Bros (2022)

[BSR]

8 hours ago, Peter Eater said:

Eichner is correct. Of course the movie-going public is homophobic. America is homophobic, so why should the American movie-going public be any different? 
As for needing to “identify with the lead” in order to succeed, that’s why you’re not in the movie business. You’ll be shocked to learn that I am not a crazy rich Asian.

 

Aberrations aside, as a general rule, yes, moviegoers do need to identify with the protagonist.  Straight women go to rom-coms with female protagonists to feel the thrill of falling in love; men see action/adventure movies with male leads to fantasize about feats of derring-do.  Exceptions of course, but the exceptions have to be particularly well done to hook in an audience.

By the way, I heard the marketing for Bros was $30 million, not $40m.  Still, an eye-popping marketing budget for a movie that cost only $22 million to make.  $30 million to make just $4.8 million in its opening weekend?  Oy.

I don't think America is a homophobic country.  Yes, some people here are homophobic, but as a general rule, no.  Of course, the Cult of Victimhood disagrees. 

[Guest]

19 hours ago, Lucky said:

A friend in LA saw it this weekend and said the packed house laughed throughout the movie. He recommended it to me.

Interesting, if it grossed $4.8 mill in 3,300 theaters, that’s about $1,500/theater.  
If each theater had 5 showings, that’s $300/showing

if a ticket is $15(?), then that’s 20 people per showing.  
hardly “packed” averages unless the venue is quite small.

It’s not homophobia.  It’s lack of interest. To its benefit and favor,  Gay culture is not the center of mainstream attention that it thinks it is.  With graphic cinematic sex, probably even less so.  

Interesting that the marketing budget was so large.  I never saw any promotion of it anywhere and only learned of it from the headlines of its dismal failure.  I suspect they spent the money on narrowly defined algorithms leading to to a very targeted demographic.  

Edited October 5, 2022 by BnaC

[Peter Eater]

3 hours ago, BnaC said:

It’s not homophobia.  It’s lack of interest.

Now explain the huge success of Crazy Rich Asians, a niche comedy with no stars and a big promotional budget.

Given your deep insights about Bros being a niche comedy that nobody knew about but that turned people away with graphic sex, it should be fun.

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, Peter Eater said:

Now explain the huge success of Crazy Rich Asians, a niche comedy with no stars and a big promotional budget.

Given your deep insights about Bros being a niche comedy that nobody knew about but that turned people away with graphic sex, it should be fun.

apples/oranges…what’s there to explain?

Beyond that, I’m straight, monogamous, and a heavy online user.  The fact remains that as often I’m online, I never heard of this movie until I saw headlines this week announcing its dismal performance.  So, clearly they didn’t target a straight demographic trying to turn out numbers. I’m guessing it won’t fare any better than Blue is The Warmest Color that’s had a worldwide gross in 9 years of $19million.  

[+ Lucky]

4 hours ago, BnaC said:

Interesting, if it grossed $4.8 mill in 3,300 theaters, that’s about $1,500/theater.  
If each theater had 5 showings, that’s $300/showing

if a ticket is $15(?), then that’s 20 people per showing.  
hardly “packed” averages unless the venue is quite small.

It’s not homophobia.  It’s lack of interest. To its benefit and favor,  Gay culture is not the center of mainstream attention that it thinks it is.  With graphic cinematic sex, probably even less so.  

Interesting that the marketing budget was so large.  I never saw any promotion of it anywhere and only learned of it from the headlines of its dismal failure.  I suspect they spent the money on narrowly defined algorithms leading to to a very targeted demographic.  

You weren't there, so don't challenge my remarks based upon some statistical analysis that falls flat when you realize the theater was in LA. Lots of gays showed up. Is there any limit to your bigotry?

[Peter Eater]

57 minutes ago, Lucky said:

You weren't there, so don't challenge my remarks based upon some statistical analysis that falls flat when you realize the theater was in LA. Lots of gays showed up. Is there any limit to your bigotry?

You’ll notice he just ignores what he cannot answer, which is a very bro thing to do. 🙃

 “It’s a Wonderful Life” was also a box-office flop, so a rough start isn’t the end of the world. With good word of mouth and streaming audiences, “Bros” could still make a profit - and box office is not the only gauge of merit in a Marvel-mad movie world. 

[Becket]

I'll definitely see it.....when it comes to HBO.  Yes, I still have cable. 🥴 I've tried streaming, but I'm so used to clicking through all the channels on the remote. Haven't figured how to do that on streaming yet.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Lucky said:

You weren't there, so don't challenge my remarks based upon some statistical analysis that falls flat when you realize the theater was in LA. Lots of gays showed up. Is there any limit to your bigotry?

Ummmm, I specifically referenced averages and did not challenge your observation.  But the data clearly suggests your observation was atypical.  Since that conclusion was not apparent to you,  I can try to be more clear next time if a topic like this arises.  

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Peter Eater said:

You’ll notice he just ignores what he cannot answer, which is a very bro thing to do. 🙃

 

“Brokeback Mountain” had huge mainstream success despite a clearly gay theme.  Good acting, good actors, good story, etc. 

If the response to this one is homophobia, then I’m guessing “Brokeback Mountain” would have been a flop too, Right?

Is it not possible that this movie had bad acting, bad actors, or a story that lacked widespread appeal?

I’m not sure what “Crazy Young Asians” has to do with anything, but I asked the question and you’ve not responded.   If it’s because it’s a Rom-Com, then the difference is appeal to women who are the primary buyers of rom-com themes…where “women” find the man of their dreams.  Hence- apples/oranges.  

[+ WilliamM]

16 minutes ago, BnaC said:

“Brokeback Mountain” had huge mainstream success despite a clearly gay theme.  Good acting, good actors, good story, etc. 

If the response to this one is homophobia, then I’m guessing “Brokeback Mountain” would have been a flop too, Right?

Is it not possible that this movie had bad acting, bad actors, or a story that lacked widespread appeal?

I’m not sure what “Crazy Young Asians” has to do with anything, but I asked the question and you’ve not responded.   If it’s because it’s a Rom-Com, then the difference is appeal to women who are the primary buyers of rom-com themes…where “women” find the man of their dreams.  Hence- apples/oranges.

Brockback Mountain  had . major stars including Scott Baio.

[Guest]

We saw this on Friday and laughed pretty hard. Most of the people in the theater (Burbank) were laughing pretty hard as well. I do suspect many of the jokes might not land for people who aren't familiar with gay culture. 

[tenderloin]

Can we please stop slapping the label "homophobic" on everything? I support my lesbian sisters fully and completely, but I am not necessarily going to buy a ticket to a lesbian-themed movie.  That doesn't make me gyno-phobic.   I have many many straight friends who love and support me, but they ain't gonna see this film. 

And, quite frankly, I have less and less tolerance for the gay world stereotypes depicted in movies like this: according to them, we're all witty, white, wealthy enough to spend tons of time at leisure, have fabulous abs, are superficial in our judgments and vicious in our putdowns, spend more time in clubs and parties than we do anywhere else....

The reason that films such as "Brokeback Mountain" and "Call Me By Your Name" were commercial successes with mainstream audiences is that they didn't depict the life of the fabulously shallow 1%, but ordinary folks living real lives. 

[MikeBiDude]

4 hours ago, WilliamM said:

Brockback Mountain  had . major stars including Scott Baio.

You’d better research this a bit, Scott Baio was not part of the cast 🤷🏻‍♂️maybe you’re thinking of Jake Gyllenhaal?
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0388795/
 

[samhexum]

1 hour ago, MikeBiDude said:

You’d better research this a bit, Scott Baio was not part of the cast 🤷🏻‍♂️maybe you’re thinking of Jake Gyllenhaal?
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0388795/
 

I get the two mixed up all the time.  I loved Jake in CHARLES IN CHARGE (with the original CBS cast, as opposed to the syndicated family, of course).

[BSR]

 

7 hours ago, BnaC said:

“Brokeback Mountain” had huge mainstream success despite a clearly gay theme.  Good acting, good actors, good story, etc. 

If the response to this one is homophobia, then I’m guessing “Brokeback Mountain” would have been a flop too, Right?

Is it not possible that this movie had bad acting, bad actors, or a story that lacked widespread appeal?

I’m not sure what “Crazy Young Asians” has to do with anything, but I asked the question and you’ve not responded.   If it’s because it’s a Rom-Com, then the difference is appeal to women who are the primary buyers of rom-com themes…where “women” find the man of their dreams.  Hence- apples/oranges.  

A number of other gay-themed movies have done stellar box office:  Philadelphia, The Bird Cage, Bohemian Rhapsody, Rocketman.  American moviegoers accept gay protagonists and gay stories just fine.  

But a gay rom-com is a different beast.  Straight women love rom-coms (and drag their husbands/boyfriends kicking & screaming) because they aspire to live the same romance as the female protagonist.  These moviegoers simply don't identify with a gay male protagonist.

I hesitate to talk about the big box office of Crazy Rich Asians because I haven't seen it, but I will say that regular comedy is far more universal than the romantic comedy genre.  You don't have to identify with Asian (or black or Jewish) characters of a comedy to get a good laugh.

[+ WilliamM]

1 hour ago, samhexum said:

I get the two mixed up all the time.  I loved Jake in CHARLES IN CHARGE (with the original CBS cast, as opposed to the syndicated family, of course).

Scott Baio was always  Charles in Charles in  Charge. In the last episode  Baio as  Charles mentioned he had no last name 

[samhexum]

1 hour ago, WilliamM said:

Scott Baio was always  Charles in Charles in  Charge. In the last episode  Baio as  Charles mentioned he had no last name 

Yes, he was always Charles, but the original CBS family (CIC Classic, to uber-fans) was replaced by an inferior family (CIC Lite) when the series was dropped by CBS then continued with a syndicated version.

 

[+ WilliamM]

2 hours ago, samhexum said:

Yes, he was always Charles, but the original CBS family (CIC Classic, to uber-fans) was replaced by an inferior family (CIC Lite) when the series was dropped by CBS then continued with a syndicated version.

 

How did Charles (Scott)get an inferior family?

Yikes

[samhexum]

4 minutes ago, WilliamM said:

How did Charles (Scott)get an inferior family?

Yikes

To avoid the risk of being dinged for going off-topic, I'll tell you in a private message.

[BuffaloKyle]

On 10/5/2022 at 4:55 AM, BnaC said:

Interesting, if it grossed $4.8 mill in 3,300 theaters, that’s about $1,500/theater.  
If each theater had 5 showings, that’s $300/showing

if a ticket is $15(?), then that’s 20 people per showing.  
hardly “packed” averages unless the venue is quite small.

From the article I posted it did say San Francisco was one of it's best markets with the midwest and south doing the worst:

Bros‘ top 10 theaters were all in New York, San Francisco and Los Angeles. It did decent business in several other major cities, including Chicago. Otherwise, it has been a bust so far.

[+ Lucky]

Hubby and I took in a matinee today of Bros. Were it not for Luke Macfarlane, I would have walked out. The Eichner character is way too obnoxious, but hubby points out that he is like a lot of New Yorkers.

Macfarlane is very appealing.

We didn't hear many laughs from the other three people in the audience.

[Peter Eater]

On 10/5/2022 at 10:09 AM, tenderloin said:

And, quite frankly, I have less and less tolerance for the gay world stereotypes depicted in movies like this: according to them, we're all witty, white, wealthy enough to spend tons of time at leisure, have fabulous abs, are superficial in our judgments and vicious in our putdowns, spend more time in clubs and parties than we do anywhere else....

Obvious that you haven’t seen “Bros,” since it projects roughly none of this.

Check your stereotypes. (None of those expressing agreement with you have seen it either, which says a lot.)

Edited October 7, 2022 by Peter Eater

[Becket]

I do it too. Nice to see we can all still get into a hussy fit about nothing.  Pettiness has nine lives, too.  

[Andy768]

For me this was a swing and a miss. I've read that some of the people involved with the film felt in retrospect that it was a mistake to market it as a "history lesson" film, but that feels like a pretty accurate representation of how it came off to me: "after school special"-type messaging/subtext in an ostensible romantic comedy. Without sugarcoating it, the plot, writing, and acting of the rom-com part itself really didn't feel much different from some of the low-budget direct-to-video gay movies from the 1990s. I'm kind of surprised that it's apparently a critical darling - like, did we see the same movie?

That said, I was happy to support the box office of a big studio-funded film like this, which I think really was a heartfelt effort by Eichner and the rest to produce something good. I appreciate the attempt even if it missed the mark for me, and I hope it doesn't slow opportunities for more big studio-funded LGBT films in the future.

Also, I was listening to a fairly liberal-minded, young, straight woman talk about it, and she thought the sex scenes were egregious. Which was a wake-up call as to how inundated I am in my gay universe because - well, of course I didn't bat an eyelash at the content - but I really didn't realize how distasteful it might come off to even generally open-minded people.

[myophile]

Just saw it with my husband — we thought it was adorable. Earth-shaking? No. Ground-breaking? DEFINITELY not. But often clever, and sometimes hysterical, and in the end, sweetly moving. Very much a standard rom com, but a good ride, and well worth seeing, in my opinion.

Edited October 10, 2022 by myophile