The kicker laugh line in the trailer for "Bros":
Well, good news: Apparently, straight people are still uncomfortable with gay sex, because just about nobody wants to see this film. Has there ever been a more highly praised movie that's been this big of a flop?
Look it's got a 90% "fresh" rating on Rotten Tomatoes and a 91% audience score. Critics said stuff like: "Funny and warm, the gay love story lives up to the swooning standard of When Harry Met Sally and Notting Hill" and "Step aside, Hugh Grant and Diane Keaton, the pantheon of great, neurotic rom-com leads has found a new king in Billy Eichner."
It opened in 3,350 locations and only made $4.8 million over the weekend.
Now, there's a lot of discussion about whether the non-success of the movie should be attributed to "homophobia."
I'm going to read this at Variety: "Why Did Billy Eichner’s ‘Bros’ Bomb at the Box Office? Straight People Aren’t Entirely to Blame."
But first, I'll just say that I think the problem is that the reviews are selling it as a rom-com, which invites you to see it because you'll identify with a character and feel closer to a person you're with or will feel nourished in your dream of love. You could say this isn't for me simply because you're not a gay man. That's not hating gay men. It's just not feeling like one.
From the trailer, it seems more like a satire of various kinds of people in the LGBTQ community. Who's up for that? It's not homophobic to decide not to seek entertainment in the form of making fun of LGBTQ people.
So who is the audience supposed to be — other than gay men and those who want to laugh at the LGBTQ community? Are people supposed to see movies because they get excellent reviews? But the reviews aren't saying this is a great work of cinematic art that cultured people must see. They're just saying it's effective as a rom-com. But you choose your rom-com — don't you? — based on whether it resonates with your own personal romantic feelings.
Now, I'm reading the Variety piece. It says with rom-coms, what matters is "star power." Variety says a movie like Julia Roberts and George Clooney's “Ticket to Paradise” can open big in theaters, but "Bros" should have gone right to streaming. Build interest from there.
The studio spent a lot of money pushing "Bros" as "historic." "Historic" — such an overused word. Supposedly it's "the first major LGBTQ studio comedy." Is it? Who really cares? It's supposed to be great fun but this makes it "feel like homework."
Notice how you can get to "historic" just by adding elements. Here, it's not just LGBTQ. It's also "studio." But the movie was made for $10 million. It's very hard to see what's special.
And now they're insulting us for being "homophobic" if we don't feel like going. That's not much fun.
पोस्ट्स
१३१ टिप्पण्या:
I can't wait to not watch it.
Calling people homophobes because they didn't go see your gay movie is probably not helping any. Progressives hate you, but expect you to bow down to them every single time. The left are their own enemies.
In spite of valiant efforts by public schools, gays are still only about 3% of the population.
"I like my beer cold, my TV loud, and my homosexuals flaming!"
-- Homer Simpson
I think straight people still aren't ready for what goes on at Bear Week or other circuit parties.
I guess we're going to hear that straights prefer straights playing gay, rather than gays playing gay. Rock Hudson and Errol Flynn ... never mind. Poor Anne Heche.
Brokeback Mountain (2006) grossed 83 million domestically, almost 180 worldwide. Released Dec. 9, it started nibbling at a million a day closer to Christmas, surpassed that around New Years, and had a least a few days of $2 million a day.
The Bird Cage (1996) grossed 124 million, all in the U.S. They had some 15 million dollar weekends.
I saw a story that the budget for "Bros" was $22 million. It makes no difference if the budget was $22m or $10m, it still lost a giant amount of money. But there will no repercussions at Universal, because this was historic.
It drives me crazy that my "Frankenstein, Part II" won't even get a sniff from Hollywood but trash like this gets the green light to lose money.
It's true. In Hollywood, nobody knows nothing.
$1,433 per movie house for the weekend says it all.
If the trailer were about a heterosexual couple instead of a gay one, it would be unwatchable judging from the trailer. Are rom coms even a thing anymore? I can't think of a rom com that has done well lately.
If I don't go watch this movie then this is proof that I am deplorable and this justifies the violence and persecution of the left against all deplorables.
This movie is boring and lame.
But you don't want to be the first person to stop clapping at Stalin's speech.
I'm suprised women aren't flocking to it. Don't they love all the Gay stuff? Personally, I have zero to reason to see anything Hollywood puts out, and you'd have to pay me to see a movie about Gay sex.
And by pay me, I mean a Lot.
I plan on not watching it with some friends later today.
I think I see part of the problem here:
"GET YOUR FICTIONAL HATEFUL BIBLE STORIES AND YOUR FAKE FICTIONAL RELIGIOUS BULLS*** OUT OF OUR F***ING LIVES. F*** YOU."
--Billy Eichner
And in response to a clearly made up story via a twitter rando about some fictional movie theater audience responding to an alleged comment made by an alleged movie theater-goer somewhere unknown that was negative towards the trailer for the movie in question:
"AMAZING!! THANK YOU FOR SHOUTING BACK. I'm hearing stories like this about the BROS trailer in theaters. So let me just say - F*** THOSE PEOPLE. We didn't make BROS for them. We made it for smart people with good taste. Excited to be releasing it in the middle of a CULTURE WAR!"
--Billy Eichner
Truly a mystery why heterosexuals are not going to see this movie.
Ace of Spades HQ had some great commentary on this yesterday, which included this:
"So as you can see, it's Billy Eichner's own nasty attitude towards "certain parts of the country" that caused his stupid gay movie to bomb.
Although, to be totally honest with you: We weren't going to see it anyway.
I'm just going to reveal a little secret here. I know this is just a terrible thing to say, but maybe it will help people adjust their actual expectations for box office in the future: Although most straight people have nothing against gay people, most straight people, especially straight men, are uncomfortable with witnessing gay coupling and gay kissing and would rather not see it, and will definitely not pay to see it.
Also straight men don't see romance movies unless they're dragged to them by their gals and I'm pretty sure most women aren't using one of their limited number of you-have-to-see-this-even-if-you-hate-it Movie Calls to see this gay romance."
And this:
"Elizabeth Banks attempted to play the "see my movie or else you hate women" card when tracking for her movie, the woke, anti-male second reboot of Charlie's Angels, projected a loser.
It failed.
Midnight's Edge would later point out that Rambo: Last Blood, which opened at around the same time or during the exact same weekend, of course made much more money, but that's not the really killer point. The killer point is that more women saw Rambo: Last Blood than saw Charlie's Angels.
So why was she attempting to bully men into seeing her crappy reboot of a reboot of a TV show? Even women didn't want to see it.
And when women would rather watch Rambo stick a Bowie knife through a man's groin and chop people's heads and arms off with a machete than see your explicitly-made-for-women movie, that's a sign your movie isn't very good."
Read the rest for yourself.
Ace was en fuego with his review of this latest lefty woke disaster and what was driving it.
Wasn't "The Birdcage" the first major studio LGBT comedy?
Has America reached peak gay?
Given the large number of gays in the US - or so we’re told- I’m fairly sure they can pay to see this film and save it from obscurity…no?
Movie needed a big star like Amy Schumer to pull the crowds in.
Huh?
Look, long ago millions of heteros watched the gay rom-com "La Cage aux Folles," didn't think a thing of doing so, and enjoyed it.
OTOH, most heteros obviously don't want to watch the gay rom-com "Bros," and I submit that the difference is that the reviews all mention that "Bros" features graphic sex scenes. I'm sorry, you can like it or not, but to heteros graphic gay sex scenes are very skeevy. They certainly are to me (but then I don't like watching graphic *hetero* sex scenes in movies - call me weird but I don't like watching anyone doing their private sex business).
Now, think back to all the hetero rom-coms you've seen and try to recall one in which there are graphic sex scenes. Bet you can't. I'm pretty sure they don't exist; it is simply not in the nature of the genre. These "Bros" guys put graphic sex scenes in their rom-com expressly to be in your face about how bold and cutting edge they were - and they had their "homophobia" gun loaded for bear. Fug'em.
Pretty obvious that there just aren't as many gay guys as Hollywood producers seem to think. It probably has something to do with where most of them live and socialize- the west coast.
Howard, was the movie any good?
Well, if being homophobic is the price I have to pay to not go see a comedy movie whose trailer didn't make me laugh at all, then so be it.
Charlie @ 9:06: “I can't wait to not watch it.”
Careful there. “Silence is violence.”
Sex: male female. Gendder is sex-correlated attributes (e.g. sexual orientation). The transgender spectrum disorder is an edge case. Homophobia is a psychiatrists' condition through projection. Transphobia is a progressive condition with a liberal scope. Throw another baby on the barbie, it's over.
Idiots. They could learn something about playing the "expectations" game from politicians. But then, a lot of politicians haven't learned that lesson. If you are running against a high school drama teacher whose only qualification is his father's name you built him up before the debate, rather than knock him down. Ditto if you are running against a basement dweller who can't put a coherent sentence together.
Billy Eichner said he didn't want what amounts to half the country seeing his movie. Fine. Live and let live. Then he attacks them for not seeing the movie. Billy, you should count this not as a failure, but as a success. Some people saw your movie. The rest of the country listened to you and stayed home. You are a powerful influencer. Maybe if you were Heath Ledger you'd do better box office, if only for the "coming back from the dead" thing.
"Now, there's a lot of discussion about whether the non-success of the movie should be attributed to "homophobia."
And if you refuse to have sex with a transgender person, you are transphobic It is not enough to take a live and let live attitude towards gays. If you don't actively support their lifestyle you are a bigot.
FleetUSA said...
$1,400 gross per theater says it all.
Probably; could shorten that sentence, to just one word.. GROSS
Who, exactly? Wants to see gay porn? gay softcore porn? gay romcoms?
Just another example of “get woke, go broke”.
No doubt some gay “creatives” thought this up. Hollywood is filled with them. Everyone there thought that it was a good idea. It fit in, and pushed their common perspective and prejudices. Except that the general public is fed up with LGBTxyz, and are frankly tired of catering to their perverted whims. A large percentage seem to be, or at least tolerate, grooming behavior on younger and younger kids. Maybe many don’t like it, but they allow it in to grow bigger and bigger in their community, and when the rest of us complain about our kids being preyed upon by the groomers and the predators, we are told to shut up because we are homophobic. Meanwhile public health officials tell us to worry about Monkey Pox, despite most everyone knowing that it’s spread in this country is almost exclusively through gay sex orgies, with visions of piles of naked men fucking each other with gay abandon (pun intended). So, no, gay movies are not going to make it right now, at least not until the gay community starts to look to the rest of us that they are acting responsibly. And not if the only thing that they are selling is the sensitive love between what many think are sexual perverts. We just don’t care any more.
"And now they're insulting us for being "homophobic" if we don't feel like going. That's not much fun."
It's the point of the project. A small investment to fund a maneuver in the culture war to show that America is evil and Americans homophobic deplorables. Movies are tools.
@Althouse: "Apparently, straight people are still uncomfortable with gay sex, because just about nobody wants to see this film."
The left really, really, really needs to move on from "homophobic." The term phobia means fear -- but fear applies to just a fraction of gay and non-gay people.
The main reasons why heterosexual people are not interested in gay romances include apathy ("boring...not my type") and DISGUST. Disgust is a visceral emotional reaction, a global reaction, and very possibly a biological/innate reaction. Male and female bodies differ and their parts fit together to breed. Other uses of the body are seen as dysfunctional. Putting a pee pee in a poo hole makes a lot of people think of the toilet rather than sexual arousal. You can't win in a fight against disgust, and you surely can't legislate disgust away.
Let gay people be gay and live gay lives. Let straight people live in a parallel culture. Recent efforts to mainstream gay, transgender, and early childhood sexuality to undo history are on course for failure. We must breed to exist and therefore biological fundamentals always win.
Spencer Klavan had a great take on the movie on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/SpencerKlavan/status/1576957982432428032
"We saw Bros over the weekend. It's a minutely precise depiction of a microdemographic. Its *governing theme* is that gay life is TOTALLY DIFFERENT from straight life and straight people are clueless about it. To fault straight people for not going is the act of a petulant child."
Going after a tiny sliver of the population with in jokes and such doesn't sound like the way to make your movie appealing to everyone. Years ago some college friends of ours made a movie, Puddle Cruiser, that was set at a small liberal arts school. It was hysterical - if you came from that world and knew the people in it. I doubt even the guys who made it (who went on to be fairly successful with Super Troopers, Club Dread, etc) thought it was supposed to be a widely appealing movie. Why is this situation any different - other than the fact that this cost way too much money to produce?
mtp: "Wasn't "The Birdcage" the first major studio LGBT comedy?"
Yes. And it made over a $185M. In 1996, which is equivalent to about $350M today. So, a big hit. Not to mention a long running stint on Broadway.
And all that even though it, as most of these things do, generally makes fun of religious Christians (but not muslims!!!) and conservatives in general.
So, a success story.
Along comes BROS, they know its going to flop, so they pre-prep a ready-made excuse for its complete and total failure: those darn conservative H8TERS!!!!
They gin up a controversy for marketing purposes, blast their political foes and then still get to congratulate themselves for making such a "groundbreaking" cinematic "masterpiece" (a participation trophy equivalent).
A perfect left/dem/nevertrump (but I repeat myself) failure/"success" outcome.
How dare people not watch this movie? Maybe we're headed for this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLnoLmCqT30
"Apparently, straight people are still uncomfortable with gay sex."
I disagree with this analysis. Brokeback Mountain was a highly acclaimed gay western. It's budget was $14 million. It made $178 million in box office receipts. It was wildly profitable.
There are good gay films.
And then there is just regular old monkeypox gangbang porn, which anybody can get for free on Pornhub and not have to spend $28 for popcorn and a coke.
It should be noted that this porn film isn't even watched in the gay community. If every gay person in America bought a ticket, it would already have made $80 million.
I'm reminded of Bill Burr's riff on the WNBA. Not even women watch the WNBA. Why should men watch it? Same with this. Gays aren't even watching this.
"Apparently, straight people are still uncomfortable with gay sex."
I disagree with this analysis. Brokeback Mountain was a highly acclaimed gay western. It's budget was $14 million. It made $178 million in box office receipts. It was wildly profitable.
There are good gay films.
And then there is just regular old monkeypox gangbang porn, which anybody can get for free on Pornhub and not have to spend $28 for popcorn and a coke.
It should be noted that this porn film isn't even watched in the gay community. If every gay person in America bought a ticket, it would already have made $80 million.
I'm reminded of Bill Burr's riff on the WNBA. Not even women watch the WNBA. Why should men watch it? Same with this. Gays aren't even watching this.
You've Got Mail and Two Seeks Notice have the best winning-over speeches. Oh, and As Good as It Gets, a very short effective one. Always the man winning over the woman after whatever trouble he's in.
Literary point, from the dialogue of Stranger than Fiction: if you die at the end, it's a tragedy; if you get married, it's a comedy.
We didn't see you at the anti-violence rally. You must be for violence.
What, you didn't give to the American Heart Society! You must be for heart disease.
If you don't go and see my homo movie, you're a homophobe. You HATE gays.
Why am I homophobic just because, of all the movie choices out there, I prefer something else over the gay love story rom com?
I see that everyday on every channel nowadays, anyway. Every show has at least one gay character, and one with every shade of skin color, and one trans person. And the kid in the wheelchair (or whose on the spectrum).
Just like the old law college catalogues . Always had that picture to show off their “diversity” right next to the chart of their enrollment broken down by race. Can’t wait for the supremes to finally overrule Grutter too (and dump race based admissions).
No, this movie (and the hype of its “historic-ness”) makes me want see it about as much as I want to see Kamala as president (Not at all). Historic doesn’t mean shit to me when it historic only because it’s the “first” whatever.
I am certainly not going to see it when the created tell us all to fuck off and don’t see it. Ok I won’t. Good luck with your little movie career dickhead.
"GET YOUR FICTIONAL HATEFUL BIBLE STORIES AND YOUR FAKE FICTIONAL RELIGIOUS BULLS*** OUT OF OUR F***ING LIVES. F*** YOU."
--Billy Eichner
Evolutionary fitness. Normalize, tolerate, or reject?
Religion is a behavioral protocol: morality in a universal frame, ethics its relativistic sibling, and law their politically consensual cousin.
Throw another baby on the barbie, it's over.
Ticket to Paradise might be good. Normally I could guess the plot from the remarriage genre, but it's 2022 and God knows what wokeness has been substituted for it. Apparently Julia Roberts is showing more cleavage (as empty space, not breasts) than usual, in the same way as Sandra Bullock in Lost City. Two stars known for not flashing boobs. It may be a new style I haven't noticed.
Brokeback Mountain was a disappointment. I expected Anne Hathaway boobs and it's a couple of queers instead.
Thanks to Hollywood, I'm a bit less homophobic. I used to think watching two men kissing was icky. Thanks to repeated exposure in many films, now it just passes by. Tongue action is still icky though.....I don't know why males kissing is unpalatable, and females kissing is hot, but it is. I would watch a rom/com featuring two lesbians-- provided the nudity was tasteful and frequent, and the movie didn't star Lena Dunham......Marilyn Monroe had a lesbian affair with her female acting coach. She cheated with her during her honeymoon with Joe Dimaggio. The comic hijinks in such bisected triangle are obvious. The next Marilyn movie should be a bedroom farce centered on this episode of Marilyn's life. Too many Marilyn movies are downers and don't feature her madcap lesbian adventures.
Gay marriage isn't an analogue of normal marriage. Normal marriage is a domestication of natural hostilities between men and women, a meaning it has now lost owing to its becoming just a civil union contract. Having lost that, polyamory will get it next. That original meaning has a meaning, it turns out.
Romcoms depend on that natural hostility and how it domesticates.
AlbertAnonymous: "Why am I homophobic just because, of all the movie choices out there, I prefer something else over the gay love story rom com?"
Because the left/dems/nevertrump (but I repeat myself) need you to be labeled homophobic for far left political narrative purposes as well as explaining away their lefty woke failures.
Notice how you not being homophobic has zero bearing on this. There is no place for logic in the lefties/dems/nevertrump (but I repeat myself) world.
Many years ago, George Will noted that to the younger set being gay was as about as interesting as being left-handed. After same-sex marriage became a reality and the country didn't collapse the rest of the population caught up.
But there seems be a subset of gays who still want to horrify straight people. "I'm gay, man, goddammit. I'm effing gay!"
These days you gotta be trans recruiting kids to trigger outrage.
But trans will never become as casual as gay. Gay is easy. It's just being yourself if that's what you are. Trans comes with therapy, medications, hormones, and surgeries. Too high maintenance to be a "thing" for long.
Remake this with steaming hot lesbians and see box office history.
Tell me I'm wrong.
NB. Gay people are not flocking to see this turkey either.
It helps when Nichols and May direct and write your gay comedy. I'd plop down and rewatch The Birdcage any day.
Are there any movie critics with any degree of integrity? Doesn't seem like it.
Generally, a good movie has to have characters the audience identify with. If you make the characters so they represent the experiences of only 3% of the population, then congratulations, you reduced your potential audience by 97%. And there's nothing wrong with making movies about, and catering to, that segment of the population, but don't whine when men and women who don't feel same sex attraction aren't interested.
"I think straight people still aren't ready for what goes on at Bear Week or other circuit parties."
Or the Folsom Street Fair, but only look that one up if you have a strong stomach.
"Now, think back to all the hetero rom-coms you've seen and try to recall one in which there are graphic sex scenes. Bet you can't."
When Harry fucked Sally?
Of course you are correct. They are all light, with emphasis on the Rom and the Com.
They are Hallmark movies with big budgets and big stars.
Hollywood has been playing this scam for a longtime. If you don't make a good movie, or its bascially a "small film" with no stars and a low budget, you try to get people into the theater through politics or some other means.
In the old days it was "it addresses an important social issue" Now, its "Watch this film!" our movie has Gays, minorities, a woman in a man's role, etc. if you don't pay for it, you're a square, you're a bigot, you're a blah blah.
I just watched a star trek episode and the big sellng point was the "first interracial kiss" and it also had a little person. It gets good reviews online, even though the espisode is one of the poorer TOS shows.
BTW, how many people who went to Brokeback mountain, bought the DVD or would pay to see it again? I'd love to see the numbers. How many have "Schindler's List" DVDs?
The problem I see with the movie -- subject matter aside -- is that the lead isn't particularly charismatic. He looks and sounds whiny and narcissistic.
Whiny and narcissistic, of course, could apply to Hugh Grant as well, but Grant does have a charisma that allows him to be self-aware of these traits and you will probably watch, anyway (provided that rom-coms are your thing).
But even Hugh Grant is the wrong direction in which to look at this.
The lead of "Bros" is in the traditional rom-com female role: the hero of the story, the one we are meant to root for. Gender aside, he is not a Julia Roberts or a Cameron Diaz: presence-wise, he is, at best, the quintessential snarky friend of those characters in the typical rom-com schematic, not the lead.
Now, it can be good to upset the expected dynamic, but having a drab lead in a rom-com undermines the gist of what they are attempting to do.
People like stars. Dude is not a star.
I am Laslo.
The two Bros aren’t good-looking enough.
The target audience for Rom-Coms is women.
Should have cast Ryan Reynolds and Ryan Gosling.
Woker and broker.
That said, a parade with lions, lionesses, and their [unPlanned] cubs playing in gay revelry.
This is what 'equity' looks like. You can mandate all you want about various things in our lives, but you cannot mandate people's honest reactions to what's being served up. The numbers are an honest reaction. And they don't say it's bad. They merely say it's either unimportant, unappealing, or simply something of zero interest to them. Me personally? I don't care who someone loves. But I don't have any small or large interest in watching grown men blow each other. That's just me.
The numbers say about 72 people on the average per theater went to see this. This suggests many other people also don't have any interest in watching that. Not that there's anything wrong with it. We just don't want to have to watch it. OK?
And not for nothing, but Billy Eichner, who is very funny and whom I have watched many times on 'Billy in the Street', has spent years insulting people like me, or conservatives, or southerners, or religious people. He says he hates generalizing about people but turns out he's actually a huge practitioner. And so when you spend years insulting much of the nation, please don't act surprised when much of the nation refuses to turn out to watch you go down on your boyfriend.
I wonder how much the movies 'Uncle Tom' or 'Uncle Tom II' would have brought in had they not been virtually shut out of the theaters and relegated to pay-to-stream? I guess Black Conservatives are not part of the 'Equity Plan'.
Gay sex - whatever.
But I do find hyper-effeminate men in demonstrative mode like the man at the conference table early in the trailer to be repulsive at an instinctual level. A few comedians (Williams, Lynde) have been able to pull it off, but not this guy.
I suppose some ladies see that as delightful and endearing little boy behavior.
There is a good gay rom-com: "Saving Face". Joan Chen co-stars (leads were newbies). Produced by Will Smith's company and Sony. It's a lot funnier if you are familiar with immigrant Chinese tropes.
It has a lifetime gross of a few million. Criticized because only the writer-director was gay, instead of most of the cast and crew, like "Bros". ( Huh. That originally autocorrected to "Bris". There's a movie idea for you...)
Defer to a Twilight faith. Adopt an ethical religion. Live by diversity [dogma] (i.e. color judgment, class-based bigotry), seek your viability in a Diversity, Inequity, and Exclusion (DIE) doctrine.
Stop. You had me at "gay rom com."
I saw a movie yesterday that more deserves to be called "historic." Sullivan's Travels, written and directed by Preston Sturges. The blu-ray DVD also had an excellent PBS hour on Sturges' life and career.
Spoiler alert: The film's protagonist is a successful director of comedies, but he wants to make "an important film" with great social impact. In the end he learns that nothing is more important than making successful comedies.
"It drives me crazy that my "Frankenstein, Part II" won't even get a sniff from Hollywood but trash like this gets the green light to lose money."
How do you know it is trash if you haven't seen it?
The day will come when they march us to the movies to watch this crap the way the Soviets marched people out on their days off to pick potato’s.
"Apparently, straight people are still uncomfortable with gay sex."
Oh hell no, who would be uncomfortable with multiple partners a night, golden showers, anal, fisting... everyone does that now, yes?
I'm hooked right now on a TV series about a group of Native American young people growing up on an Indian reservation. Maybe because its beautifully written and acted, and doesn't hit me over the head with its political views. In fact, I'm not even sure it has any.
On the other hand, I'm not planning to see Bros.
Is there something wrong with me?
"Romcoms depend on that natural hostility and how it domesticates."
With or without hostility, do gays do rom?
Bath houses, orgies, pride parades, AIDS and monkey pox: not much rom there. And what percentage of gay marriages is strictly monogamous?
Gays just cannot win.
Speaking of homosexuals - has a pandemic ever disappeared as quickly and completely from public view as did monkeypox?
Prof A: At the outset you ask “… Has there every [sic] been a more highly praised movie that's been this big of a flop?”
“Flop”? Is that really the right word for a movie about (graphic) gay romance?
“Flop”?
You are punctilious about word usage. So I gotta know!
The two most boring subjects of conversation in the world are golf and anybody's sex life. So don't talk to Quaestor about your backswing or anything involving your genitalia or butthole, he just might shoot you right between the eyes.
The admission that homosexual intercourse is less fun now than when "straight people were uncomfortable with it" suggests homosexuality contains a powerful element of exhibitionism, at least among the crowd Billy Eichner runs with, though it can't be universally true. Douglas Murray, one of my favorite authors is gay, but, judging from the topics of his conversations and writings, that fact is about as consequential as being lefthanded, i.e. occasionally awkward yet unimportant.
The entire concept of homophobia also derives from exhibitionistic tendencies. People who use that term are the real phobics; they dread not being the center of attention. When the person they're trying to discomfort with the "shocking details" turns away to observe something more interesting, like the nuts and berries politics of squirrels, it's like Dracula and garlic. As another famous gay man once famously said, "There is only one thing worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about."
@Rabel,
You are exactly right. The flaming personality is a lot harder to pull off than gay men seem to think it is.
You need wit, like Paul Lynd, or cool, like Tim Gunn, or charisma + talent, like Nathan Lane. Without that, the affect can be pretty irritating.
"Normal marriage is a domestication of natural hostilities between men and women...."
Do you really believe there are "natural hostilities" between men and women? Can you say why you have this view? Perhaps this says more about you than about men and women in general.
That aside, I suggest the film is not drawing audiences is, as discussed above, because most straight men (or couples) don't find the topic of interest to them, but also because...who has heard of the movie? I hadn't. I have always been an avid movie-goer, preferring to see movies in a theater with an audience, but given the shut-down of movie theaters during the pandemic and the turn to streaming movies at home, I barely see or hear about what's playing at physical theaters any more. The last movie we saw before the theater shutdowns was "Invisible Man" with with Elizabeth Moss--a really good movie--and the only movie we've seen since the theaters have reopened is "The Batman," (starring Robert Pattinson). (I enjoyed this one to a degree, though my wife and a friend who accompanied us hated it, but my enjoyment was definitely muted by the film's excessive length--3 hours!--and slow pace. It also had an unremittingly morose tone, but that only bothered me slightly.)
The all time greatest rom/com was "Bringing Up Baby". It starred Cary Grant and Katherine Hepburn, two well known homosexuals. So you can't really say that a gay rom/com is a new thing. I think gay rom/coms are more interesting and diverse if they feature gay actors of differing genders.
The paradox may be that just as some gay actors are able to be more appealing leads in straight romantic roles, so some straight actors are able to be more appealing in gay films.
Billy is not really any kind of romantic male lead. Nor is he really a rom com type. How much of an actor is he? He's a zany madcap comic, and it's a stretch to play a more restrained role. He just can't carry a movie himself.
If you want a successful gay romantic comedy: 1) Give it a period setting and nice costumes. 2) Get better, more attractive actors. 3) Make them vampires. That worked for Tom Cruise and Brad Pitt.
According to a new Entertainment Weekly poll, 72 percent of their readers would be offended if a TV show's lead character were gay. Though that figure sinks to 1 percent when these readers are reminded that being gay can involve anal sex.
Norm MacDonald. Weekend Update. 10/5/1996.
"Apparently, straight people are still uncomfortable with gay sex, because just about nobody wants to see this film."
Oh, yup. It's all about the "discomfort" of straight people. And the critics rave because it's a great movie which means it IS a great movie. /s
Or, how about this, straight people are just not interested in a "romcom" with which they do not identify and/or are reluctant to put money in the pockets of Eichner, who is a hater of people not gay.
There is a reason why people celebrate couples and tolerate couplets and other arrangements. Transgenders need to get over themselves and stop corrupting society for their narcissistic indulgence. Trans/homosexuals need to come to terms with their transphobia and appreciate tolerance.
Enigma writes, "The main reasons why heterosexual people are not interested in gay romances include apathy ("boring...not my type") and DISGUST."
Eet zee boogs. Bon appétit.
This reminds me of when the movie Selma came out in 2014. It was "historic," and all of us were obligated to see it. Critics loved it. And very few people went. And then the movie makers and critics said "shame on America for not watching this movie," and people continued not to see it. With the exception of mandatory school field trips, etc.
At the same exact time, American Sniper came out. It was a blockbuster. In its own way, it was truly historic (an Iraq war movie that wasn't focused on criticizing America's involvement). Theatres were packed. And the complaints went forward, "shame on America for flocking to this movie." And people continued to go. I actually remember an editorial - probably Charles Blow or someone similar - agonizing about why movie audiences chose American Sniper over Selma. "America isn't ready for this conversation," that kind of thing. Okay, I guess I'm not ready. Shrug.
Point being, trying to guilt trip people to watch something "historic" doesn't usually work. But make a high quality movie, while not patronizing or insulting your intended audience, that will win out.
"Wasn't "The Birdcage" the first major studio LGBT comedy?"
They define a category so that they can say something is a first. To deal with your question, they only need to say "The Birdcage" wasn't a *rom-com* OR that the couple in the rom-com situation was the young, heterosexual couple. Yes, there was an old gay couple too, and they were they main characters, but they were in the parent position vis a vis the couple whose relationship was in play. There was a second parent couple too, and they were heterosexual, and they had some problems to work out. But if it is a rom-com, the relevant couple is the young couple — a boy and a girl.
Gays just cannot win.
Boot-edge-edge seems to be doing OK.
The admission that homosexual intercourse is less fun now than when "straight people were uncomfortable with it" suggests homosexuality contains a powerful element of exhibitionism...
This is a good point. Living in proximity to San Francisco, it has always astounded me that gays just can't seem to live their lives without a perpetual, 24/7 'Look at me' mindset.
Gay flags, gay signs in windows, gay tattoos, leather everything, weird hair and piercings on the lesbians (guys too), parades, etc....
It's just a never-ending display of exhibitionism.
"Look at me, boring hetero breeder."
I was on a flight out of the gay Mecca, Palm Springs (ironic, I know) last year. A nondescript, slightly chubby 30-something Asian guy walked down the aisle wearing short-shorts (ass hanging out) and a T-shirt with huge letters reading 'Power Bottom.'
'Mommy, what's a power bottom?'
Why would anyone other than a narcissist live this way?
I don't give a fuck who you fuck, but do I have to be reminded and lectured about it every time I go to the city?
Looking forward to Althouse's review or at least a reason for not going.
And what would Titus think?
What's all this talk about Gary sex? Seriously, who cares? Gary can have as much or as little sex as he wants and can get. I don't see how a movie about Gary sex is going to draw anyone to the theater.
What's that?
GAY sex?
Oh. Nevermind.
Just saw this, pretty relevant, except i have NO IDEA who Naomi Watts was
https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/naomi-watts-was-told-her-acting-career-would-end-once-she-became-unf-able-at-40-that-made-me-so-md
The trailer looked like they might have been aiming for the Apatow-style gross-out comedy, like Bridesmaids.
"Has there ever been a more highly praised movie that's been this big of a flop?"
Silence, by Martin Scorsese, could be one, and perhaps for the same reason. Moviegoers just weren't that interested in a movie about the dark night of the soul that sometimes afflicts deeply religious people like the Jesuit missionaries in that movie confronting the silence of God. Those who who took a pass on Silence aren't all aggressively opposed to religion a la Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins or Chris Hitchens -- it was just not their idea of an entertaining Saturday at the movies. My guess is that it's the same with those who are taking a pass on Bros -- not anti-gay so much as looking for a more entertaining way to spend Saturday night than riding along with John and Joe as they roll in the hay.
"Has there ever been a more highly praised movie that's been this big of a flop?"
Silence, by Martin Scorsese, could be one, and perhaps for the same reason. Moviegoers just weren't that interested in a movie about the dark night of the soul that sometimes afflicts deeply religious people like the Jesuit missionaries in that movie confronting the silence of God. Those who who took a pass on Silence aren't all aggressively opposed to religion a la Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins or Chris Hitchens -- it was just not their idea of an entertaining Saturday at the movies. My guess is that it's the same with those who are taking a pass on Bros -- not anti-gay so much as looking for a more entertaining way to spend Saturday night than riding along with John and Joe as they roll in the hay.
News flash: If your lead actor goes on social media to attack the potential audience, you don't get to complain when the people attacked stay far away from your movie.
It's a "great gay rom-com"? Then I guess every gay should go see it
Pretty sure there's more than half a million gays in the US. Add in "gay allies" and the pool of people who supposedly should love this film is quite a bit larger than the number of people who went to see it.
So bitch at them
Quaestor said...
The admission that homosexual intercourse is less fun now than when "straight people were uncomfortable with it" suggests homosexuality contains a powerful element of exhibitionism
See pretty much any "Gay Pride" event
“Has America reached peak gay?”
Unfortunately, no, NTTAWWT. There’s nearly 100 years worth untapped in the Pervertian Basin…
Flip, flop and fly, Owen
…and it doesn’t hasta be a guy.
Billy Eichner should remake some of the Doris Day/Rock Hudson rom/coms with Lena Dunham. They would be really funny. Not ha-ha funny, but funny.
Billy Eichner is a prick. Hateful, divisive, judgemental and a bully.
He can be funny (the trailer above excepted). But actual acting in a dramatic role? Nope. Does he have leading man chops? Nope.
Do I chose to support actors/writers/directors when I don't like their politics? All the time IF, and only if, I have reason to believe the product is entertaining.
We went through this with Ghost Busters X, the all female cast. I watched it. Good lord it was terrible.
Sorry Ann. Sorry Billy. You can not use bullying or shame to sell me this one.
Has the demographic for this film put down the remote and started buying theater tickets yet? I haven't. (Not that I would watch this. Still trying to get around to Brokeback Mountain.)
Gays can go fuck themselves. And probably will.
Robert Cook,
Re: "natural hostilities," I like this passage from Chesterton (in The Common Man:
Very few people ever state properly the strong argument in favour of marrying for love or against marrying for money. The argument is not that all lovers are heroes and heroines, nor is it that all dukes are profligates or all millionaires cads. The argument is this, that the differences between a man and a woman are at the best so obstinate and exasperating that they practically cannot be got over unless there is an atmosphere of exaggerated tenderness and mutual interest. To put the matter in one metaphor, the sexes are two stubborn pieces of iron; if they are to be welded together, it must be while they are red-hot. Every woman has to find out that her husband is a selfish beast, because every man is a selfish beast by the standard of a woman. But let her find out the beast while they are both still in the story of "Beauty and the Beast." Every man has to find out that his wife is cross—that is to say, sensitive to the point of madness: for every woman is mad by the masculine standard. But let him find out that she is mad while her madness is more worth considering than anyone else's sanity.
I have zero interest in this movie. Sorry, I was born this way.
mikee said...
Remake this with steaming hot lesbians and see box office history.
Tell me I'm wrong.
Is the movie stupid and boring with hot lesbians pleasuring each other?
If so you are wrong.
Pornhub is free and has all of that in your own house.
Has there ever been a more highly praised movie that's been this big of a flop?
Yes that is the trend lately.
I’m gay. I wouldn’t go see that movie if I got free tickets and popcorn. But what do I know? 57yo white gay republican, so I only check a couple of the requisite boxes
Attracted by the drama, I watched the trailer, and like Laslo already pointed out, the lead actor is an unappealing mensch, like Billy Crystal in "When Harry Met Sally" without the wit and charm and funny lines.
Otherwise, it looked like a bad romcom with half the pronouns swapped. It was also a fascinating microcosm into the gay "community," in which people use their sexual preferences as their personality, radiating hostility against everyone who is not like them.
My late brother, who was gay, would have been appalled by this. He just wanted to live his life and not get drawn into the drama.
With any radical movement, underground is always cooler than mainstream. I was gonna say the gays blew it. Used to be fun to go to the Castro on Halloween and watch the show. Or catch the creepy weirdness of the Folsom St Fair. Now, meh. The only gay I wish would go away is a Wiener in Sacramento.
"The Birdcage" is a 1996 American remake of the 1978 foreign film "La Cage aux folles".
Now, there's a lot of discussion about whether the non-success of the movie should be attributed to "homophobia."
*********
If that's true, then I have a bad case of "herophobia" - can't stand the whole super-hero genre. Also "gynophobia" - can't stand movies focused on the friendships of a group of women. "Athlephobia" describes my dislike of movies about sports. "Fantaphobia" - prefer sci-fi over fantasy and let's wrap this up with "horrorphobia" (you can figure that one out).
Finally, I think most movies with "Rom" in them appeal to women - men wouldn't see such movies if it wasn't for a female partner nagging them into it. Would bet that plenty of straight women are willing to see this and are unable to nag their male partners into viewing with them.
It's absolutely amazing:
Under the right circumstances a man can make more money with a show that fails than he can with a hit.
Why won't you stupid, asshole homophobes see my movie?
Works every time.
Sign me up.
I never saw one piece of marketing for this film until after it opened. I suspect it is a combination of what I find interesting that doesn’t overlap in a Venn Diagram to how this was marketed and the low market budget. Now that it has flopped, I’m hearing all sorts of things from this writer, director, actor which makes clear that he doesn’t want me or anyone I know to see it. When I can satisfy people that easily, then it is a good day.
How do you know it is trash if you haven't seen it?
Because nobody else is, either?
Is there anything more repulsive than a tight two-shot of a couple of guys turning to smooch in a commercial? My wife thinks it's funny as hell seeing me cringe and curse. It's the gift that keeps on giving as far as she's concerned. Clearly, the product marketing folks are not planning on selling their products to the likes of me.
- Krumhorn
My-hand-to-God, I did not even know this movie existed until the "controversy" about no one going to see it erupted over the weekend.
The first gay romantic movie, comedy, was released, I think, in 1985, "My Beautiful Laundrette", with Danial Day-Lewis playing one of the main characters. As I recall, it was a pretty good movie. Bros is certainly not the first movie dealing with gay love.
Unlike most of the people here, I think this movie looks kind of funny, and I'd like to see it. I probably will watch it when it finally gets to streaming. But I can count the number of movies I've seen in a theater over the past couple of years on one hand, and they were all big special-effects blockbusters. It was extreme hubris on the part of the studio to think this film would draw big crowds at the Cineplex, when we're choosier than ever about what's worth going out, dealing with crowds, and paying relatively big bucks to see.
When it finally does get to HBO or Netflix, this movie probably will do well. I think a lot of people would be willing to give it a try, and will watch the whole thing if it makes them laugh.
Simple solution. All the militant LBGT people can buy a ticket or two or more online, but stay home to avoid a bad movie. Maybe Biden Admin can fund it somehow.
Some of the normal GLB can pitch in if they want.
Ace of Spaces superfan, Victor Davis Hanson called me a while back and asked if I also suspected Drago of actually being Ace. "Notice how cruel his comments are," Hanson said, "and isn't Drago a reference to an 80s era Stallone movie? That's totally an Ace thing you know."
So yeah, I can see that.
According to a new Entertainment Weekly poll, 72 percent of their readers would be offended if a TV show's lead character were gay. Though that figure sinks to 1 percent when these readers are reminded that being gay can involve anal sex.
Norm MacDonald. Weekend Update. 10/5/1996.
I had to read that a few times to be sure of what it said, and what it says is the opposite of what I thought it did at first.
I tried telling people on the internet that bringing up anal sex every time the topic was gay marriage wouldn't score any points for the against side.
I thought that was because people thought anal sex was disgusting and something they didn't want to think about, but maybe Norm got it right.
Based on the numbers not even gay people want to see his film.
We who are not gay are completely uninterested in gay sex.
. Has there ever been a more highly praised movie that's been this big of a flop?
Isn't the web site, Rotten tomatoes, all about the difference between "professional" reviews, vs the peoples voting with their money and time?
Broke Back Mountain, is a punchline, more that a movie.
Trying to get a lot of people to care about what 2% of the population is up to, is a big lift.
readering: "Still trying to get around to Brokeback Mountain."
"get around to Brokeback Mountain".
I see what you did there.
Ted: "When it finally does get to HBO or Netflix, this movie probably will do well. I think a lot of people would be willing to give it a try, and will watch the whole thing if it makes them laugh."
You really need to listen to a review of this movie from someone who is knowledgeable, sympathetic to this genre and did go and see this disaster of a flick:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9O3dbf5jhc
Let's just say there weren't alot, or many, or even few, laughs.
Eventually, someone will make a rom-com featuring a brother and a sister...and after it bombs, the producers will accuse audiences of being "consanguinophobic". (Is that a word? Well, it is now.)
According to a new Entertainment Weekly poll, 72 percent of their readers would be offended if a TV show's lead character were gay. Though that figure sinks to 1 percent when these readers are reminded that being gay can involve anal sex.
Norm MacDonald. Weekend Update. 10/5/1996.
I had to read that a few times to be sure of what it said, and what it says is the opposite of what I thought it did at first.
I tried telling people on the internet that bringing up anal sex every time the topic was gay marriage wouldn't score any points for the against side.
I thought that was because people thought anal sex was disgusting and something they didn't want to think about, but maybe Norm got it right.
NOPE. I TYPED IT WRONG.
The professional critics, and those who have to back their opinions with a real name can't give an honest evaluation else they'll be ostracized or cancelled by their industry peers.
So you end up with an equivalent to Putin's generals telling him what he wants to hear. Only for him to find that army he has in the field isn't as big and strong as he thought it was.
GrapeApe, thanks for your personal info. A question: why won't you see it? I know why *I* choose not to see certain rom-coms (I'm a plain vanilla straight white woman - though that's not all I am). It's generally for one of these reasons:
1. The woman I'm supposed to identify with is annoying.
2. The story is utterly unbelievable.
3. The man is not my type.
4. Someone is stupid.
Any or all of these can be overcome by one good kissing scene - e.g. "No Strings Attached," in which Natalie Portman is annoying, Ashton Kutcher is not my type, and everyone is stupid, especially all the women and, perhaps tellingly, the gay roomie, whose periods are all supposed to have "synced up" despite all scientific evidence to the contrary, but there's one great kiss in the closing credits.
Of course, I had to stream it on a rainy day to find that out. Certainly I never bought a ticket.
So - from your very individual perspective, what is/are the factor/s against seeing this movie?
I thought that was because people thought anal sex was disgusting and something they didn't want to think about, but maybe Norm got it right.
A woman asked her OBGYN if she could get pregnant from anal sex. "Of course!," he said. "Where do you think lawyers come from?"
"Silence, by Martin Scorsese, could be one, and perhaps for the same reason. Moviegoers just weren't that interested in a movie about the dark night of the soul that sometimes afflicts deeply religious people like the Jesuit missionaries in that movie confronting the silence of God."
I saw that and I thought it was very good. (And I'm not religious at all.)
@Michelle Dulak Thomson:
I enjoyed the quote you provided by Chesterton. (The only thing of his I've read is The Man Who Was Thursday.) His comments, I'm sure, were intended, at least in part, to be humorous in a wry way. To the degree his description of male and female perspectives and feelings toward each other are well-observed, and I think they are, I would characterize these "hostilities" as lesser "irritations." (Of course, irritations can grow into hostilities.)
Jamie 10:06 p.m.
The trailer and commercials didn’t put it in a funny light.
And damn sure not going just because I’m gay. I’m not opposed to seeing a film in this genre (just watched Love at the Villa a couple days ago on Netflix), but it has to be funny. This pic just doesn’t look the part.
Robert Cook,
Glad you liked the GKC. (Would be curious to hear your opinion of The Man Who Was Thursday. It might be a bit bewildering to someone who isn't a Christian -- or, for that matter, to anyone else. It is subtitled "A Nightmare," you know.)
As to its being humorous: Well, of course; practically everything Chesterton ever wrote (I except his columns from the Great War, which are deadly serious) was humorous. But here his is also a serious point. Men and women, individually or collectively, are different enough that absent the bond of love, there is nothing left but animosity.
Does this, by chance, have anything to do with the transgender craze? Because it really is a craze, judging by numbers alone. Boys and girls (they're not old enough to be men and women) are flat-out opting out of the gender binary altogether, in large numbers. If there is anything at all to GKC's theory, they are avoiding that confrontation that there always is in "boy meets girl" for . . . I don't honestly know what, but evasion it certainly is. Maybe they don't want to grow up. Maybe they want to be "special." Maybe they even want to be "a case." But to want something so badly that you'd chop off your own breasts to get it, or have your clitoris turned into a sorta-penis with the help of lots of skin from your arms . . . . Perhaps "I don't get it." I'm quite willing to concede that.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा