Movies Bros (Judd Apatow's Gay Rom Com)

[skillzdadirecta]

Flopped big time this weekend despite glowing reviews...

 

‘Bros’ Box Office: Star Billy Eichner Decries Homophobia After Dismal Opening

WWW.HOLLYWOODREPORTER.COM

---

The movie launched to just $4.8 million, with the actor saying one theater chain threatened to pull the trailer because of its gay content.

 

This was always going to be a heavy lift in America outside of the Coasts but Kudos to Universal for putting it out. Hopefully it will find success on streaming. Guess the whole "Will it play on Peoria" thing is still alive and well here... moreso than at any time since I was a kid to be honest.

[Mercury33]

Personally Rom Coms are at the very bottom of the list of genres I’m willing to spend theater prices on. But I’m really glad this got released. I hope it takes off when it hits streamers. I’ll def check it out then. 

[silentbob]

Did it not release on Peacock as well? I thought it was getting released on both formats at the same time. Isn’t Halloween Ends doing this as well?

[skillzdadirecta]

2 minutes ago, Mercury33 said:

Personally Rom Coms are at the very bottom of the list of genres I’m willing to spend theater prices on. But I’m really glad this got released. I hope it takes off when it hits streamers. I’ll def check it out then. 

Same here... I can count on my hand the number of rom coms I've seen in the theater and usually it was because of whoever I was dating at the time. The chances of me seeing this in the theater were slim to none to be honest, buy I'll check it out when it hits streaming.  The sad part is, I'm sure there's a lot of people like me who think the same thing. Also that George Clooney/Sandra Bullock rom-com that us coming out in a couple of weeks (also by Universal) will probably do pretty well.

Fortunately,  I doubt Bros cost much so hopefully it recoups its money. Gay themed mainstream movies are going to face the same hurdles black and other minority focused films have faced finding audiences outside of their targeted demographics especially in this curre industry marketplace where non superhero themed blockbuster films are having a hard time finding theatrical success. I think horror is the only other genre that consistently performs. Hopefully Hollywood keeps making this films and stays the course. Hell i may bite the bullet and go see this anyway goddammit. Put money where my mouth is.

[skillzdadirecta]

3 minutes ago, silentbob said:

Did it not release on Peacock as well? I thought it was getting released on both formats at the same time. Isn’t Halloween Ends doing this as well?

Did it? Halloween definitely is. I don't know if this is too.

[MarSolo]

It had shit advertising too. The only ads I saw for this were from Eichner himself on social media.

[TheLeon]

This has been brought up elsewhere, but the marketing and early talk about this movie kinda set it up to fail. Everything was about how GAY it was. The first GAY-led GAY rom-com by a major studio. It’s an important landmark in GAY culture for how GAY it is, and if it fails it’s because STRAIGHT people let the GAYs down.

 

But what was the last theatrically released rom-com that was a hit? It’s a streaming genre these days, for better or worse. 

[silentbob]

Looks like it was theatrical only before it eventual hits Peacock for streaming. This seem like the movie to release on both formats right away, not Halloween Ends. I will admit that the movie was also advertised a lot up in my neck of the woods on our Canadian Comedy network. I’m also near Toronto and might of been because of big gay community/village area. It looks funny, but nothing that requires the big screen for me to watch/hopefully enjoy with family and friends. Although their is something contagious watching a good comedy movie in a crowded theatre.

[Greatoneshere]

How is this a Judd Apatow film? It's co-written by Nicholas Stoller and Billy Eichner and directed by Stoller (Forgetting Sarah Marshall, Get Him to the Greek, The Five-Year Engagement, both Neighbors movies). This is a Stoller joint, not an Apatow one. I'm actually a big fan of Stoller, and thoroughly laughed through every film he's made so far.

 

As for releasing a rom-com in October as counter-programming as a theater only release when it's a "gay" film? Yeah, this is meant for streaming, not a theatrical release.

[Keyser_Soze]

26 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

How is this a Judd Apatow film?

 

He produced it.

[Guest]

The head of theatrical distribution at Universal was telling a friend of mine who runs the largest film buying agency (the people who actually book the movies into theaters) that he was “keeping a list” of every theater that turned down a print of the film 😂

 

Sure, Jim.

[ort]

But is the movie any good?

 

(Edit, never mind, I didn't read the article... glowing reviews...)

 

 

[Greatoneshere]

1 hour ago, Keyser_Soze said:

 

He produced it.

 

Yes I know but that hardly makes it his film. I would never credit the producer and call it their film ahead of the writers or directors. That's like saying "Hancock (Michael Mann's R-rated superhero comedy)". Hancock is directed by Peter Berg (Mann produced it) and it is very clearly a Peter Berg film and has hardly anything to do with Michael Mann. Judd Apatow produces a lot of films, including all of Stoller's past films, but that barely means anything in terms of creative involvement which is ultimately what matters.

[Guest]

15 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

Yes I know but that hardly makes it his film. I would never credit the producer and call it their film ahead of the writers or directors. That's like saying "Hancock (Michael Mann's R-rated superhero comedy)". Hancock is directed by Peter Berg (Mann produced it) and it is very clearly a Peter Berg film and has hardly anything to do with Michael Mann. Judd Apatow produces a lot of films, including all of Stoller's past films, but that barely means anything in terms of creative involvement which is ultimately what matters.

Producers are very involved in the creative output of a filmmaker because $$$ matters  

 

In the interview I was at with Damien Chazelle and Olivia Hamilton, they actually described a lot of this. I wish it had been covered by a news outlet so there were some quotes. But there is a good reason Best Picture at the Oscars goes to the producers. 

 

I mean, in some cases (see Feige and the MCU), the producer is often the most important creative voice on the show.

[Greatoneshere]

4 hours ago, sblfilms said:

Producers are very involved in the creative output of a filmmaker because $$$ matters  

 

In the interview I was at with Damien Chazelle and Olivia Hamilton, they actually described a lot of this. I wish it had been covered by a news outlet so there were some quotes. But there is a good reason Best Picture at the Oscars goes to the producers. 

 

I mean, in some cases (see Feige and the MCU), the producer is often the most important creative voice on the show.

 

Yes I know but you know what I mean. I wouldn't say it's a Judd Apatow movie. Of course producers are important but the OP title reads like it's an Apatow directed film. 

[skillzdadirecta]

6 hours ago, MarSolo said:

It had shit advertising too. The only ads I saw for this were from Eichner himself on social media.

I definitely saw ads for it on TV. That's how I heard about it.

[EternallDarkness]

Doesn't help that Billy Eichner blasted half the country on twitter before the movie released and has now blasted and labeled 90% of the country homophobes because they didn't come out and support the film. Given the box-office take he doesn't seem to realize the LBGT+ community didn't come out to support the film either. The marketing was absolutely horrible for this movie...and hell almost non-existent considering the first time I even saw a commercial for it was yesterday 

 

[skillzdadirecta]

6 hours ago, sblfilms said:

The head of theatrical distribution at Universal was telling a friend of mine who runs the largest film buying agency (the people who actually book the movies into theaters) that he was “keeping a list” of every theater that turned down a print of the film 😂

 

Sure, Jim.

Were there a lot of theaters that refused to play it?

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

Were there a lot of theaters that refused to play it?

Mostly small town theaters passed on it. Looking around several big markets like Houston/Dallas/Miami/Chicago, seemed to be playing all over in those markets but just didn’t move tickets. And despite the LA/SF/NYC markets carrying the film, it didn’t light up the charts in those places either.

 

I think blaming homophobia on the performance ignores all the other things going against it, like the Hollywood Reporter article notes, Rom-com genre and the raunchy R-rated comedy falling out of favor theatrically. The weak performance in SF of all places should make that pretty clear.

[skillzdadirecta]

Universal’s ‘Bros’ Blitz And “History-Lesson” Marketing Campaign Ripped By Harvey Fierstein; Billy Eichner Counters That “No Blueprint” Existed For The Gay Rom-Com – New Yorker Festival

DEADLINE.COM

---

A New Yorker Festival panel with comedian and actor Billy Eichner and playwright and actor Harvey Fierstein, who just appeared in "Bros," turned into a post-mortem on the gay rom-com's disappointing opening.

 

[johnny]

On 10/3/2022 at 11:37 AM, Greatoneshere said:

 

Yes I know but you know what I mean. I wouldn't say it's a Judd Apatow movie. Of course producers are important but the OP title reads like it's an Apatow directed film. 

i think apatow is a big reason this got made the way it was. i was watching a video on monday that said apatow ok’d eichner’s idea to make all of the lgbt characters played by actual lgbt people. how accurate is that? idk i didn’t try fact checking it. i’m sure they could have cast some straight people with bigger names. like, luke mcfarlane? he’s been doing hallmark movies.

[SimpleG]

5 minutes ago, johnny said:

i was watching a video on monday that said apatow ok’d eichner’s idea to make all of the lgbt characters played by actual lgbt people

Maybe its just me but that sounds kind of shitty . Thats something that shouldnt have to be "approved" it should be the de facto standard. 

[johnny]

2 minutes ago, SimpleG said:

Maybe its just me but that sounds kind of shitty . Thats something that shouldnt have to be "approved" it should be the de facto standard. 

for sure. but i don’t think it’s hard to imagine the studio not caring about that. 

[Greatoneshere]

5 hours ago, johnny said:

i think apatow is a big reason this got made the way it was. i was watching a video on monday that said apatow ok’d eichner’s idea to make all of the lgbt characters played by actual lgbt people. how accurate is that? idk i didn’t try fact checking it. i’m sure they could have cast some straight people with bigger names. like, luke mcfarlane? he’s been doing hallmark movies.

 

He's a producer, he got the money together to get Eichner's film going. It's something Apatow has done for a lot of comedians and comedic actors. But this is an Eichner-Stoller film, not an Apatow one.

[Jason]

Disappointing Box Office Numbers For ‘Bros’ Force Biden To Ban Gay Marriage

WWW.THEONION.COM

---

WASHINGTON—In response to the disappointing box office numbers for the LGBTQ rom-com Bros, President Joe Biden was left with no choice Thursday but to ban gay marriage, White House officials confirmed. “This feature film written by and starring Billy Eichner experienced a dismal opening weekend, and so I have been…

 

[skillzdadirecta]

10 hours ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

He's a producer, he got the money together to get Eichner's film going. It's something Apatow has done for a lot of comedians and comedic actors. But this is an Eichner-Stoller film, not an Apatow one.

So here's the thing. It's all three's film. Eichner, Stoller AND Apatow's. Like @johnny said, this film doesn't get a theatrical release without Apatow's name on it and clout behind it. I don't even know if the movie gets MADE without him and since he's the biggest name involved, any stories about the film will naturally reference HIM. I didn't attribute the film to him as a slight to the other two, it was simply because he was the biggest most reconizable name involved. If the film was a raging success, he would be taking the credit and accepting the awards right along the other two. None of us here know how involved he was with the creative although to me it sounds like he was more involved than I initially thought. It doesn't matter... HE's the executive producer, HE'S the one with the relationship with Universal and the film was produced under HIM. It is not in anway erroneous to call this an Apatow film.

[Fizzzzle]

The whole "LGBTQ characters need to be played by LGBTQ actors " angle is still something I struggle with. Like, obviously they have a natural advantage in terms of bringing more authenticity to a role, but there seems to be this growing sentiment that ONLY LGBTQ actors can play LGBTQ characters, and I'm like... It's literally an actor's job to portray someone they're not. Obviously that doesn't touch things like white washing different races or anything like that, but like... That's different. A white person cannot pretend to be Asian.

 

I recognize the territory I'm treading on, and that's why I think it's more important to me that the people actually telling the story are more authentic. Is it a story about a woman? Then I think the writer and/or director should be a woman, etc. But like, the actors? It's their job to translate authenticity to the screen. If they can't do that, then they aren't very good actors.

 

I guess I just struggle with where the line is where an actor has to literally BE the role they're portraying. Some people want to take that to the logical extreme.

 

All that said, the idea that they had to get APPROVAL to only cast LGBTQ actors for a story about LGBTQ people is strange to me.

 

I'm open to being ripped apart for my thoughts.

[skillzdadirecta]

7 minutes ago, Fizzzzle said:

The whole "LGBTQ characters need to be played by LGBTQ actors " angle is still something I struggle with. Like, obviously they have a natural advantage in terms of bringing more authenticity to a role, but there seems to be this growing sentiment that ONLY LGBTQ actors can play LGBTQ characters, and I'm like... It's literally an actor's job to portray someone they're not. Obviously that doesn't touch things like white washing different races or anything like that, but like... That's different. A white person cannot pretend to be Asian.

 

I recognize the territory I'm treading on, and that's why I think it's more important to me that the people actually telling the story are more authentic. Is it a story about a woman? Then I think the writer and/or director should be a woman, etc. But like, the actors? It's their job to translate authenticity to the screen. If they can't do that, then they aren't very good actors.

 

I guess I just struggle with where the line is where an actor has to literally BE the role they're portraying. Some people want to take that to the logical extreme.

 

All that said, the idea that they had to get APPROVAL to only cast LGBTQ actors for a story about LGBTQ people is strange to me.

 

I'm open to being ripped apart for my thoughts.

It's a simple as this... there are PLENTY of roles for straight actors that straight actors can play that are not far off from their experiences. There is only a HANDFUL of roles that are written for and by LGBTQ actors so the few that DO come out should prioritize LGBTQ actors. it's not like there's a TON of roles for Queer actors out there. It's not really that hard to understand to be honest.

[DarkStar189]

I didn't know this movie even existed until this thread. 

[skillzdadirecta]

Just now, DarkStar189 said:

I didn't know this movie even existed until this thread. 

Apparently a LOT of people didn't.

[SaysWho?]

I had no idea this was Apatow.

[Fizzzzle]

1 hour ago, skillzdadirecta said:

It's a simple as this... there are PLENTY of roles for straight actors that straight actors can play that are not far off from their experiences. There is only a HANDFUL of roles that are written for and by LGBTQ actors so the few that DO come out should prioritize LGBTQ actors. it's not like there's a TON of roles for Queer actors out there. It's not really that hard to understand to be honest.

I do get that. I'm just more responding to "why didn't they find an LGTBQ actor?" and I'm like... I don't know, there could be a hundred different reasons why they didn't hire an LGBTQ actor. It could be political, it could be financial, it could be whatever. Not to mention that it's not like every LBGTQ actor publicly declares their sexual orientation, so now you're opening a can of worms where all LGBTQ actors have to publicly declare their sexuality before being accepted for gay/queer roles. And that's not anybody's business and not every actor is open to sharing that kind of shit.

[Greatoneshere]

2 hours ago, skillzdadirecta said:

So here's the thing. It's all three's film. Eichner, Stoller AND Apatow's. Like @johnny said, this film doesn't get a theatrical release without Apatow's name on it and clout behind it. I don't even know if the movie gets MADE without him and since he's the biggest name involved, any stories about the film will naturally reference HIM. I didn't attribute the film to him as a slight to the other two, it was simply because he was the biggest most reconizable name involved. If the film was a raging success, he would be taking the credit and accepting the awards right along the other two. None of us here know how involved he was with the creative although to me it sounds like he was more involved than I initially thought. It doesn't matter... HE's the executive producer, HE'S the one with the relationship with Universal and the film was produced under HIM. It is not in anway erroneous to call this an Apatow film.

 

I think people are misunderstanding me. I'm not saying Apatow wasn't involved/whatever. Of course he was. But the way the OP title reads, it implies he was either the writer or director of the thing. That's how I immediately read it, and had to go check that it wasn't him, and being clear in my original post to anyone reading this thread that Apatow in no way is credited with writing or directing this film. That's all I'm saying, nothing more. 

[Bacon]

49 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

But the way the OP title reads, it implies he was either the writer or director of the thing. That's how I immediately read it

Same and I wouldn't have thought otherwise if I didn't enter the tread and only saw the title.

[SimpleG]

4 hours ago, skillzdadirecta said:

HE's the executive producer, HE'S the one with the relationship with Universal and the film was produced under HIM. It is not in anway erroneous to call this an Apatow film.

The entire film making process is so weird to me. I just assumed an executive producer is like a middle manager between studios and film makers , overseeing the day to day operations.