I guess in this economy, you guys are desperate for whatever sales you can get…
For being so superior, you spelled there wrong in your last sentence.
He was comparing the screaming crowds. Calm down people. He’s taking nothing away from the Beatles.
Thank you for poitning out my spelling error. And honestly, it doesn’t matter what the article says, because personally I’m not a Beatles fan so I wasn’t offended by the article, insomuch as that I came to the Music Mix section of EW.COM and found a TWILIGHT related posting. That was disturbing.
Its amazing how if you’re not a Twilight, Idol or MJ fan and come here lately & say how much you’re over those overcoved topics, you’re criticized for having a free thinking opinion. The superfans wonder why people think they’re crazy, or, as they like to think, ‘overly-passionate’. Here’s my thing with the Twilight cast. At this point they realize that NO MATTER what they do, these (predominantly) female fans are going to identify them as these characters (Edward, Bella, Jacob), AND NOT AS INDIVIDUALS (Robert, Kristin, Taylor) for a very long time. I don’t need to be a shrink to know this. Simply look at the box office returns for ADVENTURELAND and that indie film Robert put out earlier this year that no one saw. The superfans can say how much they LOVE Robert or how hot they think Taylor is and buy however many t-shirts they want of him…but the fact of the matter is, they’re actors and if fans aren’t paying to see their other work & going on blogs constantly referring to them by the characters names & NOT their own, then that pretty much sews it up. The fandom that went crazy for the Beatles wanted to see …THE BEATLES…not personas interpretted from books. THERE IS NO COMPARISON. The Beatles weren’t acting, they were themselves. And until Robert opens a movie that doesn’t have TWILIGHT in the title to boffo box office numbers..well, lets just say he knows his place in the grande scheme of things.
So it’s true, he’s a douche.
DID you actually read his comment o did you just half*** read it. Pattinson is just comparing the overwhelming hysteria of fans to that of the Beatles’, not their quality of work.
He’s just saying that the fan hysteria is similar to that of Beatlemania, or so he would assume given that he wasn’t born at the time. I would imagine it is. Unable to walk the streets without girls screaming, fainting, and attacking you. Girls knowing every bit of information about you and dying for more. Girls (mother and grandmothers too) waiting days just to see you for a few seconds and practically causing a riot when they do. I mean, what part of that is not close to the Beatles hysteria? I think it’s a fair assessment on his part.
I agree 100%. Every time there are crowds of girls screaming, it’s compared to Beatlemania. I’m surprised this is the first time the comparison has been made in this situation.
Even if that’s all he’s saying, he’s wrong. There was a rabid fan mania and hysteria with the Beatles. They couldn’t go out in public. Teenage girls camped out outside their hotels to catch a glimpse and a chance to rip their clothes off for souvenirs. The Beatles were a worldwide phenom that changed the culture of western society. I know nothing about this Twilight phenom, as most people of a certain age would not.
I think our society is too culturally fractured for a band to have the universal appeal that the Beatles had. You know that if the Beatles were a new band on the radio today, half of the “rebel” part of the younger generation wouldn’t listen to them just because they were on the radio.
And, of course, their record label would drop them as soon as they got weird.
Pet Rock. Please let it be pet rock. Because anything else will mean we are smack dab in the middle of the apocalypse.
I’m guessing a lot of the Twihards have never even heard of the Beatles or a Pet Rock. Beatlemania lives on, quietly, and I still have my Pet Rock. But will I have my Robert Pattinson Keychain in 20 years? Probably not, but we’ll have to see what kind of actor he turns out to be in other movies. It may bring big money on ebay in the years to come! Or not.
he is just a loser. lets see in 5 years anyone remenber him.
HA! Pattison obviously wasn’t around During the 60’s. I was and he has no clue!
I was too. And I can see the comparison. I was at Comic Con this year, and saw the line for New Moon. It was arguably the longest line in Comic Con history.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA WHAT. He should watch the intro to A Hard Days Night. He doesn’t have thousands of girls chasing him. Just a few that see him and freak out. The Beatles went through much worse. Seriously, Twilight and The Beatles should never be used in the same sentence. Greatest band of all time.
Wow, this only re-instills my deep hatred for… people in general.
Yes, Robert, you’re DEFINITELY more popular than a whole, almost 60 year REVOLUTION you know NOTHING ABOUT. There are so many people I know, including myself, that are absolutely in love with the Beatles, and not just cause they’re hot, but cause they have some of the most beautiful souls this planet will ever experience. You. Don’t. Even.
*Sigh* I will even, thank you. Re-read the story. In front of a crowd of screaming fans, Pattinson says: “I don’t know how the Beatles felt, but I imagine it was perhaps close to this.” If you are such a Beatles fan, you should know what Pattinson means. He doesn’t compare the Beatles’ body of work to the Twilight Saga. At all. This isn’t exactly, “We’re more popular than Jesus,” now, is it?