“Bros” Bombs At The Box Office

Did it get any marketing?

That is a horrible BO number for a movie so well reviewed.

Should have been platformed instead of wide release. Call Me By Your Name did $18 million in platform.

Also this opened too late. It should have opened in late July or August so it could have been buoyed by Pride Month cross promotions. I think Universal wanted it to get festival buzz but there were too many films premiering at once and it got overshadowed at Toronto.

Still, I will see it today.

People want good shit, bro.

Besides everything R2 mentioned, I think there might have also been a fundamental misunderstanding of what sort of gay content appeals to fraus.

R1 yes. It’s been marketed to death. I see posters and commercials for it like crazy.

Fact is gays are in over their head with the mainstream world. They think the world is gonna see a romcom about two guys dating in theaters but reality is most aren’t. They may be willing to stream it on Netflix but most aren’t seeing it in theaters.

Call Me By Your Name was a critical darling and serious drama. It was not a rom com

Bros, Lightyear and Eternals which has lgbt rep all bomb at the box office, Queer as Folks got cancelled but Jeffery Dhamer is a #1 hit at netflix…..

Hmmm society…

Realistically, the only movies that are likely to do well at the box office are the huge blockbusters - Maverick, Marvel, Halloween - and buzzy Oscar-bait movies.

Movies like this should accept that they're destined for Netflix or Amazon and should be budgeted appropriately.

With that said, CMBYN only made $18 million domestically. People speak of it like it was a box office hit. It wasn’t.

[quote]Movies like this should accept that they're destined for Netflix or Amazon and should be budgeted appropriately.

This. It was hubris to think this film would open big at cinemas.

Maybe the public is sick of LGBT shit.

I will add… I think this film should have had a lot of celebrity cameos, like a Woody Allen 90s film, because Billy Eichner is largely associated with his uncomfortable-celeb street skits. However the creatives made a very bizarre decision that they only wanted an all-LGBTQ cast and that hurt it in my opinion.

R8, yea they would rather watch a serial killer gay guy who eats their victims.

I think the studios should bring back “gays as villains” again it’s still very popular..

[quote]Did it get any marketing?

It got way too much marketing. The studio probably blew another $15 million on marketing alone. Eichner will be persona non grata at Universal after this.

I’m very upset by this.

A lot of times things like this only get once chance….other minorities show up for their movies but FAGGOTS have better things to do like watch homophobic Housewives slay on Bravo!

Brokeback Mountain only made $178 mm at the box office, and it had Oscar buzz and was highly anticipated as an LGBT-themed movie.

Rom coms in general rarely hit $200mm. My Big Fat Greek Wedding is the highest grossing one at $241mm. Crazy Rich Asians hit a total comparable to Brokeback at $174mm and it's the sixth highest grossing rom com of all time.

There was little chance that this movie was going to surpass $100mm. Sweet Home Alabama is #15 and only made $127mm.

Like, who did Billy Eichner think he was? He’s not romantic leading male material, not even in a gay film.

It's neither fish nor fowl. It's a 1990s early 2000 cis white gay male romance in 2022 with a bunch of queers and POC thrown in as window dressing.

Also Eichner is seen by most of liberal America as that funny loud NYC gay guy, not exactly strong enough to carry a lead, even less a romantic lead. (I happen to think he is handsome. )

It's like West 40s on steroids.

Brokeback Mountain was a very rare case of a gay film being a hit, and that is because it was so controversial at the time that people went to see it. It’s also been noted the majority of its audience were women and gay.

Gays are in over their heads with mainstream America. And ive been saying this. That’s why I get so upset when gays attack “wokeness”. Wokeness is what’s keeping gays represented.

I think this is a Billy Eichner problem, not a gay content problem. I am gay and I am not seeing this film because i find Eichner highly irritating and the opposite of a leading man.

Brokeback was advertised as a cowboy film and even had posters of jack or ennis with their wives. So many audience walked out when they realized it was a gay film.

These numbers are taken out of context. It was #1 box office for its time period. Hardly a "bomb". And the reviews have been extremely positive.

Well Brokeback also had Ledger and Gyllenhaal, two major stars at the time. These two are nowhere close.

If we go see it, everyone in the multiplex will know we're homosexuals!

I’m also going to opine on one more thing:

Billy Eichner is unlikeable. Many of the gays on here do not like him. And even though being difficult or unlikeable is part of his schtick, unlike say, Woody Allen or Larry David who also created neurotic curmudgeon personas, Billy comes across as needy and desperate to be liked, while the other project aloofness which makes them more tolerable.

Brokeback was promoted as a Cowboy film.

Sweetie, it doesn’t matter who they cast, most people aren’t gonna see it. Gay content mostly flops.

This is why Brokeback Mountain was a hit!

Everyone knew what Brokeback was about from early on. It was the biggest punchline in American popular culture at the time. Weird ahistorical take that no one has any idea it was gay until they walked into the hermetically sealed local cinemaplex.

[quote]These numbers are taken out of context. It was #1 box office for its time period.

No, it's not. It's behind Smile, Don't Worry Darling and The Woman King.

R28 Those aren't posters, those are For Your Consideration ads.

I blame the vanity of Billy Eichner. He should have cast someone else to play his part.

America sees him as a clown, not a leading man.

Well to be fair, even heterosexual romantic comedies bomb these days.

Bros should have straight-bait.

Yes, but he had the common sense to cast the hot and handsome Luke MacFarlane.

This was supposed to be a rom-com? Why isn’t Jennifer Aniston in it?

Most people don’t watch gay content. Look at numbers. They don’t lie.

[quote]Sweetie, it doesn’t matter who they cast, most people aren’t gonna see it. Gay content mostly flops.

Casting is obviously a factor (not the only factor of course) and it's silly to pretend it isn't. More normies watch a film because it has an actor they like than because it was reviewed well by A. O. Scott.

[quote] That’s why I get so upset when gays attack “wokeness”.

It's the term "woke" that's the problem.

I went online last night to reserve tickets for the 1:30 matinee today and every seat was available.

I’d pay to see it on Prime.

This is why we need “straight” actors to play gay roles. A straight actor could have sold this movie to the general public.

It'll be on Peacock by mid November.

R29 put it well. Eichner has been promoting the hell out of this movie, but the main reason people aren't seeing it is because of him and his desperate pandering. Guys (mostly) included.

R19, you notice you didn't get any likes (I just gave you one) while other, meaningless posts did? Because a lot of white DLers are assholes who are in denial as to what woke means. They think it only applies to racial/religious groups.

They're the ones who enable the deplorable mentality by saying "woke is the problem," because they're too stupid to understand that this movie was made specifically due to "woke people.."

You think the racists and bigots are your buddies because you commiserate over your mutual hate for a black mermaid or a black hobbitt and shriek about "woke" being the ruination of society?

Wake the fuck up: Homosexuality is normalized because of "woke" people. If this movie is rejected, it's by the very same people who have a problem with non-whites being cast in crap with dragons and talking fish.

[quote]Everyone knew what Brokeback was about from early on. It was the biggest punchline in American popular culture at the time.

R29 Exactly. It was no big secret that Brokeback was about gay cowboys prior to its release. In fact, many people at the time referred to it as "the gay cowboy movie" and was one of the most-anticipated films of the year.

I remember a year earlier (c. fall 2004) some paparazzo got some shots of Heath and Jake filming their nude scenes and it was the talk of the town as the photos circulated online.

I'm seeing it next week. Don't complain they are no gay-themed movies in the future if you don't support this film.

The reviews say it's very funny, why wouldn't you want to laugh? There are plenty of other actors than Billy in it.

Enjoy your homoromantic comedy. Us straights are taking the genre back in a few weeks!

As has been pointed out, it's a RomCom so that's a limited audience and it's POV reads liberal so it's unlikely MAGATs will see it even if they like RomComs. By its very nature, it's a limited audience film. I plan to see it because I love RomComs and I like Billy Eichner, but the clips do not look as funny as I had hoped.

R45 “Wake the fuck up: Homosexuality is normalized because of "woke" people.”

Yeah, just no.

R47, really?

Beenie Feildsten should have been casted. Wouldda beena hit.

"casted"

Has it been endorsed by Pete and Chasten?

[quote]With that said, CMBYN only made $18 million domestically. People speak of it like it was a box office hit. It wasn’t.

How was it not a hit?

BUDGET: $3.5 million

DOMESTIC: $18 million

FOREIGN: $23 million

TOTAAL: $41 million

That is pure profit.

Women will be able to watch it at home by themselves once it is streaming. Their husbands, and maybe girlfriends, don’t want to go see it with them in theaters.

Didn't "Longtime Companion" make money?

I like when movies bomb, they're available on the streaming sites sooner.

Also the vanity bullshit that a hot guy was going to fall for that troll.

Wait wait wait... You're telling me that Billy Eichner isn't a movie star?!?

We saw it Thursday evening and were two of only six people in the theater. Two of them (a seemingly straight couple) walked out about 20 minutes in.

I had never seen Eichner before, so didn't have any preconceived notions. He annoyed me a little but we both enjoyed the film and would recommend it as a nice way to pass a couple of hours. A good supporting cast and Luke is charming and sexy. It won't win any awards, but I would see it again.

[quote]Yes, but he had the common sense to cast the hot and handsome Luke MacFarlane.

Luke is very cute, but he is NOT a movie star.

Dan Levy could have opened it bigger

Wasn’t the movie Jeffrey a romcom? Why is this being promoted as somehow groundbreaking?

The movie’s problems can be summed up in 2 words: Billy Eichner.

R64 because it’s opening on 3k screens

[quote] I'm seeing it next week. Don't complain they are no gay-themed movies in the future if you don't support this film.

I hate this argument. It's like saying- Don't complain there are no black films if you don't support Medea. Why should we settle for garbage simply because it's what's being fed to us, and also be expected to be grateful for it? I'm a gay man who would love to see more gay characters in leading roles and more gay stories moved to the forefront. However, what I don't want, and would rather there be NO stories instead, is crap like this. This is all stereotypical, insulting bullshit wrapped in a PC taco.

What would be refreshing is to watch a gay themed film where the men just happened to be gay, and boxes didn't need to be checked every five minutes or so. Think of your all time favorite romantic comedy. (I don't really have one, but I'll pick one out of the air- Notting Hill.) I would much rather see a Notting Hill with two men that nearly the same script rather than a bunch of sex stereotypes and drag queens and trannies thrown in for points, etc. Why can't we have that? Why can't it just not matter what the sexual orientation of the two characters is once it's established? When I meet a guy in real life, and I'm interested, we don't quiz each other on who threw the first brick at Stonewall before we decide to go out or sleep together. We don't have orgies, we don't take stock in how many trans POCs we know... in short, we don't become professional "queers" in order to date each other. Why can't these films be the same way?

Miss Eichner, please stop self promoting on here.

I honestly think this would have done better as an off-Broadway play in Manhattan at a small theater. If it did well at the box office, it could've either moved to bigger house on Broadway or been turned into a movie. If it bombed off-Broadway, Eichner would realize there really was no audience for this.

[quote]I blame the vanity of Billy Eichner. He should have cast someone else to play his part.

I agree. NPH would have been a good choice. He appeals to straights, has good name recognition, and is a good comedic actor.

NPG is hideous

Billy Eichner is hideous

Romcom movies should have attractive actors if they want to succeed at the box office

Lmao the fact that you all are so in denial about the real world when it comes to gays… maybe it’s time to break out of your bubbles and travel.

Why the Will & Grace clip? Unless it was to show that sitcoms featuring gay stereotypes are just as lame as pretty much every other network rom-sitcom?

^ Now, that’s equality!🤠

If you wanted to “support” it (support a movie?), then you would have seen it opening weekend —when those $amts. mean something …waiting until next week, after it’s poor box office…no help at all. Jeepers!

Forbs.com says

[quote] Box Office: ‘Smile’ Tops Friday With $8.2 Million As ‘Bros’ Bombs

(Bros production cost is $22 million , not including advertising and other costs.)

[quote] Bros will probably end up with over/under $12 million domestic in the end, with the hope that PVOD will ride to the rescue. At least Universal is trying to keep the theatrical live-action comedy alive with the likes of Marry Me, Easter Sunday, Bros and Ticket to Paradise. But audiences still must make the proactive choice to buy a ticket if they still want more of its ilk.

[quote] Still, Eichner is not a star, Stoller is not a marquee director and the only marketing hook this one had was ‘the first mainstream LGBTQIA theatrical romantic comedy.’

This should have been a $4m film - not a $22 budget.

The marketing was bad - America is not ready to see two fags with their hands on each others asses as the main movie poster.

R19, that's not true. A lot of wokeness involves attacking gays and women. Also, attacking people in general who don't believe in transgenderism and don't want kids immersed in gender theology.

Essentially a gay identity politics vanity project. Unappealing leading man who’s at best a character actor and second lead is a nobody Canadian who’s not even particularly young. Title is confusing given the content. Utterly unsurprising that it’s a huge bomb. Will have a long tail on streaming, anyhow.

PROTECT TRANS INFANTS!

It's a Rom Bomb. At least theaters won't have to worry about social distancing

I would get excited to watch a gay romcom. Normally. But this trailer did nothing for me. I didn't really relate to any of the characters. But then again I've never been to an orgy and I don't live in a gay neighborhood with a job that revolves about me being gay. My friends are fairly diverse in their sexuality and I don't have a majority gay friend group. And I don't go to clubs often. I don't live at the gym. I just didn't relate at all what I saw.

We’re oversaturated with gay content now and there’s a backlash against trans and drag which inevitably gets mixed into gay content anymore. People are just staying clear of it. And let’s not pretend that Billy Eichner is not one of the most repulsive-looking creatures on the planet.

R82 also sums it up. Gay people have really become mainstream and boring and don’t all live in ghettos anymore. Gay films and tv are no longer revolutionary. There’s tons of it.

How are we oversaturated with gay content? Am I missing the over-saturation of gay?

[quote] "I think this is a Billy Eichner problem, not a gay content problem. I am gay and I am not seeing this film because i find Eichner highly irritating and the opposite of a leading man."

Same, R20. And I agree.

This is one of those masturabatory inside joke films that Hollywood loves to make.

BIlly Eichner just isn't a relatable star. Hell, he's not even a star. He's an aggressive street comedian. And that's great! He carved out his niche in a tough, tough world.

But mainstream RomComs usually live or die because of their star appeal. More than other genres, frankly.

Julia, Sandra, Hanks, Meg, Crystal, etc. were all great at serving as the audience's conduits into the narrative. Billy does not do this. At all. He doesn't represent the Every Man, the hot guy, the cool guy, the nerd. Instead, he's the tall, abrasive, slightly annoying asshole most of us don't really care for in real life. Except in small doses.

I think it's great he wrote the movie and chose to star in it. Good for him. But he was never going to bring the people in. No matter how well reviewed or well written.

I live in a town of about 10,000 people and I was shocked to see that BROS was playing in the local multiplex.

My guess is the closeted guys would never want to be seen by their neighbors going to see a gay movie.....and like was posted above - checking to purchase tickets for any performance this weekend: theatres nearly empty.

Turns out the movie is being review bombed which would negatively impact box office performance.

You'll be able to watch it on cable very soon...like in a few days.

r88 totally agree. and think your's is probably the best reasoning i've seen.

Straight people don’t want to see happy , rich gays living a better life than them. They want to see gay people suffering to make themselves feel superior and better. If the movie was associated with horror, murder, suppression , tragedy , it would do better in box office

R93 there are plenty of movies you wouldn't be interested in seeing. It's dumb to blame straight people for not wanting to go to a movie theatre to see something that doesn't try to relate to them in any way at all.

R90 don’t say that. The delusional gays in denial on here will deny it. They truly believe gays are just so adored and accepted. Lmao

R93 did you think a cameo by Debra Messing was supposed to bring in the fraus to watch a movie called "Bros"? How condescending.

You really think this movie isn't doing well because of review bombing? Do audiences even care about reviews?

Does anyone really want to spend $40 to go and see a rom com? Theaters are too expensive. People only want to see action movies on the big screen. This is better for television.

[quote]I didn't really relate to any of the characters.

If I only saw movies with characters I could "relate" to, I wouldn't see any movies at all. There are certainly very few gay movies that reflect my experience and worldview, but I've seen tons of them nonetheless. I want movies, gay and straight, to expose me to new perspectives and facets of life.

The worst part is that, like so many people in this thread, they will blame it's poor performance on it being gay, rather than poorly done with a lead who is simply not likable.

In turn, this failure will make future movies starring gay men harder to get made.

Review bombing? You mean bad reviews?

The whole promotion of it has been gay gay gay gay gay. Which is fine but that limits the appeal to about 2-4% of the world population. Most of their marketing was about it being the first gay rocmcom and featuring it all gay cast and being unapologetically queer. A lot of straight people would be interested in watching a romcom with interesting characters that are gay. But when you repeatedly say it is a gay movie that's mad by gay people for gay people don't be surprised when it has limited reach.

R100 if the leads were primetime ‘Ripley’ Matt Damon and Jude Law it would open over $20M

Straight people like to see the conversion.

[quote]Review bombing? You mean bad reviews?

"Review bombing" works in either direction - both good or bad reviews.

[quote] Essentially a gay identity politics vanity project. Unappealing leading man who’s at best a character actor and second lead is a nobody Canadian who’s not even particularly young.

Nailed it. Eichner cemented its death by casting himself as the lead. He needed an actual star to play his boyfriend to sell the movie but he of course refused to be upstaged and cast a Z-list Hallmark star past his prime in order to not be overshadowed.

Given Eichner’s tremendous ego, he would have probably shit all over this movie had it starred someone else. Remember his dog at Fire Island before he walked it back? This was a vanity project for him and an opportunity to signal virtue about how much he cares about “queer people” when he has never done anything in his life to lift up any other gay person in the industry but himself.

*dig

Oof cringe @ R67

I hope this movie was made on a shoestring budget... Cuz otherwise, with those box office numbers, it's never going to make back it's costs.

Congrats on Kevin Bacon and Kyra Sedgwick‘s daughter’s #1 movie in the box office with Smile. It was originally a streaming movie but Paramount made a last min decision!

[quote]Did it get any marketing?

I have been bombarded with ads for months, and there are posters for it all over the subway.

[quote]He needed an actual star to play his boyfriend to sell the movie but he of course refused to be upstaged and cast a Z-list Hallmark star past his prime in order to not be overshadowed.

Hey - Luke MacFarlane is hardly past his prime. More importantly, he's age appropriate for Eichner and smokin' hot.

Also, you can ridicule Hallmark, but the reality is that their stars are extremely popular among a very large segment of middle America. The overlap between middle America and sappy rom/coms is pretty high. In many respects casting a Hallmark favorite increased its audience potential. I mean seriously, who do you suppose is the target audience for rom/coms in general.

I explained this movie to a gay friend who is fully consumed with gay culture, Drag Race, American Horror Story, fully up to date with TV and films.

"Who is Billy Eichner?" was his reply.

There's no reason why a film with no big names can't be a hit (The Big Sleep, My Big Fat Greek Wedding) but you know, reality.

I'm taking the "Saturday Supper Society" to see "Bros" this afternoon. The BF is going with us to watch the movie. I've seen Bros twice in July (once on Fire Island-NYC). The studio execs, were asking our opinions about the movie. Tell u more later.

Sorry, there has only ever been one good theatrically-released gay film, and that was Andrew Haigh’s “Weekend.”

R67, I would LOVE a Notting Hill remake with two gay men (or woman) as leads.

Everything else stays the same.

It'd be very, very interesting how that turns out.

Hell, they remake everything anyway.

Never once heard of this movie anywhere.

[quote]Sorry, there has only ever been one good theatrically-released gay film, and that was Andrew Haigh’s “Weekend.”

But I'm A Cheerleader, Trick, Bedrooms & Hallways, Pride and Maurice all disagree.

R79 took the words right out of my mouth

R111, Hallmark isn’t just for Middle America frauen. I’m in a blue, East Coast state and the black ladies at my job are obsessed with Hallmark.

At this rate, will this movie even match the revenue of that Asian gay film Fire Island??

R63 = Dan Levy

Guarantee that Jim Parsons movie coming out in December about the guy with the dying boyfriend bombs too.

At least that one has Sally Field in it.

It looks like a stupid movie.

This is totally unexpected.

No female viewers would have any interest in seeing this.

Brokeback was promoted as a prestige film with its A-list director, well regarded screenwriter in Larry McMurtry and critically acclaimed source material.

R122, a reason to see any film.

[quote]Also, you can ridicule Hallmark, but the reality is that their stars are extremely popular among a very large segment of middle America. The overlap between middle America and sappy rom/coms is pretty high. In many respects casting a Hallmark favorite increased its audience potential. I mean seriously, who do you suppose is the target audience for rom/coms in general.

But are those people going to shell out $40 bucks to see a Hallmark rom com? Doubt it. This movie should have been straight to streaming.

Casting is a factor. I have to endure Eichner to watch AHS. I don't have to pay to endure him in a film. I feel badly for not supporting the movie, but I just can't stand him.

Billy laughed at Joel Kim Booster for Fire Island going straight to streaming when more people saw that movie than will ever see Bros.

He is truly getting what he deserves.

[quote]Dan Levy could have opened it bigger

One more proof that butt plugs are an essential part of every gay man's arsenal of love.

Per his Wikipedia entry, Eichner had a "Madonna-themed bar mitzvah" and is also "currently single and lives in Los Angeles".

Omg at that wiki profile picture. His eyes are on different latitudes.

I’m not familiar with Eichner but to be honest he’s tough to look at. They would have done better with an attractive lead. Women will see gay films but only if the guys are cute.

R133 = Andy Cohen.

Because I’m now morbidly curious, I tried to read this movie’s wiki plot summary. I’ll give Eichner this: He wrote a LOT of plot, far more than a romcom usually gets. However, it’s all gay gay gay gay gay. Like, wtf? His character hosts a gay podcast and is opening a gay museum and they go on a haunted cart ride about gay trauma and on and on and on. What? Why????

That guy from the Flash movie, what's his name?

Should have used him. And Shia Laboeuf as the boyfriend.

Well Billy Eichner is Box Office Poison!

[quote]This is why Brokeback Mountain was a hit!

It was because AnnE with an E showed her tits!

I don't care if George Clooney played the lead, straight people will not go see a gay movie aimed at gay people. The only mass marketable gay stories have to be palatable to straights. It's just a numbers game. There's not enough of us to make a movie a hit on our own. Why can't we be satisfied with quality gay projects for gay audiences on the low budget indy scale?

R136 yes, it's too much—completely insufferable. I think the majority of gay men, myself included, find this to come across as brow-beating, exhausting, and not really relatable. I am a Kinsey scale 6, but my love of men doesn't dominate every aspect of my life.

Comparing Brokeback and Bros is risible. Brokeback had E Annie Proulx, Ang Lee, Ledger, Gyllenhall, Williams, AnnE. Bros has .

The movie really needed a straight female best friend, played by an actress with star power.

I think "Fire Island" took the wind out the sails of "Bros".

We as a community just had a conversation about these movies where the guy rides off into the sunset with some gorgeous white man. In the case of "Fire Island" it was one of the leads but the statement still stands. What are we supposed to get out of these movies? Gay men aren't women, who have the entire world lifting up their relationships goals. So straight Rom-Cons are aspirational, marriage is realistic, dating is common. Gay Rom-Cons remind us that the MAJORITY of adult gay men are typically single, marriage is rare, long-term relationships also rare. These movies mean well but they mainly remind us that we are the bottom of the barrel with relationship stats and only a select few are lucky enough to find these Rom-Con love.

It's not aspirational, it's like being back in high school watching the beautiful people date while you spend Saturday night alone or with friends.

Now, I do enjoy these movies and will see this in theaters, but they always make me sad because it's just not the reality for me and most of my friends. Straight women know that statistically, someone out there will take 'em and probably marry them, regardless of race (those less so with black women sadly). The situations and experiences are so different. This may be why gay people don't flock to these films. And don't get me started on minority gays and the hundreds of complications they face in the dating pool.

Seeing "Bros" and "Fire Island" (Jane Austin) can leave you sad not happy. Why pay for that feeling when we can stream it for free in a few weeks?

R143 I agree!!!

Billy is just not likable. He is not sexy. He can be funny but a TWO-HOUR rom-com starring HIM? Who thought that was marketable or appetizing?

He should have gone to streaming. It would have gotten lots of social media buzz. But Billy's ego - already massive due to the fact that he wrote a romantic comedy around himself - had to have a movie that played in cinemas ONLY, when he has never proven to be a box office draw.

Bros was cute and had funny moments, but it needed a better lead actor than Billy himself. As with Viola and the First Lady series, Billy should have had the better sense to step aside and let someone else have the spotlight.

The film just drips of his massive ego. And people don't want to be told SEE THIS MOVIE! IT'S THE FIRST GAY ROMANTIC COMEDY FROM A MAJOR STUDIO!! IT'S HISTORIC!!

It just needs to be good. And it needs to be something people want to see, not need to see.

r112 sorry but your friend could not be "consumed and fully up to date on gay culture" and NOT know Eichner. Fuck he was even IN American Horror Story. I don't buy it.

R146. One reviewer said just this, that the movie is best when it's romcom funny and "stops dead" when it's trying to hit every LGBTQIA talking point.

[quote]These movies mean well but they mainly remind us that we are the bottom of the barrel with relationship stats and only a select few are lucky enough to find these Rom-Con love.

MARY!

Lol

Get a blog R44 to discuss your relentless trauma

Good point r148. The film should have dropped the museum subplot. It just didn't work.

The funniest part of Bros was the idea that all these hot NYC men want to include Billy as part of their threesomes.

R151 sounds like the Mindy Kaling approac to casting.

The movie industry is trying so hard to be inclusive it's become a joke.

Billy Eichner isn't someone women like and gay men don't like him either. He's not really well known either. He overstepped trying to lead a romcom. And he should have just put it on netflix. Not sure America is ready for men ass grabbing each other on movie posters either.

[quote] Movies like this should accept that they're destined for Netflix or Amazon and should be budgeted appropriately.

Netflix desperately wanted Crazy Rich Asians, but the director held out for a distributor that would put it in theaters. And he was right. I don't blame them for trying with this one, particularly with Apatow producing.

Has anyone checked on Billy??

[quote] Brokeback Mountain only made $178 mm at the box office, and it had Oscar buzz and was highly anticipated as an LGBT-themed movie.

LGBT was post 2010. No one was marking a gay film as LGBT because no such thing existed.

Some of the most medieval comments about this movie are coming from gay men…smh. You sound like you’re discussing an eighties TV movie about AIDS or something…someone has to be the first one to take a risk. Maybe BROS is doing that.

To R156, I'm pretty sure Billy is on DL& reading the comments!!

BTW Billy...You are funny, but not "leading man material" to carry a movie. Luke was perfect (and so Hot and Handsome).

Romantic

Bros is a true LGBTQ+ plus film and it lets you know many times throughout the film to exhaustion. No one should expect gay men to go see it since it’s not a Gay Rom-Com or a gay film.

R55 That isn't quite how the finances of Hollywood works. This is from a pretty old Slate article, but generally the points about theater release economics still stand:

"Consider, for example, Warner Bros.’ movie The Negotiator, with Samuel L. Jackson and Kevin Spacey. It was efficiently produced for $43.5 million, scored a world box office of $88 million, and appeared to be a modest success. In fact, Warner Bros. collected only $36.74 million from its theatrical release after it had paid check-conversion and other collection costs, the theaters had taken their cut, and the MPA had deducted its fee. Meanwhile, to corral that audience, Warner Bros.’ advertising bill was $40.28 million, and its bill for prints, trailers, dubbing, customs, and shipping was another $12.32 million. So, after the movie finished its theater run, without even considering the cost of making the movie, Warner Bros. had lost $13 million. Why? For every dollar Warner Bros. got back from the box office, it shelled out about $1.40 in expenses, which was about average, if not slightly above par, for studio movies."

Not that it might have made a huge difference, but whoever decided to release this at the beginning of October is braindead. Horror movies dominate this month, and "Smile" has gotten good reviews and a lot of buzz, so its box-office takeover is not surprising. People are more likely to turn out for horror flicks during this time of year. If they were going for a theatrical release, they should have released this is a summer flick.

Unlike black, Asian, or Latin movies, a movie like this still has the huge hurdle of potential audiences being afraid of being perceived as gay for going to see it. In fact, many bi and gay men won't go see it because going to see it would be perceived as outting themselves. Of course, straight guys might fear being perceived as gay if they go see it, in addition to the general disinterest or hostility to the subject matter.

Im going against the tide of popular opinion on here and say I think Billy is very cute . His face has character. I cant be the only one who also thinks he can be very funny. IIRC Trick did poorly and was much maligned but I saw it anyway and its still one of my favorites. But look at me,casting pearls before swine KNOWING you bitches hate any successful fellow gay .

Not only do studios think modern audiences want superheros to have big biceps and triceps, but apparently they think they should also have huge glutes.

I said this is in the other thread but I’ll say it again:

It’s a comedy, there’s no draw for those at the BO in 2022 and it’s a rom com, there’s definitely no draw for those at the BO in 2022.

As someone said, they put a Netflix / streaming movie in the theaters. These are pretty much unknown actors making a gay-themed movie in a genre that’s been dead at the box office for years.

This movie also has 2 really horrid unlikable gay characters. Billy is a white upper class “mean girl” gay. And his love interest plays another unlikable gay - the hot guy who hates you. And the scenario is so unbelievable, I don’t see why gay people would go out and see it.

And I don’t know why straight people would want to watch it either.

Also are you guys forgetting “Moonlight” was a hit? It had 2 unknown black actors in a black themed gay movie and it grossed $65 on a $1.5 million budget and won Best Picture.

A lot of the explanations aren’t adding up.

Saw it, loved butt agree BE is not a likable guy and not a very good actor, however his singing was great and un-expected.

[quote] Trick did poorly and was much maligned

Trick was neither. It actually got decent reviews (back when every reviewer wasn't in the pocket of the media) and grossed $2m. If you think that's nothing, for a truly indie gay film that had neither the marketing budget or wide release ability, and going all the way back to 1999 which was the internet in its infancy and could offer Trick minimal help, if any, that was a very good theatrical gross. Most regular indies made that.

Every claim BE has made about BROS has been a lie, hyperbole, or an insult to others (and betters).

If BROS goes right down the shitter, it's because he's too obnoxious for popular consumption.

But “black” movies benefit from having a community that turns out to see them based on identity solidarity and a goal of supporting movies that represent them. I got that message from other black people and black media regarding The Woman King, which is the big reason I went to see it. Gay people lack that type of solidarity and support for their movies

[quote] Also are you guys forgetting “Moonlight” was a hit? ... it grossed $65 on a $1.5 million budget

That's worldwide, not domestic. It only grossed $27m in North America and was at the bottom rung of Best Picture winner grosses.

Now, was it profitable? Yes. And this was not a film that was created to be a moneymaker. Everyone involved knew why they were making it, and it was not to get rich. So whatever they made was considered a bonus.

And the subject matter and style of the film, coupled with no recognizable names would tell you it would have been near impossible for it to do much better. But for a film that won Best Picture of the Year, an award that has the potential to carry many millions extra at the box office (if the film is still playing), Moonlight was a box office disappointment. But for a small film about black gay men that had no stars and no plot? It did great.

Haven't been to a theater in 20 years. Loud. Expensive. Packed. Streaming has been a blessing for me, and I'll be watching Bros there if they ever figure out which platform to run it on.

Jesus. Billys' eye is even more fucked than wonky Cohen. He looks in eight directions at once.

Does anyone go to the movies anymore? I can’t remember the last time I went, I just watch everything at home as movies are so quick to release on streaming services now. I’d like to see this but I’ll wait until I can watch it on my sofa.

I just saw this movie and loved it. However it should have been platformed. I think word of mouth would have greatly helped it.

I think the studio quixotically thought it might be an awards contender and pushed it for post-fall festivals. I’m skeptical it will break through the gridlock of a very busy awards season. It may eek out an Original Screenplay nom. Eichner and Macfarlane are excellent in their roles but I think the Academy won’t give gay people noms for playing gay roles.

[quote] It may eek out an Original Screenplay nom. Eichner and Macfarlane are excellent in their roles but I think the Academy won’t give gay people noms for playing gay roles.

First of all- OH DEAR!

Secondly, I don't even think Billy's rampant ego thinks he's going to get any awards attention for this, so I don't know whose asshole you pulled that speculation from.

A bit premature, non? TBF, I don't do theaters because garbage behavior has won the day in society and I also despise Billy Eichner, but don't whip out your self-hatred bones so quickly, Ma'am.

To be fair they premiered it at TIFF so they were hoping that it might get some awards prestige.

I worked TIFF and I can say there were many tickets up until screening date. It just didn't fit in at TIFF and it didn't have a big demand.

Did they tell you that, R180? Did they call you and say we're hoping for awards, R180, so we're premiering at TIFF?

Have you actually been to TIFF r181???

They want the prestige, including awards. It's all anyone talks about at TIFF.

No, what they want is publicity. And there are a handful of programs within TIFF for films that don't have a hope in hell of getting awards (Midnight/horror, etc.) so let's not pretend that getting a film to play in TIFF means your goal is awards. It's buzz. They were looking for cheap buzz for Bros.

They could barely get any buzz at TIFF. People were more interested in The Woman King, Glass Onion, Women Talking, not a rom-com starring Billy Eichner. Another blunder in marketing.

The last time I saw a movie in a theater was "Brokeback Mountain" at an upscale cinema in Boston.

A huge rat ran in front of me on my way to my seat.

I don’t know why so many people are comparing this to gay-themed dramas that were critically acclaimed/financial successes. This is a frivolous, uninspired studio romcom. They are not remotely the same. The only thing they share is that they’re about gay men. And I think this film’s poor box-office performance thus far suggests that gay men aren’t all that interested in a genre created that mainly exists for female audiences.

I am so easy to entertain. No need for big movies in a Cineplex.

I am amused by this guy. Watched a bunch of his shorts recently.

This will piss some folks off, but I think the LGBTQ meeting scene in the trailers hurt. I don't think people who are going to see a romcom want potentially political stuff in their films, especially in an election year. I'm not saying the movie is actually political, just that people think it might be.

I'd be interested in seeing how a gay romcom presented as a romcom with two gay dudes on the attractiveness level of Luke would do. If that failed, well, then there is no desire at all.

The Title itself is already a major turn off.

R188 Agreed. And that scene was just weak. Why lead with that? Shouting the words does not make them any funnier.

Between the failure of this and the cancellation of Queer As Folk, Hollywood is slowly learning that constantly lecturing viewers is a turnoff.

Everyone comparing this to why Black movies are successful are missing the point. Not every Black movie is successful. Black audiences have their megastars who people will turn out for, but there are plenty of Black movies that underperform. Most Black movies aren’t hitting you over the head with BLACK BLACK BLACK politics and lectures all the time.

Bros was written so preachily and to have one “teachable” moment after the other. We have had our share of heavy minority-focused movies but I can’t think of a single Black movie that was THAT preachy.

Hollywood needs to learn again that entertaining the audience comes FIRST. And we’re all so fucking EXHAUSTED from politics all the time that the LAST place we want it from is a fucking silly romantic comedy.

I honestly can’t ever remember a point in history when any and absolutely everything was so politicized all the time. Jesus people just want to be ENTERTAINED.

There’s a reason Top Gun is the biggest movie of the year.

"Bros" flopping = Pete will never be POTUS.

R174 It's a Universal release, so it'll be on Peacock. Most of their stuff has a 45 to 60 day window, so expect it sometime in November.

It'll be on PVOD in 2-3 weeks, though.

[quote] There’s a reason Top Gun is the biggest movie of the year.

Because straight people are boring?

No one wants to see a rom com featured two middle-aged white men

R195, Unless there's rampant full frontal nudity.

It’s been almost thirty years since the 90s but I remember that rom coms were usually slotted against a really big summer movie as counterprogramming. I remember when Addicted to Love opened opposite The Lost World: Jurassic Park. This movie should have opened against Top Gun.

In and Out made 63 million back in 1997. If you had attractive straight actors as the leads , more women would have gone and the box office would be better.

My hag told me she watched cmbyn because both actors were young and beautiful (in their 20s or early 30). Fraus like to see young and attractive men making love

The movie has a clear script problem!

There’s no ‘B’ plot line to bring in a youth or female audience. Rom coms always need a B plot, the sassy best friend, a bit uglier but with worldly wisdom. In Bros the clear ‘B’ plot line would be to add an element of surprise and set the view of the romance from multiple perspectives and hopefully a different generational perspective.

A surprise child.

Imagine if Billy’s prom night girlfriend, had gotten pregnant. A wayward 17 year old gay, with a cover girlfriend sleeps with his best friend while ending school and moving to NYC to chase his dreams. enter Ruth Negga, or Lupita Nyong'o in a bit part. Then the daughter turns up in NYC. Unannounced. To find the dad. The clueless gay dad who can’t date. The bitter a bit lost gay man living in a gay bubble. The daughter is Vendaya, or Olivia Rodriguez in her film debut. The buzz is all over TikTok. The B plot let’s others in. The rest of the film can stand as is. Reduce most of the pandering to every LGBTQIA’s+ subgroup as the subplot. It’s was a mistake.

Have a Tie In song pushed out by Olivia, via Tiktok. Everyone wings. Diversity casting done properly with appeal to women.

The film as it is has no broad appeal. Very simple.

[quote]Fraus like to see young and attractive men making love I guess we're not so different after all. In all seriousness, why the f is so much content these days coming out featuring absolute fugs? It sometimes feels as if the casting is done on purpose, as a way of saying FU to the viewer. Black or white, men or women (although obviously I would rather men), just make them pleasant to look at. It's Hollywood ffs.

I could almost stand to look at Bowen Yang's face on the big screen, but not Billy Eichner's.

[quote]What would be refreshing is to watch a gay themed film where the men just happened to be gay, and boxes didn't need to be checked every five minutes or so. Think of your all time favorite romantic comedy. (I don't really have one, but I'll pick one out of the air- Notting Hill.) I would much rather see a Notting Hill with two men that nearly the same script rather than a bunch of sex stereotypes and drag queens and trannies thrown in for points, etc. Why can't we have that?

[quote]it’s all gay gay gay gay gay. Like, wtf? His character hosts a gay podcast and is opening a gay museum and they go on a haunted cart ride about gay trauma and on and on and on.

Basically this. It's time to gay movies to take the next step. We need movies about gay people which isn't about them being gay. Why does Hollywood refuse to try this? I don't think it would be a difficult task.

I'd rather pay to watch the flawed-but-ahead-of-its-time Big Eden in theaters today than this obnoxious fest.

Love Simon went on to debut at $11.8 million, finishing fifth at the box office; 58% of its opening weekend audience was female and 59% was under 25. In its second weekend the film dropped 33% to $7.8 million, finishing 7th, and in its third weekend made $4.8 million, finishing ninth.

I just realized that the "Love Simon" trailer also ended with a straight joke, but one that wasn't really mocking straight people. I remember seeing that trailer with a sold out showing of "The Greatest Showman" and the last bit with people coming out as straight got a huge laugh from the crowd. I've seen the "Bros" trailer numerous times over the past several months and it always went over like a lead balloon.

Oooof you guys are vicious 😂 someone should check on Billy if god forbid he’s reading this stuff.

With respect to what’s important - can anyone who saw this film tell us about the sex scenes? What do they show?

Winner and still champ: Boys In The Band. 1970

Millions of people go to the movies every week. There’s no place on this thread for someone jawboning when they say they haven’t been to a movie theater in 20 yrs: Get a life! That’s so far out there…jeez

^that’s not meant to be any commentary on the film itself, since I’ve not seen it. Capisci?

The sex scenes are funny and kinda hot.

The first one is very raunchy, they’re kinda slap fighting and Billy starts sniffing Luke’s pits, then sticks his foot in his mouth. I thought it was funny. They really went for the physical humor.

There’s another, more tender love scene where Billy tops Luke.

If you only know Billy Eichner from those shrill, loud, obnoxious, rude, intrusive "Billy on the Street" videos, I wouldn't go see that movie either. He's so unappealing.

On the other hand, Luke Macfarlane is quite appealing.

Too bad Billy Eichner didn’t think to make his rom com in NOLA, with a local mis en scene—he would have had a big hit!

Billy tops Luke?!

Exactly! People here act like saying they haven’t been to the movies in 10-30 years is a flex. No, it shows you are a very culturally aberrant person who shouldn’t be consulted about modern tastes and sensibilities in movies. Movies are doing quite well now, if they are superhero and action movies

[quote]My hag told me she watched cmbyn because both actors were young and beautiful (in their 20s or early 30). Fraus like to see young and attractive men making love.

Which is why the straights will turn out for M. Night Shyamalan’s Knock at the Cabin next year. The ladies will swoon over dreamboats Jonathan Groff and Ben Aldridge playing husbands, and their boyfriends will show up for Dave Bautista.

^ Not that there’s anything wrong with that!

So Billy wrote a movie where he tops a really hot guy?

I see he graduated from the Lena "Patrick Wilson wants to fuck me!" Dunham school of screenwriting.

The marketing was terrible. They kept stressing how IMPORTANT and HISTORIC it was, kept adding qualifiers like THE FIRST MAINSTREAM STUDIO GAY ROMCOM* WITH AN R-RATING!

People don’t care about that shit. They just want it to be funny. Marketing made it seem like you MUST support this movie, it’s good for you. Huge turn off.

And Eichner best known schitck is being the irritating shouty guy. Who wants to watch that in a romcom even though his character isn’t his Billy persona.

Straight guys do want to see this though. I remember Terrence and Monte saying they can’t wait to see it. It’s a vibe.

I saw Bros yesterday. I’m gay but didn’t know anything about Billy Eichner beforehand. By the the end of the film I sorta hated him—he’s too much the asshole (and not in a good way.) the film had its moments and some funny jokes but the story kept veering sideways. You may want to see it if you’re LGBT+ but I can’t imagine straights loving this mess.

Roger Friedman of ShowBiz411 sees this failure (and his assumed failure of December's "Spoiler Alert") as the end of or at least the curtailment of studio produced gay content.

[quote] “Bros,” billed as an all gay comedy, is a box office disaster.

[quote] Total receipts for Thursday and Friday came to just $1.84 million. With another $2.5 million coming on Saturday and Sunday, “Bros” stands to make less than $5 million for its entire opening weekend.

[quote] “Bros” doesn’t have a huge budget — $25 million at most. But the movie has had a tremendous amount of publicity and marketing, a blanketing that most films would give their popcorn up for. This just means that the public at large had no interest in seeing not only a gay rom com, but one with graphic sex scenes.

[quote] “Bros” comes from Universal, which will also release a second film in this genre through its Focus Features soon called “Spoiler Alert.” Once that’s over, this genre may be severely curtailed. What a disappointment for Billy Eichner and Judd Apatow, but this is an example of Hollywood being insulated from reality even when it has the best of intentions.

apropos of nothing, every time I see the CMBYN acronym, I think of frozen yogurt

I think the poster who said the meeting scenes in the trailer kinda ruined it. I agree. They didn't market this as a gay rom-com; they marketed it as a "queer film". Almost like the love story is secondary. Plus, there's this smarmy, elitist NYC liberal thing that turns off Middle America and this movie oozes with it without even seeing it. I actually think a well done gay love story can be successful if it treats the characters and the outside world with respect.

Brokeback Mountain did this very well. It's still a beautifully done film. I know it was known then and is probably still seen cynically as the gay cowboy movie, but I think it's easily one of the best "romance" films ever. It wasn't preachy or pornographic or overwrought. You kind of felt for every character...even Ennis' girlfriend.

I think the constant dunking on Eichener is cute for kee-kee, but in reality he's low-rep enough that this could've worked. He's an average looking white man. I don't think enough of the public has a strong opinion on him for it to have been a terrible decision to have him lead the film. I think the Pride Parade cast was more eye rolling and hacky than inspired or groundbreaking. It's Hollywood; if anything, I bet gays are overrepresented behind-the-scenes. I have a lot of friends in the industry and there's no shortage of gays. None.

R221 OMG ME TOO. Why is that?

“ Roger Friedman began his Showbiz411 column in April 2009 after 10 years with Fox News, ”

Hmmm

Did Luke MacFarlane do any press? Billy was on all the talk shows but I don't remember Luke on any. If he was the "face" of the film it might have done better.

I heard it's funny but I don't want to be seen "watching a gay movie" in a movie theater, even with friends and family, I won't sit there!

[quote]the "no homo" stigma will prevent many guys ever talking about this film in favor, let alone buying a ticket and watching it in a movie theatre.

Exactly. I knew people who bought tickets for other movies and then snuck into Bros because they were too embarrassed to buy a ticket to a gay film.

The film’s top 10 markets are all in New York, San Francisco and Los Angeles, while it is underperforming in much of the middle of the country.

Why didn’t Middle America turn up for this?!

Billy was too old for the frau market. Fraus like their gays as either sassy queens or sexless, awkward schoolboys being all cute. No-one, not even the majority of the gay market, wants their movie escapism based on a middle-aged man sticking it to some other guy.

that's huge ⬆️, and not just straight dudes feel that way

That was just for Friday and the Thursday preview and that no one goes to unless its a comic book movie. Wait for the three day.

[quote] Most Black movies aren’t hitting you over the head with BLACK BLACK BLACK politics and lectures all the time.

Really? Since 2020 or so I feel like too many black movies do exactly that. As well as tv shows. For instance, I used to love Blackish. Then it turned into one big PSA on how stupid and horrible white people are. So boring and just not what I want from a comedy.

I think such overt agenda driven plot points is such a bad move for scripted moves and shows. I watch scripted material for that wonderful connection to a personal narrative that only scripted can offer. Something that moves me in some poignant way. What I don't want is a lecture. (I watch docs for that! And I Iove to learn from docs in that manner.)

R226 I would think such people would just wait until they could stream it.

Imagine if they reshot this movie with Jonathan Bailey and maybe set it in London or something other than played out NYC? Add accent, drop any preachy queer stuff and keep it gay, make it a Rom-Con and be done with it. Who the fuck is running Paramount?

Love, Simon was a reasonably hit movie about LGBT teen romance. So yeah, your explanations don't make sense. And I do think it failed because of the actors who are just unappealing.

Rotten Tomatoes gives this a 91% critic and audience score. The shilling really is out of control.

R6 Society desperately wants to villainize gays, it's comical. Like it's so awful we don't want to fuck fish nor reproduce.

Universal originally wanted Jacob Elordi and Zane Phillips to star. But Billy said no and insisted he star, which moved the whole cast’s age decades older. This might have worked better with a younger demographic instead of middle-aged men.

r234 "Love, Simon" was a Young Adults book first. That's demo has been hitting great sales thanks to 20-30 something adults reading teen books. So it had a boost.

The GP said NO to the ugly , unfunny and annoying Billy Eichner. If you want a successful gay romcom cast a gay leading man that is like-able, good looking and talented! Gays were let down big time!

r237 that's a funny joke but if those two were in a movie, especially Jacob, it would have gotten loads of buzz.

[quote] R6 Society desperately wants to villainize gays, it's comical. Like it's so awful we don't want to fuck fish nor reproduce.

So you're objecting to society's attempts to "villainize" you while simultaenously referring to half the world's population as "fish"...

Twenty years ago Ben and I could have done this better.

And we're not even fags.

[quote]The daughter is Vendaya, or Olivia Rodriguez in her film debut.

Oh, dear. X 2.

R238 Which is why the Red, White and Royal Blue movie adaptation will be a success. Teenage girls are very enthusiastic about it.

Give me an example of a hit straight rom com where the male lead was " ugly , unfunny and annoying" as R239 says.

A Rom-Com features a Julia Roberts, or a Jen Aniston, or a Jenny Lopez. It doesn’t work otherwise. This formula has been established.

They didn't have to have it be twentysomethings starring, but thritysomethings would have been a better choice than fortysomethings.

For the third time this year, we see someone pushing an interesting project where they insist that it has to star someone who is absolutely not a star. Ben Platt, Beanie feldstein, and now Billy Eichner.

I saw it Thursday night with about a dozen other people in a Long Island suburb, and I found it more cringe than funny.

It’s all-gay-all-the-time shoved down our throats; it gets tiresome. I actually wish he had made a high budget Hallmark movie.

And I thought the language was needlessly coarse; I’m sure Meg Ryan never pillow talked to Tom Hanks about his large cock penetrating her tight vagina, yet we are treated to such an exchange in this movie.

I know Eichner’s point that “love is love is love” is not true, that gay love is different, but I disagree.

A simple romcom about two guys falling in love, with supporting friends, etc., as more than one poster noted a gay Notting Hill, is what I’d like to see.

For my money, God’s Own Country is a terrific romance although not a romcom; I also highly recommend a Dutch movie called Just Friends, now running on Hulu and other platforms which IS a romcom, starring handsome young guys and interesting supporting characters. You’ll laugh, you’ll cry, you’ll finish the movie with a big smile on your face.

Saw it this afternoon. There were only 5 people in theater, my partner and I being 2 of them.

My exposure to Eichner has been limited. He managed to create the most annoying characters I've ever seen in a movie and he never shuts the fuck up. He is so unappealing.

As I understand now, he's pretty much playing himself.

The movie is junk anyway. You can recast it anyway you want and it would still be junk.

Easy r245

Gerald Butler in "The Ugly Truth" and Gerald Butler in "The Bounty Hunter". Both romcons, both hits as romcons, especially "The Ugly Truth" both featured a bloated Gerald Butler that looks no better than Billy today. Arguably, Billy is much better looking than Gerald in those movies with his crooked smile.

R245, How about The Graduate or Goodbye, Columbus?

Or, The Goodbye Girl.

r248 this is why I bought "Love, Simon" it was a true to form teenage rom-con that is nearly perfect. Yes, it's sappy and Simon's life is damn near perfect, but that's a feature in Rom-Cons, beautiful perfect people out to have love but love isn't their personality. "Love, Simon" never hits you over the head with being gay, the source material and script, pulls it back and it makes for a smoother viewing experience.

The Northwestern Mafia strikes again.

R230 It is going to be LUCKY to hit $4.7 this weekend, period. It will not make more money after this weekend, as we’re moving into Oscars season where legitimately good movies are coming out. It also won’t make any money internationally, since the majority of the world hates gays. It’s done.

If I were Jim Parsons I would be furious that Universal blew so much money on this marketing campaign. They’re going to totally dump his film in December because of this.

I don't get how Eichner convinced studio heads to let him be the lead.

Casting couch r255, except he sent Luke Macfarlane in to do the deed as a condition for scoring the role.

[quote]It is going to be LUCKY to hit $4.7 this weekend

Seriously? It won’t even break $5 million this weekend?

[quote]Arguably, Billy is much better looking than Gerald in those movies with his crooked smile.

You really think Billy is better looking than Gerard Butler? Hi Billy. 👋🏻

R248, God’s Own Country is my favorite gay drama. It seems to be widely known and appreciated among gay men, I’m glad to notice. I hope more films like that one are made.

Elaine: You know, just admitting that another man is attractive doesn't necessarily make you a homosexual.

George Costanza: It doesn't help.

There is something very unpleasant about Eichner. There have been many threads here and on Reddit which about his toxic personality, his bullying of gay schoolmates and nastiness to colleagues. And that comes out in photos. I don't want to see anything with him.

I see that same cold, charmless smugness in Jon Hamm, especially after the reports came out of his sadistic and brutal hazing of a young fraternity pledge.

[quote]I saw it Thursday night with about a dozen other people in a Long Island suburb

Only a dozen people? That must have been one small theater.

Judd Apatow built his empire by casting dumpy dudes like Seth Rogen and Jonah Hill as leading men, and then did the same thing for dumpy broads with Amy Schumer - they figured they could work the same magic with Eichner but gays are just not looking for that. But Comedians are obsessed with ugly people's sex lives, for obvious reasons.

I want to see it & I can wait for streaming

R326,it tells you something when Jeffery Dahmer , silence of the lambs and those old James Bond films with the queer coded characters depicted as villains are the only movies straight men would sit through and watch.

[quote] This. It was hubris to think this film would open big at cinemas.

Well, if it didn't have 3,300 screens it would have appeared to perform better. The hubris was opening it like a blockbuster after 3 years of the movie-going public growing accustomed to watching light-hearted romcoms on streaming platforms.

Whoops! And people were predicting that it would 'decimate' Don't Worry Darling, which debuted with $19.2m.

[quote] Netflix desperately wanted Crazy Rich Asians, but the director held out for a distributor that would put it in theaters. And he was right. I don't blame them for trying with this one, particularly with Apatow producing.

That was pre-pandemic.

The movie needed a star.

I remember how badly Guy Branum shit on Looking when it aired on HBO. Now that this flopped he’ll undoubtedly go off on a tangent about how those who don’t support gay content are evil.

BOX! OFFICE! POISON!

Eichner was a poor choice for lead. Jim Parsons would have been ideal, but he's probably unaffordable and/or unavailable. Dan Levy would have been a major step up (though they would have had to eliminate the brief scene where Eichner was a top... some things just require too much suspension of disbelief) :-D

They should have found a role for George Takei... preferably, one that exploited his deadpan humor (see: his Amazon.com review for a 55-gallon drum of sex lube).

R271, Jim Parsons? Really? Parson is even less sexual than BE. There has to be some spark of sex in a romcom! Levy would have been slightly better if only because he's younger than Eichner though I still think this dog wouldn't have run.

R271 Jim Parsons is already in a gay romcom dropping this December, “Spoiler Alert.”

That one looks better than this, and he actually got legitimate stars for it, like Sally Field.

I saw the movie today, and thought Billy was fantastic. He and Luke had improbable but genuine chemistry. The screenplay was sharp with a lot of smart, funny pop cultural references and it’s a great comedy about the absurdity of modern dating. I loved it, and wish it performed better.

R208 and R213: Oh look. Two entitled pricks who think their opinion matters.

Reality? Box office numbers have barely bounced, even for blockbusters. People just needed a reason to abandon the so-called shitty "cinema experience" then the pandemic came along and gave them one. They've discovered they can enjoy the experience outside of a theater.

R47 is so naive I’m embarrassed for him

They should limited release it in big cities NYC/LA and rely on word of mouth marketing, if they release it in selected markets now, the box office won't change much, but the difference is for nationwide release, that number stinks, but for selected markets, it's a success! It will get good press and build up the expectations "when can I see it in Wichita, Kansas? Wait till the end of the year, once it snatches up some nominations or awards, roll out the industry marketing on TV, newspaper, in the subway and on the street and expand to nationwide release.

The Jim Parsons rom com will sink like a stone. He’s even less appealing than Eichner, and that’s saying a lot.

Who would you recast it with Eichner? Édgar Ramírez?

[quote] Good point [R148]. The film should have dropped the museum subplot. It just didn't work.

Yeah, I thought that dragged the movie down.

By comparison Dear Evan Hansen was a smash with a $3.2M opening day total.

R112 your friend is obviously not consumed with gay media. I do not even consider Drag Race gay. It is it’s own pile of shit

r282 is 890 years old. RPDR, alas, is consumed voraciously by gay and queer (sigh) men from their early 20s to early 50s, probably beyond. It's restructured gay bar culture entirely, among other effects. Yes, it has fans far beyond gays but we're the core market and many, many of us consume the 18 seasons/year that RP unleashes.

R244 you can't argue against the allure of HANDSOME YOUNG MEN. Billy has his head up his own, deflated skinny ass.

R221 that’s because you’re old

R271 parsons is sooooo in demand! Lmao

[quote]Billy laughed at Joel Kim Booster for Fire Island going straight to streaming when more people saw that movie than will ever see Bros.

[quote] He is truly getting what he deserves.

He was an asswipe for that. I hope Joel has a very big career. He seems to have a humble attitude compared to Billy.

Wentworth Miller would have been good casting, considering his history with Luke.

[quote]The movie needed a star

They could have brought anyone into this show: Janet Jackson, Paula Abdul. Nomi Malone is what Bros is all about!

I look forward to seeing this on Netflix or some other streaming service. He made a big deal about being in theaters, but this really is a streaming movie and it should be a lot of fun there.

Can we please stop casting these ugly gays as leads in romances? Bowen Yang? Billy Eichner? Seriously?

R277 is extremely stupid.

R283 go stuff your head back in your wig

No, I don't think we need to do that r291. It's actually a different kind of rom-com and it's okay. Two beautiful people fall in love is actually kind of a bore. One not so hot guy falls in love with somebody hotter and manages to win him, that is actually something a little more interesting.

R287 Had to look that up, but he said

[quote]Talking to Variety, he called the theatrical release historic compared to, “some streaming thing which feels disposable, or which is like one of a million Netflix shows.”

He pretty much shit on a lot of content out there. Deserved to flop!

It might have played better without Billy in the lead. Even Mindy Kalinin knew she wouldn’t draw in movie goers in her vanity project, so brought in Emma Thompson.

BTW, who goes to the movies anymore? At $18 a ticket in major cities? Then, you have people talking, on their phones, their laptops open, people shouting at the screen, and other ridiculousness. Not a pleasant experience.

R291, it’s because in straight rom coms the female lead is always average looking while their male interest is handsome. It has something with the female audience want someone to relate to.

I never liked "The Odd Couple," not with Matthau/Lennon or Klugman/Randall.

And including sex hardly makes it better.

R297 pffffffft

Gay Romantic Movie Theme = Ugly Gay Guy meets Hotter Guy who would never give them a second look at the club......I suppose it's better than the Gay Drama Movie Trope of Gay Bashing which I could name a dozen movies that pulled that trick out of a hat. ......Harvey Feinstein and Matthew Brodderick? Give me a fucking break.

Ha ha ha ha Eichner. Asshole! You deserve the FLOP!

Did Woman King do better?

R300 Torch Song was based on an award winning play.

R300 r303 descend to generational war. So typical.

Maybe the lgbt theme My Policeman staring Harry styles will do much better? It will be release this month…

R302 Yes, It's made 42 million so far.

R303 = Twink Matthew Brodderick falling in love with old fat Harvey Feirstein?.....Another Gay Trope that never happens in real life..

[Quote]everyone in the multiplex will know we're homosexuals

Oh, honey, I hate to break it to you, but everyone can see your gay ass coming a mile away.

but a few actors and extras could use this movie to launch their onlyfans!

[quote] He pretty much shit on a lot of content out there. Deserved to flop!

If he hadn't made that comment, I would sort of feel sorry for him. Eichner doesn't get that other gay and lesbian screenwriters and directors didn't have his luck of getting a theatrical release for their movies. He doesn't understand the concept of humility.

Charming funny film- I think it may have legs as they say because it is truly funny. Just saw it with a very mixed audience in Manhattan. Been a long time since I I heard people laughing non stop at a movie and applauding in the end. Sends the whole LGBT world up— a must for the trans trolls. Maybe laughter will take the crowbars out of their butts.

My guess is most the posters on this thread haven’t even seen it.

Remember when "Jeffrey" was going to launch its stars into superstardom?

R311 benighted charlie, this thread is only tangentially about the film's quality, which is subjective. This thread is primarily about the film's commercial failure, which is objective and in fact abject. It's a discussion of why the film didn't connect with audiences. Seeing it or not seeing it is not necessary to be able to contribute to that conversation. Thanks so much! God bless!

R312 no I do not.

Brokeback Mountain and Call Me By Your Name are timeless classic due to well written story and talented actors. Bros has none

Maybe in a crowded Manhattan theater with a mixed gay/straight audience there could be non-stop laughter but in my theater with a dozen suburbanites there was dead silence for most of the movie, including from me.

R311 Billy Eichner

Luke Macfarlane would need to be among our very best actors to make us believe he couldn’t live without Billy Eichner.

We love gay people, and we wanted to support you by showing up in the burbs, r316.

But it sucked.

R317 you beat me to the same post!

R297 yeah, because I’m sure women all over the world related to fugly little Meg Ryan slowly falling for Jewish stud Billy Crystal.

R260 That’s exactly what I see in Billy. He seems like a gay guy I wouldn’t ever get along with if I were in a room with him, especially with people.

He’s the type of insecure gay who’s going to throw out all the stereotypes and be catty to other gay men especially in front of straight people.

I feel like that’s what turns a lot of people off about this movie. And then he has a hot boyfriend? Lol!

R246, fuck off. Kindly.

R315 oh please, Bros don't claim to be Brokeback Mountain or CMBYM, it's an entertaining romcom! There is nothing wrong with a good laugh comedy, not everyone goes to a movie theatre to cry and to think unless "suffering" is your thing!

Interviewer: DataLounge, what do you think of Luke Macfarlane?

DataLounge: he is trying so hard with his straight-acting bullshit: country music, woodwork, trucks. Self-loathing type - probably crotchspawn of MAGAts - who is afraid of being confused with Billy Eichner.

Interviewer: DataLounge, what do you think of Billy Eichner?

DataLounge: fucking faggot who is getting exactly what he deserved with this abortion of a movie.

R324 didn’t actually see the movie. In this case, the audience suffers, not the screen characters.

R325 you forgot the straight worshipping, not just straight actors, any straight men will do!

"DataLounge, what do you think of QAnon Shaman at Jan 6 Riot"

"He is hot, I want him deep inside me! "

^ Correction: we want him in us, quite deeply

The Parsons movie is not a rom com. It’s a film adaptation of the Ausiello book about his partner who died a slow and painful death from anal cancer in his 30s. It’s horrifically sad.

No idea who the audience is for that movie, so I guess they are marketing it as a rom com. But that book was so fucking depressing. Ausiello is a great writer and what happened to him and his partner was tragic - but it’s a very heavy story.

R6 There is nothing else new or interesting to watch on shitflix. Those subscribers have to watch something. Ryan Murphy is shit!

R329, anal cancer? Did it have to be anal cancer??????

I know right

Desperate. I’ve never seen a gay person rely on straights this way.

“Straight people watch this cause it’s gay!”

R329, I despised Ausiello’s writing at TVLine and EW. So cloying. Sorry he went through that but I wouldn’t watch a movie he penned if they paid me.

[quote]Roger Friedman of ShowBiz411 [...] “Bros,” billed as an all gay comedy, is a box office disaster.

[bold]Bullshit !![/bold]

Now that is tanking it's a "gay film" all of the sudden, but when they were promoting it and had high expectations (lol) it was being marketed as a "Queer Film."

Nah, you don't get to put the failure on us gay men. They said so themselves this was a Queer/LGBTQ+ film so credit those communities with this flop.

The gay community has nothing to do with this film or its failure.

[quote] Ausiello is a great writer

Oh?

It’s interesting that this bombed in the same week that Netflix had one of its biggest debuts ever with Dahmer. It sounds crazy, but that is gay content that actually isn’t about being gay. It’s about a cannibalistic serial killer. It also gave people a perspective into his victims and their experiences and how unfortunately their lives were cut short and the apathy that resulted which allowed Dahmer to operate for so long.

Straight people are skeeved out by gays but not totally adverse to watching programming that involves gay lives. I don’t think there’s much of an audience for the neuroses of a gay middle aged urbanite who is pissed because he can’t match with 10s on Tinder.

Sure, it’s still about a gay as deviant but there are plenty of gay characters in it who aren’t and they’re finally getting an empathetic portrayal.

I have zero interest in watching the 45 HBO Max shows about how fascinating the lives of single black women in their twenties are, so I wouldn’t expect the majority to be interested in niche content like this either.

Hollywood is not entitled to people’s money or views.

R339, Insecure was such a bad show. Low point in “prestige” TV. I suspect it will be completely forgotten because its success (such as it was; never got ratings) was of its time in the most limiting sense.

Content that has bi or gay characters can do well with audiences, as long as they are set in the bigger context of the mainstream world and isn’t really about gay culture. This movie is immersed in gay culture and stereotypes. It’s inherently gonna have limited appeal to most

It was tediously generic, bourgeois and unoriginal, with a tiresome, pandering, cutesy-poo humour. It took zero risks.

I want to be shaken up and challenged, even with comedy. The Opposite Of Sex did it.

R341 i'm a 39 year old proud gay man but not immersed in gay culture. glad some people see themselves in this movie but it looked reductive and one note to me. and did you hear it's GAY?!?

Gays are also being sucked into the backlash that the queers instigated. There are only so many outrageous and unreasonable demands being made “on behalf of the LGBTQ+ plus community” before people tune out and stop caring.

If I was a straight person, the idea that I’d fork over fifty something bucks on a weekend movie night to be lectured by men in miniskirts is laughable. Even if the movie wasn’t about that, we’ve lost a lot of credibility.

I remember towards the end of Difficult People, they really established Eichner’s character as the cold fuck god who liked to pump and dump and couldn’t stand when one of his hook ups got attached.

I remember laughing that these guys would fall so hard for a forty year old guy with a dead eye, faded stretch marks, and a really off-putting personality. The show was written by the straight Julie Klausner and she really overestimated the sexual value of Billy Eichner in the NYC gay community.

[Quote] it looked reductive and one note to me.

R343 it also looked retro like something from 20 years ago.

[quote] Even if the movie wasn’t about that, we’ve lost a lot of credibility.

Unfortunately there is some truth behind this statement. Also, the straights are all too happy they no longer have to fake empathy for us.

The 90s and 00s were definitely a more progressive era in gay cinema.

r67 did you even see BROS? stop fucking judging without having seen it. Professional reviewers have given it glowing reviews. It's a comedy that supposedly has a lot of laughs. You sound retarded and grouchy as fuck.

Actually, the Bald Black Gender-Indeterminate Board Member was kind of funny, in their own way.

"I hear you, and I have reserved space" (or something like that) totally sounded like something someone like that would say.

The stereotyped Lesbian Army was amusing, too.

I can't picture the 'bisexual' guy doing anything with a woman besides maybe get fucked by a woman wearing a strap-on.

please vote and let's find out how many actually saw the movie here

They only do Pinnochio streaming which seems made for the big screen. Then this seems it would do better streaming yet plays in theaters. Scratching my head.

Jesus, R348, could you be a bigger shill? I hope the "street team" is paying you well.

The blowjob guy from the trailer / first pseudo orgy scene is starring in our local production of Little Shop Of Horrors. Who knew regional theater could be a glow up after starring in a Billy Eichner bomb.

Good movie but only 8 people in the theater tonight.

I'm actually surprised at how much it's bombing. Not even $5 million. That is embarrassing.

Hopefully it inspires someone to do it better, instead of leading to no more gay movies.

#GoSeeBros

[quote][R111], Hallmark isn’t just for Middle America frauen. I’m in a blue, East Coast state and the black ladies at my job are obsessed with Hallmark.

I also know some liberal women who are into those movies despite the fact that Hallmark avoided having interracial couples and gay characters in their movies for several years. When I lived in LA, I knew a woman who had been a fan of Hallmark movies for a long time. She grew to dislike Hallmark after her son started working on film and TV production crews and he loathed Hallmark because most of their productions are done in Canada. Her son hated how a lot of people in middle America were into Hallmark movies, but didn't give a shit that most of them weren't filmed in the US.

The film was marketed to death almost exclusively to middle-age white fraus. Maybe they should've aimed elsewhere?

Birdcage was a huge hit but it had big stars. I’m seeing it tomorrow because reviews and word from of mouth have been solid, otherwise I’d wait till it comes to Amazon.

What was the last really big smash hit romcom?

Not the word of mouth on data lounge, that’s for sure

Julia Roberts/George Clooney are coming out with a new romcom it will be interesting to see if that bombs too. I am not into the superhero movies so I hope other types of films are successful even if I would wait for streaming.

When will they learn that gays and the general public don’t want ugly gay jewfaces (Eichner and Platt) shoved down our throats as “stars”!

I only watch romcoms on flights, I hope it's not too spicy for the airlines (or do they just cut sex scenes?)

Kind of feel sorry for Eichner. It's a different era now in movies, but this is still a huge bomb.

What R363 said. Billy Eichner is not hot and was the wrong guy for the part. The movie needed two hot guys. Luke was not enough.

[quote] Not the word of mouth on data lounge, that’s for sure

R361 lol, of course not, trash talking homosexual actors is our favorite pastime on DL, the more successful they have become, the more energy we will have to bring them down!

R366 Oh yes Connor Jessup gets nothing but hate here. Annoying actors gay or not will get hate here, deal with it!

EXCELLENT points R200. Are you a screenwriter by any chance?

Eichner is not a star. He's obnoxious, unattractive, unsexy and no one wants to see him as the romantic lead except his industry friends and the "we support anything lgbt" types.

If a more likeable and sexy guy had been cast in Eichner's place, that would have helped getting more viewers.

Now homophobia does of course play a role as many straights don't care about seeing gay-themed movies starring gay people.

A big part of the appeal of movies like "Brokeback Mountain" was the shock factor of 2 presumably (DL jokes aside) straight male stars playing gay lovers. I guarantee if someone like The Rock and Chris Evans played gay lovers the movie would be 1 of the highest grossing in years no matter the genre and script. Even though lgbt people are more accepted now compared to the past, plenty of heteros still view as abnormal. Part of the buzz about a gay themed movie starring at least 1 straight lead is that people and the press will homophobically speculate "is he secretly gay or bi?" rather than just view the straight actor as playing a role that happens to be gay-themed. This is 1 reason why I am not against having straight actors play gay roles because even though there's always the ignorant questions that arise about their sexuality, every straight actor playing a gay role does in part help to normalize being gay.

Now I certainly am not saying I want every or most gay roles to be played by straight actors. I think it's important for gay movies to have more gay actors than straight, but as I stated above, it can be useful having a straight actor.

I hope more gay movies with gay leads are produced by big movie companies but they need to be more realistic about casting. Get people who are legit stars or have potential and charisma with sex appeal. Eichner is not and never was it. Ross Matthews must be laughing hard this weekend

R362, I wouldn't hold your breath. They're featured in several interviews on youtube plugging the film, and both look incredibly haggard. Especially Roberts, but Clooney could put down the ciggies for a bit and stay out of the damn sun for more than 5 minutes.

Should have put one of the Sex and the City gals, or Sandra Bullock, in it as a friend or boss (minor role) to help attract women viewers. And/or Channing Tatum. They love Channing!

No need for rom com to be save by George and Julia when Lost City staring Sandra Bullock and Channing Tatum is already a box office success…

As others hopefully have said -- there's no way this should've been released in theaters. It SCREAMS streaming/straight to dvd.

Bros is up to about $5 million.

reddit discussed why it bomb.

I saw this tonight and loved it.

It was a perfect balance of outrageous and real. As a gay man who has lived in NYC for 20 years, it is so on point with all the stuff about app rituals and emotional armor, and then it goes into rom-com fantasyland, but that was the point—to create a gay rom-com fantasy. I was actually shocked at how explicit the (comic) sex scenes were, but they were also so real.

And Eichner's monologues about how it's not OK to be a gay man because trans is now trendy—after decades of being hated for being a gay man—were so sharp and true.

Anyone who's complaining hasn't actually seen the film. It is wonderful. It could not have been presented in a more mainstream package: The director did Forgetting Sarah Marshall, and Judd Apatow produced. Bridesmaids is now considered a classic, and this is even better IMO.

R376 Hi paid shill.

Better than Bridesmaids?

Fucking delusional.

I wish, R377. I could use the cash.

Feel free to look at my other posts and you can see my usual mode is cunt.

R379 Well now you are tasteless easily impressed cunt.

I have impeccable taste in comedy, bitch R380.

The movie was assembled by the same production teams that created Bridesmaids, Trainwreck, 40-Year-Old Virgin, Anchorman, Forgetting Sarah Marshall, and Difficult People.

They know how to do LOL funny/outrageous/real. They really pulled it off here. I loved it as pure comedy, and I loved it as the representation DL always claims to want to see.

The 1994 movie Interview with the vampire had gay subtext and it made 223.7 million USD.

^ you conveniently forgot to mention it has the two biggest stars at the time, Tom Cruise and Brad Pitt!

So does this movie.

This will be a grower, not a shower. It will gain esteem through cable repeats and streaming.

It's as landmark a gay movie in comedy as Brokeback Mountain was in drama, and Beautiful Thing was before that.

[quote]It's as landmark a gay movie in comedy as Brokeback Mountain was in drama

MARY!

A total deluded Mary! I think it may be Billy Boy.

R32 It never hurt Jim Carrey or Kevin Hart or Steve Carell or Seth Rogen or Ben Stiller.

[quote]Bridesmaids, Trainwreck, 40-Year-Old Virgin, Anchorman, Forgetting Sarah Marshall, and Difficult People.

These movies really run the gamut from mindless filler to complete abomination.

I think the overblown marketing campaign sabotaged this film more than the studio/makers realized. The film comes across as Eichner’s pet vanity project, loaded with an absurd amount of gay tokenisms just for the sake of “gayness.” Also, the branding of it by Eichner and co. as a landmark “historic” film is a turn-off for a lot of people, gay and straight. You don’t market a film like that—it comes off as pompous and presumptuous. If the film is legitimately good and culturally important, history will account for it. Pushing your film on that basis screams “it doesn’t matter if it’s good—we made HISTORY here!” The whole thing has made Eichner look the like the insufferable douchebag that he (likely) is.

Humorless lesbians all over this thread.

See the movie and/or get laid.

You bitches need to lighten up.

R391 humorless lesbians don’t have good taste, so that statement is patently false

How is this surprising? It should've gone directly to streaming. Only big names will put people in the seats nowadays.

Well, it's no "Partners".

It's only a movie, and it doesn't look good.

Billy could have worked out a little and got some face fillers before filming.

R396 He did all that and he’s still hideous.

Or, you know, two working eyes.

They should have dubbed Eichner's voice with someone less annoying, like Seth Rogan blowing air thru Gilbert Gottfried's decaying windpipe.

Poor Luke. He gave up his Hallmark career for this.

I’m guessing Dan Levy won’t film sex scenes - he’s never without 3 sweaters on his body - so that would be an issue for any rom com that goes beyond fully clothed, closed mouth kissing.

On his TV show, he had the sexless gay couple in long sleeved pajamas in any scene where they were in bed together. Very 1950s, which is probably why the fraus went wild for it and the gays all rolled their eyes.

I hope Eichner doesn’t read DL because these comments are so vicious. I’m not even a fan of his but… 😳

Don’t they have surgery where they like tighten up the eye muscle so it tracks better with the other one? Why hasn’t Eichner gotten it?

(r402) Botox is also used on children and adults who have issues with eye muscles and has proven very successful.

[quote] I hope Eichner doesn’t read DL because these comments are so vicious. I’m not even a fan of his but…

R401 lol, are you new to DL? Gays with high profile projects are our target 🎯 , they must be torn to shreds, it's our specialty on DL.🙄

Brokeback Mountain was the equivalent of surprise anal to homophobes.

I would pay good money to see how he’s reacting to the news. This is the type of bomb that someone can’t help but take personally.

Billy sure can dish it out, so let's hope he can take it as well.

If not, fuck you Billy.

What IS wrong with his eye, anyway?

No 368. But I like Billy a lot and thought his TV show was great. The best friend in that made it work. I loved how jaded they both are. But you know…. I’m Gen X! Jaded was our speciality. I really wished this movie was a hit. But when i saw the first Trailer my husband and I were like….. mmmm, maybe on Netflix.

Hey R404 I think Billy sounds a lot like DataLounge! I actually love the community is paying this film so much attention. It means we are all intrigued and invested.

I never even heard of Billy Eichner before, although I’m not American. How did the studio greenlight a theatrical film without any bankable stars?

It is quite common in marginalized communities for the community to lash out at the success of one of its members and to rejoice in their ultimate failure.

You don't need to be Freud to understand why.

[quote]That is a horrible BO number for a movie so well reviewed.

Was it well reviewed? That surprises me greatly.

[quote]Anyone who's complaining hasn't actually seen the film.

Oh, suck it. I saw the movie -- in fact, I paid a ridiculous amount of money to see it in NYC, which I now regret -- and I thought it was very poorly done with a few funny lines and situations.

Eichner's been retweeting up a storm this weekend and for every no-name gay person saying they loved the movie there are a handful of prominent straights recommending it. Even as the movie underperforms the strategy still seems to be taking gay support for granted (odd, given our fondness for ripping each other to shreds) and swinging for the mainstream fences.

Aside from everything else about this movie that doesn't work, I think the title is all wrong. BROS would be a great title for a movie about two traditionally masculine, straight-identifying guys who slowly realize they're in love with each other. In this movie, neither of the two leads are straight-identifying, and only one of them could be described as traditionally masculine. On that note, I think one of the movie's greatest assets is Luke Macfarlane, who in addition to his great physical beauty brings a lot of charm and warmth to his role.

R309, who dat?

I rarely, if ever, go to the movie theater for RomComs. Those are for home when they hit cable

I think you're onto something, R414. It's a terrible title.

Cross posted from the othe Bros thread:

I saw it at a Sat 4:30pm showing in an nyc suburb. About 24 viewers, most were 20 year olds/ college age. They laughed the most. I as a 50 year old like Billy E., and while I liked the movie, I hoped for bigger laughs. The ROM part was good, the COM part was flailing a bit. The museum part of the story was ham-handed, my favorite part was the P-town bit. Personally I don’t find Billy unattractive (a bit whiny yes) so the pairing of leads wasn’t an issue for me. The song was a little cringey for me.

The messaging was lowest common denominator level GAY, seemingly tailored more to educate middle America, non-DL reading straights. Luke McFarland is hot. I appreciated how the Grindr life/ friend group support / no romantic relationship situation many are living was portrayed, I found that to be pretty spot on.

Thanks, R417. I'm guessing that Billy Eichner thought to himself, "BROS is a popular expression and would make for a punchy title, so that's what I'll call my movie even though it really doesn't have anything to do with the content, because that's not important to me."

Billy is just so off putting. Can’t stand him. I’ll never go see or watch anything he’s in.

Your bros are your friends. This movie is about falling in love. It’s a TERRIBLE title.

I don’t know many people who go to the movies anymore. If this had been on Netflix, I suspect more people would be talking about it this weekend across the board. It would likely be number 1 on their movies list, etc.

This is kind of Judd Apatow’s schtick lately, R410. He’s been building big star vehicles for up and coming comedians. He did it before with Lena Dunham, Amy Schumer, and Pete Davidson. They weren’t all that well known until their Apatow films but were able to open well on his name and credibility.

This was supposed to launch Billy Eichner into global feature stardom. It didn’t work.

I don't like when a movie or tv show tries to capture "the homosexual experience." It just never really works or rings true to me. That's why I won't watch this movie.

[quote]Billy is just so off putting. Can’t stand him. I’ll never go see or watch anything he’s in.

Some people, myself included, find him quite amusing in small doses. But as the lead of a feature film?

I meant to say modern-day movie or tv show.

I will never be able to see Eichner as anything other than Billy on the Street. Aka that unlikeable, fug who shrieks and is rude.

Eichner's last starring vehicle

It really is a loaded title and surprisingly alienating. For some people, it reminds them of the straight douche bags who made their lives a living hell growing up. For others, it recalls the more noxious elements of “masc for masc” culture and this idea that the perfect guy is devoid of any gay characteristics and is a deep voiced remote.

It’s especially obnoxious given how sanctimonious they’ve been about it being the first mainstream gay movie. The subtext seems to be “This isn’t about limp wristed fairies so you won’t want to throw up!”

Thanks, R429. All true. But, as I said, there is the additional, huge problem that the movie is definitely NOT about what the title seems to indicate it's about. Epic fail.

A movie about a true “bro” who happens to be into dudes could be successful with broad audiences. This movie is immersed in stereotypical gay culture, and has no such appeal

That would be a funny premise R431 - a gay guy who is super bro-y, has a crew of straight friends, treats guys the way his friends treat girls, finds love.

[quote] Some people, myself included, find him quite amusing in small doses. But as the lead of a feature film?

There were times he quite funny on Billy on the Street. He was actually ok when he played Fred Savage's partner on Friends from College. That was a supporting role. As lead in a movie, he sucks.

[quote]A movie about a true “bro” who happens to be into dudes could be successful with broad audiences. This movie is immersed in stereotypical gay culture, and has no such appeal

[quote]That would be a funny premise [R431] - a gay guy who is super bro-y, has a crew of straight friends, treats guys the way his friends treat girls, finds love.

Absolutely. I'm surprised that Eichner was foolish enough to think it was a good idea to title this movie BROS in the first place, and that no one else had the guts to point out to him that it's a terrible title. Or maybe they did, and he ignored them?

Is Luke McFarland gay????

If so, why didn’t I know this?

R435, it’s not clear. He’s said he is but there’s a lot of evidence to the contrary.

R436, you're joking, right?

R385, keep telling yourself that, Billy, and Universal.

But I thought Fire Island was the landmark gay comedy film of all known universes.

Are lines like 'he's a gay Tom Brady' supposed to be funny'?

R369, if you don't want to see a woman-themed movie does that make you a misogynist? No, it doesn't.

I think the movie poster was a bold but unfortunate choice; two guys grabbing each other’s asses. I’m not sure if that’s sending out a very accessible vibe for the mainstream audiences a movie needs to succeed?

R442, it isn't a mainstream movie so why would it have a mainstream movie poster? Where are people getting that idea that this movie is mainstream?

This is a movie is about a niche part of an already very small subculture.

[quote]Where are people getting that idea that this movie is mainstream?

The studio thought it would be, because they opened it on 3,000+ screens.

R443 if something is released theatrically, it has to appeal to as wide an audience as possible, or it will bomb. Therefore it was intended to appeal to the mainstream, even if it was about a minority group. If it was truly designated a niche release it just would have been released in a few select art house theatres, if they even still exist.

Maybe it should have been titled "9 to 4" Billy is the "4".

Out of His League is another option.

9 1/2 Weeks with a 3

Poor Luke Macfarlane, went to Juilliard to wind up stuck in Hallmark land and now in this bomb.

Are there any blow jobs in the movie?

R444 the reason that occurred is because people who think like Billy Eichner are way overrepresented behind the scenes in Hollywood. They have no connection to Middle America or even most of America in general.

Viola casually walking through this thread...

R443 Are you retarded?

Are you, R453?

R434 there already is a movie with roughly that premise — Fourth Man Out — and it’s pretty good.

R454 Crayon pizza yum yum

R443 does seem pretty stupid. If a movie is released on 3,000 screens...it's a mainstream release. Further, how is this movie about a niche part of gay culture? It's got two white, middle-class urban leads. It's not about gay Lego culture in Ohio.

[quote] It's not about gay Lego culture in Ohio.

Don’t give Ryan Murphy ideas.

R457 are you trolling or just naïve

R459, oh, they're not trolling.

R443 it opened in 3,350 hundred theaters which is comparable to Smile and Woman King. That sounds mainstream to me.

[quote} This is a movie is about a niche part of an already very small subculture.

R443 isn't going to explain what he meant by this, I predict. Just snide responses like at r459. Oh well.

r376 absolutely no offense, but damn is it tiring to hear, "As a New Yorker for [XX] amount of years..." Just a bit over hearing stories about life in NYC. We get it, Hollywood sees NYC and sometimes LA as the center of he universe. Gay content in the US seems to focus so much on NYC or LA, when there are so many other interesting places that can host a story on gay life. These "As a New Yorker" comments were also used when discussing The Uncoupling and "Fire Island".

I don't hate NYC but fuck does it get too much attention and these stories of gay life in NYC are all the same in the media. 8.3 million people and we've still gotten the same dating tropes out of three popular gay stories this year alone. Hollywood, please change it up.

and NYC is no longer the gat mecca it once was. There is no gay scene in Chelsea and the East and West Village anymore.

R463 in all my 27 years in NYC I’ve never heard anyone bitch and moan like you on this topic!

…but I totally agree with you 👻🗽

On the bright side, this might kill off the straight use of “Bro”. Much like “Brokeback” became a sly homophobic slur, hopefully “Bro” will too. That would be great, I’m so sick of straight guys saying it every two seconds, it’s the male equivalent of “like” and “literally”.

“Those two guys are always hanging out.”

“Yeah, I think they’re ‘Bros’” (said with slight disgust)

99% of society has not heard of this stupid film and even if they have, it went in one ear and out the other. It's not going to change any national use of language. Get real.

This movie was indeed aimed at the mainstream. The main actors appeared on several mainstream outlets stating that they wanted straight people to see it as if they'd see a straight rom-com & realize that gay people weren't so different from them. Well, after viewing a few trailers of Bros it just wasn't for me, even as a gay man. Preachy, stereotypical--nothing I saw made me feel like I was being properly or positively represented to straight people who were supposed to come away thinking I was "just like them". Hook-up culture, sex with multiple partners at once, hyper attention paid to appearance & youth--sure, these people exists, but i know so few gay men who are this vapid or who want others to think gay men are generally like this. How unfortunate that a trailor that was supposed to instigate people to see this just seemed so off-putting with its reinforcement of the very ideas that straight people generally apply to and/or hold against us. Bros, the title alone, suggests relationships that lack confidence, intimacy, maturity, and the idea that straight-like culture & behavior is acceptable & desirable. Again, I just found this problematic simply because Billy Eichner himself expressed that his film was partly intended to explain the current gay dating culture to straight people. Gay people living their lives do this quite well. We don't need a film that ends up reinforcing stereotypes & generalizations to explain us to the mainstream.

R467 it might get a 2nd wind on streaming

You homosexuals are forgetting that movies in general are way down, that many theaters closed during the pandemic and that the sort of audience that used to go see films like "Bros" are now content to wait till movies come to streaming, they rarely feel compelled to see something in theaters.

This is a greater problem for the movie industry, not just for "Bros" or other gay-themed films.

In order to acclimate myself to the possibility of seeing Bros, I tried to watch a few YouTube clips of Billy Zeichner. He just is not funny. At all. I can’t see paying money to watch 2-hours of a routine I can’t tolerate for 30 seconds.

Luke McFarlane is actually an amazing actor because I believed he fell in love. The Hallmark gigs came in handy. Luke was in a Matthew McConaughey film and Billy was channeling Woody Allen and Jim Carrey, but gay and on Adderall.

Is Luke single? What’s his story?

Also let's be real: There is no way in hell that any of DL's very large cadre of prissy Flyoverstani, "Italians aren't white peopl" Eldergays are going to find Eichner anything more than their worst nightmare of a gay NYC Jew.

It might do better Sunday. Gays are partying all Friday and day drinking then partying Saturday, maybe after brunch they’ll go to this and take it to a $20M box office.

And a few days ago, my the Woman King was deemed as too woke by you gals and an utter failure at the box office.

And it was and it is, Vi. Your point?

R476 it’s a win for you and no one hates gay white men as much as homophobic black women who think they’re after her manz to give him the aidz.

R464 this movie’s greatest sin is Billy leaving his first hookup and walking by the iconic Village Cigar store in Sheridan Square. Please, there are no gay people left in the West Village. Anna Wintour scared them away.

So r478 you're saying that straight, Christian, white men do not hate gays more than black women? Seriously?

It sounds like an awful lot of DL posters want this to fail because of Billy Eichner and a general disdain for gay content.

In reality, romcoms have been streaming-only for years now, the only recent exception has been the Lost City which was marketed as action-adventure. This is also R-rated (and hard-R at that), which is not appealing to the romcom demographic.

So you have a dead genre, an unappealing rating, no bankable stars, and a focus on a minority group. It's really no more complex than that.

‘Bros Flop’ is the 2nd thing after you type bros in on Twitter

"why did bros flop?”

Went up against an original horror movie that had really good marketing at the beginning of October, it ain't that deep

Lots of straight people enjoyed La Cage aux Folles, laughed, decades ago. The french farce. And the American version had big stars and was well liked. If you do farce well it's universal. Don't condescend to your audience. Don't tell the public which audience you are hoping to get, either.

B💣R💣0💣S

Torch Song Trilogy had good box office for its time.

[quote] Universal expressed optimism that the critical notices and the positive audience reaction (“Bros” earned an “A” CinemaScore) will fuel word-of-mouth and help the movie stick around in theaters.

[quote] “We are incredibly proud of ‘Bros,'” said Jim Orr, president of domestic distribution at Universal. “Everyone who saw it, absolutely loved it. And given that response, I think the film will continue to find an audience and have some legs.”

Translation: This is the last you'll hear from us about Bros. All further marketing spend has been canceled and the sooner this bomb disappears, the better for everyone.

[quote] Went up against an original horror movie that had really good marketing at the beginning of October, it ain't that deep

That makes zero sense. Gay romcom and horror movie are the Venn diagram with two distinct non overlapping circles.

R488 ummm there are a ton of gays into horror who would go to Smile before Bros

[quote] It sounds like an awful lot of DL posters want this to fail because of Billy Eichner and a general disdain for gay content.

The thing is that these may be the people who would appreciate the movie best. It gets the anger and sadness better than any gay depiction I’ve seen. I loved LOVED this movie and I’m one of those on here who’s been saying for years that they don’t like Billy Eichner.

R375 Actually a good thread about the promotion/previews. Gays found it corny and full of stereotypes. Straights found it alienating. Everyone said the characters are too old to be acting like they were. Nobody wants to fuck Billy, don't think he's funny and don't find him romcom leading man material. His character isn't someone you root for. Also he came across as too desperate while promoting the movie.

Sums it up pretty well.

[quote]"Everyone who saw it, absolutely loved it."

What a laughable statement (and the comma in that sentence is used incorrectly). I didn't love BROS, I didn't even like it. And when I was speaking last night with a friend who hasn't yet seen the movie, he said, "I hear that everyone is going because they want to support it but it's really not a good movie."

This is sad that one person’s ego (Billy) is going to ruin gay movies for awhile. If he had just paired Luke with say Ben Whishaw or Russell Tovey this could have been a hit, or forgo the “1st GAY LGBTQIA123+” woke whatever bullshit and went with a straight actor as the lead like Paul Rudd, this could have been massive. The movie is really good actually, but it’s the marketability.

Putting a straight actor in the lead or secondary role would play to Fraus’ deranged sexual fantasies, but then play to the horror of if they thought their husband could be gay (and they all have that moment of fear).

To R440, But I understand that line..."He's like a Gay Tom Brady". I know sooooo many older men who came out GAY in their late 30's& early 40's. But they haven't lost "str8ness" (new word). Involved in a "Fire Island tackle beach Football game" over the summer, you would have thought you were in North Wildwood or Wildwood Crest with these "Gay Str8 guys" My buddy Nick is from Wildwood Crest, that is how he acts(whatever, whatever). He's been saying that for 30 yrs.

I didn't see the movie, yet if it's standard fare, I'm no fan of gay rom-coms.

The leading men are handsome with great bodies with charmed and successful lives. They live in beautiful, spacious apartments in New York City or LA. (Only millionaires can afford this.) Their only problem is their love life. It's unrealistic. Men of this ilk have no issues with finding love. They flock to each other. It's a fairy tale. (Pun intended.)

Saturday numbers are out: Universal’s Bros tanked with a $4.8M projected opening (after a $1.74M Saturday, -5% from Friday+previews’ $1.84M)

Check out the Dutch romcom Just Friends, now running on Hulu. Both protagonists still live with their (middle class) families.

I'll definitely go this week

[quote]BTW, who goes to the movies anymore?

More than 851,000 movie tickets have been sold in North America this year, so somebody's going.

Gilmore Gays.

R307 Divine had a long affair with Leo Ford.

Making it an R rated movie was a big big mistake.

R503 Agreed. I saw the movie early at a screening and enjoyed it but also felt that it was a bit outdated. Billy didn’t bother me, I like string personalities and found him refreshing. But I was talking to a straight woman friend this past week who was planning on seeing it and the only thing she asked me was if there was a lot of sex in the movie because she knew her husband would be turned off. The most ie kind of tried to have it both ways — and it just didn’t work.

Agree with many others that Billly may be the movie's problem but in a different way. Billy is to my knowledge green and naive when it comes to working with big movie studios. He probably hung on to their every word. And some of those words likely came from someone who is not a fan of Billy. Sabotage? "Don't stagger - this is groundbreaking - open wide," "trust our marketing," "that poster shot is HOT," etc. Billy must have fallen for every lie. Either that or the studio didn't have the heart to say, "we don't have anything else."

[quote] Remember his dog at Fire Island before he walked it back?

Huh?

[quote]This was a vanity project for him and an opportunity to signal virtue

Oh, dear.

[quote] More than 851,000 movie tickets have been sold in North America this year, so somebody's going.

That’s all?! Yikes!

Gay films need REAL gay stars. Put Ben Whishaw in this and give him a legitimate script and it would have swept the Globes.

Absolutely no one is going to the movies for Billy Eichner.

The era of the GAY MOVIE has arrived!

Billy Eichner is someone who ideal for supporting roles and not lead roles.

[quote]there are no gay people left in the West Village. Anna Wintour scared them away.

To be fair, she is quite terrifying.

He can be the sassy gay best friend

Variety reports weekend gross $4.8 million

No money shot for Billy?! 🚫💦

Wow ! Smile over-performed this is Kevin Bacon’s daughter first lead role and her first number # 1 in the the box office! Paramount is doing wonders with Top Gun Maverick, jackass, Lost City, Scream 5, Sonic all hits this year!

R512 Nah he is too ugly. he is better suited for voice work. He is actually good at that on Bob’s Burgers.

Billy the bomb! lololol

This won’t even have sex scenes.

Luke must be desperate for cash if he agreed to be in a movie where he bottoms for Billy Eichner.

I’d like to see it, but I won’t fork out $15 to go to a theatre. This is a movie I’ll stream one night while I make dinner.

I automatically discount any movie that is “written/produced by/directed by/starring” the same person. It’s a vanity project for Billy but it looks cute enough to waste an hour or so on.

[quote] "Sad."

Not even really.

[quote]More than 851,000 movie tickets have been sold in North America this year, so somebody's going. That’s all?! Yikes!

[quote]That’s all?! Yikes!

No, the correct figure is 851 million. 1.23 billion were sold in 2019, before the pandemic.

R518 Dan Levy is so weirdly aexual. That entire Schitt's Creek "romance" with Patrick was so cringey and sexless with zero chemistry. I'm already passing on whatever he vomits up for a romcom.

So, is there and decent nudity in this flick?

There’s one funny sight gag involving nudity, but nothing explicit

R519 Probably, Luke had to know it was going to bomb when he saw that Eichnerd was the lead and “star”.

I would be interested in the Industry's internal take on the apparent failure of the film. Do they feel they had a script problem, an Eichner problem, and/or a gay content problem? Despite all of their widely trumpeted diversity initiatives, Hollywood is not run as a charity -- will the poor financial performance of Bros impact other gay-themed projects potentially in development?

I just saw it. The audience really liked it.

But one does have to suspend disbelief to watch it. There is no way a guy like Billy gets a hot guy like the one in the movie.

Billy could get a hot younger guy who’s mismatched in social status and money. He could never, ever get a hot lawyer his own age as the guy he played in this film. What a mess!

I can't believe not a single studio exec pushed back at casting Eichner as the lead. Nobody wanted to see Billy Eichner on film as a romantic lead except Billy Eichner.

Oh yes it is R313- in its first few days of release. Guess you don’t know much about the dynamics of box office. God some people are clueless! And R529- both are attractive and yes couple like this are all over the place. I can rattle off half a dozen among my friends.

Did Marroon 5 write the dialog?

Is "Bros" this season's "Being the Ricardos"?

R528, An audience of how many?

Everyone clapped

Between the wonky eye, the mean girls attitude and the annoying voice, BE is such an off putting asshole that he could have had hardcore sex with Brad Pitt in this movie and I still wouldn't pay to see it.

This is strictly a streaming only film preferably on a streamer I'm using my friends log in on.

[Quote]Everyone clapped

because it was finally over, I assume.

From Variety . . .

"Bros” didn’t represent a major financial risk for Universal, carrying a modest production budget of $22 million. The film earned rave reviews, but clearly struggled to connect with audiences. Its opening is about half of the $8 million to $10 million that Universal projected “Bros” would make."

R535 They weren’t clapping , they were all slapping themselves for wasting two hours of their lives on this dreck.

The big error that I see with this film, aside from the lamentable casting of Billy Eichner as a leading man, is that this movie and basically a Judd Apatow movie and no one seems to know that. Stop selling as a gay rom com and sell it instead as another Apatow film that happens to be about a gay Seth Rogen. Boom. Instant audience.

Billy Eichner is on Twitter talking about how he "snuck" into a showing last night and it was "SOLD OUT."

He also claims that people were laughing uproariously throughout and left in tears, they were so touched by the film.

Frankly, you can smell the flopsweat.

Judd Apatow will probably quietly cut ties with Eichner. He'll just continue do frat boy comedies and chick flick comedies like Bridesmaids and Trainwreck.

[quote]Everyone who ISN’T a homophobic weirdo should go see BROS tonight! You will have a blast! And it *is* special and uniquely powerful to see this particular story on a big screen, esp for queer folks who don’t get this opportunity often. I love this movie so much. GO BROS!!!

Billy, this is why no one wants to see your movie.

Frankly R541, that exactly what I experienced in a very large theatre on the Upper West Side of Manhattan- with out loud laughing throughout- crowd was mostly straight UWS demographic. It’s a very funny and witty flick. How would ever know if you have not seen it. God DL is full of angry misanthropes- the movie is a big hit among audiences and critics. We’ll see if it has the appeal to win over the great straight world. Maybe not since the majority of first run theatre release film goers in the US are teenage boys- lots of posters on this thread are of equal development it seems.

Blaming straights.

But Billy, the gays didn’t show up either.

That reads as a bit too needy— I get the Twitterverse is essentially meaningless, so why try so hard? 🤔

Can someone who loved it articulate what he gets right about gay relationships and being single, etc?

I plan on seeing it but just curious what his thesis is that resonates with some of the posters here.

Go watch it you homophobes

Billy is so grating in the trailers I have no desire to see him in the film. I just finished slogging through Uncoupled with equally grating NPH. The show would have worked better with someone more likable in the part.

Lots of films that are well-received by critics and/or audiences don't clean up at the box office. He needs to do a better job of concealing his sense of entitlement.

Billy is so important.

Many here are suggesting it should've been in Netflix instead but would this even interest Netflix? Maybe Hulu . Or Logo.

How does he know that straight people didn’t show up? I don’t know any gay people who saw it.

If the recent statistics are to be believed, 7% of the US is LGBT. If 7% of Americans saw the film, it would be a huge hit. So clearly gay people are also staying home.

Blame it on Ian keeping all those Floridians from seeing the film

The Birdcage was hysterical. Does this even come close in story, humor, imagination, performances?

R554 and aren't like 20% of Millennials and Zoomers LGBTQIA+++

The more of it I see the worse it seems, and it seemed bad and loud from the first trailer.

You’re an idiot- you haven’t seen the film.

He shouldn't be blaming straights for their lack of interest. That's heterophobic. Is he sitting around on weekends watching frau Hallmark romance movies?

R529 no one would look up from a crowded club dance floor and gaze at Eichner

[Quote] You’re an idiot- you haven’t seen the film.

No, the idiots are those who paid to see this retro nonsense that appears to be made up of unfunny one-liners

I went to see Bros today in rural Indiana. It was basically just me in the theatre. I liked a lot of the movie until the final act.

*SPOILER*

The family dinner scene was awful for Billy Eichner and he came across as a jerk….we needed a scene where someone ripped him a new asshole for being so obnoxious to Luke’s parents…but instead…it was written like he was totally right to do such a thing.

Romantic leads have to be shit on for bad behavior to win public support. For example, Julia Roberts got ripped to shreds by Cameron Diaz in the bathroom scene right before the wedding.

Bros is just an exercise for Billy's ego. He gets the hot guy. He gets the big dramatic monologue. He's the star. He's the co-writer. The supporting characters are so thin and not even developed. Why are we supposed to care about the throuple? It wasn't funny; it was lame. Guillermo Diaz pops up for a few scenes.. and has nothing to do. He could have been a great supporting character but he is just another prop-up for Billy's character. Guillermo is sexy and a good actor and he gets no material to work with.

It looked stupid. If you're gonna do a gay romcom, do one earnestly. That's what we deserve.

Did you see it R565?

Billy's verdict is in: it was the STRAIGHTS that tanked the B.O.!

RogerEbert.com ⭐⭐1/2

However, what Eichner and co-writer Stoller seem to have forgotten is that a rom-com like “When Harry Met Sally” is so iconic not just because of Harry and Sally's authenticity, but that all of its characters feel like real people. Worse yet, "Bros" thinks of itself as the most important pioneer solely because it's doing so on a mainstream level.

R567 Of course. Because the best way to market your movie is to make it feel like an obligation.

[quote]There is no way a guy like Billy gets a hot guy like the one in the movie.

ESPECIALLY considering how nasty and bitchy he is to the hot guy almost throughout the movie, not to mention the scene where he behaves like an insufferable asshole in front of his parents, who are doing their damnedest to be nice to him. I really think the worst thing about this movie is the script, although Eichner's basically one-note performance is a close second.

[quote] Many here are suggesting it should've been in Netflix instead but would this even interest Netflix? Maybe Hulu . Or Logo.

Hulu seems to have an interest in releasing gay and lesbian movies. Happiest Season was supposed be a theatrical release, but covid fucked that up. Happiest Season wasn't a horrible movie, but average at best. It fit well on Hulu and Clea DuVall has never appeared to be bitter about her movie being shuffled off to streaming.

Hulu heavily promoted Fire Island which did in streaming numbers.

[quote] The family dinner scene was awful for Billy Eichner and he came across as a jerk….we needed a scene where someone ripped him a new asshole for being so obnoxious to Luke’s parents…but instead…it was written like he was totally right to do such a thing.

I really fucking hated that scene. I know I will be flamed for saying this, but from the tone of that scene I'm guessing Billy was inspired by straight female friends who always have pick up apart their in-laws or the parents of their boyfriends for not being progressive enough and make them out to be the bad guys when in reality they are decent people. I felt bad for the mom in that scene because she was in a no win situation over things her job that she couldn't totally control.

I also hated the dinner scene. And I also hated the country song scene. It just meant another five minutes of Billy's ego.

Billy’s acting on Difficult People was shocking. You could see him finding the mark and marching up to it, and much more importantly he never changed his tone, volume, facial expression no matter what was happening. Sounds like he hasn’t grown much in that department. (Kavner may have been even worse, to be fair.)

[quote] Straight guys arent into homosexual movies. Sorry, deal w it. We dont want to see it and especially dont want to spend money and sit for 2 hours seeing it. Its not homophobic, its simply something we dont relate to and arent interested.less than 1% of people are gay, do the math.

the most liked reply to his Tweet in R567, a bit harsh but it's not really wrong here, Granted there are homophobes, but the obvious reason is lack of the interest, it's not that much different from cultural or ethnic barriers, people took a casual interest in Crazy Rich Asians or Slumdog Millionaires from a few years back and made these movies a huge blockbuster, but that doesn't mean Chinese and Indian romcoms now have a universal appeal to a broad audience, no they do not! Every Hollywood executive knows this and actors like Billy Eichner too, they will explain to us in great details on how hard to market another Chinese or Indian film in America, why can't they see essentially the same challenge here for "Bros"?

No one wants to see movies on date night in the theatre with gay men kissing. End of story. This should have streamed. It would have been huge.

I would have checked it out if it were on Netflix, but I'm not paying $20 for a flimsy rom com.

Agree they straigjt men don’t want to see two men kissing in a romcom. They barely will sit thru hetero romcoms with their girlfriends and wives.

Straight women would be more into it if it were Matt Bomer and Luke (or someone equivalent to Bomer). The fraus go wild for Bomer. Straight men even get googly-eyed around him - I remember watching two obnoxious frat boy radio guys interview him for The Sinner and they kept earnestly telling him how handsome he is - I think they even said “bro” during the compliments.

Like everyone is saying - the casting is off.

Stop, you sissies, please stop. It's a hetero world and we're just invited guests

R567, THR also has this article about Billy's reaction:

Slumdog, Greek Wedding, Crazy Rich--those were all well-told stories with a universal theme, they focused on the human interaction, not "here's stuff that Indians do that you don't know about!" part

He’s just embarrassing himself now.

Hope his career gets put on ice after this. There’s no need to be scolding people for not seeing your shitty movie.

[quote] Hope his career gets put on ice after this.

HISSS!!!

Fail successsssful gay man!. FAIL!!!!

The tall poppy must get cut down!!

HISSSSS!!!!

^Billy we know you’re hurting. Maybe log off?

R583 You are ugly stick to voiceover work.

Josh Barro likes it but I imagine it mirrors his life. He goes to orgies and spends a lot of time in gay spaces like Fire Island. He is the person this movie was made for.

R586 but that alone is why this movie doesn't work for me. Josh has a similar life but what makes him interesting and popular is not those aspects. It's his writings on politics and markets and financial news. It's his role as a political pundit. Basically he is more three dimensional than the gay gay gay gay life of the characters.

Movie goers see a film based on its trailers. What was in the trailers for this movie that would appeal to the average person? Certainly not the men in dresses, nor Eichner, who's barely known for acting. I don't want to be too harsh on him. I think if he had the acting chops he'd be more appealing, but he doesn't. The secondary cast were just as bad. At least Luke is attractive and can act. Seriously, there's nothing in the trailers for the mainstream audience to hang onto. The only reason why I plan to see it is because the reviews have been generally very good. If it weren't for that I'd give it a hard pass.

R588, in this case, I think you'd be better off going with your gut instinct that paying so much attention to the reviews.

Luke Macfarlane and:

Jeremy Jordan

Jonathan Goff

Aaron Tveit

I realize they are not major box office movie stars, but they good actors, good-looking and are anyone but that screaming meme Billy Eichner who runs all over NYC streets thinking he's funny and appealing. He's not.

[Quote] Fail successsssful gay man!. FAIL!!!!

He's successsssful R583

I think this movie would have bombed regardless of who starred in it, unless it starred like the Rock and John Cena. People would watch a romantic comedy between the Rock and John Cena.

R531, I have a hard time buying that.

Thread's finished like Billy's career. Could someone start a new thread for Josh Barro hole pics? I am just so deeply curious.

I Now Pronounce You Chuck & Larry, starring Adam Sandler and Kevin James as firefighters who pretend to be gay, made $187.1 million on an $85 million budget. In 2007. And was panned by critics.

This movie Bros would probably have done well with a bankable star.

By the way I have a high tolerance for Adam Sandler and like even his shit movies. And I'm a huge queen.

If they wanted to stick to gay actors they could have hired Luke Evans who can muster an abundance of charm and isn't bad on the eyes.

Sadly the film just reaffirms that Billy is not liked. Before Bros was released, there were a few threads about the film.

Now that the film is flopping, there have been 1,427,895 threads about how it's a colossal box office bomb and Billy's career is over. The glee in seeing Billy's career take such a hit has been a major DL moment.

So not only Billy has to deal with his pet project bombing but also realizes that he is loathed by the gay community. That's tough.

The trailer was dreadful. It ends with the supporting cast sitting around the table saying, “remember straight people? They had a good run.”

It doesn’t even make sense, as if straight people are somehow over now. Who wants to see a show like that?

That being said, I saw it anyway, because I always try to support gay releases. Benediction, Firebirds, Flee, God's Own Country… If it makes it to the cinemas, I’m there.

R581 that's not the reason, there are better movies than Crazy or Slumdog, but they don't get distributed here in the US, the market is too small, no matter how well crafted the films are, there is no huge demand here. It requires a lot things to work out for the broad box office success besides a good movie itself, you can't just release another good Asian movie and expect a repeat of Crazy Rich Asians, it could take years or even a decade to find another success.

Yeah, I agree that the film flopped because of Billy. The trailers are annoying, he’s annoying in the 7 minute interviews he gives on talk shows, etc. Why would anyone want to pay to see him when they won’t watch him for free on tv? I bet even his parents refuse to Zoom with him because he’s so annoying. Him topping Luke? Sure. Even if Luke is a bottom in real live, it’s unimaginable that Billy can act like a top, let alone be one in real life.

He, Dan Levy, Jon Lovett (Ronan Farrow Allen’s bf) just make sex seem unimaginable and disgusting.

We had a family computer that I used to look at gay porn on when I was an adolescent/young teenager. I was tech savvy and fairly smart (smart enough to delete history and whatnot), but my dad is a computer whiz who majored in computer science in college—yikes. He came across something on there and never brought it up to me because he’s a decent guy (his sister was also a lesbian and he wasn’t homophonic), but he must have talked to my mom about it at some point because she coldly told me she was “very worried about me” regarding something that had been found on the computer. She got over it though.

Perhaps more horrifying was an incident that occurred when I was in college. I had some porn video on my laptop that I’d been watching at home, and I stupidly didn’t close it and just shut my computer. I went to a Starbucks near the campus to get coffee and study, and I opened my laptop and the video player was up and immediately started playing (no volume, thank GOD). I closed it as quickly as humanly possible, but I was mortified. I’m 99% sure the blonde female barista who had just made my coffee saw it, as my back was to her and she had a clear view of the computer screen.