BoxOfficeFangrl

I guess that's a charitable way of looking at it, to say they're completing her final work. This will attract viewers out of morbid curiosity, but more money could end up going to her family. Still...

I was just listening to that episode this afternoon-love that podcast. I think Crudup's lack of superstardom probably didn't help with the backlash. A very famous guy will have fans who can get over what he did (or they never cared on the first place), because they've liked him for years in blockbusters or whatever. Like Tom Cruise with his fall from grace, that took years for his image to recover, and Billy was way less of a celebrity. But even without the controversy, I wonder if Crudup was always going to be one of those guys who was primed to be a superstar based on looks/talent, but it ends up not working out that way. Some of the roles that were supposed to launch him to the next level (Without Limits, Almost Famous), didn't really.

Why would you give David O. Russell even $60 million (assuming costs climbed due to Covid) for a movie? I get Hollywood being cynical enough to still do business with the man after Me Too, but I would've been less surprised if they'd only given him the budget for something small-scale and contemporary, i.e. Silver Linings Playbook on a budget.

LOL, that isn't how they got together, but yes. Like the tweet says, Billy Crudup and Mary-Louise Parker were a long-time couple (6-7 years), and having their first child together when he left her (in her third trimester) for the younger Claire Danes. Billy and Claire were in a movie together (Stage Beauty) and fell for each other. This was late 2003, none of them were A-listers, but it was very publicly messy with clear good and bad guys, so easy for gossips to take sides. Anyway, MLP gave birth and won a Golden Globe like three weeks later. She even thanked her son for her boobs looking good in her dress: Billy and Claire were together until 2006 despite a public backlash that affected their images, though IMO her career recovered more than his.

I can think of more January romcoms than October ones, but Ticket to Paradise should be fine. Still, maybe the "groundbreaking" gay movie this time of year could have been a thriller?

The article mentions the streaming competition as Blonde (lol) and Hocus Pocus 2. Hocus Pocus is a camp classic, but people can go to a theater and watch a 100 minute movie on Disney+ in the same weekend, if they really want. I think their Apatow point is too specific, but the general audience does have a sense that he's fallen off since his glory days. His name promoting a comedy won't boost it like before. Trainwreck was seven years ago and even that had bigger stars compared to Bros. So many miscalculations all around...

Hustlers premiered at TIFF to rave reviews/awards buzz, had some appeal to a gay audience (though primarily women) and opened later that month. Universal hoped history would repeat itself? Except Hustlers had a clear premise, wasn't a romcom and also starred JLo. Even Constance Wu was on a network sitcom and had had a huge movie hit the year before. Hustlers opened six days after its TIFF showing, while Bros had three weeks between the premiere and opening day, so the buzz dissipated. Just not the same thing at all...

. The article makes 5 points: The star power just wasn’t there. The marketing prioritized the film’s importance over the film’s comedy. October is a nonstarter for rom-coms. Consumers were distracted by strong streaming releases. Has ‘The Bubble’ tarnished Judd Apatow? Only four of top 100 romcoms at the box office are October releases, who knew? Bros is technically under September, barely, but the same logic applies (it's not a romcom time of year).

Bros is in fifth with actuals? Yikes...

Surprise! On last week's Little Gold Men podcast, a host was saying that Apple had too many contenders to save them all for 2023. Problem solved...

I wondered when that Academy apology ceremony was held recently, if they were rushing to do it while she was still with us.

It's just opening weekend, did anyone really expect Eichner to say the movie was too specific to have broad appeal even for LGBT audiences, or that now he realizes he's too annoying and not famous enough to be a romantic comedy lead? Stars are usually defensive in the immediate aftermath of a flop. If they ever get to the "mistakes were made" stage, it usually takes a while.

For anyone who missed it: https://www.si.com/nfl/2022/10/02/arizona-cardinals-jj-watt-heart-condition The NFL scrambling to update their non-concussion protocols... I have a horrible feeling an even worse health thing will happen with a player this season.

Eichner speaks:

I didn't say there are a ton of live-action ones, maybe these are more "family movies with romance" but they are comedic, too, so: The Princess Diaries franchise The Santa Clause 2 More of a romantic subplot: 101 Dalmatians, Hannah Montana: The Movie, Herbie: Fully Loaded Classic musicals with romcom leanings under the G rating: My Fair Lady, Funny Girl, Mary Poppins (most of these would be PG by modern standards). Hallmark is television, but most of their romances are TV-G, here are the sorts of things Luke Macfarlane was starring in before now: Hallmark movies have gay couples now, they're still TV-G: Obviously, there's a huge range between this sort of movie and Bros.

It would've been perfect if Julia's character had had a daughter in the story, then Emma could play her in a sequel. It doesn't make any sense for Daryl Hannah's kid to grow up and look like Julia Roberts, unless naming a baby after someone helps them resemble that person. I guess it could be like The Conjuring universe, where Vera and Taissa Farmiga's characters are apparently unrelated.

WDYM, Tua watched MacGruber on the plane ride home and laughed the whole time, he's totally fine!!!! Meanwhile....

Awards prospects always help, but a comedy/drama/romance can succeed without necessarily having great reviews. The presence of Sally Field makes me think of Steel Magnolias, which did get an Oscar nomination, but its critical reception was not great at the time. Not to say that Spoiler Alert will do that well, as any sort of low-key movie has an uphill battle in today's theatrical climate. * Oscar has gone a different way in recent years, but just saying, Top Gun and its sequel are not totally different from the first Best Picture winner, Wings:

It seems like there is a huge middle ground between "YA coming out" and "dark/very explicit", though? Not everyone wants their romance with a side of raunch. But I get how it can feel like people are being told not to be "too gay" for public consumption. I wonder how Spoiler Alert will do at the box office. It's not a raucous comedy, but it's a romance where the lead actors are out. It's based on a true story, but I can still picture it getting bashed somewhere on Twitter for "conforming to tropes" or something.

I would hope it's not being suggested that a gay romcom can't possibly be "authentic" unless it's raunchy/R-rated? There have been successful romcoms across the MPAA spectrum (okay, maybe not NC-17). And since when were romcoms ever "authentic", even with straight people? Even in the 1990s-2000s, they often presented a candy-coated fantasy version of reality, a lot of millennials watched them as children and got regrettable ideas about love and romance in real life as a result. But the apartments/houses/wardrobes sure did look nice...

I was thinking of the glowing notices out of TIFF, it wasn't shocking to me that white gay awards pundits were in love with Bros, it seems made for them (to be fair, the reviews have remained strong with many more critics weighing in). But there is definitely an LGBTQ audience not thrilled with the perspective of Bros, Eichner as a romantic lead or how he has hyped this, so that's probably limiting the box office, too. Crazy Rich Asians leaned on a similar sort of "historical precedent" (by studio romcom standards) during its rollout, but it was also based on a popular book and PG-13, plus four years ago, so a bigger potential audience all around, compared to Bros. Given the current state of Hollywood, it's kind of surprising/impressive that the "first gay studio romcom released in theaters" wasn't just a remake of a famous straight romcom: My Big Fat Gay Wedding, Mr. Congeniality (he has to infiltrate a dating show, IDK), a gay version of Cyrano de Bergerac, etc.

In this case, I think Film Twitter showed up (specifically the gay/awards-loving segments) for Bros but not much more than that, really...

I wonder if they will ever do the same for movies as well, films generally have more supporting actors than leads. But then, a lot of the lead acting movie categories at the Globes are often filled out by people who go aupporting at the Oscars.

It feels that way... Kiki Layne replaced Dakota Johnson in that role, I wonder if she'd have had a bit more to do? The Margaret role would've gone over differently in a number of ways with Dakota in it.