Billy addresses Bros bomb

I am the Earth Mother, and it was a FLOP!

Yas keeen.

Happy for all the queers.

Wow, he sounds desperate.

Wow. This is going to be a long ass denial stage. When do we think he'll reach acceptance?

He's such an unlikable person I cannot be sad for him.

I AM big. It's the box-office numbers that got small.

Billy must be a Datalounger with that EST.

Wonky eyed deluded asshole.

What the fuck is wrong with gay men (or posters bots or something). Damn right he should be proud of his movie and if you don’t know why you are a 14 year old idiot.

His ego tanked his film: he should have stuck to writing the screenplay and had someone less bitter and more likable play the lead. He'll now blame "homophobia" but the truth is no gay person I know wants to see this because he's in it.

It should have been in SMELL-O-VISION! Then the audiences would have been able to bask in the cadaverous odor of Billy’s stinky pits and breath, BROS before BARFS!

I don’t understand why the OP felt the need to post something so negative and hateful about another person. Something is seriously wrong with you if you think it’s ok to do that. An evil, unhappy person no doubt.

Annnd I'm still not going to see it. From what I've read, it's insanely over-lauded and that alone would be enough to keep me away. Even if Eichner and his ego weren't involved.

Huh R13? He posted a link to Billy's own twitter account.

People would rather see Don't Worry, Victim, The Warrior Snot, and even a 13-year-old James Cameron film before this crap.

I plan to see it now, just to piss off OP.

[quote] I don’t understand why the OP felt the need to post something so negative and hateful about another person. Something is seriously wrong with you if you think it’s ok to do that. An evil, unhappy person no doubt.

Oh FFS, drop the outraged Christian virgin act, princess--no one believes it.

You're on Datalounge, and you know it.

Were the audience members howling and wiping away tears because they just blew $20 and two hours on shit?

Did you read the rest of the thread? He’s self-declaring it one of the “best comedies of the century.”

He must be having a nervous breakdown.

JUNE ALLYSON must have posted that original post!

And do you know what--I FEEL SORRY for her!

I will get around to seeing Bros in the next week or two, despite Billy Eichner's presence.

Billy Eichner has has always repulsed me. My first exposure to him was the Billy on the Street (or whatever its called) videos. Those segments were not funny. They were obnoxious.

Whenever I've seen him interviewed on talk shows, he comes across as similarly obnoxious. In movies and other acting roles I've been him do, I've never been very impressed. He was adequate in the roles is about all I can say about his performance.

None of that made me want to rush out to see Bros. Whenever I go, it will be for Luke MacFarlane, who I have always like.

But he was on The View.

TMZ has picked up the tweet.

Does anyone still go to the movies?

Let's say, for the sake of argument, his story is true: Everyone in the audience laughed, applauded, and wiped away tears...in LA. Probably the most liberal/gay part of LA. The numbers don't support Bros’ alleged success. The numbers show he’s living in a bubble that doesn't represent America. He’ll convince himself it failed because of homophobia, insufficient marketing, COVID-19, unreasonable beauty standards, the dominance of streaming platforms, or because the gay community didn't turn out to support the film. He’ll never admit maybe people didn't want to see HIM in a rom-com.

R26 As his entire persona is being a tiresome asshole, it seems strange he has no idea people have little interest to see someone they perceive as a shouty tiresome asshole, in a RomCom.

R26, doesn’t it really matter more whether the film was good. Not it’s financial metrics and the implications as interpreted by a bunch of idiots on DL? In time it may even be commercially successful. Fact is, it’s a great rom com.

He should have released the film as the new season of American Horror Story.

[quote]As his entire persona is being a tiresome asshole, it seems strange he has no idea people have little interest to see someone they perceive as a shouty tiresome asshole, in a RomCom.

Or, anyway, they certainly don't want to see him as THE CENTRAL CHARACTER in a rom com. Or in any other kind of movie, for that matter.

Charlie, we get it. You're a friend of Billy's or paid by Billy, or you ARE Billy... whatever the case, you're in a boat on your own. Save your breath, hon.

Thanks, R28, for yet another excuse to add to his list. We simpletons just don't get how wonderful Bros is. Like Shawshank Redemption, it'll become a classic that initially failed at the box office. Note to the National Film Registry, save a spot for Bros!

like he's going to say something bad about it? lolz

R33 - No, but he doesn't need to sound like he's in a disassociative fugue state. He can talk about how much fun it was to make the movie, how great his co-stars were, what it meant to him to see his film on the screen, etc.

[quote] Fact is, it’s a great rom com.

charlie, as ever, you are so fucking full of your own bullshit.

Your opinions are not "facts." They are just your opinions.

Just as you think the Kennedys and Barbra Streisand walk on water, so you also think Billy Eichner is a charming romantic leading man. But, not everyone agrees with you about that either--in fact, even fewer people do, according to the box office.

I didn’t realize this was in theaters. Seems like something that should have been streaming - given it’s narrow target audience. Wonder why they did that?

Hubris.

Box office poison! Box office poison! Bowen bring me the butt wax!

He snuck in…as if the audience would recognize him! Who does he think he is? Brad Pitt?

If he really wanted to make a movie that people wanted to see, he wouldn't have cast himself as one of the romantic leads.

I like how the rightwing press, and their plants, refer to it as a bomb when it did more business than the rerelease of Avatar and The Good House starring Sigourney Weaver and Kevin Kline...

Katie Herzog has the best take

I think this was more of a "streamer" movie than a date-night-reserve-tickets-smuggle-in-booze-"cinema experience" type movie. It will do better once it moves to Netfilx and more people will be curious to watch it. Especially the closeted married guys!

[quote] I like how the rightwing press, and their plants, refer to it as a bomb when it did more business than the rerelease of Avatar and The Good House starring Sigourney Weaver and Kevin Kline...

Do shut up. It was on double the screens of Avatar (which was in its 2nd week of re-release) and only made $104K more.

The Good House was 1/3 of the screens that Bros was on and got zero marketing.

I can be as critical and cynical as anyone, but I thoroughly enjoyed this movie. Is it The Rules of the game? No, but it offers both a sweet and funny riff on rom-com tropes and I thought Eichner and Macfarlane made a charming and endearing mismatched couple. I thought Bowen Yang’s take on Bryan Singer was hilariously merciless and the smaller roles well-cast if of necessity one-dimensional. And there was plenty of diverse representation in the cast, albeit primarily in smaller roles.

if you want to get people to go watch a movie then don't make it feel like an obligation.

Everything is an obligation with the woke. It’s all they have.

I said, "Billy, this picture is a watershed…" I said, "Billy, one day you'll run my studio…" I said, "Billy, will you listen to that response?" I said, "Billy really knows what the public wants"

Would have been better to sell it to a streaming service than a theatre release which is catered to straight male teens /early twenty somethings predominantly.

Silly business decision.

I’m looking forward to renting the movie on Prime. I haven’t been to a movie house since the pandemic, so maybe it will do better on the small screen.

Well, I'm going to go see it with friends. Just haven't found the time for it yet.

[quote]in LA. Probably the most liberal/gay part of LA. The numbers don't support Bros’ alleged success. The numbers show he’s living in a bubble that doesn't represent America.

I have studiously avoided the Billy Eichner and Bros thread spam on DL the last few weeks because I suspected that they were all just more culture wars crap, and this comment above pretty much proves that.

"Liberal California gays aren't real America."

It's like some of you are proud that this movie flopped. Are you that bitter and lonely in your personal life. I swear the boomer generation, the homophobes did a number on yall.

[quote]Bowen Yang’s take on Bryan Singer......

?????

Cringe all you want, OP... he's not wrong.

A studio will not take another chance/risk like this again. It'll now be decades before we see the next mainstream movie with an out gay leading man.

And some of you seem almost gleeful to see it fail. Shame on you.

(to be honest, it probably should have been released in the spring... but homophobia combined with covid probably meant not a lot would run out and see this in theaters.... here's hoping it does really well streaming)

He should have asked Barbra Streisand to exec produce, direct and have her son Jason star in this. Could have been titled "The Bros of Tides". Coulda been an Oscar contenda.

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.

Straight guys wouldn't be caught dead walking into a theater showing a gay romcom. However, they'll watch it (at their girlfriend's/wife's nudging) on a streaming service where their friends won't know about it. It'll end up making money, but won't be a huge hit.

It's a sweet movie with lots of laughs and I'm a little surprised by all the vitriol it's getting on here.

It’s a cute movie. But stars drive box office unless it’s horror or super well established IP.

[quote] It'll now be decades before we see the next mainstream movie with an out gay leading man.

Wrong. M. Night Shyamalan’s next horror film has out actors Jonathan Groff and Ben Aldridge as the leads, playing a respectable married couple.

That was green-lighted, filmed, and edited before this bomb.

And there's no guarantee it won't be a bomb too.

The comment you quoted is talking about greenlighting future projects, not things already in the works.

Just came out from the movie and was happily surprised... Funny, sexy, and with heart Bros made me feel the warm fuzzies when I left the theatre... I hope it picks up next.weekend.

It definetly should have been released in June during Pride month.

I do agree that both leads should have been hot. Billy is not my type, not bad looking but he's not classically handsome. It should have been a nerdy, cute type guy to play his role.

R63: "That was green-lighted..."

LOVE the clueless replies to his twitter post CONGRATULATING him on the flop.

Was the theater he snuck into in West Hollywood?

It made more money than West Side Story.

[quote] It'll now be decades before we see the next mainstream movie with an out gay leading man.

Mainstream movies made my big studios mostly suck.

They have to be made for as broad of an appeal as possible (preferably to be hits in the Asian market), which means they're made for no one in particular.

Support gay film fests and indie gay films.

^^by big studios, not my

M Night is doing reshoots on his picture. Amanda Seyfried is replacing Groff. Thanks, Billy Eichner. Thanks a bunch.

It did 4.8 million this weekend. And the budget is listed as 22 million. Is that good? And do we still double the budget for promotion costs?

[quote] I like how the rightwing press, and their plants, refer to it as a bomb when it did more business than the rerelease of Avatar and The Good House starring Sigourney Weaver and Kevin Kline..

It did 40% of the business it was projected to do. It only came in fourth overall this weekend at the box office.

if you want to call that a success, hon, you just go right ahead and do it.

[quote] I can be as critical and cynical as anyone, but I thoroughly enjoyed this movie. Is it The Rules of the game?

It wasn't even The Rules of Attraction!

This should have been released on a streaming platform. It'll still probably make money once they send it to Hulu or Peacock or whatever, but it's not going to be a box office smash. I also fail to see how this is anything but a sign that people just don't go to the movies anymore....period. What makes a profit at the box office these days besides big action movies? Name one non-Marvel/DC/Star Wars/Spielberg clap trap picture that has earned a profit since the pandemic started. I think if this were a gay Marvel movie, we'd be having a very different conversation here about not green lighting gay leads, but, you know, you have to look at the overall environment. Movie attendance is atrocious overall. Having Billy Eichner star didn't help matters either. And, of course, we're still in a pandemic, no matter what people say.

I listened to him on a podcast last night (recorded pre-release) and it was 50 minutes of congratulatory chatter about the historic historicness of the movie, how it was bound to be a success because Billy's authenticity and funniness would prevail, etc. (No talk at all about the rest of the cast, strangely).

So no surprise that he's not reacting well. (He can be disappointed, but publicly blaming people for not seeing your movie is stupid.)

Viola, your pity party, card playing group just expanded to two. Meet Billy. Billy: Meet Viola.

[quote] Name one non-Marvel/DC/Star Wars/Spielberg clap trap picture that has earned a profit since the pandemic started

"Top Gun: Maverick."

That was easy.

(Watch you now try to backtrack and move the goalposts...)

I never expected it to be a huge box office hit. Who is actually genuinely surprised?

[quote] Who is actually genuinely surprised?

Billy Eichner, clearly.

R80 Um?

[Quote] What makes a profit at the box office these days besides big action movies?

Top Gun is a big action movie....and a sequel at that, not an original picture. Try again.

I went to see it because it was the first gay rom-com ever released by a major studio. It's doing OK business in major cities and totally empty theaters in middle America.

It really is one of the best romantic comedies of the past few decades. I laughed my ass off. The theater was laughing and crying. It's by the numbers in a lot of ways but as the trailer shows, it really does show a side to gay life and navigating gay relationships in big cities from a gay perspective. And we practically never see that.

I get why some find Eichner irritating. His entire schtick is uptight, neurotic, and screamy. But it's an A+ effort and one I'd imagine most gay guys will enjoy.

I haven't seen the movie yet, but based on the trailer alone I'm not surprised this movie bombed. He crammed practically every gay reference he could into it and it ended up coming across as basic and cringey. It felt more like he was trying to pander to straight people and "educate" them about gay culture, and it honestly ended up making us look more like hapless one note sex addicted superficial tools to be honest.

And just [bold]exactly as I predicted,[bold] r83, you moved the goalposts. You posted this exact question:

[quote] Name one non-Marvel/DC/Star Wars/Spielberg clap trap picture that has earned a profit since the pandemic started

And I answered that question.

Why were people crying? The country song? It was so lame.

I saw it today. No line or sold out signs but funny, smart and serious contender for best screenplay. Like an edgy train wreck

Just looked at the trailer. Like him: high-strung, shallow and unfunny. And he is not photogenic.

Straight people ARE uncomfortable with gay sex = empty theaters.

The trailer is so tone deaf. May be perfect for his gay bubble, but not for the multiplexes.

My guess is it will eventually find a cult audience, just like Charles Busch's movies or "Beautiful Thing" or "Girls Will be Girls."

But it was never going to be a hit.

Saw it tonight with the hubs. Loved it. It’s not for everyone, but there’s no reason for all the venom.

The pandering didn't help, either.

Not a BE fan, this is not an Oscar worthy film, but I still liked it.

[quote] It really is one of the best romantic comedies of the past few decades.

1990-2022?

It will be a cult hit. It will be "reassessed" years later as the brave, groundbreaking film it is!

Billy will do an interview for the 25th anniversary Blu-Ray talking about how devastating it was that it bombed, but is now loved by younger generations and finally has been called the classic it is!!!

Billy will say, "Like Blade Runner and John Carpenter's The Thing, it was just TOO ahead of its time!!"

Egotistical Maniac. And we all see the CHEEK WRINKLES so just stop with the beard...Nobody is fooled.....BTW = Look at who they let interview them to promote the movie. Lots of nobodies....LINK to one of the (many) fat slobs who interviewed them.

[quote] Would have been better to sell it to a streaming service than a theatre release which is catered to straight male teens /early twenty somethings predominantly.

[quote] Silly business decision.

It is, or was, about the principle of gay "from Gays for Gays" entertainment being officially recognized and accepted by Hollywood. It was about openly gay actors having a better (social) standing in Hollywood, a greater chance to get cast in mainstream projects.

People celebrating this feature bombing, celebrate the haters hating on Gays. Yeah, the movie bombed because Billy is ugly as sin. Yay! Good for you, guys. Way to support "the Gays". Now back to gay entertainment made for Fraus and teen-girls.

Another irrelevant FATTIE interview...Is the interviewer a Drag Queen, a Tranny, or a sad manless chick?.....what the fuck?....LoL

I'm just crossing my fingers that this only taints Eichner's future projects, and that it brings Luke MacFarlane to the attention of casting directors who should have been sending him scripts since [italics]Brothers & Sisters[/italics] ended.

Lbh, the “full trumpets blaring” self-important marketing of this film was off-putting - even to gay audiences - from the start. Not sure why they thought building up to and trying to create this historical moment was somehow going to sell tickets. I mean, it’s great it’s supposedly the 1st studio film with an all LGBTQ+ cast but who is the star of this film? Luke Macfarlane isn’t even the star of the Hallmark movies he’s in. Billy Eichner isn’t even that big of a star on YouTube (did people actually watch BOTS on a tv)? I know he has a sitcom but I’ve never been able to find it, not even a torrent of it. So who did they think was going to see this film?

Crazy Rich Asians was a hit - even though I didn’t care for it - because it snuck up on moviegoers looking to see something entertaining and different. It declared its importance kind of under the radar and after the fact of its success. Bros thought it could be self-important and that would win the day. And Eichner’s dour and cringey promotion of it in the run up to the opening was cringe worthy. I’m sure even the gay people who might’ve gone to the cinema thought, “I can wait for this to come on tv.”

It’s not about the gay content. Plenty of people watched The Power of The Dog. This is just a reflection of Billy Eichner as a movie star because, frankly, I don’t want to see him naked and nobody ever believed he could pull a guy like Luke Macfarlane, certainly not with unfunny jokes at a Macfarlane-type’s expense. Spare us your wish fulfilment fantasies. Turns out you’re not Jennifer Anniston after all.

Has Joel Kim Booster weighed in yet?

Can’t wait for this be-yotch to step up.

Matt Bellamy predicted this outcome Friday on The Town podcast. This isn’t a surprise to ANYBODY. The film has been tracking poorly for weeks. The studio knew it wasn’t going to land.

Putting Guy Branum in the trailer, much less the film, is a mistake. I honestly don’t know how these tired, unfunny, unappealing gay guys have careers - led by their Rat King, Jon Lovett. I mean, this is not mainstream. Why did they think a mass audience would want to see this? I’m gay and even I don’t want to see it. I feel like I already have.

Sorry Eichner, but you suck.

He really has become insufferable with this movie. And that's saying a lot, all things considered. (And I say that as someone who kind of liked him before). But the whole 'my movie is god's gay gift to the world because it's the most groundbreaking thing ever made' is absolutely ridiculous, pompous, and tiresome. As if "Gay", oh, excuse me, "Queer", started with him and this film, and nothing done before matters. It's like he's lecturing us, instead of just letting the work speak for itself.

I knew something was wrong with Billy Eichner when he complained on twitter that Rock Hudson was on the cover of Entertainment Weekly instead of him.

The self-congratulatory rant is tiresome, it's just a shitty rom-com. Stop trying to act like you released the new Citizen Kane, Billy.

i hate that he's trying to say that if you don't go see it then hollywood will never make another big budget gay movie again. no, you spent your career creating a loathsome (and funny) public character. sorry people don't want to see that cynical and spiteful character in a romcom

Reddit pointing out that no one went to his film because it’s was him.

OMG, the shills above. All coming on at once.

Insufferable gay jew.

....

My film "Glitter" was also good.

Looking Billy Eichner up on IMDB I would have watched him supporting in several episodes of Parks and Rec and American Horror Story. I don't recall him from either, he made absolutely no impression.

How is he supposed to such a big deal?

[quote]Wow, he sounds desperate.

Does he? just a little future down he writes...

[quote]That’s just the world we live in, unfortunately. Even with glowing reviews, great Rotten Tomatoes scores, an A CinemaScore etc, straight people, especially in certain parts of the country, just didn’t show up for Bros. And that’s disappointing but it is what it is.

It's not 1975 anymore after theatrical, DVD/Blu-ray, PPV / On Demand, streaming, premiere Cable, basic cable, syndication, it'll make money

R113 The comments on that post are brutal, and depressing. Ugh.

"Black/Gay Twitter" seems to be blaming it on the fact that it's 2 'Yt gay' leads.

R118 Because the Queer as Folk reboot was such a huge success... Twitter is full of delusional people.

HuffPost showcases Billys whining...And threw in a photo of his wrinkled cheeks...

The Trailer for Bros is nearly unwatchable and these are the highlights?

I'll watch the film when it streams to see what it's all about but it does appear to be cringe-worthy.

Why can't somebody make a gay comedy to the standards of La Cage Aux Folles? That film is hilarious and it appeals to both gays and straights.

I am a bit reluctant to go to a theater to watch this movie. It seems like making oneself an easy mark for homophobes.

R122 = Yep..I am from Oklahoma. The straights love their gay bashings. This is what we call a RENTAL movie. Ain't nobody going to see it in a theatre.

R117 Agreed. That link’s comments just confirm every depressing stereotype that Kevin Hart is attempting to run away from.

Least Billy Eichner gave it a go in the face of all that hate.

Went to see it tonight. Some of was screamingly funny. There were some poignant moments. There were also some predictable and derivative moments. I had my doubts about the casting, but for the writing it was important that the leads be two different physical types. It was actually the sex scenes, which were not particularly explicit, that made me cringe a bit , because they reinforced stereotypes that straight people have about gay sex. (That group sex is more common than one-on-one sex, for one). I know that in the biggest cities, there's a lot of group sex at sex parties, etc, and at white parties and on gay sex cruises, but I think in most of the country, one-on-one sex remains most common. However, the main theme, which could be described as gay people not loving themselves enough to accept the reality that another person might find them loveable is a real issue in the gay community, and was well-handled, I thought. I agree that Billy's personality, at least as the character he plays in the film, vacillated between being bitchy, angry, funny, sexy, and preachy, and I certainly questioned whether I could put up with it long enough to become emotionally involved with such a personality.

Billy goes for the obligatory Gay Hissy Fit = It's the straights fault!!...

It looks quite bad from the trailer, but I think any movie with two gay men as the leads will never do well.

The fact of the matter is that the majority of people are straight and, therefore, have no interest in gay themed films. I'm not saying it's because they're homophobic - the majority of people just don't care what sexuality anyone is - it's more that they see it as irrelevant to them.

R123. Wow I'm very surprised by your comment. I think this film could play anywhere in my country, Spain, with no threat of gay-bashing.

Come to Oklahoma City...Gays are like windshields = both are bashed at the OKC Pride Parade. (that's not a joke)...

[Quote]think any movie with two gay men as the leads will never do well.

I don't think this is the case, but the straights have to be represented in good supporting roles as well. And not roles that mock them.

The gay book market is thriving, and it's mostly dominated by straight women. So there's a place for gay movies, but they need to tell approachable and kind stories, not "LOOK, WE'RE SOOOO GAY!!!" stuff, like Bros and Fire Island. I don't know why movie executives can't understand that.

Why is a 60 year old going as Billy instead of Bill or William?

NYT article

R131 Possibly, but the old Queer As Folk in the US kind of screamed "LOOK, WE'RE SOOOO GAY", and it had a major female straight audience too.

R131 = YEP....Straight women have taken over the Gay Book market...I mentioned this about 6 months ago and DL didn't care...One female author is married (to a man) and CLAIMS to be bisexual. She churns out countless numbers of these "gay" novels. I also don't need a straight woman writing a book about the plight of AIDS and gay men in the 1980s. (These straight chicks are churning out OUR history).

Those hags at r131 are the most unattractive wenches I've ever seen.

So are straight women buying these books as well?

Billy Eichner is so bad for the gay community and our image. I'm not talking about the group sex or casual sex in the movie or whatever else. Things like that are everyone's private business.

What I'm talking about is this glorification of cruelty in your dealings with others; snide jokes at the expense of straight people (so "funny" that it was the last clip in the trailer); and then blaming his failures on those same straight people. If people see this and think it's representative of us, it is actually quite bad for us. I'm not saying that we need to bow to others' expectations of what we should and should not do (see first paragraph) but his behavior borders on the sociopathic. Thankfully we are not all so misanthropic and I hope that that's visible to others.

Billy is now a victim!

It'll likely do a bit better in Europe if it gets a theatre release.

[quote]Name one non-Marvel/DC/Star Wars/Spielberg clap trap picture that has earned a profit since the pandemic started.

You were already answered but Where the Crawdads Sing, a modest movie with no stars and a budget of $24 million grossed over $89 million in the US alone ($130m total) this past summer. The Woman King, a non franchise action film, has grossed over $50 million.

The women fans in that video are very unattractive. Is that what all romance fans looks like?

The lead character in a romantic comedy can't just be an asshole throughout. They have to learn some lessons, gain some humility and not be negative all the time.

Maybe if Billy turned down the volume a bit. He's A LOT.

It's preposterous to suggest homophobia is the reason people are not watching.

Schitt's Creek was very popular. Dan Levy in some ways reminds me of Billy Eichner.

They don't look alike but they kind of have a similar overall look/vibe.

Levy's character in Schitt's Creek was grating likr Eichner is, but he wasn't intense like Eichner is.

Schitt's Creek was both a family comedy and a gay romance. The gay romance didn't turn off audiences.

When Bros is streaming, I will watch it for two reasons: because of its gay nature and because I find Luke MacFarlane dreamy and sweet and I have carried a torch for him since he wason Brothers and Sisters. His sweetness makes him a good foil for Eichner in my mind because if the movie were Eichner and an unknown, I don't think I would watch it. Billy Eichner to me is like Gilbert Gottfried. He is just TOO MUCH, too loud, too grating.

Oy...someone replied to Eichner, "If a movie doesn't look interesting to me, why should I see it?" and some woman replied to him "educate yourself."

Educate yourself with a sappy romantic comedy. Also, vaccines are a conspiracy to kill off all of us!!!

[quote] Well, I'm going to go see it with friends. Just haven't found the time for it yet.

Or the friends.

Supposedly the movie is great… I usually wait for movies to get to a streaming service but I might go watch this. I’m a Billy Eichner fan btw. I enjoy his schtick—it’s his thing.

I wait for the free version on Tubi (with ads).

I liked it better when it was called The Broken Hearts Club or Trick.

Following on from what R131 said, I work for Audible. There is a HUGE female market for M2M romance, erotica, fantasy/omniverse content that is currently only being exploited by audiobooks. And probably graphic novels. We see it more at Audible because it’s more accessible and costs less. Women love M2M.

So all this hand-wringing about “gay this” and “gay that” is irrelevant. Just tell a good story and invite everybody. Drop the labels and just explore the dynamic and allow it to exist. All this sign-posting is unnecessary.

Also, is it some big surprise that no one wanted to see Billy Eichner with his ankles over his ears getting plowed by Luke Macfarlane? No. It’s like anything else - it has to be earned. There is power in suggestion. You have to engage viewers in a compelling story, characters have to have innate chemistry, you have to tease the audience, make them want these characters to come together…

You can’t just present some idealised, 2D cartoon that preaches at the audience and expect them to be interested.

This poor sad schlemiel has to shill his own film on social media. Presumably, the professionals the studio paid to do it just gave up. So he's taking over.

I think this will be old hat to European audiences. NOBODY overseas knows who Billy Eichner is. NO ONE. So it’ll be a tougher sell over here probably. I don’t think they care much about Judd Apatow either.

Also, Crawdads didn’t have any stars but the book is a GLOBAL best seller. It was the book that sold it and, domestically, Witherspoon.

Who did the studio think they were making this for? My family still tenses up when Nate and Jeremiah show up on HGTV.

R149, but the reviews of the movie are excellent. And the gay sex is pretty realistic. Many Rom-coms aren’t as deep as you describe and still do well. The interesting thing is you mention audible stuff doing well. Maybe it’s the visuals that turn people off.

Billy, don’t be a hero…

How many times do I have to quote the real Duke, Ellington to you folks..."If it sounds good, it is good." If it is funny people will laugh.

The Birdcage was so good, so funny. There have been several remakes in all mediums, all which had loads of people into it & still are.

PS. to finger shake & nanny scold audiences of any gender or sexual persuasion is sure to piss off & lose more of them..Sheesh how dumb is this guy?

R8 What is EST???

R153, I’m not referring exclusively to rom-coms. There are a lot of other stories and genres where same sex relationships can work.

R156, if the game is “tell us you’ve never been to Datalounge without actually saying you’ve never been to Datalounge” then you win.

R156, that has been the subject of much discussion over the years. If you figure it out, let us know.

Some films just aren't for a wide audience. Woody Allen films for example didn't play everywhere; even his Best Picture winning Annie Hall didn't do boffo box office. And Woody's character was way more likable than BE.

[quote] My family still tenses up when Nate and Jeremiah show up on HGTV.

And they're about as safe and milquetoast as you can get when it comes to real public gay couples.

[quote] The lead character in a romantic comedy can't just be an asshole throughout. They have to learn some lessons, gain some humility and not be negative all the time.

I think that just may be a major key to this. Rom-Coms work because the stars have to be likeable, in the way that people want to root for them (if not kind of live vicariously through them). That's why those particular movie stars (of the late 20th Century), that we all know by name, did so well in this genre because they had that thing - people either want to be them, or want to fuck them. I don't see that with the lead casting on this, let alone they're not even big enough stars to grab the attention of the mass public period. Part of what made people constantly go see those rom-coms was maybe more so about their favorite stars always in that genre, rather than some compelling story (as the genre is already often formulaic).

Jews are very self-aggrandizing and boastful.

I'd love to see Billy running around asking random people if they've seen his movie yet. I wonder how many people he'd have to harass before he got a yes?

Interestingly Viola Davis took the right stance in pushing The Woman King--making it everyone's responsibility to be sure a Black woman leading a movie can become a hit. It worked.

The Woman King has almost made back its cost already.

Eichner and all should have done that with Bros

It's official: Billy measures up less than 40% than expected!

Billy should stand on the street and give people a dollar if they go see his movie.

I don’t know if it happens or not but in order for this movie to work, Billy would have to dumped really hard by somebody right at the beginning so the audience would root for him throughout.

From the trailer, it looks like he sets himself up as superior to everyone else.

I'd tip him $10 to leave me alone, like a mariachi band in a sitcom.

[quote]A studio will not take another chance/risk like this again. It'll now be decades before we see the next mainstream movie with an out gay leading man.

[quote]I do agree that both leads should have been hot

Is there a chance they just got something wrong in the casting or the medium? I thought content about gay male relationships was very popular with women readers? Are people (over 16) even back at the theaters yet in numbers that create hits?

As a film, Eichner and MacFarlane are not big name talents. Maybe casting explains the lack of crossover pickup?

And as a gay man I will watch this and I take it on faith it is funny and all the good things that people who've seen it say it is... but I will say from the trailer and the publicity, it doesn't seem very original. I saw Queer as Folk all those years ago and this feels like every gay life cliche of what the straight people expect us to be (not that there isn't a lot of truth in that, but most of us aren't out at thumpa thumpa clubs all the time, if ever.) To read about it, it isn't, but from the packaging it looks like Marvel's version of gay men in love. As to hotness, maybe more relatable, bigger names could have gone over better? Maybe the problem wasn't just who they cast but how they portrayed them?

All criticisms aside, it does feel like a bit of a bummer that it's not doing well, as our window for this kind of material in the mainstream is so short, particularly if the film fails. And not only that, it just seems like it's impossibly hard to make something that pleases a lot of people from different demographics, even within just the gay demo. There's always a complaint about what kind of gay person the story is about, what parts of the gay life/culture are repped, the race of the characters, it being too tragic or too much of a fantasy, etc. Feels almost unwinnable.

I think the Kennedys walk on water? Really? Have you seen the film? It’s good! He’s right- homophobia. He’s quite realistic about it, “it is what it is”. He had hoped it might transcend. Apparently it cannot even on a gay chat board among guys who mostly haven’t even seen the film. Depressing.

In any case, I saw it and it was laugh out loud funny poking fun at all the letters in LGBT. Glad I saw it and feel a little sorry for those who will stew in their anger about a movie they’ve never seen!

Billy expected that if he ejaculated quickly the first weekend, America would love him so much. He's angry and resentful at America.

But America likes those romcoms that take it nice and slow, over time, and let people get to know them, talk about them with friends over a couple of weeks, go back for repeat viewings in a committed way, quote memorable dialogue. . .

PS, also looks like a lot of gay men on DL are letting the straight movie going world dictate to them- also sad. This is a very well reviewed film. Why wouldn’t you see it?

[quote]And the gay sex is pretty realistic.

Hon, nobody expects or wants sex in rom-coms to be realistic. Rom-coms are not realistic by design.

R86 Who the fuck cares, Mary? Jesus fucking Christ, get a life.

I am no fan, but the BE hate is pretty shocking, even for the DL. I was initially very put off by his shrieking shtick, but he’s grown on me a bit. It’s a cute little movie.

Not a hater, but I feel like Billy has botched his moment. He has only brought more attention to the box office, making the movie seem even more like a flop. Really bad form.

It’s a good point, r177. He should have shut up and then promoted the shit out of it when it hits platforms.

This should have been a streaming only movie, should have sent it to Netflix. Box office for romantic comedies un general isn't that great anymore.

He was trending on Twitter this morning.

Most people were mocking him for not realizing that HE was the problem with the film--people are not clamoring to see a Billy Eichner movie at the cinema.

It's so pathetic to blame the audience.

[quote]I am no fan, but the BE hate is pretty shocking, even for the DL.

You'll be fine by the end of your first full week.

Ya know, I feel sarry for hem.

Question for those who have seen it: is it funny because it's filled with gay in jokes or funny in a more universal way? Or what's the ratio?

R182 is Lea Michele

It’s just funny and I would say on a general basis because it sends up everyone- straight, we’ll meaning libs and each of the LBGT groups. It’s a very funny and entertaining movie.

I look forward to streaming it, then.

Shoulda called it Bullet Train instead.

It's a bit Mary! to call everybody who didn't see it homophobic.

Everyone who didn't buy my last album is a cunt!!!

R185, why didn’t it just tell a story of two gay men falling in love? Why did it have to stake positions in the culture war? Who gives a fuck what Billy Eichner’s self-insert thinks about trans people? Straight people? Other gay men? People have unlimited access to hot takes. They’ve had sufficient.

Comedy today relies on "hot takes" -- not romance.

Someone is on drugs. Poor Billy.

[quote] And not only that, it just seems like it's impossibly hard to make something that pleases a lot of people from different demographics, even within just the gay demo. There's always a complaint about what kind of gay person the story is about, what parts of the gay life/culture are repped, the race of the characters, it being too tragic or too much of a fantasy, etc. Feels almost unwinnable.

Since we know that people are going to complain when a film promotes gay stereotypes, Hollywood could just stop doing that. That would be a win.

R10 thinks it’s 1989.

It was in a gay ghetto, no doubt, sponsored by some lgbtlmnop organization. I know three people personally who went and said there was no one but themselves and one other person in the audience.

Charlie used to be a normal poster on DL. Poor thing has lost his damn mind.

Billy’s alt account.

In the current cultural climate, it is difficult to do a film about gay men, especially white gay men.

People will complain. "Where are the trans characters?" "Where are the nonbinary characters?" "Where are the people of color?" "Where are the lesbians?"

💀💀💀💀💀

The responses to his tweet are more entertaining than the movie.

Charlie is so annoying. Always preaching. There’s also some signs of mental decline. He has trouble following discussions and lingers on what he thinks should be the topic. Regression, incipient dementia?

Wall Street Journal reviewer eviscerated it: "comedies about jerks work only if they’re funny, and “Bros” isn’t."

[quote]Charlie is so annoying. Always preaching. There’s also some signs of mental decline.

Oh, DO fuck off you obsessive cunt.

[quote]Question for those who have seen it: is it funny because it's filled with gay in jokes or funny in a more universal way? Or what's the ratio?

I would say it's only funny in sections, some of that in a universal way, some of it more in-jokey. Unfortunately, the percentage of would-be comedic moments that fall flat is very high, maybe close to 50 percent.

There is not one funny joke in the trailer.

This reminds me of “Charlie’s Angels”.

Elizabeth Banks said if men don’t see the movie, they’re sexist for not supporting a female action film.

Billy is doing the very same thing.

There are not enough gay men to prop up this film which is the primary target, so they need to make it appealing to a broad audience which they failed to do.

Straight men go to romcoms because of their wives or girlfriends and not because they have an interest.

Straight women would watch it alone if the leads are attractive men, in this case most will stay away since the lead is hideous.

This is reality.

R198 The crazy thing is, no one is even trying to make those arguments.

A lot of people are saying it’s not interesting / appealing.

This funny thing is, this movie might have actually been a box office hit 15 years ago. And I think that’s the problem with the movie in 2022.

Big theatrical rom com hits are a relic of the 90s/early 2000s.

Eichner refused to acknowledge that most people, outside of DL posters and media studies majors, aren't that interested in the recent history of popular culture and LGBT representation. The basic plot structure of Bros is just a gay Woody Allen movie: homely, neurotic--but perpetually horny--NYC Jewish writer, thinly veiled alter ego of movie's writer/star, who is desperate for a shiksa (or shegetz, in the case of McFarlane's character). Sorry, Billy, you're not Nora Ephron, and more to the point: why would a modern gay man have such middlebrow, frau-ish aspirations? Even Mel Brooks dismissed "When Harry met Sally..." as a Woody Allen rip off, which it was, and "You've Got Mail" was just a remake of an earlier movie (Shop around the Corner, itself adapted from a play) that coasted on the appeal of its stars.

Amy Schumer already beat Eichner to the punch when it came to collaborating with Judd Apatow to build movies around her persona as a sad, slutty singleton.

People are not going to the movies like that post covid. As ignorant as it may sound many straights in flyover probably thought they might get monkeypox seeing this in theaters. This should have either been hyped and released as a cultural event during June's pride month or built around a platform like Netlfix. Nuff said.

Rom coms in the mid-2000’s went through a streak of ugly men and pretty women. Seth Rogen in “Knocked Up”, Steve Carrell in “The 40 Year-Old Virgin”, Jason Segel in “Forgetting Sarah Marshall”. All produced by Judd Apatow.

A movie like this would have definitely done something in that period.

He was able to do it again turning the gender tables with Amy Schumer in “Trainwreck” in 2015.

But it’s very dated. Look, even if this movie is a notch about a Netflix movie, it’s still bound to fail because I feel like we’re used to watching these Judd Apatow movies on streaming now.

When I think of a Judd Apatow movie, I think of 15 years ago. Comedy died off at the box office because they basically stopped making scripts and it was all scenario and improv built on comedic character actors.

I think “Twilight” destroyed romantic comedies for women.

Billie is not hot enough for the other guy.

man, every thread about this movie fills up fast

[quote]why would a modern gay man have such middlebrow, frau-ish aspirations?

So, R210, flesh that out. What would be the right aspirations of a modern gay man?

I disagree the concept of the rom com is dead (though it desperately needs better writers.) My belief is after COVID we're entering an era where there will be a real response to happy endings and optimistic film making, because it's been so awful.

But I am inclined to agree with what I see as the inference that big conventional move theatre hits have moved beyond romcom. If it isn't Marvel, it's nothing.

Streaming is the place to reach people over sixteen.

"How is he supposed to be such a big deal?"

Because once he got a little bit of fame, all he did was schmooze celebrities at events. If you weren't famous or a studio/network executive, he could care two shits about you.

Saw that in person a few times.

The idiot who greenlighted this movie with him as a romantic lead should have security escort them off the studio lot after the Monday morning meeting.

Billy Eichner is one of those people who doesn't realize he only works in small doses.

You're not going to guilt people into seeing a rom-com, charlie. Get over yourself.

I didn’t know it sold out anywhere. People were standing to their feet, cheering and crying? I’ve never witnessed that reaction for a theatrical movie release. Hmmm….

R215 is that a serious question? Nora Ephron movies, when not outright unwatchable, are trite, formulaic, and mawkish. It’s the cinematic equivalent of trying to recreate an oppressive family sitcom like family ties or growing pains.

Let’s face it, Eichner’s main talent is sitting around making occasionally funny comments about celebrities, hence the entire subplot of the LGBTQ museum board meeting and his character’s career as a podcaster, which are identical to the promotional appearances Eichner has made in support of the movie.

Based on the trailer, the movie is funny, with a lot of that self-deprecating humor that only gays know how to do--the kind of jokes Douglas Carter Beane wrote for The Little Dog Laughed that won Julie White her Tony.

But the problem is BE himself. As many have said on this thread, he's obnoxious and screamy and unattractive. It's just built into him. It's not a shtick he has adopted. He's someone living in a state of rage, and no matter what he does, he's alienating.

The trailer would have brought customers into theatres with someone else in BE's role. A young Dustin Hoffman, say.

Romantic comedies are supposed to have charm.

[quote] But the problem is BE himself. As many have said on this thread, he's obnoxious and screamy and unattractive. It's just built into him. It's not a shtick he has adopted. He's someone living in a state of rage, and no matter what he does, he's alienating.

It's like having an extremely sexed-up straight romantic comedy starring the late Gilbert Gottfried.

R221, it was a serious question in that to me, the themes of seeking love, companionship and belonging are pretty universal. But I misunderstood the extent to which you attached your argument about a modern gay man to the idea Eichner is trying to emulate Norah Ephron. In that case you make sense.

R232 you keep posting the same inane assertions to this thread.

I can't wait!

Nostradamus has joined the DL. @ R225.

No one would look up from a crowded dance floor and see the dehydrated homely Eichner and gaze at him as MacFARlane does.

Spoiler Alert looks really good.

I have no love for Billy, but he's not as unattractive as you all are making him out to be! Gilbert Gottfried??

Only one more reply until we get to see how R232 repeats himself!

R231 Answered prayers 🙏🙏🙏 It opened in 3,350 theaters and made $4.8M over the weekend averaging a $549 per theater. At 1$0 a ticket that would be 55 tickets. Odd that Eichner saw it in a packed theater.

That's it?

He forced them all off a bus and into the theater at gunpoint.

How much money do you think Billy is going to spend out of his own pocket buying up tickets to this disaster to make it look like a hit?

Not that it's going to make a dent, but Billy has already proven he's delusional.

It’s a mystery. It’s a mystery. My asshole is a mystery to me. It’s a mystery. My asshole is a mystery to me.

J.Lo's next rom com is being released on Amazon. That's where these types of movies go now.

Jello was lucky for Marry Me to get any kind of theatrical release. Just how it is these days.

Billy Eichner's meltdown over the poor opening weekend seems to have backfired. Yesterday before the tweets if you search for his movie on Twitter it was filled with mostly positive reviews from gay people and celebrities. After him blaming straight people most of the mentions are negative and mocking. Even gay Twitter seems to be split 50-50 after his rant.

I do not want to see raunchy sex comedy. I’ll stay home and watch porn instead

R239 Yep. He's been trending all day, but he's getting completely roasted. And people bringing up all his annoying behavior. What a moron

[quote] "You've Got Mail" was just a remake of an earlier movie (Shop around the Corner, itself adapted from a play) that coasted on the appeal of its stars.

How could you leave out Judy's version?

My husband wants to see this, so we probably will this weekend. I enjoy gay rom coms (Adam & Steve is one of my faves - a totally under-the-radar indie film), but have had 0 interest in this because...

[bold]Billy Eichner[/bold]

I didn't like him in Parks and Rec, I really didn't like him in American Horror Story, and just find him too grating and too much.

Tina Fey or even Nia Vardalos he ain't. [italic]Those[/italic] are writer-comics that have charm and screen presence. He would have been better being an EP on this and letting someone else take the reigns.

They should have called me. I could have fixed this movie. I would have changed the title to "Dahmer's Bros." The poster art would feature a picture of a refrigerator with the door slightly ajar, and Eicher's face peering out from inside the veggie drawer. We could have crushed that "Smile" movie for sure.

The message isn't landing.

R241 What an annoying POS he is. And ugly.

[quote] What I'm talking about is this glorification of cruelty in your dealings with others

R137 I don't think DL is the place to make this claim!

I want to be friends with the woman at R241.

Imagine the hatred this guy would get if he was

(Wait for it)

(You know it’s coming)

(You can already guess what I’m about to type)

FAAAAATTTTT!!!!!!

He’s a saggy bottom and that is just as bad as fat.

Silly Sodomites

His social media whining is creating all sorts of buzz for the movie as well as headlines for entertainment articles.

Pretty smart move, TBH

Oh, yeah. I mean, everybody thinks let's go see that movie that asshole tweeted about.

R251 It’s not making people want to watch his crappy movie. It’s just making people realize what a shitty person he is.

I'm tired of marketers for movies telling us if we don't go see their movie, we are bad people. Christ.

Just make something that's entertaining, and include some of the most entertaining parts in the trailer. If people like what they see, they'll check it out. It's not brain surgery.

The trailer seemed like it for wealthy white gays who's gayness is their entire personality.

I’ll stream it. Don’t do movie theatres anymore

after CMBYN, Longtime Companion, Jeffrey, Torch Song Trilogy. Milk, Brokeback Mountain, Love! Valour! Compassion!, The Birdcage, To Wong Foo, Trick, Hedwig and the Angry Inch, My Beautiful Launderette, Kiss Me Guido, Billy's Hollywood Screen Kiss, Parting Glances . . .does Eichner think he's done something pioneering and unique? Has he been asleep for the last 3 decades? Bros is just

Sometimes Billy on the Street is funny. Sometimes it's really cringe. I don't know, being mean to people over movie trivia?

Now Moogan McCain is ranting in the Daily Mail that Eichner hates his fellow Americans. I'm not sure why. It's not like he filmed himself shitting on her war criminal dad's grave.

Well, one's about as logical as the other, so I hope Billy's happy.

[Wuote]No one would look up from a crowded dance floor and see the dehydrated homely Eichner and gaze at him as MacFARlane does.

This! What hot buff guy is going to look twice at BE? It's not believable. Not even the straights are buying it.

Megan McCain just trashed him in an unlinked DailyFail article because they both apparently have been feuding with each other for years. Here's the part she mentions that I didn't know:

[quote] Despite a $22 million production budget, an estimated $30 to $40 million promotional machine, Eichner appearing on every imaginable media platform and largely positive reviews from critics, 'Bros' only managed to take in a measly $4.8 million on its opening weekend.

I had assumed that they spent an additional $20 million or so on promotion and distribution, and she claims it was a much as $40 million more, which would make breakeven for this movie at around $70 million. Bros made $5 million so far, so only $65 million to go. Maybe the entertainment press will cover this aspect of the movie and provide better numbers for total cost. Right now, this is all the info we have.

I’ll watch it when it’s free. I don’t like to pay for much of anything anymore in terms of entertainment.

R234 more like Jimmy Kimmel’s Oscar stunt? 🤠. They though they were invited to a preview of the Black Panther sequel.

It's a bit distressing to find oneself on the same side as that ogress McCain but what R262 says about a personal spat between them makes sense. She is incapable of viewing anything except through a personal lens.

Did Miss Eichner force those street people to sit through the performance twice, like in Death of Stalin?

[quote]after CMBYN, Longtime Companion, Jeffrey, Torch Song Trilogy. Milk, Brokeback Mountain, Love! Valour! Compassion!, The Birdcage, To Wong Foo, Trick, Hedwig and the Angry Inch, My Beautiful Launderette, Kiss Me Guido, Billy's Hollywood Screen Kiss, Parting Glances

And In & Out, The Wedding Banquet, Mambo Italiano, etc, etc.

And The Boys In The Band.

R259 is Trump

R268 Billy could play Harold in Boys in the Band

I work in the movie business. The tracking on this movie has been miserable for a very long time. All signs point to Eichner's ego getting in the way of making, marketing and releasing a successful gay romcom in the current environment.

There was no reason that he should have been the lead of this movie. He does have the the star power or awareness or likability necessary to open a theatrical movie anywhere other than a small subset of white gay men in New York or Los Angeles (even a not insignificant number of these men find him insufferable). If nothing else, Luke McFarlane should have been the face of the movie, building on his Hallmark female audience and building out.

Eichner's ego demanded a wide theatrical release, I suppose to really stick it to Hulu and Joel Kim Booster, which was the better film and more reasonable effort. Romcoms generally are an uphill battle theatrically (maybe excepting Julia Roberts...maybe). I understand the allure of a theatrical release, but this isn't the first gay movie to do so (LOVE, SIMON beat Eichner to it, and did it rather successfully).

By all accounts, despite the issues with Eichner as an actor, there's enough in the script to like. Word-of-mouth could have carried this to a respectable, modest theatrical release in New York, LA and San Francisco, with maybe a few more markets after, and then a splashy premiere on Peacock a month later that would have attracted eyeballs and built anticipation. But, Eichner considers himself on par with Clooney, so here we are. It will pop up on streaming, eventually, with the stink of failure.

And finally, the marketing. On no planet does any romcom benefit from its star going on every interview and podcast talking primarily about how it's an act of social justice to see the movie. No one actually cares. If this were marketed as an elevated raunchy romcom/comedy, like BRIDESMAIDS or THE HANGOVER, plenty of straight women, and their boyfriends, would have checked it out. But it is, as far as I can tell, being sold as Stonewall 2.0. Most straight people (the vast majority of any movie's audience), and probably appreciable number of gay men, do not care. They care to be entertained. And above all, it's not a movie that has to be sold to gay men. Marketing this to gay men should have been incidental since that audience is pre-disposed to check it out anyway.

Above all, it's enraging because I can already hear the pushback on pitches with any gay under or overtones. "Bros didn't work..." is the path of least resistance that studios will gladly take for the next twenty years or so.

He does *not have the the star power or awareness or likability necessary

There was no way that this was going to be a hit in the US. Face the facts - a lot of people here hate gay men. That is why, though I think he would be the best president, Pete Buttigieg will never be a contender. Maybe he could win the Dem nomination, but at the end of the day it would be an electoral disaster. And don't you trolls blame trans people for this - they hate masculine, intelligent, married with children gay men most of all.

There's a disconnect between the title and the actual movie

"Bros' sounds like it's about a romance between two very not-gay guys, guys whose social circles are primarily hetero but just happen to find each other.

That would have much more mass market appeal (if any of you want to write it) -- the comedy of a bunch of relatively clueless straight guys trying to help direct their gay friend's romance.

Putting the scenes of Billy at the LGBTQIAWXYZ+ museum in the trailer made it seem not all that accessible and likely far too woke for it to get a mainstream audience.

really r274?

[quote] In any case, I saw it and it was laugh out loud funny poking fun at all the letters in LGBT

charlie, R171, when did you become a transphobic TERF cunt?

I’ll agree to go see it and take my extended family bas well as my friends. IF Billy will buy me a new Infinity

r277 ?

I’m guessing he will throw a similar hissy fit when his romcom bombs in 2023….

Be comforted, Billy. It's an AWESOME feat to even appear in a film, never mind STAR in one. And your release did avoid the misfortune that befell Amy Schumer's 'Trainwreck' , which was a very real fear for me. Gosh, maybe cinema isn't your forte, but you know, there is nothing wrong with that. I think you're super just the way and just the where you are.

He cannot claim that homophobia is the reason why people don't want to watch the film, when Brokeback Mountain was released during a much more conservative period and it was a massive success, even if it was denied the Oscar it deserved by some particularly clueless members of the Academy. The problem is that the film is excessively contrived and offers mostly silly jokes while waging a disapproving finger at the public, through moralizing discourses about the problems of the LGBTZXYOMWP123456789 community.

If it hadn't been so concerned about making a statement and having an enormous social impact, it would have been much more successful.

Brokeback was a "massive success" because the gays in it suffered and one died. The public likes dead gays - not live ones living happily ever after.

R282 Nobody would live happily ever after with Billy.

R274 So many movies could have been made with “Bros” that made sense.

A 40-something guy comes out to his super straight friends as gay and they all decide to help him find gay culture. Maybe they all go to P-Town for the weekend and shit gets crazy, like a gay “Hangover”. And the antagonist is one friend who’s homophobic and goes against them.

R279 Be real, his projects will be on streaming and he knows how to appeal to the main audience, which is women. If anything the hissy fit will be from DL when it's successful and mostly sexless.

R282 No one knew Jake died in the movie until they watched it.

People went to see the movie because 2 straight actors played 2 gay cowboys fucking in the mountains.

“I wish I knew how to quit you” is up there in Hollywood movie quotes.

People went to see Brokeback Mountain for the sex scenes.

They even used that as the tagline in a Marlboro Man ad at the time. It made it pretty deep into popular culture.

R288 That is hilarious.

Billy, you’re embarrassing yourself.

Stop it now!

[quote] Presumably, the professionals the studio paid to do it just gave up. So he's taking over.

I imagine Billy felt HE could do it better.

Smile, Billy.

Maybe he thought if people could stomach rom-coms of Woody Allen with Diane Keaton, they can make it through this.

His mistake was not giving me a part.

It's not about how good the movie is, but how good it SEEMS. It was marketed as a self-important milestone, which doesn't feel like a good time.

And by the way, after Netflix's Uncoupled, I doubt anyone is going to be rushing to a gay sitcom anytime soon.

"Why Did Billy Eichner’s ‘Bros’ Bomb at the Box Office? Straight People Aren’t Entirely to Blame"

New piece up on "Variety."

Billy Eichner’s Universal-backed comedy “Bros” flopped at the box office during its opening weekend with a $4.8 million bow, about half of the $8 million to $10 million that the studio projected. Eichner, in a now viral tweet, claimed that straight people not showing up to an LGBTQ comedy was a driving force behind “Bros” underperformance.

“Even with glowing reviews, great Rotten Tomatoes scores, an A CinemaScore, etc., straight people, especially in certain parts of the country, just didn’t show up for ‘Bros,'” Eichner wrote. “And that’s disappointing but it is what it is.”

Eichner is certainly correct that some straight moviegoers weren’t interested in the material, while homophobia about two men falling in love also likely figured in. During a recent trip to a multiplex in Georgia, for instance, this writer saw a group of men being openly homophobic by mocking the “Bros” poster for featuring a guy putting his hand on another guy’s butt. However, the $4.8 million opening for “Bros” is so low that it also means many LGBTQ viewers didn’t show up to see the comedy in theaters either. So why did “Bros” disappoint?

[bold] The star power just wasn’t there.[/bold]

As mentioned above, the official poster for “Bros” featured the backsides of two men. Why? Because leading stars Billy Eichner and Luke Macfarlane just aren’t box office draws at this point in their careers. Coming out of the pandemic, star power has become far more integral to successfully opening an original title that’s not a superhero movie or a horror movie, the two most enduring genres at the box office (see the $22 million opening of “Smile” over the weekend). “Bullet Train” opened to $30 million with Brad Pitt front and center, while Viola Davis’ “The Woman King” got off to a $19 million start. Both films also had action set pieces to lure in viewers, something “Bros” lacked as a comedy, which only means it needed that much more star power.

For the romantic comedy genre, star power is integral these days to getting people out of the house. Paramount’s “The Lost City” made it to the $105 million mark in the U.S. off the strength of pairing A-listers Sandra Bullock and Channing Tatum (that it had adventure elements to its plot and a Brad Pitt cameo didn’t hurt), while the George Clooney-Julia Roberts rom-com “Ticket to Paradise” is already a hit overseas with $45 million ahead of its U.S. debut later this month. Without star power, a rom-com seems better off taking the streaming route than the theatrical route.

[bold]The marketing prioritized the film’s importance over the film’s comedy.[/bold]

When “Bros” was announced to premiere at the Toronto International Film Festival, the press release for the movie called it “one of the first romantic comedies from a major studio to feature an almost entirely 2SLGBTQIA+ cast.” TV spots for “Bros” prioritized a pull quote calling the film “as hilarious as it is historic.” The point here is that “Bros” marketing worked overtime to sell its importance as the first major LGBTQ studio comedy, but aggressively marketing a movie as a glass-ceiling breaker can make it feel like homework for viewers. Many box office pundits agree Universal leaned too much into the film’s importance instead of marketing some of the film’s comedic set pieces in order to get across that it’s a comedy that’s, well, actually very funny. Rarely did the marketing highlight the film is from the director of popular comedies “Forgetting Sarah Marshall” and “Neighbors,” if at all. (cont.)

(cont.) Marvel is able to tout superhero movies like “Black Panther” and “Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings” as the first comic book films to be led by a Black and Asian superhero, respectively, without much blowback at the box office since these are new entries in the most successful film franchise in the world (and the first time these highly popular comic book characters have led their own movies). Warner Bros. touted the importance of “Crazy Rich Asians” in 2018, but it already had built-in awareness by being based on a best-selling book. The film also wisely opened in August so it could leg out slowly at the box office and dominate buzz during a slower theatrical release month.

While inclusivity and glass-ceiling breaking are important factors worth celebrating and can stir up interest in a movie, they can’t be the sole focal point of a movie’s marketing. Just look at what happened to Warner Bros.’ “In the Heights,” which didn’t market its storyline or characters and instead went all-in on the movie being a game-changer for Latinx representation on the big screen. “In the Heights” bombed with an $11.4 million opening, though it was also available to stream on HBO Max at the same time (streaming numbers were also reportedly low, however).

Jo Koy’s August comedy “Easter Sunday” also seemed to promote the historic nature of a film that represents the Filipino community over the laughs that would bring in all moviegoers. That film bombed as well, making just over $13 million worldwide on a $17 million budget.

[bold]October is a nonstarter for rom-coms.[/bold]

According to Box Office Mojo, only four of the top 100 highest-grossing rom-coms have been released in October, and they aren’t exactly titans of the genre: 1979’s Bo Derek vehicle “10” at number 48; 2010’s Katherine Heigl and Josh Duhamel film “Life as We Know It” at number 84; John Cusack and Kate Beckinsale’s featherweight “Serendipity” at 91; and the witchy tale “Practical Magic” landing at number 100. Clearly rom-coms do not fly high at this time of year, and despite sneaking in to be released on the last day of September, Halloween fever had already overtaken pop culture.

After all, the two most obvious genres of movies to take a date to have historically been rom-coms and horror, and given the overperformance of “Smile,” consumers clearly wanted to hold their dates tight out of fear rather than love.

A smarter move would to have been to drop it during a quieter week in September, such as the 9th, in which the only competition would have been the pre-spooky season horror flick “Barbarian” and Bollywood superhero movie “Brahmastra Part One: Shiva.” By the Sept. 30 release date, social media was already flooded with #Halloween content, so why fight the inevitable?

[bold]Consumers were distracted by strong streaming releases.[/bold]

The week “Bros” was released also saw the debut of two buzzy films on streaming: The eagerly-awaited Marilyn Monroe biopic “Blonde” on Netflix, and the spooky family comedy “Hocus Pocus 2” on Disney+. Fans of Eichner’s Hollywood-soaked wit would likely be just as tempted to stay at home and watch either of those titles. Coupled with the recent release of the uber-viral “Dahmer” series on Netflix — plus an avalanche of seasonally-appropriate horror available at the push of a button — “Bros” was likely overwhelmed by the power of choice.

[bold]Has ‘The Bubble’ tarnished Judd Apatow?[/bold]

Given the film’s lack of star power, many of the promotional materials cited “Bros” producer Apatow as a major selling point. But his April film “The Bubble,” a painfully unfunny riff on COVID culture that Netflix released, is sitting at career-low numbers on Rotten Tomatoes and IMDB from fans and critics alike. Could the superproducer’s Midas Touch have diminished after his latest film failed to deliver?

Sorry Billy. We were busy washing our hair.

I don't think why people are downplaying the post covid world we live in. That's a big part of the films failure as well.

He limited replies on his tweets but is also claiming that he doesn’t care what we say, he will continue to post about his brilliant-and-critically-acclaimed movie forever and a day! But also box office doesn’t matter. So fuck you for noticing that no one saw the movie.

Billy released a movie?

They sure trumpeted that 96% tomato rating, didn't they? The audience correctly smelled the bullshit, and stayed away.

96% is higher than Lord of the Rings, Dark Knight, Shawshank, or Silence of the Lambs.

This should have been a small cult hit, not a historic bomb.

In another thread here at DL someone mentioned that entertainment/media companies rely on Twitter for their market research rather than go to the expense of gathering focus groups to get a feel of what the public wants. Given that Bros marketing put an emphasis on the film being a landmark in LGBTQIA2S+ film making, this may be an instance of relying on Twitter, especially the woke end of the platform, to help shape marketing of the film.

Did Billy or someone from his PR team start this thread?

R13 Hi Billy’s sister

What's this about Ogress ( thanks for the nickname r265) McCain having a feud with Billy? Did he make fun of her or something?

BJ Novak should not have cast himself in Vengeance, same with Eichner and Bros.,

R53, so why aren't young people pouring into the theatres to watch this?

I watched the trailer. The part where he catches Macfarlane’s eye in the club (LMAO) and Luke gazes at him like he’d just seen an angel is priceless. Total self-insert fanfiction, right down to the Nifty-fied “B-but you’re one of… BROS! You mean you like… LITTLE OLD ME?” Wwouldn’t be quite as annoying if Billy hadn’t cast himself.

Reminded me of the self-indulgent crap Dan Levy wrote for himself in Schitt’s Creek.

It bombed because no one wants to see a rom-com with two 40-something men--one of whom is unattractive and annoying. Even gays don't care about men in that age range. Heartbreaker was a hit on Netflix because it was a story about YOUNG gays.

Also, the trailer was cringe with the shots of gay bars, Pride parades and rainbow flags. Those things are so out-dated and corny in 2022, especially with young people. They even had a scene with a shirtless 60 yr. old man dancing at a gay bar. Who is that supposed to appeal to, other than the 50+ Palm Springs crowd?

Billey Eishner could never pull off dating a guy like that. Bros was his own masturbation fantasy. That's why it got only as much views as a pornhub video.

AND JUST LIKE THAT, a flop.

I know how you feel, Billy. It's pure homophobia.

I just realized I hadn't watched the trailer.

I just watched it.

It's not a movie about gay people. It's a movie about gayness.

People don't want to watch that. A romantic comedy made specifically to appeal to a small population is going to have a small turnout.

A breakthrough gay romantic comedy feature would just be a romance between two people who are gay, not about an LGBT museum and an LGBT board and a gay club with banter about being gay and gay and gay and gay. That's a feature-length very special episode and it's kind of archaic and dehumanizing.

I think Billy would have made more money, if he had recorded a sounding video for onlyfans.

As everyone is saying, it probably would have done better if someone else were in the lead.

Billy can now officially be added to the list on another thread where people were given a shot at stardom, but failed.

Sorry Billy, you’re just not likeable to the straights and gays equally.

I hope Billy isn't on suicide watch.

Bitter and volatile doesn't translate well to "sweet romantic comedy."

It's like Kellyanne Conway in a Meg Ryan role.

Straights also loved the sexless gays on Schitt’s Creek because one of them was written as a straight guy and played by a straight actor. The army of Netflix fraus could insert themselves as the femme Levy character and swoon over Noah Reid singing with his acoustic guitar and kissing (closed mouth and tame) and being endlessly patient and calm and sweet. Pure dreamland. Total fiction. Very effective.

[quote]Given that Bros marketing put an emphasis on the film being a landmark in LGBTQIA2S+ film making, this may be an instance of relying on Twitter, especially the woke end of the platform, to help shape marketing of the film.

Nope. Twitter wasn't for this film and finds Billy generally annoying. The only time he had support was when he had Difficult People going.

And the end of the platform you're referencing was definitely not going for a film where both the leads were white.

So, no. No one listened to "Twitter."

Has Eichner tried blaming it on Generation Z? Maybe Hollywood just is out of touch.

Has anyone mentioned the guy with the white go-go boots as the reason for its failure?

‘MOS NOS FOR BROS!

—Variety

Eichner needs to stop digging.

Even the slightest smidge of dignity he may have had is now gone. He's humiliating himself.

The Variety article sums it all up, and I agree with R271 about Luke McFarlane--he should've been the face of the movie. I caught a few of BE's promo things and it was all about him and the historic nature of the movie, nothing about his co-star.

However, if they'd wanted to bring in McFarlane's Hallmark audience, they probably would've needed to play down the overt gay stuff, especially the bedroom scenes. I doubt fraus who watch Hallmark shit want to see any kind of realistic sex scenes, let alone gay ones.

Luke Macfarlane was with Eichner on several of the interviews leading up to the release of this movie. And then Luke was pretty much ignored during the entire interview while Eichner went on and on about how this movie was so funny and the second coming of When Harry Met Sally. Luke basically just sat there nodding. It was very awkward.

I wonder if Luke spoke to Eichner privately asking to please let him talk during the interviews. If so, it didn't work.

Based on the retweet below, Billy seems to have actually believed this would get him a Best Screenplay nomination.

The delusion is strong. Unfortunately, I don't think this likely drug-abetted Twitter breakdown is doing any favors for his future in Hollywood.

Now that it's been mentioned, Luke and Billy really didn't seem to be a united front in terms of the publicity. It was mostly Billy. Luke seemed to have been pushed to the side, which is not a good sign for a rom-com. Luke was a better sell for the movie, as others have said because of his Hallmark audience, but also he's cute and charming, unlike Billy. Billy hogged the film and he hogged the publicity. He really brought this on himself. I feel bad that his dream project has gone down in flames, but he should have been more self-aware.

He was hoping for a Screenplay nomination - hence opening at TIFF. But I think his delusion also made him think he was getting Best Actor.

R274, There already is a comedy about a bunch of straight guys where one of them comes out of the closet and his buddies work on trying to find him a romantic partner. It’s called Fourth Man Out and it’s running on Hulu right now.

And it is charming, and suitable for all audiences; I have already shown it to several family members and straight friends, and they all enjoyed it.

The main message of the movie, or at least the trailer, is what did this in. The idea that gay relationships are inherently different than straight ones is not going to appeal to straight audiences. It's alienating (to straight and many gay people). And it will make straight people think about what those differences are, namely, gay men's rampant promiscuity, superficiality and dancing shirtless in nightclubs well into middle age.

None of this is revolutionary. It just rehashes decades-old tropes about gay men. Who wants to watch that? In a theater? Nah. And that's not to mention the absence of humor in the trailer.

r333 very true, and the delusion that Luke's character would fall for Billy.

I guess you could say the same thing about Meg Ryan and Billy Crystal in When Harry Met Sally but I never doubted their relationship or chemistry for a moment. It was completely natural. And that was over 30 years ago.

R333 It will also make them think of butt sex. I really don't think most straight people are opposed to watching gay content. But most do not want to see two (or four or six) men fucking each other up the ass. Frankly, it would be weird if they did. So why hype the "raunchiness" of the film? At least don't include gay orgies in the trailer!

Believing that Luke would ever be paired with Billy is like believing Grace Kelly would ever be paired with Jimmy Stewart in "Rear Window".

R332, you make your straight friends and family watch gay movies with you?

The voice and capital 'A' art of New York Jews such as Mr Eichner, and their wound-up ethnic psychology, mother's-boys anxieties, limited perspectives, depreciating but self-flattering humour, and (for the sake of DL – mutilated penises), not only represent the modern homosexual man in its highest form, but speak for the global sodomitical community. Bros is a most precious gift to humanity, and to criticise or reject it is not just gross internalised homophobia, but vicious antisemitism at its most loathsome. Every post on this thread is a Zyklon B of crystallised hate.

You are all worse than HIMMLER.

Everyone on this threads sounds exactly like Billy Eichner! It’s why they hate on him. The mirror doesn’t lie.

Oh dear @r338.

Does anyone remember I Love You Phillip Morris? That was a pretty funny gay movie with romantic themes. It had a plot that was engaging and really wasn’t about being gay. Even that barely got released.

That was a good, very funny movie.

I love when Jim Carey goes, "Being gay is expensive."

Although even that movie opened with a vigorous butt fucking scene

[quote]That was a good, very funny movie.

Yes, an infinitely better and funnier movie than Bros by several orders of magnitude.

Yet according to Rotten Tomatoes it only made $2 million at the box office!!! THAT'S a tragedy. Not the failure of Bros.

[quote]Now that it's been mentioned, Luke and Billy really didn't seem to be a united front in terms of the publicity. It was mostly Billy. Luke seemed to have been pushed to the side, which is not a good sign for a rom-com. Luke was a better sell for the movie, as others have said because of his Hallmark audience, but also he's cute and charming, unlike Billy.

The thing is, Luke is low-key and [italic]quietly[/italic] charming rather than someone with a big personality. He doesn't seem to crave attention all that much for an actor, and he certainly doesn't push others out of the way to get the spotlight. I suspect that is as much to blame for him not having been tapped for superhero movies or other leading man work with the studios as his having been openly gay the past 14 years.

I Love You Phillip Morris has distribution issues.

It's too early to call it a BOMB! Gimme a break! I've read all this vitriol online about the movie and these people HAVEN'T EVEN SEEN IT!!!

Also, It is a SATIRE lampooning the OVERLY WOKE gay community, which if you had a brain, you would realize, just by watching THE TRAILER!!!!

The OUTRAGE criticism is SO FAKE.

FUCK OFF.

R347 Billy tweeting about the film bombing is why it will be remembered as a bomb. However unlikely, it was within the realm of possibility that Bros could have had decent legs and become a modest hit. The Universal execs must be fuming. Someone should have confiscated Billy's phone and laptop. And cocaine.

[quote] What I'm talking about is this glorification of cruelty in your dealings with others; snide jokes at the expense of straight people

R137 Billy Eichner was a guest on an episode of the Joan Rivers podcast "In Bed with Joan" that was made shortly before her death. They seemed to get along very well, and at the end, she said something to him akin to what Johnny Carson said to her in the 1960s, "You're going to be a big star." I think she empathized with his obsessive drive to succeed and his bitchy humor about other people (i.e., it was like he was her son).

I found him obnoxiously funny in "Billy on the Streets," but I have NYC (Brooklyn and the Bronx) heritage and found New Yorkers' reactions (or lack thereof) to Billy's in-your-face behavior on the show funny. I thought he and Julie Klausner were hilarious on "Difficult People" as two New Yorkers verbally cutting everyone and everything to shreds, but both a gay man and a straight woman were doing it, and Klausner wrote it so well that it was clear that the two characters were actually pathetic losers, so I still had some empathy for them.

I'll likely stream "Bros" when it's available. I think you have to take Billy Eichner for what he is, a kind of gay male version of Joan Rivers: doing what she called broad (as in wide) humor that in part is about criticizing other people for laughs.

Now he’s having the deux moi frau spread a rumor that he and Luke are into each other off screen…..

Well, of course Billy gives the impression that they're into each other. What matters is whether Luke gives that impression!

[quote]Billy Eichner is one of those people who doesn't realize he only works in small doses.

But what's surprising is that the people who greenlighted (greenlit?) this movie didn't realize it, either. As for R349, the Joan Rivers comparison in telling is that she was way too smart and self aware to ever attempt to play the lead in any sort of feature film, let alone a romantic comedy.

R350, And yet Luke said the one thing he wouldn’t do when asked by Billy was spit on each other.

Except R305, it’s not bullshit. It’s a terrific comedy that comes by its critical reception validly. The bullshit comes from sheep like you who follow the internet wave and don’t even see the film. Same phenomenon is why Trump rose to power. Misinformation and bullshit takes the place of the reality.

And the character Billy plays works in the film. But the internet meme that he is an asshole overwhelms the content of the film.

Lol this tweet

[quote]It’s a terrific comedy that comes by its critical reception validly.

Having seen the film, I'm incredulous that it received so many good reviews.

[quote]And the character Billy plays works in the film.

I think it works for maybe the first 10 minutes, then it starts to become tiresome and continues to grow more and more tiresome throughout the movie.

Well, two things are clear whether you've seen it or not.

Billy Eichner has made a weapon grade fool of himself and he seems awfully insecure even for someone in film and television.

I forgot to mention my favorite outfit is a brown dress shit, brown slacks with a stripe up each side, and knee high jack boots. So hot.

I finally saw some extended clips from the movie and I simply don't believe the throngs of people on Twitter and rotten tomato that say this is a fantastically funny movie. I just don't. It looks bad.

I was shocked that two friends of mine saw it and both liked it a lot. Friend #1 I thought would HATE it and friend #2 I though would have absolutely no interest in it. However I'm not reconsidering seeing it, I'm reconsidering these friendships.

Bros is the Gigli of gay rom-coms.

What a ridiculous Mary this queen is.

[quote]The bullshit comes from sheep like you

"Wake up, sheeple!!"

The movie was absolutely amazing! Billy is incredible and has bright future in comedy ahead of him.

R365=Billy Eichner.

I'd be thrilled if a film project that I shepherded was financed and released by a major studio to good reviews.

Bridge burning is for the insane.

More tweets as if handed down from the heavens just for the DL

[quote] On Friday, I had to put my dog down. I have been grief-stricken all weekend. My husband took me to Bros to spell my sorrow, and it worked. The film is a delight, and for two hours I forgot to be sad. I didn’t think it would be possible to laugh like that for months. Thank you.

Oh, brother. The hyperbole being spewed over some gay rom-com is ridiculous. Suddenly all these people are PR shills.

I hope Eichner does go on DL and reads these posts. I'd like to add that he can go fuck himself. He's as funny as Randy Rainbow to me, which is to say not at all. Just annoying.

people were more tolerant in the past defense:

[quote] Hmm. Hanks/ Williams in the 90s.. different theater culture 3 of those movies have gay tragedy; 2 are AIDS related.. 2 most modern on that list are ultimately about music legends; question still remains- Can films about regular queer people thriving succeed with general audiences

other popular tweets of this ilk, are some kind of variation of str8 people only want to see films where gays cry, die and have aids thats why so many other films did so well. they attracted homophobes

The fun one are the people that believe The Woman King faced misogynior and the problem with Bros is white gay entitlement

R368, that tweet and the replies are the essence of Twitter.

Oh, cry us a river R135.

For most of human history, we weren't even ALLOWED to write our own stories.

From r373's link: I'm think this tweeter is trolling. (Read 'his' other posts.)

[quote]Liebermintz @Lieberm1ntz you hated Bros because Billy Eichner called you out on your whiteness, your conservatism, your cisheteronormativity, your casual-vacancy homophobia, your unfamiliarity with trans people (especially trans women of color), your casual racism at random times in a funny rom-com.

[quote] J.Lo's next rom com is being released on Amazon. That's where these types of movies go now.

Just saw the trailer. It looks absolutely awful

From Variety: "When “Bros” was announced to premiere at the Toronto International Film Festival, the press release for the movie called it 'one of the first romantic comedies from a major studio to feature an almost entirely 2SLGBTQIA+ cast.'"

I actually think it's a good thing that wokeness doesn't mean profit. For too long people have been using the whole trend of wokeness for opportunity, for cashing in.

Look at that homely ass dogface above and there's no question why it bombed.

r375

r135 Do you know the history of m/m stories and media in Japan? Where str8 women love depictions of gay romance but historically, have been actively against gay rights in Japan and get angry at gay/bi men that co-opt "their" genre?

All the gay porn in Japan is pixelated. I lived there in the early 2000s and it was very annoying.

R359 This shill claims to have sat through it twice!!!!!

[Quote]I saw this today twice, sequentially. I’ve never done that before. I don’t even like Billy Eichner. But this is a phenomenal movie. I hope DL’s more-jaded-than-thou clientele gives it a chance. It’s very honest about the anger and sadness that shapes gay men’s lives in a way I wasn’t expecting.

The shills are incredibly transparent liars. Is Miss Billy paying for them out of pocket?

I’m not a shill. I knew very little about Billy prior to seeing the film. All I knew was that it got good reviews. When I saw it, I loved it- laughed like crazy. Most on this thread are going after Billy and frankly I don’t think any of his tweets are nasty. He’s surprised it has not done better business and I think he’s right to bring up homophobia. Same sort of sniping on DL all around the not as good but still quite entertaining uncoupled. These efforts are ground breaking for the LGBT community and the movie business in Hollywood..

As I’ve said before- see the film. I suspect that a lot of posters on this thread are provocateurs and simply love to see if they can make others angry.

It’s simple: the film is a very witty and funny rom com that sends up the whole LGBT community and the straight world’s current understanding and misunderstandings. It’s exaggerated for effect at times but almost alway hilarious. Just see it!

If your dislike of Billy is so strong that it prevents you from seeing the film- your loss, and I guess you’ll never know.

Cut him some slack R383. He neglected to mention that he fell asleep during the first viewing.

"These efforts are ground breaking for the LGBT community and the movie business in Hollywood."

How ridiculous, R385. There's. nothing groundbreaking about some rom com. The degree of hyperbole is off the charts.

An R-rated gay rom-com without any major stars, costing 22 mill. What were they thinking? It should have cost half and it would still struggle to make a profit.

These tweets in response to his ranting are really making me laugh.

I would pay Will Smith to slap him at this point.

WW @ R244.

I’ve been waiting for their review.

Charlie continues to make a fool of himself.

I fear that Luke MacFarlane may have damaged his career. When Bros started getting lots of buzz, he said that he was through with the lame Hallmark movies. I guess he thought that Bros would smash and he would then get lots of TV and movie offers. Well, that isn't happening now. Hallmark was really his only means of income and now it may be gone.

[quote]When Bros started getting lots of buzz, he said that he was through with the lame Hallmark movies.

If he actually said that, I would say that was incredibly stupid of him.

If you don’t know why R388 you are either an idiot or a troll. Are you really that clueless? Nah, troll.

Well, this should be a whiny bitch fest

Do fuck off, R397. If you really think this movie is a landmark, then you're really fucking stupid.

I found Harvey pretty much insufferable in his brief cameo in BROS. He was trying so damned hard to be cute and funny that I thought he came across as annoying and cartoonish.

So sad. Billy will never be a GOAT.

Harvey came across as annoying and cartoonish? Surely you jest?!!

You can't sneak into the back of a theater, Miss Billy, because they fill up with the many people who like the rear, as anyone knows. Or are we supposed to believe he arrived alone, without the videographer, hair and makeup person, aide and security?

Oh, that's right. THIS NEVER HAPPENED.

As you know.

Twentieth Century Fox is proud to present one of the most controversial and honest films we have ever released

[quote] I think he’s right to bring up homophobia.

That is an insult to victims of actual homophobia. Choosing not to see a film is not homphobia. Would you go see a movie about Nascar?

Part One of the criticism of the non-supportive audience ....

you hated Bros because Billy Eichner called you out on your whiteness, your conservatism, your cisheteronormativity, your casual-vacancy homophobia, your unfamiliarity with trans people (especially trans women of color), your casual racism at random times

Part Twp of the criticism of the non-supportive audience ....

[quote]I fear that Luke MacFarlane may have damaged his career. When Bros started getting lots of buzz, he said that he was through with the lame Hallmark movies. I guess he thought that Bros would smash and he would then get lots of TV and movie offers. Well, that isn't happening now. Hallmark was really his only means of income and now it may be gone.

In the interviews I saw Luke phrased it as if Hallmark might be through with [italic]him[/italic]. I've heard they weren't thrilled that he made Single all the Way for Netflix (neither were the makers of Bros, apparently), and a high profile R-rated gay rom-com may be contrary to their brand, particularly now that it seems to be underperforming. But he's been grateful and respectful in talking about his experiences with Hallmark. Those films were his bread and butter the last few years, but not his only work. And he's part of the main cast on a comedy series just about to debut on Apple TV.

R406, you're irritating.

Not impressed

[quote]R350, And yet Luke said the one thing he wouldn’t do when asked by Billy was spit on each other.

I saw that interview, and the inflection he used on that "Nope!" was more hilarious than any joke in the movie. My casino chips are all in on the no-way-no-how-are-they-involved-in-real-life box.

r410 Maybe a comedy about Luke, starring Luke, would be funnier. "He had built a career out of pretending to be attracted to women... but he was about to face his biggest challenge EVER!"

Billy’s going to be disappointed when he isn’t nominated for best picture, lead actor or original screenplay. Expect the hashtag #oscarssohomophobic next yer.

[quote] Liebermintz @Lieberm1ntz you hated Bros because Billy Eichner called you out on your whiteness, your conservatism, your cisheteronormativity, your casual-vacancy homophobia, your unfamiliarity with trans people (especially trans women of color), your casual racism at random times in a funny rom-com.

Wow, this REALLY makes me want to go see it now!

Brilliant posting on this poster's part!

I don't feel sorry for Billy on the failure of Bros, but I do feel for him, the vicious attack he received from DL is uncalled for, this thread and many others, what has he done to deserve this? what enjoyment do you people get from attacking him around the clock?

R347 = Ukrainian ambassador

[quote] It's too early to call it a BOMB! Gimme a break! I've read all this vitriol online about the movie and these people HAVEN'T EVEN SEEN IT!!!

I am the Earth Mother, and it is a FLOP!

R414 MARY!

So disappointing, Billy was on his way to an EGOT. He was going to start by winning an Oscar first.

[quote] what has he done to deserve this? what enjoyment do you people get from attacking him around the clock?

The joy of watching you clutch your pearls in fretful concern?

Just a guess!

Luke just has one thing to say about Billy: "I don't know her."

...or "I don't wanna know her." or "I don't know her any longer."

"Just get her the fuck away from me.!"

It's interesting to me that lots of people on this thread are saying that they'd never ever consider seeing it based upon the clips of it they saw on the trailer.

To me that sounds odd. Like someone not going to see the Mona Lisa in person, because he saw it in a magazine once and didn't think it was that interesting.

I would go see almost any film with gay content. It's not like we are offered an overabundance. At the showing I went to, the film was preceded by about 4 trailers (among the many shown) that appeared to have gay content. One was a show about a black guy wanting to be a marine. One was the upcoming one with Jim Parsons. Of course I will see them both when they come out. Again, why wouldn't I? I was disappointed by the Sandra Bullock/Brad Pitt vehicle out earlier this summer, and the George Clooney/Julia Roberts might turn out to be equally lame, so why would I show a preference for those kinds of films over ones that have characters whose quirks and neuroses I can actually identify with? They will make a zillion dollars with or without my attendance.

As I mentioned earlier, I saw and enjoyed Bros. It was not earth shatteringly good, but it had many funny moments, and some rather touching moments. (Along with a couple of cringey and/or lame moments). Attendance for me a was a no-brainer.

The clips are meant to promote the films, they are put out there for that reason. If they turn people off whose fault is that, R421.

As to seeing any film because it has gay content. We'll, that's your choice but others choose to consume popular culture on the basis of other criteria. I have no moral obligation to see all gay movies.

[quote] I would go see almost any film with gay content.

Do you go to your local gay film fest?

Late to the party here. So is Bros main selling point is that it is gay ? Because if that's all they've got it's as pathetic as a movie selling itself as mainly being straight.

Is there man on man rimming in this movie ? for real ? Why didn't they say so ? there 's nothing we want to see more on the big screen than a man putting his tongue up another man asshole <3 we're def going !!!

^LOL @ R425. They almost did. They only cut the scene because another film "went there" first, not because it would have turned off 90% of Americans.

Yeesh. I dunno. I was semi-excited to see it when I heard all the buzz and when I saw Luke M is in it. He'a beautiful but also so likable.

Then I heard it didn't perform well at the box office. That didn't affect my interest in it at all. Plenty of movies get off to a slow start and many never find the audience they deserve. For some reason, Eve's Bayou comes to mind. It's one of my favorite movies and hardly anyone has seen it. Low viewings doesn't mean low quality.

THEN I heard about Eichner's reaction and then I read his reaction and that really did affect my interest. He seems mentally ill or else he has a severe personality disorder like narcissism or borderline.

I am a writer and I paint, as well, and I do know how it feels to invest so much into a creative work and have people react in ways you don't expect. I even relate to having somewhat grandiose sentiments about one's own work immediately after finishing it. That's not unusual because it means so much to the creator.

But his reaction is unhinged. He has been in this business for a long time. Temper tantrums are not attractive. No one likes a whiner or a hysterical professional victim. No one wants to be the person who is required to love some kind of entertainment or else be called a bigot and an idiot. He's lashing out at his potential audience. He should have rallied his network to talk up the movie and taken the high road himself. We have all seen slow-burn entertainment—movies, music, TV shows, books. If it is very good, and it gets a lot of publicity, then it may do well in the end. Or it may end up being an Eve's Bayou, beloved by critics and its small audience and ignored by most.

I get what's at stakes for both filmmakers and authors. If you get a big break and it fizzles, then all the challenges you faced and the unfair barriers suddenly triple because instead of being an unknown, you're a flop. But adding 'difficult person' and 'mentally unstable' and 'attacks his audience and colleagues' on top of being a flop is not going to serve him well.

He should cry it out, feel sorry for himself, talk it out through therapy and convert his resentment into creative work and make something powerful. But who the hell is going to want to work with him after this? He has played assholes and now he has proved he has a limited range and only has been playing himself.

I’ll watch when it comes to streaming (I’m sure many are thinking the same).

R424 It looks like it is. The trailer is overwhelming.

In the 80s, the everything-in-your-face-gay thing would have been bold.

In the 90s, it would have been a fitting and typical gay movie of the era. Beautiful Thing is a beautiful romantic comedy and also *about* being gay. But it was made when people, especially adolescent boys, were still being tormented for being gay and when HIV/AIDS was a looming threat and right when Matthew Shepard's life ended, so there was a lot of contextual tension that people understood, and being boldly about being gay was important. Same with Queer as Folk.

Brokeback Mountain didn't have the impact for me that it was said to have had for others because 1) the aging makeup looked stupid and I couldn't take 22-year-old Anne Hathaway in a gray wig seriously; and 2) although I get things were different in Wyoming at the time, the 'gay thing' in my world had been accepted by all I knew and the movie felt anachronistic already by the time it came out.

And now it's two decades later. The trailer turns me off. It doesn't look like a romance between gay people. It looks like a treatise on being LGBT with one-liners, which all also appear to be based on gay tropes. I am not black and when I see movies like this that are insular toward black culture, I always feel basically like, 'good for them, but I'm sure I wouldn't get most of the jokes.' I'm sure straight people have a similar reaction to this.

And more importantly to me, I'm long past the point of identifying primarily as a gay person. I did two decades ago because others identified me first and foremost that way and it took precedence over everything. I was hyperaware of my gayness. Now I am a more fully realized human being, not just 'a gay,' and this movie looks from the trailer like it objectifies gay people as little more than gay tropes. As much as I like Macfarlane, he appears to be shirtless in almost all scenes. He is a hardbodied gym bunny in his 40s, and I've given up belonging to a world that makes me feel like I have to be part of these unattainable 'perfect' conformist measures. Sadly, when I see everything-rainbow now, my first impression is 'corporations exploiting Pride month,' not actual pride.

The movie just doesn't have much currency with me based on what I see in the trailer.

And I am no self-hating gay person. I have never been in the closet. I am outwardly gay and undeniably gay acting. I wrote for years for the Advocate and then for Huffington Post LGBT/Queer Voices. I am really fucking gay but also more than that and the trailer looks like 'gays' is all there is to it. The characters' jobs appear to be...being gay. Their hobbies appear to be...being gay. Too much gayness! Not because there's such a thing as being too gay but because there's way more to any human being than being gay or black or Native American or a genius or a welder or a milkmaid or a blonde. One single character based on one single characteristic is one really flat character. A whole movie made out of characters based on one single characteristic is social activism, not a romantic comedy.

Great post, R429.

R429 = Dan Levy

R431 You'll hate me, but in reality, pretty much! I only watched Schitt's Creek after coworkers, my sister, my dad's distant family who we only see at family reunions all insisted that someone must be spying on and writing about me because I am a character in this show Schitt's Creek. I was mortified at first of course and then after a few scenes, I accepted that yeah, the similarities are eerie.

Billy and costars are on Twitter saying they deliberately didn't cast known movie stars and instead filled roles with little known LGBTIA+ artists they felt deserved bigger platforms. And they expected that to translate to Box Office magic? That ain't happening, especially for a romcom.

It's the funniest and most romantic film of the year because:

—It dissects and reframes cisgender heteronormativity

—Its cast was chosen from among obscure social media influencers who have been unsuccessful in launching viable entertainment careers ONLY because they are 2SLGBTQIIAA+ identifying

—One of the leads yells a lot

—He will yell directly at you through Twitter if you don't laugh

—You are a homophobe if you don't laugh

—You are also racist if you don't laugh, and you will develop colon cancer if you don't buy extra tickets to make this film successful

—Billy will literally kill himself if this doesn't become the highest-grossing feature film of all time. Do you want that on your conscience?

[quote] Billy and costars are on Twitter saying they deliberately didn't cast known movie stars and instead filled roles with little known LGBTIA+ artists they felt deserved bigger platforms. And they expected that to translate to Box Office magic? That ain't happening, especially for a romcom.

R433 This sums it up, perfectly. There's no general public star power here, which is needed for theater-based rom-coms. And just mainstream movies in general.

It's like everyone making this film forgot 'it's a business', first and foremost. Good intentions do not put butts in seats.

R434 funny post! but also I sincerely hope that Billy is surrounded by a few supportive friends and family because he is taking this really really personally. I cant believe the studio execs let him believe this was going to be a huge hit. So many smart people knew this would be a modest movie that does well once it hits streaming.

Nothing new. Artists who make art only for themselves may find their work fulfilling, but unless they're very lucky, they will always be starving artists.

R436 The real point of it is to show the incompatability of putting extreme pressure on audiences to laugh at gunpoint. Light comic fare and pressure to be progressive typically are not a match made in heaven. That said, it seems the younger half of the Millennial generation and all Gen Z people do seem to think in those terms: funny can only be accomplished after successfully yelling one's political agendas in the faces of everyone around you. So it may yet be successful if the kids decide to watch a romance starring old people.

R433, so it's the HAGS of movies?

"We don't really care about funny."

All they had to do was put out this gif, no trailer, and add the tagline: "BROS: Can you handle two hours of this? In theatres."

They would've made 10x the box office.

[quote] I would go see almost any film with gay content.

You do realize that Falcon and Randy Blue online movies don't count, right?

So guys, can I pitch Bros II?

This could’ve been a streaming hit like Fire Island, missed opportunity because they just had to be on the big screen.

Bros II: Billy REALLY loses his shit.

A new reality series by the World of Wonder app. $12 budget.

I'm hopeful that if anything good comes of this, it will be that Hollywood finally realizes that attempting to browbeat potential audience members into seeing something maybe isn't the best strategy.

"You're a homophobic weirdo if you don't go see this!" "You have a moral duty to support this" etc. just don't have that "feel good" factor that people crave.

Movies with gay characters can succeed in the theater. Movies immersed in stereotypical gay culture cannot.

R446 has never seen The Birdcage. One of the cringiest Big Hollywood gay movies ever.

Too much of the audience for this movie don’t even go to the theater anymore. Hell, every movie theater in my city shut down.

Honestly, And Just Like That... proved for whoever didn't already realize it that forcing a progressive agenda down one's throat doesn't pair well with comedy.

We've known forever that conservatives are not capable of being funny. They are too conservative, too political. Very far left liberals are equally unfunny when instead of pointing out how dumb people are, they are trying to shame and convert people. It's the other side of the unfunny-Republican coin.

The Birdcage had some gay themes, but it was more about the spectacle of seeing megastar Robin Williams in drag. The story wasn’t all about men seeking men and the culture associated with that.

[quote]it was more about the spectacle of seeing megastar Robin Williams in drag

Robin Williams is not once in drag in The Birdcage. Perhaps you're thinking of Mrs Doubtfire.

Will & Grace did it better 20 years ago.

I habr to push back on that one, R452.

I think Will and Grace was hilarious much of the time. I loved it as a sitcom. And I think it really did smash through antihay prejudices of a lot of people.

But it didn't fully get the job done.

I don't like depictions of gay men (as gay men often depict themselves during Pride festivals and on social media) as being oversexed and always out there flashing skin and swapping loads. But at the same time, Will and Grace was overly sanitized to the point of spaying and neutering the gay characters. They were just cartoonish, affable friends, not quite fully human.

Queer as Folk (US) sucked but it inserted acknowledgment of gay people as sexual beings without the consequence of AIDS into entertainment media, finally. Ellen, Queer as Folk, My Best Friend's Wedding and so many others depicted gay people, but it showed us as neutered Labrador retriever types.

I know I'll get slayed but here goes.

I'm a man, I'm an artist, I'm an American, I'm an East coaster, I'm of Eastern European ethnicity, I'm happily married, I'm a loving brother, uncle, cousin, I'm a great, loyal devoted friend,I'm an enthusiastic gardener, bird watcher, hiker, I'm a big reader, I'm a novice cook, trying to improve(with the kind help of Greg, among others) And Oh, I'm gay.

Yeah, GAYNESS.. it's not my job, my main hobby, my life 24/7. And yes, I have been out all my life. Why would I want to be cookie cutter just to fit in. There can be as much variety, diversity & beauty in the gay community as anywhere else, if we jut look for it, encourage & nurture it

R421 actually compares this movie to the Mona Lisa by saying the experience of "merely" seeing the trailer to the movie and not wanting to see the actual movie is akin to blowing off the Mona Lisa if one has seen the image of the painting in a magazine.

I think the hyperbole has gone into anther dimension.

"Billy will literally kill himself if this doesn't become the highest-grossing feature film of all time."

If only, R434.

[quote]The clips are meant to promote the films, they are put out there for that reason. If they turn people off whose fault is that, [R421]. As to seeing any film because it has gay content. We'll, that's your choice but others choose to consume popular culture on the basis of other criteria. I have no moral obligation to see all gay movies.

Exactly. For example, I love opera, and there are VERY few movies about opera, so I would be inclined to support any movie on that subject. But if I saw a trailer for a movie about opera and I thought it was bad, I certainly would not feel I had to see the movie anyway. In fact, I might be even more inclined to avoid the movie because I wouldn't want to see a bad movie about something I love.

I hope that makes sense.

Exactly, R450. The Birdcage was "safe"... a bit of a minstrel show.... everybody felt comfortable because the fags were faggy. Will & Grace was a lot like that too, but it had a lot of warmth and heart. But gays outside the stereotype can be a hard sell as a lead. Not saying people shouldn't try, but it's got to be good drama or comedy. I haven't seen this yet but I will - still, I am left wondering what the heart of it is and, more, what the point of it is. What's the elevator pitch? Any good to great film you can sum up quickly and briefly and the same for the protagonist's arc.

[quote]Billy will literally kill himself if this doesn't become the highest-grossing feature film of all time. Do you want that on your conscience?

His middle name ain't Joe is it?

We love you, Billy! Nothing spells America's sweetheart like screeching and hissing at people in the street!

Str8 men in general avoid rom coms. So that takes away a huge viewer population. Str8 women maybe but most don't go to a movie to see a rom-com about two gay men. They are more interested in Cinderella-type rom coms with a handsome leading man. Being gay I have never heard about Billy Eichner. I have no romance in my life, so not sure if a gay on-screen romance resonates with me.

Most gay men also avoid from come. And their audience is even more limited now than the past.

A thoughtful thread (that Billy responds to) about the supporting players in the movie.

Can someone order Guy Branum a van full of Postmates so he can stay off twitter for an hour?

[quote]Thank you Guy for, among many other things, acknowledging the barrage of tweets telling me I am somehow both too hot AND not hot enough to star in a movie inspired by my own life. 😂❤️

I don't wish to be unkind, but who is saying Billy Eichner is "too hot" to star in this movie, or any movie?

With Seth Meyers. Billy has an awful voice.

Who is this Guy Branum queen, and why can't someone of his advanced age write a simple tweet that's coherent? What he wrote doesn't even make sense.

R447 agreed. Birdcage made a ton of $, off the back of retrograde comedy and cheezy stereotypes. You may have laughed, but on reflection it’s fairly offensive. It was much more interesting in the original French.

I already posted this in another thread, but I liked this lady's response to Guy—

[quote]Geez….didn’t it just come out last week? I have every intention of seeing it as a white, straight, old broad, but can you back off? So, it didn’t make a record breaking Opening Day? It’s not Top Gun! It sounds like a very sweet RomCom, Yes? Give it a minute and word of mouth.

Fucking hell, Guy Branum is possibly even MORE annoying than Billy Eichner. Here's a condensed version of his twatter vomit:

"Queer, queer, queer, trans, queer, queer, queer, poc, queer, queer, queer, cis, trans, poc, queer, queer, queer."

There’s no thought in that Twitter thread…more ad hominem than anything sincere. Studio pics are made for one thing and one thing only = $. It is an apparent failure on that single metric… the rest is just gloss.

R414 -

A very large issue is that Billy (and his enablers) went the absolute wrong way about the opening/marketing. Rather than allow snowballing (tee hee) positive word-of-mouth and just stay encouraging, they've allowed people to double-down on the culture wars shit. As in, you're dumb, ignorant, homophobic, whatever if you don't want to see and don't want to like this movie. It does not lead to the desired outcome (more sales) and opens the door for even [bold]more[/bold] dog-piling from the conservatives taking glee in its failure. They only care because Billy, the studio, etc have [italic]made[/italic] a silly GAY rom com a bastion of a larger culture-wars phenomenon. It's not like they do this for every gay film.

Similar vein and tack to the all-female Ghostbusters. I saw it and laughed a ton at... Chris Hemsworth. Who was completely fucking ignored in marketing, and the studio, director, everyone made it about misogyny rather than just ignore the (justifiable) criticism of a remake and let it stand on what made it good and funny rather than all-chips on some "women!" culture-wars drama.

Oh my god, so much drama about a comedy.

In a week, people will have moved on from this. In a couple of months, people who never heard of Bros or Billy Eichner will discover the movie on streaming, and if they like it, it will get word of mouth interest. Billy Eichner and Luke Macfarlane will move on to other projects.

There is no need to get so worked up over a piece of entertainment.

Tell that to Billy Eichner, R473.

R447 - speak for yourSELF

R470 don't forget BI-POC

the way Billy's character acted in the movie at dinner with his bf's mom is how most probably think of Billy IRL. Nobody wants to be constantly preached to

Guy Branum's expression in his Twitter profile pic is hilarious.

Now the writer/director, Nick Stoller, is in AV Club saying no straight actor in Hollywood would participate in a fake Brokeback parody that was supposed to be within the movie. This is obviously bullshit. There is a straight actor playing a fucking gay cannibal right now on Netflix. You could have easily found straight actors to take the parts. This is just more whining and a weird need to overstate homophobia in 2022.

Why are they acting like that?^^^ Every article has been a blame-fest. Blaming straight people for not going, blaming gays for not being more supportive, blaming audiences for not recognizing the supporting actors in the movie (including the fat bald one above who had some of the most disgusting pebble-like moles on the side of his head - I could barely focus on what was happening on-screen during his scenes), blaming “heteronormativity” etc etc etc. They are turning off potential audience members who might not have even heard about the film except for all this controversy.

By the way, I don’t think all this negative buzz is going to lead to people seeking out Bros to see what the fuss is all about. In fact, I bet the opposite is happening.

Billy Eichner is now dating my friend’s ex, a short bear. Whoever said that he’s “happily single and living in L.A.” is wrong. Also, the bear lives in NYC.

R429 is a gay.

[quote]Guy Branum@guybranum·13h#BrosMovie is still in theaters. Go, not because you're obliged to, not because @billyeichner was in @GQMagazine, not because if we don't, the homophobes win.

In the act of ostensibly denying those reasons, by phrasing it that way he's actually still acknowledging those reasons are valid ones. That's an old rhetorical trick.

This is such a huge turn-off.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised at this crabs-in-a-bucket thread. It is DL after all.

It's only a movie, and an enjoyable and thought provoking two hours. It's not perfect, but a lot of heart and a lot of brains went into it It's not great art -- it's just a movie. In the (almost full) theatre where I saw it, it sure seemed like the crowd was having a good time -- and they applauded at the end. Had it not been laden with Such Great Significance, it could have been a modest hit that queer people would enjoy, then go to cable where lots of other folks could enjoy it. It's sad that the twitter narrative overran a decent, funny night out.

[quote] Now the writer/director, Nick Stoller, is in AV Club saying no straight actor in Hollywood would participate in a fake Brokeback parody that was supposed to be within the movie. This is obviously bullshit. There is a straight actor playing a fucking gay cannibal right now on Netflix.

If you read the article, they wanted famous or semi-famous actors to do the Brokeback parody. The director explains exactly what the actors were afraid of:

[quote] And we could not find any straight actor willing to do it. Because we’re making fun of the Oscars—so no actor wants that—and I’m sure they’ll all just go on to play gay parts. We couldn’t find anyone. And Billy and I at this point know a lot of famous people! What we wanted to shoot was, we were going to make it very beautiful and have, you know, sun coming through. I scouted farmhouses and stuff. But then we couldn’t find anyone, to the point where it became hilarious.

Hi, Billy or Guy at R483.

Is he as bad as say, DL anti-fave Kevin Sessums?

[quote]the way Billy's character acted in the movie at dinner with his bf's mom is how most probably think of Billy IRL. Nobody wants to be constantly preached to

That scene sounds horrific. I hope the bf's mom clapped back....and owned his ignorant ass like this lady did.

Billy has revealed himself to be just another self loathing homo who wants to be accepted by the people he once skewered and secretly yearns to look like a hot thot and be desired by hot thots.

Since he cannot yet achieve a face transplant or full body replacement, he went for becoming a movie mogul to attract them with denaro and mogul-power, and that has very publicly flopped.

He never should have abandoned his Billy on the Street/Difficult People persona, because some people actually liked that about him.

Sis shoulda slapped his face.

[quote]Last night I snuck in and sat in the back

Even Billy wouldn’t pay to see his own film.

[quote}Fucking hell, Guy Branum is possibly even MORE annoying than Billy Eichner. Here's a condensed version of his twatter vomit: "Queer, queer, queer, trans, queer, queer, queer, poc, queer, queer, queer, cis, trans, poc, queer, queer, queer."

But R470, R470 - in lovely shoes.

Is Bros pronounced bross?

No. It's pronounced brahz, like bras.

I'm waiting for the straight knock off:

Bruhs

It's MANSSIERE!!!!

All this time I thought it was br-ohs

I saw it Thursday opening night, they were about 10 people in the theater and we all walked out quietly at the end.

My immediate reaction was that it could’ve been better, but after giving it some thought I felt it was an unpleasant chore to sit through.

All gay, all the time, it kept hitting the same note over and over. The scene at the dinner table was extremely cringe worthy.

My theory: Straights are not particularly interested in seeing this movie and so did not go to it. Word of mouth from gay guys seems to be all over the place, from dog crap to the second coming, but I was sort of in the middle and I cannot say that I can recommend it.

That being said, I’m going away for a few days with my best (straight) girl friend who is very gay-savvy, and we will probably see it; I wonder what my second impression will be.

Why the fuck would you sit through it a second time if you didn't like it? Are you that much of a masochist or just completely boring?

LA Times:

The real lesson of ‘Bros’: It’s OK to let gay art bomb

_______

I didn’t want to write this piece. I didn’t want to diminish “the first major studio movie written by and starring a gay man” or spoil its Rotten Tomatoes score or dance on the grave of its box-office prospects.

I certainly didn’t want to attack the star of “Billy on the Street” and “Difficult People,” two of the most successful screen adaptations of the gay sensibility in recent memory. But Billy Eichner forced my hand.

No one wants to support a movie at the point of a bayonet.

It’s not just straight people who failed to show up for Eichner’s rom-com “Bros” on opening weekend who might be feeling the pinch. As Variety pointed out in its autopsy of the film’s box office flop, its dreadful $4.8-million take “means many LGBTQ viewers didn’t show up to see the comedy in theaters either.”

Does that make us too the “homophobic weirdos” of Eichner’s confounding post-bomb tweet spiral or simply the silent Benedict Arnolds of his self-proclaimed march into the history books?

“Even with glowing reviews, great Rotten Tomatoes scores, an A CinemaScore etc, straight people, especially in certain parts of the country, just didn’t show up for Bros. And that’s disappointing but it is what it is,” Eichner wrote Sunday in response to news of the returns.

Eichner could be forgiven for throwing a misplaced elbow or two in the aftermath of such a crushing disappointment. But the sense of self-importance and, yes, entitlement in his response dovetails with the film’s rollout. Before its world premiere at the Toronto International Film Festival, he bragged that “Bros” “is not an indie movie. This is not some streaming thing which feels disposable, or which is like one of a million Netflix shows. I needed to appreciate, ‘This is a historic moment, and somehow, you’re at the center of it. You helped create it.’” (His shady remarks weren’t lost on fans of Hulu’s “Fire Island,” even prompting its creator, Joel Kim Booster, to respond publicly and defuse the backlash.)

“You’re at the center of it”: Here were words to stick in one’s craw, to suggest that, as well-versed as Eichner may be in the traditions of the rom-com, his understanding of queer history on screen had momentarily escaped him. It is precisely the indies, the “disposable” experiments, the made-for-TV movies and forgotten genre entries, in which LGBTQ people established themselves in the American imagination before there was a name for us. No one person, or cultural artifact, is at the center of that generations-long struggle, to which Eichner has referred again and again in his press tour for the film — or indeed, as the box office wags pointed out, on which Universal Pictures’ marketing campaign leaned with such misplaced abandon.

In truth, “Bros” is not nearly so radical as it claims, and that disjuncture between what it is — a perfectly entertaining, middlebrow rom-com — and what it understands itself to be — a landmark moment for LGBTQ people in popular culture — is inextricable from the hand-wringing around it. It is eminently laudable that Eichner has made a sexually frank studio comedy featuring two gay men, and that he insisted, as wingman/co-star/co-producer Guy Branum notes, on an all-LGBTQ cast.

Ultimately, though, the film’s innovations are incremental: Rather than reinvent the genre around a different set of mores, it simply replaces the “marriage plot” with the “monogamy plot,” down to our former free-agent hero being harangued by his new beau about kids. (cont.)

(cont.) It’s especially frustrating because “Bros” knows better, or seems to. Its lacerating send-ups of token representation in Hallmark Christmas movies; the “haunted house of gay trauma” that pop culture passes off as queer history; even Eichner’s own public persona are all a potent, knowing nod to the ongoing challenges of telling LGBTQ stories — of living LGBTQ lives — without simply repurposing a tired, old, straight script.

Until the culminating frame of its final act, that is, when the image of two conventionally attractive gay men kissing is positioned, literally, as the laudatory bookend to “5,000 years of gay love stories erased from the history books.” For a film otherwise allergic to moralizing, this sure seems like “old-fashioned heteronormative nonsense” to me.

It is often said, of course, that we dislike in others that which we most dislike in ourselves, and it’s impossible to see “Bros” — its arrogance, its failure, its enlightened intentions and benighted outcomes — without feeling implicated in it. I am of Eichner’s generation, or close to it; of his race, his gender, his sexuality, his industry, his city. I am the person meant to “see myself” in “Bros,” to be “represented” by it, to celebrate the “milestone” it marks. I am, in the sense of the term that suggests affiliation, his “type,” and he mine — I am reasonably sure, after seeing the film twice, that I have woofed at his shirtless torso on Scruff in Los Angeles.

And yet, despite the affinities Eichner and I share on paper — no, because of the affinities we share on paper — I recoil at “Bros’” squandered privilege, bristle at its star’s attempt to hide its shortcomings behind the veil of homophobia. After all, if the film believes in the progress it celebrates — that of setting our own terms, of deciding for ourselves — then it must earn the support it seeks and not merely expect it.

In the quarter century since “Will & Grace,” whose Debra Messing makes an ingenious cameo in “Bros,” the very forms Eichner appeared to dismiss in his eagerness for theatrical triumph have carved out the space for LGBTQ people to choose among numerous options instead of clinging to every scrap of queer representation as though it were a life raft in storm-tossed seas.

The freedom “Bros” extols, or tries to, is not just sexual freedom. It is the freedom to fight over, criticize, even ignore the artworks that claim to represent us — and, on the flip side, the freedom to keep making and consuming gay art whether straight people show up for it or not.

Indeed, when I saw the film a second time this week, at a half-full weeknight screening at the Sunset 5, what struck me most were the loudest laughs and cheers, all directed at the gayest material — the slap fight-turned-sex scene, the Bowen Yang cameo, Nicole Kidman’s pre-roll ad for AMC. (cont.)

(cont.) “Bros,” a film expressly about the refusal to butch up one’s voice for a straight audience, isn’t for everyone, and it doesn’t need to be. It can be for us, to argue about on Twitter or at the bar before “Drag Race,” outside the circuit party, during our own dates (or orgies). And it can be for us to decide it’s not worth our time or our money, that we would rather watch some other queer film or TV series out of love, instead of watching this one out of obligation.

To say “let gay art bomb” is not to say “let gay art languish.” It need not mean that we stop pressing film studios and television networks for more, and more thoughtful, LGBTQ representation. It need not mean that Eichner be kept from another shot. It’s simply a reminder that — not only for gay art but for art, full stop — commercial failure has often been a sign of creative success. It is through the push and pull of the popular and the avant-garde, the acclaimed and reviled, the celebrated and the suspect, that we arrived at the place where “Bros” could sink or swim.

May the next quarter century bring still bigger swings, still more revolutionary incursions into the mainstream, still more films and TV series “too gay, too niche” for straight audiences and not gay enough — never gay enough — for us. That’s progress.

Bombs away.

He's being generous when he says the Sunset 5's weeknight audience was half-full.

Next up: The Billy Eichner redemption tour. "Gurl... I had a meltdown!"

"It did 4.8 million this weekend. And the budget is listed as 22 million. Is that good? And do we still double the budget for promotion costs?"

This probably sounds crazy, but I don't think a movie has necessarily be movie-theater profitable to be "successful." I think that's why $100 million is still somewhat of a standard for big movies. That often isn't enough to earn back the production and marketing costs, but it represents that a certain critical mass of people saw it. Obviously, Bros isn't a "big movie" and the $100 million standard doesn't apply, but on a smaller scale, I think it could be considered "successful" no matter if it's not profitable in theaters - though I have no idea what the cutoff would be for viewers to be deemed a success if not profitable. And as others have noted, it will definitely have a second life on streaming and earn some more money.

Or 499, I will see it again for two main reasons: to get my friend’s impression of it, and after reading the thousands of comments on this thread and elsewhere, whether I should re-appraise my initial feelings.

That was for r499

The film may well make money back via streaming, rentals, etc., but it will be remembered as a bomb because of Billy's over-the-top twitter reaction declaring it one, which also means he will become persona non grata for many people in Hollywood, since they will see him as having damaged a studio investment even further by becoming unhinged on social media.

Eventually he will have to eat crow and do some sort of apology if he ever wants to make a comeback. but that may not be enough. He is a hard sell as a performer already with that jowly face and that grating personality.

Saw it last night. Wasn't bad. The kind of movie that should be on Netflix. Billy's big mouth made too much of it and there's no way it was going to live up to blockbuster expectations.

The LA Times piece is good and hit on something I'll quote here

[quote] In truth, “Bros” is not nearly so radical as it claims, and that disjuncture between what it is — a perfectly entertaining, middlebrow rom-com — and what it understands itself to be — a landmark moment for LGBTQ people in popular culture — is inextricable from the hand-wringing around it.

I really did enjoy seeing it but I might have liked it more if the supporting players were friends. He presented this as a referendum on "gays getting to make movies" and he himself in the movie is the leader of the entire community. There's including diverse supporting players and then there's holding LGBTQ+ history in your hands. Is that too harsh?

I'm a little puzzled by it because the best parts for me were where he explores his motivations and feelings and is interacting with sexy AF Luke. I think he must have wanted not to get written off as the 'white gay' and somehow got a little too caught up in the importance/symbolism both briefly on twitter and also with the film itself. He's only human. You want to see a movie because it's fun and good. Well, the movie is good. I'd tell anyone I enjoyed it.

R215 is running a Harvard extension course.

I think the point was to contrast someone who's very involved in "the community" with a bro type who's not. IDK

Since I'm near and I'm assuming we're not worried about spoilers.

Other possible objections:

Likeability. Other Apatow launches like Amy Schumer and Kumail Nanjiani. Even Amy is more self-effacing. He has my sympathy and respect but Billy doesn't laugh at himself a whole lot, huh?

Racy? There's been some raunchy hit movies.. Does America want to go there on gay group sex? Is it a little too cutting edge and online cultural conversation in its interests?

That's all I got.

There was group sex?

There's no nudity but there's more than one scene where more than 2 characters are partially clothed and making out. en masse.

Billy, if they were wiping tears away it must have been for the time and $17 misspent

[quote] Since I'm near

Huh?

sorry..since I'm *here* online. And thinking about it.

Samantha hooks up with 2 guys who are together on Sex and the City.

It was made by the producers of TRAINWRECK. I compared BROS to that film in another thread because I thought the plot lines sounded similar.

The more you know…

I just saw it, against my will. A gay friend of mine (I’m gay, too) had a strange curiosity to see it after Eichners melt down. It really wasn’t good. I laughed a few times throughout but I was ready to walk out in the first 20 min. Wow that dude is unappealing, off-putting, and spectacularly out of touch with reality if he thinks he made something good (forget about great). McFarlen played a sweet part but pretty bland. It is totally forgettable, except for the frequent cringe parts, oddly. Unfortunately I don’t think I’ll forget those.

R510, I've read your post twice, but I still find it incoherent.

[quote] I've read your post twice, but I still find it incoherent.

Maybe I threw you by not explaining at all why I still liked it! I think I was trying to temper sounding too negative. Read again without the first sentence and without the last four.

If Billy didn’t open his mouth, it might have picked up steam in the coming weeks. No one would have known about it bombing, until Billy told the world. I doubt this film will get may more movie goers. Everyone will wait for it on streaming, where they can see it for free. His image of himself comes off like Meghan Markel. They find themselves to be bigger and better than they actually are.

RIP Billy, you had your chance. Back to running the streets and annoying the hell out of people…all for free.

[quote] If Billy didn’t open his mouth, it might have picked up steam in the coming weeks. No one would have known about it bombing, until Billy told the world.

That's not how this works. Theater owners are not in the habit of letting films sit in their auditoriums on the off-chance that in a few weeks, people might change their minds and decide to go see them. There has to be a certain amount of money grossed for the film to hold an additional week. Some larger studios (Universal included) are able to negotiate two week minimums no matter the gross. However, they have to hold up their end of he bargain by promising a minimum of advertising for that holdover week.

And everyone knew the film bombed, whether illy opened his mouth or not. Box office grosses are written about every weekend and studied.

Since his comic persona is someone with anger management problems, and so is his character in "Bros," i think it's fair to assume Billy has the same problem.

His producers should have seen the chance of this happening and muzzled him on social media before the film opened.

[quote]I really did enjoy seeing it but I might have liked it more if the supporting players were friends.

This is one of your sentences that I find incoherent.

I think he meant friends of Eichner’s character, rather than work acquaintances or mere tropes.

[quote]It's like some of you are proud that this movie flopped. Are you that bitter and lonely in your personal life?

What's wrong with you, Pedro? Are you going through it? Are you going through some kind of psychological change in your life? ...You just can't take it. You're just an overgrown orang-u-TANG!

hHs anyone mentioned that the director co-writer of Bros is also the director of Forgetting Sarah Marshall, Neighbors, Neighbors 2 and Get Him to the Greeks?

[Quote] It's like some of you are proud that this movie flopped. Are you that bitter and lonely in your personal life?

Yes, I am. Are you happy now

R525 But the joy of this is Billy opened his stupid mouth, which ensured every major media outlet have now speculated about why the film flopped.

[quote]And don't you trolls blame trans people for this - they hate masculine, intelligent, married with children gay men most of all.

Ha! It's too late for that, brother! The trans have glommed onto the gay equality movement like soldered lead, so they ARE us to the straights now. Oh, and NOBODY hates masculine gay men more than THE TRANS, not even straight people!

Someone asked above if I go to my local gay film festival. The answer is yes, pretty much always. . And I go to the "gay interest" films in the Palm Springs Film festival when I'm down there. I go to films with gay content. So sue me. I'm not apologizing for that.

There have been five or six posters on here talking about how they hardly identify as gay men, because they are husbands, gardeners, readers, etc. I think we all have other interests and many of us have lots of close friends who are straight, as well as professions that have little to do with our sexuality. . To me, that doesn't begin to negate our gay identities. It's one reason....ahem....that we are on a GAY board chatting instead of on facebook or reddit.

Still, I remain fascinated that so many appear to make all their film decisions based on trailers. I just don't get it. Trailers are commercials. Of the people responding to this thread that actually SAW the film, many said it was either good, or at the least, had some very funny moments or some touching scenes, while others had complaints about cringey moments here or there, or Billy Eichner's somewhat unlikeable character in the film, or his general preachiness - all completely valid opinions, and to me, worth paying attention to in deciding whether or not to attend. But to make such a decision based upon one's reaction to a commercial.....for me, just no, not a good way to make such a decision - especially because we've all been sucked into attending a film based upon trailers that make it look like a laugh riot, where it turns out they took the only 3 clips in the film that were actually funny and joined them together for the commercial.

Billy Eichner is to Universal what Vera Hruba Ralston was to Republic!

[quote] This is one of your sentences that I find incoherent.

Not that hard. The characters are working on building a museum. And opposed to being friends outside of a workplace. Did you see the movie?

I LOVED it!

I'm gonna see it TWICE more.

My husband works in the area!

--Shirley McShill, outside the multiplex

r445

The following contains spoilers for Bros.

Thematizing internalized homophobia—the conscious or unconscious self-contempt one feels for their own homosexual identity due to its systemic oppression—is nothing new in cinema. Frequently, it is deployed in high drama films as a detrimental, villainizing force that motivates characters to behave horrifically (American Beauty, The Power of the Dog, etc.).

Yet, rarely do films deal with the everyday effects of internalized homophobia, those effects that cause discomfort for the lived experiences of gay people, without veering into sweeping melodrama.

Enter Bros, which brilliantly uses its romantic comedy form to deal with this theme on a smaller scale. The film centers on the romance between Bobby (Billy Eichner) and Aaron (Luke Macfarlane), two men configured in the usual “opposites attract” trope of the genre. And yet, their juxtaposition does not just rest on their different personalities, but the different ways in which internalized homophobia informs their lives.

The effects of internalized homophobia are most apparent in Aaron’s characterization. One of the most common consequences of internalized homophobia is the feeling that one is not masculine enough, a side effect of the degradation of qualities perceived as feminine in gay men. Aaron overcompensates for his gayness by conforming to masculine norms. Many of these qualities appear in his first appearance. Aaron is first introduced in the film standing still in the middle of a dance floor. His rigidity immediately situates him as a character uncomfortable with the “feminine” act of dancing. This is exemplified when he mocks a rather feminine gay man as “so stupid.” Through these behaviors, Aaron reveals his obedience to masculinity.

Even more significantly, Aaron is also shirtless in this introduction, displaying his muscular physique. Aaron’s presentation of his masculine body signals his desire to be perceived as masculine by the surrounding gay community.

.....

This is why we need films like Bros that deal with the complexities of internalized homophobia on a relatable scale. Unpacking the issues that prevent us from loving ourselves can be the first step toward self-love.

Yes, Billy is very Candance Cameron, isn't he?

R539 = load of bullshit

Animal Kingdom is up to season 6

it's filled with both toxic masculinity & internalized homophobia. it's fagploitation

Why, oh why, won't recognize this is just fagpolitation and watch queer Bros instead?

Has Billy ever seen a good gay movie with crossover appeal?

A movie like "Mildred Pierce"? I doesn't get gayer than that!

R539 Hilarious. Such a stretch.

R542 Always appreciate the men on that show, very hot. I would watch them in a gay RomCom, rather than Cruella de Billy.

257 my Beautiful Laundrette is such a good book too. As is the Buddha of Suburbia. Thank you for reminding me of Hanif Kureishi!

The romantic film BIG EDEN was truly groundbreaking. Set in a small town in Montana, of all places, and I don't think a single character even mentioned anyone being gay, even when working to fix up a male with a male. It was more about people being happy, with the homosexual element taken entirely for granted, and not the spotlighted focus of the character's identity. It showed a world where people cared about each other, entirely regardless of sexual identity. Now that's a hopeful vision for society!

[quote] The 42-year-old actor is about to become the breakout star of the romantic comedy Bros, which is the first rom-com from a major studio that will feature an entirely LGBTQ principal cast.

The movie is only a 'first' when you add all the specific qualifiers: entirely LGBTQ cast AND major studio production AND romantic comedy.

I'm sure I am not the only person who is annoyed by all the attention to 'firsts.' Sometimes it's significant.

The first woman made an admiral in a military branch, for example, would be worth noting because women are at a major disadvantage in that field.

The first gay, I dunno, NFL team coach, would be worth noting because it represents progress.

But when a major studio has released an LGBT film before, and when all have released rom coms, and when lots of non-'major studio' gay romantic comedies have been released, the 'first' is obviously a publicity gimmick of a type we are used to and it really doesn't matter that much.

Firsts are meant to note breakthroughs. They've come to be justification for a person getting an award for what countless other people have done, just because of their identity. Awards can have been given to women, Latinas, lesbians who own Siberian cats and race cars, and someone's then going to get an award for being "the first *bisexual* Latina amateur racecar driver who owns Siberian-Persian cat hybrids and whose favorite candy bar is Twix." Stop it.

That review from Collider in R539's post should be picked up by the Bros marketing team and emphasized leading into this weekend. That will be sure to fire up the box office this weekend for Bros.

Stupid.

Dumb sells, not socially significant "firsts."

The movie would have performed better if the studio had orchestrated marketing based on:

—Rumors one of the sex scenes featured real sex on set.

—A 1/4-second-long glimpse of Luke's erect dick.

—A trailer made of nothing but 90 seconds of Luke in his underwear and the title BROS.

They really fucked up with the selling of this schlock. Everyone knows that sex sells, babies sell, puppies sell, kittens sell, and to a lesser degree (actually funny) humor sells.

Sociopolitical landmark moments may drive bitching on Twitter, but they don't sell shit.

We need to eliminate the free market in culture and have it produced by a central government agency focused on diversity and equity. And punish citizens who don't consume it. And censor all reviews.

Then Bros would be successful.

I saw it last night with my husband. Only about 15 other people there mostly younger gay men. It was… cute. Never really initiated loud laughter, only chuckles. Though the first 15-20 minutes were dreadful- dead silence from the audience. IMO Billy was the problem. He was very hard to like or care about so for me the movie suffered for it. I don’t believe that even with a more likeable actor playing the lead, this movie as written would be a box office hit (maybe more enjoyable). Not sure what they were thinking to have such high expectations.

Where does Billy's career go from here? Recurring guest on The View?

R551 I am under the impressions the high expectations were put out there with the expectation they would drive viewers to theatres.

I've mentioned it elsewhere, but I have noticed that 'early reviews' now as used as a promotion for bad/not very good movies.

Wonder Woman 1984 trended for weeks on Twitter leading up to its release. Critics were tweeting that they saw a preview and the movie exceeded all expectations, transcended the superhero comic book genre, made bold political statements, was laugh out loud funny, and on and on, far surpassing the first (very good) movie. It had a score in the 90s on Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic. Then the movie came out on Christmas. It was terrible and it tanked, and so did the critical scores from critics who didn't get to see advance viewings.

The same thing happened with this movie. Exactly the same. The pre-release Metacritic rating when I first read about the movie here was something like 96%. The first couple of reviews gave it 100%. Where do the ratings stand currently?

Certain critics obviously are on the take. That's no surprise given how little they are compensated, but reviews cannot be trusted today and not just because of critics' tastes, but because they write false, hyperbolic reviews that emphasize sociopolitical importance of movies and their stars and then lie about quality.

R539 reads like a paper the smartest girl in class wrote in grade eleven.

R554, everything on the Left reads like that now, bro.

Haven’t seen the film, but plan on doing so. Although the trailer does seem....disappointing. From this seems like Tropes. Heaps. Of. Tropes.

Appreciate R429 ‘s perspective. Not gay myself, but gay adjacent: many family members and friends are gay.

While not possible to comment on the film itself, the fact that Billy Eichner has been whingeing and blaming folks on social media is not a good look. Also, the film is from the group that produced Trainwreck, Forgetting Sarah Marshall et al. Judd Apatow does not have a history of producing elegant, nuanced films.

To think that this would be a classic blockbuster film was perhaps unrealistic; despite Luke MacFarlane’s addition. Luke would have been a much more appealing front for the film: much more so than Billy. Why they sent Billy out to screech about the film speaks to the lack of overall presentation and class surrounding the rollout of Bros. (Even the title of the film could have been constructed with more mindfulness.)

I think one thing about critics might have changed, which is the terror in the woke social media mob of anything other than praise. It's just not worth the effort, no matter what you think.

It's not unusual for there to be a big gap between the critics and audiences. The critics hated the musical Les Mis a thousand years ago and audiences made it a hit. It's not uncommon for the two groups to run in the opposite direction.

[quote]Even the title of the film could have been constructed with more mindfulness.

I would say the title of the film could have been constructed with some mindfulness, as opposed to none, which is actually the case. As far as I'm concerned, that title has almost nothing to do with the content of the movie, and it leads the audience to expect something very different.

"Another Gay Movie" was already taken.

(Because so many of these movies have already been made. It ain't new.)

r552 With all the immature mean girl outbursts since last week dont think anyone in the industry would take this bitch seriously anymore. He will reduced into playing/acting as stereotypical gay caricature until hes too old for that shit. A white Billy Porter.

Has sexy Luke weighed in on all this yet?

I thought Billy Eichner was a straight guy. Now I understand why he is so upset. He wanted to portray gay people in a good light through the movie because the message of opposites attract shows that personality counts more than looks... at least for the hot partner...

Bridesmaids was brilliant and unexpected. Their other films did OK in theaters because they had well-known comedians as their leads with well-known supporting actors. But as a whole all of these films have been forgettable and fluff. It was insane that they raised the expectations so much with this movie. It was always going to be formulaic and mildly amusing at best. The producers have been trying to re-create the magic of bridesmaids and each movie has been progressively worse and gaining less of an audience each time.

Billy..boobie..cut your losses & move. Or you won't be able to.

When you hit bottom, stop digging.

There’s a lot to be said about letting a flop silently slip away into obscurity.

r557

I think Bros is a good title. Not the most obvious title but it's in the story if you think about it. I caught in the writing a couple of subtle plays on earlier scenes. These weren't missed jokes. It was well written.

R350 "and I'm here for it" makes my skin crawl.

People are tough on his looks but I think Billy is fine. Cute, even. I just hate everything else about him that he's put out into the public. I hate his acting, his street "comedy", his attitude, his podcast interviews, his voice, etc. He's off-putting, arrogant and not funny to me. But then I thought Bridesmaids was a pile of shit, too. And I don't like Seth Rogan. Or most other Judd Apatow creations.

So why should I pay $40 to go sit through Billy's movie? I'm obviously not the target audience even though I'm gay. This movie wasn't made for me. And that isn't my fault, Billy.

Armond White in The National Review

As Hollywood displays its ongoing artistic bankruptcy, we see the people responsible for this glut of unoriginality for what they really are morally and politically. That was the case last week with Olivia Wilde’s Don’t Worry Darling and now with Judd Apatow’s production of the Billy Eichner project Bros. The latest in Apatow’s series of vulgar introductory films (Knocked Up for Seth Rogan, Trainwreck for Amy Schumer, The King of Staten Island for Pete Davidson), Bros defends stunt-provocateur Eichner’s singularly hideous personality.

Are the jars alright?

Everyone's all over it being a bomb but some people will and could check it out on streaming. It's just a movie.

R570 in no still they seem to have any chemistry. Hard jaws, wooden, joyless expressions, like an arranged date you're too courteous to call off after five minutes already. Is it like that throughout the movie?

How did he sneak into a sold out theater? It doesn't say much for security if anyone can just sneak into a packed theater. Also, how did he do it? Was it like an I Love Lucy episode, did he exchange clothes with an usher? The hard questions.

[quote]I think Bros is a good title.

Is it though? I thought bros were younger than 40. Unless the title is another satirization of 40 year olds clinging to youth?

[quote]Bros defends stunt-provocateur Eichner’s singularly hideous personality.

OK if empty theaters prompted the landslide tweet, that line has me wondering where I send flowers for the funeral?

r574 He dressed as a support animal, flash them puppy eyes and when that didn't work, he threatened to file an ADA complaint. Mission Accomplished.

[quote]I think Bros is a good title. Not the most obvious title but it's in the story if you think about it. I caught in the writing a couple of subtle plays on earlier scenes. These weren't missed jokes. It was well written.

How is "bros" in the story if you think about it? To me, "Bros" would be a good title for a movie about a group or a couple of young, very masculine gay guys, or about two straight guys who start out as close friends but wind up falling in love with each other. Maybe Luke Macfarlane's character fits the "bros" title, but Billy Eichner's character definitely does not, so who is/are the other "bros" in the movie besides Luke's character?

To me, maybe about half of the jokes were well written, at most. Probably more like a third of them. That's not a high enough percentage.

It's already been released to DVD and streaming. (pic from Amazon.com)

Armond White is a risible yet dreary mess of a writer.

but even a broken clock is correct twice a day R580 and White makes a salient point: " Bros defends stunt-provocateur Eichner’s singularly hideous personality"

[quote] I thought bros were younger than 40.

Really? Didn't occur to me there was an age limit. Let's ask a straight guy. I thought it worked like this

Billy is a narcissistic fame whore. He will announce he's nonbinary soon and his pronouns are ""they/them"....if that fails to increase ticket sales expect him to announce he's transitioning to a woman and that she and Elliot Page are an item.

R583 I bet they is looking forward to giving fleshdildo blowjobs.

He is delusional, he is not leading man material, specially not a rom com one.

With 4 streaming services, I only go to the movies if I know the film is going to look awesome on the big screen, Billy's Droopy face in Not one of them

BE has generated no goodwill in the gay community. Ask gays in NY and LA about their interactions with him and they all say he's rude and arrogant and dismissive.

Why would I support a guy like that?

Contrast that with Lance Bass who lives in West Hollywood and has a restaurant and club there and everyone loves him bc he's friendly and nice and never turns down a fan request for a photo.

R585 how does droopy face happen? Drugs? Or obesity?

R586 Well Lance is a sweetheart who is actually famous. And good looking.

[Quote] how does droopy face happen? Drugs? Or obesity?

weight loss and/or one's countenance. He got the face he deserves. And that neanderthal 5 o'clock shadow doesn't help

Forgetting The 40-Year-Old Bro Wreck

[quote] entirely LGBTQ cast

Debra Messing is a lesbian??!!

OMG! You made my day!

I haven't seen it. I wish the movie had done better if for only because it's a gay film. From what I have read, there were problems with the script, the way it was marketed, lack of humor, etc., etc.

However, from an outsider looking in...the two initial problems with the movie s its title. What does any of the gay community have to do with the term, "Bros?' It sounds like a hetero douchebag title.

Second problem is Billy Eichner. If you're only familiar with him from the obnoxious "Billy on the Street" videos (as I was), who the hell would want to look at him for two hours in a movie theatre? He's very unappealing, and it has nothing to do with his looks or whether he's handsome or middle-aged. He's just annoying.

I just saw it. Oooof. I honestly thought Fire Island was a better movie.

Two things that struck me…

1. For all his bitching and superiority re: the gays on Schitt’s Creek, Billy created just as much of a bullshit fantasy relationship. I didn’t believe for one second (despite how hard Luke Macfarlane tried - and he’s a good actor) that Aaron would ever waste one second with Bobby. The Bobby character was so insufferable, angry, unattractive and toxic - no way in hell would a handsome, laid back and sweet lawyer fall for him. Honestly, it made me long for Dan Levy and his sweaters - that’s how unlikable and depressing the Eichner character was. I just wanted him off my screen.

2. For all his bitching about gay relationships being so different from the straights, Bobby reacted like a hysterical frau when he saw Aaron kissing the hot childhood friend. Wtf was that? So grating. He had just behaved like such a complete asshole at the family dinner and then he morphed into a jilted frau when Aaron (rightfully) went to a bar to meet his friend. Couldn’t stand that.

Overall, I just thought the movie was a downer. It made being gay seem so heavy and so dysfunctional - which might be accurate - but who wants to sit through that?

Luke Macfarlane is worth streaming it for (do not waste your time or $$$ in the theater) and Billy had a really lovely voice when he sang that stupid song at the end. I was surprised how good his voice was.

Glad others enjoyed it though. To each their own.

r593 Billy criticized the Schitt's Creek gays? Is he really that delusional?

Yes… Schitt’s creek is mentioned twice in the movie as a punchline.

I would rather the straights watch Schitt’s Creek and think gays are sweet and relatable - than watch Eichner lecturing everyone about gay erasure and acting like a fucked-up weirdo for 2 hours. And to think that someone as normal and hot as the Macfarlane character would fall in love with him because gays are just that twisted… not great representation. And sorry - the Macfarlane character hating his job as a lawyer and using testosterone occasionally was not enough dysfunction to match Eichner’s extreme darkness in any way, shape or form. Maybe if they had set it in LA, you could suspend disbelief to think Eichner would be interesting compared to the LA crowd. But setting it in Manhattan, Macfarlane would have already been scooped up by a much less obnoxious and better looking guy. NYC is teeming with neurotic bottoms.

The only part I laughed at was during the orgy (at their Christmas party - cute) where that weird tiny guy Steve snuck in somehow and was trying to get in on the action. I also laughed at the random person parking his citi bike during their big dramatic argument at the end. I wonder if that was scripted.

[quote] How is "bros" in the story if you think about it?

Luke's a bro. Luke's friend from high school is a bro. The guy from the gym is a bro. And Billy does a bro voice with him. I didn't mind it as a title.. Most gay men understand straight bros and being 'bros' with each other. A title doesn't have to connect super obviously to the content of the movie. Fine you got me, Billy is a not a bro.

r587 examine the faces of male wine drunks.

R595 Not surprised, I do think his dig at streaming content was not just about Fire Island. And Billy used to flirt a lot with Dan on twitter for attention. I doubt they get along pretty obviously though, so I'm sure he's cackling the movie flopped.

Random relevant tweet. Don't think anything could have save Bros though. Maybe a rewrite.

r598 Nah, Eichner would have still poisoned it before release, exclaiming which audiences were allowed to see his preciousssss

Maybe now he'll change his name to "William" instead of sounding like a five year old...

I did enjoy the parts of the movie that made fun of the Hallmark Channel. Especially the Poly Holiday Special.