Hollywood and mainstream media cope with the obvious commercial flop and damage control for Zendaya is ridiculous.
Zendaya's "star vehicle" needs $140 million to break-even with the budget of $55 million.
Zendaya's homoerotic drama Challengers already flopped
This reporter forgot to say "glamorous". You always have to mention that word when talking about Zendaya, whoever created her has decreed this.
It’s weird how open women are about consuming porn now
Surprised she didn’t describe it as “spicy”, but I guess you have to show off enough vocabulary to justify this makework job
women, when left to their own devices are far worse on average than the average man
there's a reason all societies use to keep them on a tight leash
>every conversation is a tennis match and every tennis match is a sex scene
I think modern writers tend to read 1/10th of Infinite Jest and then drop it but also never get past it
didn't people wanted less sex scenes? who is the target audience for that?
People don't want less sex scenes. The poll's results were twisted by low IQ journos
This movie might have been a testbed to see if they packaged it right with lots of bisexuality and gay kissing if they could convince Gen Z to see a movie about sex.
How do they not mr. sex obsessed millennial? Obviously, the movie bombed it is all about sex. Maybe they could have had a hit if it was about blond hair blue eyed big titty threesome because of all the millennials who are sex starved and want to take their lotion to the cinema though but doesn't really prove anything then.
How the FRICK is this 55 million? Just film some tennis scenes and some sex would have cost 100K + catering in 1978.
Actor salaries are sky high now. Props and paying for sets and filming location rights isn't cheap anymore like it used to be even in the early 90s. Not to mention the dollar is worth nearly nothing now to the point where they can spend 1 mil on a few days of filming.
>How do they not mr. sex obsessed millennial? Obviously, the movie bombed it is all about sex.
It's not about "sex" as gays kissing and Zendaya looking dour do not qualify as sex for most of the audience. She does show a glimpse of ass here and there as revealed by the webms posted here but that's not enough to salvage the movie or make it a sexy experience.
>Maybe they could have had a hit if it was about blond hair blue eyed big titty threesome
Unironically yes
>because of all the millennials who are sex starved and want to take their lotion to the cinema though but doesn't really prove anything then.
You sound a bit overinvested and inauthenti. Wouldn't be surprised if you're a prudish millennial yourself or some unhinged roastie
>pozzed shit
>5 stars
hahahhahahahaha
>psychodrama
>thrilling
Yes, please sign me up for more woke demoralization "man is the monster and everything turns to shit" porn by israelites. I can hardly control the anticipation.
>letting yourself get demoralized by movies
Literally softer than baby shit
zendaya is carried by the franchise she is in. no one would otherwise give a frick as has just been proven
Right. Sweeney proved she can carry the movie with Anyone but you which is box office hit and Immaculate.
They should've cast Sidney for this role. Her breasts bouncing during the tennis scene would've broke even for them.
Stop watching that shit in the bathroom scene.
>6/10 face, 9/10 boobs
You may not like it, but this is current day Hollywod peak performance
This is why I watch old movies with Grace Kelly or Olivia de Havilland.
She's the only big titted blonde in all of Hollywood.
Immaculate didn't make any profit
Madame web flopped hard
Immaculate did well enough: 21 mil on a 9 mil budget is much better than it seems bc Sydney was the producer, meaning: she paid herself. A similar thing happened with JLaw's No Hard Feelings.
Hollywood went hard with promoting JLaw but she’s actually talented and beautiful to deserve it. Zendaya is neither but she’s the most promoted Hollywood actress ever. The Challengers marketing and current media mental gymnastics to portray her movie as anything other than flop prove it.
True, peak JLaw was more objectively attractive and one of the things that harm Zendaya's image is a counter-reaction to the forced, excessive, incongruous hype around her.
Had it been more natural ppl would go "she's actually mildly attractive" instead of "lol she's ugly why tf does the media pretend she's gorgeous".
Immaculate will break-even and Anyone but you is a smashing box office hit.
Immaculate grossed more than double its budget and brought buzz to Sweeney as an actor and producer
When most actors are given producer roles its just to pay them more.
Depends on the actor. Famously, Margot Robbie is very in-the-weeds with her production company (probably because she wants to keep producing as she gets older and gets cast less)
It has make at least over x2.5 (to compensate promo budget) to make any profit at all, but at least it wasn't a flop like madame web
It used to be 2x, now it has become 2.5x. Why does the requirement keep going up?
Companies are spending more on marketing because movies cost more to see so it takes more to get people to see them.
Thsy doesn't answer thr question. If movies cost more the existing multiplier already results in the marketing being more.
Its not that the movie costs more its that the actual tickets cost more so it takes more marketing to convince people to see a movie (or at least that's the logic, marketing is pretty unscientific).
To put it in super simple numbers. When tickets cost $6 to see a movie and there was only TV as competition, audiences only needed to see 1 commercial to convince them to see the movie. Now tickets are $15 and there's more competition for attention, so audiences need to see 5 commercials to convince them, thus the marketers must buy more ads, thus marketing costs go up out of proportion to production costs.
x2 only when promo budget is 0 which is never the case. Promo budget is usually half the budget or close, so x2.5 is the standard
What's the difference between marketing and promotion? Marketing is digital/paper/ads while promotion is live stuff like actors doing interviews?
I think it will be considered solidly profitable with VOD sales
Almost certainly.
At 55 mil before marketing costs? Unlikely. Zendaya's not a box office draw nor a household name and her looks don't sell movies. It's not as if casual viewers scroll down VOD options, look at her and say "hey, this reminds me of a supermarket cashier, I'll choose this one"
we're talking about Immaculate, not Challengers
Ah ok, in that case yes, you're absolutely right and even before VOD/streaming numbers imo. The movie itself must have cost 5 mil tops, the other 4 mil or so was Sydney paying herself. The cast/crew are all lowkey names
Zendaya has 184,000,000 followers on Instagram, she was on HBO's second most watched show. That's the math they're doing internally to determine whether or not she's worth the $55,000,000+ investment.
did no one tell hbo that bots dont buy tickets?
>Zendaya has 184,000,000 followers on Instagram
Kek. So fricking what? All internet numbers tend to be inflated by bots: instagram, imdb "ratings" etc. They no longer have any credibility.
>HBO's second most watched show
Oh wow
>That's the math they're doing internally to determine whether or not she's worth the $55,000,000+ investment.
Now they have the (real) numbers to realize the error of their ways.
One thing producers are finally realizing is that internet discourse/shrillness/hype does NOT translate into movie popularity.
That could very well be. If this movie bombs big time then they'll probably not put her in anything but IP slop going forward (unless she originates the project herself)
>Zendaya has 184,000,000 followers on Instagram
Where were her followers on the opening weekend when almost all movies get the most money?
It's almost as if bots don't pay to go see movies...
These movies are also more lucrative because the budget around includes their producer/actor fees, they're paying themselves, so that Immaculate or Nor Hard Feelings budget was actually half (or even less) of what was announced
*because the budget also includes
>Zendaya's "star vehicle" needs $140 million to break-even with the budget of $55 million.
lmao here we go again
Is this the new way to bait people on Cinemaphile or something? Insinuate they're a nazi chud if they understand that marketing, theater cut all goes into how much a movie needs to make on top of its production budget to be profitable for a studio?
You didn't say "profitable". You said "break even".
Break even is the exact point where the movie begins being profitable, moron.
No, incel. See:
Why are you people even mad at this picture given that you agree 100% with the chud in it?
What does that post have to do with anything, I replied only to
A movie becomes profitable after breaking even. Before you break even, you're in the red (losing money); after you break even, you're in the black (making money).
Well, nazis usually don’t understand things, so it tracks.
A film's budget doesn't include marketing or distribution, shill
>budget doesn't include x or y because okay?
This is literally true though. The officially reported budgets of movies are usually just production because marketing is handled by the distribution company.
The production entity (in this case 4 of them: MGM, Why Are You Acting? Inc, Frenesy Film Corporation, and Pascal Pictures) put up the money to purchase the script, rent the cameras, secure locations, hire crew, edit the movie, etc. Then they take the movie to a distribution company who purchases from those companies the rights to distribute the film (in this case, Amazon MGM- a different company under the same parent company- and Warner Bros outside of North America). Those are the people who put up the marketing budget, cut the trailers, schedule press events, etc. Distribution costs are generally not reported because they're usually in baroque contracts with other projects and all the money gets sloshed together. The general rule of thumb they taught us in business classes though was that marketing budget usually is about the same as 0.75x - 1.25x the production budget
Somehow the box autist chud has return
moron, that's the budget to produce the slop. Next you have to distribute it, market it, and then Theaters, other companies involved get their cut, and EVENTUALLY, the production company.
Hi zendaya
i hate when ignorant people think theyre smart
Where'd you get the 140 million number from then? Enlighten me on your totally smart chudmath.
multiply 2.5 to the budget and then round up
>i hate when ignorant people think theyre smart
Says the Black person brain that believes in Hollywood accounting.
The idea that theatres might get a cut of takings for movies they show is hardly the most esoteric accounting practice.
Breakeven factors in alternative profit decisions, meaning:
-if a movie cost 50 mil plus 15 mil for marketing, to reach breakeven point it'd have to do as well as investing this money elsewhere would after accounting for movie theater's slice.
50+15=65.
65+65=130. That's what it'd have to make to reach a layman's version of breakeven, but in reality it's more like 140 at least because you could make a cool 5-10 mil out of 65 mil by investing it elsewhere.
Also add to that loss the time/opportunity costs incurred. While months are spent making Challengers and theater slots are given it, the studio could have used both that time and the theaters for other, profitable movies. Take into account the fact that make a movie lucrative (say 20-100 mil profit) often requires a much smaller budget (see the budgets for Anyone But You, Sound of Freedom, Talk to Me, FNAF etc).
So you literally just made it up like the chuddie in the picture
Numbers can be made up, but the reality of profit-making cannot. People trolling about the literal meaning of breakeven probably grasp that-- I hope. Seriously trying to argue that movie X cost Y and made Y at the box office, hence it broke even would be seriously moronic, not least because no investment is made to merely break even.
>not least because no investment is made to merely break even.
"Movies are made in order to make a profit rather than to merely break even, therefore 'to break even' actually means the same as 'to make a profit'"
>Numbers can be made up
lmao they literally admit it
you're just trolling
No, I am not. "To break even" means that you make exactly as much money as you spent. If you spent 55 million, then you break even the moment you make 55 million back. Only utterly mindbroken chuds dispute this.
So are you saying the theaters show the movie for free?
>make 55 million back
>back
>back
when a theater makes $1000 screening a movie do they give $1000 to the studio or do they keep some of that money for themselves?
so 55 millie budget
the movie makes 55 mill
so it broke even? the theaters get half of that 55 mill, so it's halfway to breaking even when the movie makes 55 mill
that's without marketing budget
>the theaters get half
Literally braindead. All of you should stop speaking.
so how much do they get then?
From what I heard, they don't see a dollar until about the third weekend, so theaters aren't making anything from this slop.
>From what I heard, they don't see a dollar until about the third weekend
lmao
Frick off shill.
This isn't true. The % the theatres get goes up as the run goes on (to motivate them to keep it on screens) but theatres generally keep 40%-45% in the opening week for a Disney blockbuster in the US. Internationally it's 50-55% (60%+ in China).
Disney also had minimum screen numbers for their films (guessing they've dropped this after all the flops they've had this year now)
each film can have a different distibution deal
we just dont know
They can but it's rare for them to be significantly different because it's not in studios interests to engage in a race to the bottom or to frick over cinema chains so much they fold.
Disney's minimum screens for Marvel got a lot of shit.
30% range opening, 60% range weeks later, if the movie has legs. Second run cinemas keep 90% plus.
>'to break even' actually means the same as 'to make a profit'
Breaking even, as explained here
is another name for losing money. It's strictly a cope that economically illiterate types cling to
>lmao they literally admit it
Educate yourself further here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting
>the literal meaning of breakeven
Chuds now have to pretend that there are several meanings of breakeven in order to pretend that they're not talking absolute shit
Here's a math question for you:
You make a product that costs $100 to produce.
You spend an additional $100 on marketing that product.
You send the product to stores who sell each one for $2.
After each sale, the store keeps $1 and sends you $1.
How many dollars in sales do you need to break even?
Answer: $400
Until you understand this, you should stop trying to comment on financial matters in the movie industry.
In that case my budget is $400 so of course I need $400 to break even.
>100 + 100 = 400
You sure are something special.
No, the budget for the product is reported as $100. The marketing budget of $100 is not reported to the public in any way. The take from the stores is not part of the budget. The reporting would say, "Anon's product has a budget of $100 and needs $400 to break even," because the break even point has to account for both the marketing and what the store takes.
In that case the cost is 400$.
Sorry addition is so hard, sucks to be homeschooled uh?
The cost is the production plus marketing, which is $200. You need $400 in sales because the store only gives you 50% of the sale value. The point of sale taking a cut of the price is not part of the cost of the product, you're a complete moron. The other thing is that the marketing budget isn't included in the production budget for movies, which is why in my hypothetical example you'd end up with articles that say, "Anon's product cost $100 to produce and will need $400 in sales to break even." It's a combination of some costs (marketing) being hidden and the full sale price not going to the producer. When you pay $10 for a movie ticket, that full $10 does not go back to the movie studio.
Sorry to shatter your midwit comfort zone, you can stop "pretending" to be moronic now
>"To break even" means that you make exactly as much money as you spent
That's what economically illiterate types assume but when you break even you actually misspent 2 precious assets:
-time (which is finite, you cannot get it back)
-opportunity costs (you could have spent the money elsewhere)
the numbercope never ends lmao
If you ever start a business, please get an accountant to do all the finance numbers for you. If you do it yourself you'll be broke immediately.
Explain to me why the dictionary is lying about the meaning of "to break even".
The dictionary isn't lying. $55 million IN SALES does not equate to $55 million GIVEN TO THE STUDIO.
answer the question, you larping homosexual: does the theater give $1000 back to the studio or do they keep some of it?
They keep some of it, but that doesn't affect the meaning of "break even".
>They keep some of it, but that doesn't affect the meaning of "break even".
Kek
Is this trolling, autizmo or actual ignorance?
Movie costs the studio $500 to make.
Theater records $500 in box office.
The studio still needs $500 to break even
...but the theater is keeping some of that money, as you attested earlier.
Therefore calculating if a film 'broke even' based on knowing the budget and the box office requires incorporating the theater's cut into the formula. Simple as.
Jesus dude, you're embarrassing in how fricking moronic you are.
Whoever made this image and anyone that reposts it should have their head used as a watermelon in Gallagher homage.
Look at the chuds in this thread. Every last one of them says exactly the same thing as the chud in the pic.
Your can try to deflect however you want, but you're still an absolute fricking moron and the point went completely over your sub-saharan IQ.
Me calling you a moron is literally not even an ad hominem in this case, because you're literally to moronic to understand the point and hence you think ppl misused the term "break-even".
Black personlover9000
Show your work, spiteful mutant.
After paying the people to make the movie, you still have to let theaters take their cut along with advertising. I don't think this was advertised as much so it's just out there. So it's still more than the budget and less than the rule. Hollywood accounting is a thing.
This movie was heavily advertised.
oof, that makes it pretty hilarious as im a john everyman. Where?
>I'm happy to make nothing or next to nothing for my months of work
Even jannies are more dignified than you, anon. At least they don't work.
>theaters give all the profits back to the movie studio
How the frick did this movie cost $55 million? No one in here is a huge star and there can't be any major CGI given that it's a tennis movie.
>Seething stan twitter moron.
2.5x gross is the accepted rule of thumb for any movie to be seen as profitable.
Zendaya is now considered a huge star by the media complex surrounding her.
>2.5x gross is the accepted rule of thumb for any movie to be seen as profitable.
Incredible. Chuds STILL don't get the difference between "break even" and "profitable". And no, there is no such rule outside of your heads.
>there is no such rule outside of your heads
GIMF
it's actually true in this case, i've seen more ads for this movie than i have for any other movie since barbie
unironically the movie wouldve done better if they hadnt tried too hard with 'girlboss' vibe because it gave many people the ick
She has no charisma at all. Why the hell do they push her in all the movies?
Bi-racial angel
israeli agenda. Why cast a beautiful anything when you can cast a hideous mutt with zero sex appeal or charisma?
Because she rides some fat israelite's mutilated penis between shoots
Black audiences rejected Amandla Stenberg as the first attempt at a black Gen Y it girl after they got bored of
>Amandla OWNS book-reading racists over race-swapping Rue
ragebait, and moved-onto
>Amanda COONS on her fans yet again by serving as a fetish object for a Hitler youth instead of murdering him
with Zendaya as the fallback. The moment Amandla stopped being pushed, Zendaya all of a sudden shows-up outside of kids TV, and the Amandla cycle starts again for her, but this time, she's loud on social issues beyond "I'm genderqueer)
Lipstick Alley types were also quick to point out that she's half black/half israeli
not that i am trying to defend zendaya here, but this kind of feels like a way for studios to blame the cast for a movie flop instead of acknowledging they are pumping out schlock that no one wants to see
She's supposed to be a massive star that sells movie tickets, if she can't do that there is no point casting her, these small projects can just hire a nobody with a lower salary
Maybe MGM shouldn't have paid Zendaya $10 million salary.
If there was an actually attractive lead in the role then people would have gone out to see it.
>gay tennis movie
Nothing would’ve saved it
>Sydney Sweeney couldn't have saved it
Press x to doubt
She did save Anyone But You and Immaculate
>She did save Anyone But You
She and Glenn powell saved it by prentending to date in real life
That helped create hype but happened months before the movie's December release, and unlike Powell Sydney became a household, mainstream name being talked about in newspapers, tv shows and whatnot
>That helped create hype but happened months before the movie's December release,
No dummy, the movie opened low on the box office and was called a flop but then tik tok blew their dating rumors out of proportion and these two leaned into it by pretending to date after that the movie grew insane legs and grossed 200m. Sydney just talked about that recently
You're an imbecile if you think "tiktok rumors" is what made Anyone But You a box office hit.
> pretending to date
That was old news by then.
moron look it up, anyone but you was saved by tiktok
>anyone but you was saved by tiktok
Imagine being this dumb. The movie's audience was 18+ and it profited from excellent word of mouth
> it profited from excellent word of mouth
Thanks to who?
Real people with real friends and acquaintances talking about it irl. the season was also appropriate as it was a rom com featuring 2 attractive ppl so it was a respite as opposed to either puerile or dour stuff that was showing at the theaters. Couples and women, not fricking tiktokers made Anyone But You a hit.
Congrats on being cool with the gay sex
First time I'm hearing of this. Are they just not marketing it? Is it awful?
It's pretty good, still early in the year but it's the best movie I've seen so far.
How did you miss them talking about this film? The film's been bigged up for a year.
Apparently the film is decent but if you go in wanting to see Zendaya spitroasted (something which has made up about 90% of the promotional material) you'll feel short changed.
I’ve seen the trailer for this before practically every movie I’ve watched over the past two months. Saw it Friday, it’s just meh. Definitely not as smart as reviews pretend it is. The cinematography is good, the tennis matches are actually filmed in a very cool way and Josh O’Connor does deliver a charismatic performance, Zendaya is alright, the other dude is not good. I guess the goodness of the story hinges on whether you agree that tennis is a conversation/relationship (they’re aware their analogy is shit so they can’t decide which one it is exactly throughout the movie), which I don’t. Overall a very mid movie that has some fun moments. The only question that remains is whether those rave reviews exist because they’re paid for or because film critics today are genuinely this credulous
>the other dude is not good.
Faist is great as a guy who needs to be in second to get fired up.
I don’t know, I just couldn’t help but feel he was just a pawn in the other’s game instead of an active participant. Kind of like he was Zendaya’s strap-on
>the goodness of the story hinges on whether you agree that tennis is a conversation/relationship
Not really, it's just a reframing of the common idea that people who compete at really high levels in anything and reach their absolute peak attain a sort of transcendence of the human spirit.
I guarantee it'd have done much better if they shed the gay/bi aspects and focused on an r-rated rom com story because it'd have wide appeal and could have done good to great numbers as Anyone But You did.
It's good that audiences don't stand bait & switch anymore
So no one wants to watch a movie about a lanky charisma void pussy-whipping two guys into sucking each other's dicks? Pearls before swine I guess.
>make gays the focus
>movie fails
Every time.
bareback mountain won an oscar
Funny how brokeback mountain never got a sequel, remake, spinoff, or sold any merchandise
>he doesn't know about the all-female remake
>Zendaya's "star vehicle" needs $140 million to break-even with the budget of $55 million.
doubt it, the marketing is not always that expensive, especially for smaller movies like this. It's stupid to calculate it as you would for a Marvel of Star Wars movie.
> Good test for Zendaya's star power.
> Implying she's ever had any.
She's been in 2 major franchises where no one gives a frick about her performance in both and gotten roles because she's friends with the right people so even this flops her career won't be damaged because she's friends with the right people.
An erotic tennis movie where none of the people are good looking. Throw in some gay male stuff for good measure. It's hard to imagine why audiences aren't flocking to this one.
at least they're not trying to make her look like a wet dog anymore
She's boring. Name one time her acting was good. Low energy Xanax girl.
>no spiderman
>no sand worms
>just her as the main character
>bombs
maybe people don't wanna see a threesome with her?
*the gay version of a threesome...
No sex scene in the movie either.
That doesn't sound like a Luca movie at all
Christina Aguilera used to be the hottest woman on earth.
Zendaya isn’t a draw but she’s black and she’s youthful so they’ll keep shilling her until something clicks
Also who would give Luca Guadingo this much money for a trashy flick
fun fact, movie was written by this guy
>No sex scenes
>dick and balls
>Gay drama
Who would have though?
Zendaya shill is really mad ITT.
I wouldn't watch a tennis movie if it was hetero sex with hot girl. So when they made it a LBGT tennis, they pretty much doomed themselves for failure. And nobody wants to watch a movie where Zendaya is the lead and gets main character amounts of screen time
Zoomers have been saying it for months: they are tired of all the sex scenes and hook up aspects of basically all current movies and shows
>Zoomers have been saying it for months: they are tired of all the sex scenes
The opposite, they are mad that this movie has zero sex scenes despite the trailers being sexual
Anyone But You made 219+ mil (around 10x its budget) and it focuses on sex/seminudity.
Challengers flopped because the type of "sex" it included has no mass appeal.
they're tired of sex scenes not involving good looking people
>Challengers
Is it an action flick?
Hollywood taught people to watch only big budget CGI trash. Everything else they will watch on streaming.
It's well and truly Joewari da now muttbros....
This had a shitload of marketing. I'd be amazed if the break even point is under $200m. I've seen that fricking shot of the two twinks kissing her neck whilst she looks smug 1000 times. You don't give $10m+ to an actress in what should be a low budget drama by respected director, just to have it end up being a giant piece of self promotion by her. If you want to star in a prestige piece, you take the pay cut and then you get a shitload of offers for a big budget film afterwards.
This is like Wildthings but you only ever showed Mat Dillon's face in the marketing, gave him $10m, and then had the threesome scene last just 20 seconds with everyone still remaining in their clothes.
>respected director
never heard of luca bratze or whoever until it started being posted here, i thought it was just some roastie director being pretentious.
maybe if she went topless and show her breasts but nah she would rather have a flop on her hands
no nudity in a sex film. wtf.
>no nudity in a sex film
It literally has a scene full of dicks in a locker room
It has 1 dick and it's an extra. The big threesome scene is fully clothed.
>The big threesome scene is fully clothed.
The "big threesone scene" is actually two dude tongue kissing
Either big Harv needs to come back or gays need to be finally solved.
Big Harv knew what audience wanted.
zendaya has no nudity clause in her contracts
How long are we going to keep getting these embarrassing clothed sex scenes. They stand out so badly. Fallout and Gen V were especially comical.
If you don't want breasts visible, at least do discrete camera angles or them holding up sheets. It's especially bad then the guy has his arse out and the girl isn't even in her underwear.
The nose cult unironically fear women beauty.
> it needs 150M
>nooo it needs 55M
it's not making either of those numbers
She's so pretty
She's not but she looks much better with less or no clothes on
>random girl behind her is better looking
I’m not a fan of her but you’re kidding yourself
It's the uniform.
>me on the left when i see more zendaya spam on this board
Some of her.
>zendaya can you give me your panties off your body
>damn this b***h stink, glad i'm getting overtime
>i need to get back to the amazon warehouse before i get whipped
>I can't believe they closed K-Mart
Where did her 180m instagram followers go?
Movie was terrible. Immature and juvenile writing on the level of an erotic romance novel for middle aged single mothers. Totally obnoxious soundtrack. Zendaya can’t act.
Is there such a thing as resting smug face?
In every film she's in she gives off a "this is beneath me" attitude, in Dune this is comical as everyone around her completely out-acts her. She isn't even entertainingly bad, like Keanu in Dracula.
Tom Holland walkups will save the movie.
Tomdaya shippers refuse to see it.
>Zendaya
>Star power
lmao. The only movies I know she starrs in are Spider-Man and Dunc, and neither of those movies got their viewership because of her.
>c’mon guys let’s go play tennis and have gay man sex!
Zendaya's faces fascinates me. It's like her face is anti camera. Her looks fails, her expressions fails
She doesnt even fill the "normal girl" niche, she is just ugly and hard to look at
ha what a bunch of israeli garbage. an italian made this?
This is a real piece of marketing by the producers.
How many men at once can she take LMAO I wonder why no one wants to see that
Luca films don't seem like they're for the regular moviegoer.
Bones And All flopped hard too, and it had the ratface kid in it
That movie is definitely not for mainstream audiences.
>That movie is definitely not for mainstream audiences.
So why cast a bigshot actor with larger salary demands? They could have gone with an unknown young actor for that part
His shitty Suspiria remake flopped too. Turns out Call Me By Your Name (which I've never cared to watch) was an outlier in his filmography
His movies promote homosexuality and race mixing. The israelites will keep giving him money to flop, as long as he keeps pushing that stuff out.
They're prestige films that the studios put out to boost their reputation and occasionally make lots of money off of if they become a timeless film that generates modest income over decades.
Maybe they shouldn’t have shown the devil’s three way scene in the commercials on tv. Oh, nothing reels in the boomers like dudes making out, right guys?
Hacksaw ridge was really great, shame it's faded a bit into obscurity.
The only war movie to actually make me uncomfortable with the violence. Which is the point, so another win for based Mel.
Hmmmmm
what's happening bros
>this is the modern day sex symbol I was telling you about
>lets focus on her ugly gorilla Black person nose for our advertisement shots
Cinemaphile here- the only medium where we're pretty much forced to watch commercials here and there because you have to see live coverage
the amount of CHALLENGERS commercials I've seen pumped into both the NFL draft and NBA playoff games is incredible- every 20 minutes it seems I see that scene where she gets kissed on the neck by the two twinks and they play rihanna in the background
they are marketing the hell out of this, and these are two massive TV events. can't be cheap. they seem to be spending a ton on marketing
this has to be a huge flop, ~~*they*~~ have to be fudging the budget to not include marketing
2.5 rule wins again
i had to see the commercial for this before dunc 2 in the theater
man, zendaya is not hot enought to pull this off, charisma vacuum too
Zendaya isn't hot at all.
its so funny seeing her PR ppl propping her up as white blonde to make her more appealing
No one in their right mind can consider Zendaya white.
she's as white as obama, and people loved him
>she's as white as obama
So no one considers her white. Because no one considered Obama white.
I didn't realize anyone did
True but she isn't black either and trying to artificially emphasize her "blackness' is a mistake because that stops mixed-race ppl worldwide from relating to her.
>but she isn't black either
Yes she is.
One-drop rule.
The "one-drop rule" is redneckish, superseded nonsense that has become a disservice to whites because it simply marginalizes them as a dubious "badge of honor". Learn to recognize the white background of mixed-race people because that's how white qualities prevail.
>The "one-drop rule" is redneckish
Stopped reading there.
Frick off israelite.
You could be the "israelite" or some other foreign trying to divide whites by placing them into a self-defeating echo chamber. Otherwise, wise up Cletus
You are the israelite trying to count mutts as white.
of course it was going to flop, not one person has ever paid money to see that mutt, she's merely been 3rd-4th wheel in a few blockbusters
KWAB
Match Point is a kino tennis sex drama
You didn't watch the movie. You're a moronic incel who doesn't know anything about economics. So what exactly are you talking about?
Her PR team desperately trying to spin this as a success lmao
Wow, a sports movie flopping, who woulda thunk it?
Who thought a movie about a Tennis gay hag getting her bibawd homosexual boyfriends together was a good movie idea?
>box-office poison Zendaya + gay shit
>"why isn't it making money :("
Truly a mystery.
wat
All flops except for Dune 2, Godzilla vs Kong and Kung Fu Panda 4.
>Boy Kills World in 10th place
It ain’t fair
tbh Ghostbusters was decent I think in 2024 any movie that can get over 100M domestic is considered a hit. Looks like Civil War will be a bomb, meh A24 might make 5-10 million total profit after streaming
Ghostbusters was awful, you genuinely believe it was decent you have terrible, terrible taste and have a defective brain
so, is that her vegana?
Yes and it's also a flop.
new porthole dropped ?
She shouldn't wear sunglasses, it draws too much attention to her assymetrical Black person snout and her crooked mouth. Without them you just focus on her dead, shit colored skewed eyes.
Hollywood likes will never learn that normal people are REPULSED by two men kissing and being gay together. It really is like maggots to us. They should have had Zendaya softcore lezzing with a hot white girl. That would have been boxoffice gold.
Just get rid of Zendaya entirely and have Angourie Rice and Sydney Sweeney lez out instead
>Rice and Sweeney
Good but give Rice black hair and make her look like a goth. It’s a good lesbian pairing with a blonde tan bimbo
Men would rather love each other than Zendaya and cheat on her with another man.
Exactly. Lesbianism can be a selling point but male homosexuality is box office poison.
>Zendaya's homoerotic
Ya'll need to stop accusing Zendaya of looking like a boy. Some insecure homies up in this b***h.
Nobody would simp for her in real life. Crack prostitute tier looks. And even then, I have seen better ones than her!
I'm surprised this isn't doing numbers given the thriving cottage industry of ugly fanfic fujoshi booktok smut reading sexless mutts who are the A #1 dollar consumer spenders and all the bi queer male homosexuals that post about this shit like it's their job.
quirky lbx reviews a hit does not make huh
They don’t go to cinemas.
>ugly fanfic fujoshi booktok smut reading sexless mutts
They wait for Netflix, until then they keep reading their smut fanfictions for free.
Mike Faist is the only one even a little attractive in this gay shit, fujos like hot guys or twinks. Zendaya and prince charles are ugly
homie fujos dont want a fricking disgusting looking selfinsert and they already have anime and fanfics for their fantasies
>all the bi queer male homosexuals that post about this shit like it's their job
turns out theyre in fact a minority
more like Zenguya
boom roasted
>maybe word of mouth will give it a boost
For sure, people worldwide will flock to theaters when they find out it's all about gay sex. lmao
Zendaya is so clearly manufactured 'stardom'.
~~*Media*~~ writes tons of articles about her, but nobody is actually interested, and she can't act for shit, which is true for 99% of Hollywood starlets, but if she could at least act then she could stand out that way.
>Disney channel girl is a manufactured star
Incredible deduction.
So why is the head of distribution at Amazon Studios and MGM happy with what it made?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/2024/04/28/challengers-movie-zendaya-box-office/c612fb6c-0573-11ef-b60b-a512fc749f9b_story.html
What did you expect he'd say in public while the movie's still playing at theaters?
Learn from history:
>While being cross-examined at Ward's trial, Rice-Davies made a riposte which has since become famous. When James Burge, the defence counsel, pointed out that Lord Astor denied an affair or even having met her, she dispatched this swiftly with pert humour, "Well he would, wouldn't he?"[9] (often misquoted "Well he would say that, wouldn't he?").[10] By 1979, this phrase had entered the third edition of the Oxford Dictionary of Quotations, and is occasionally referred to with the abbreviation MRDA ("Mandy Rice-Davies applies").[11]
Maybe he should not say anything rather than lie?
You're correct but the world of entertainment (including some "journalism") is now more than ever clogged by lies, hype, narratives and other bs
I remember seeing commercials for this garbage a full calendar year ago and the only thing I could think was "why". Who is the target audience for this? Wimbledon was actually a good tennis/rom-com movie but it also didn't do good at the box office
is it just forcing this 7/10 plain-faced prostitute on us? Like a punishment?
Its aimed at ugly young women to fantasize over being the center of two men's attention.
Zendaya and Daisy Ridley are extremely popular among average women because they’re psychologically non-threatening for for your average woman. While they attack Sweeney and Margot Robbie.
Dunst and Bettany were good in simple romcom which was centered on tennis. It’s a pity Wimbledon bombed.
ScarJo and Woody Allen made a hit movie while tennis was a background.
It's because they didn't actually deliver the threesome.
You will have gaysex and like it, nah
You will go out of business and like it
and that's a good thing
Sarah Gadon would have made the movie score at least a billion dollars at the box office.
What supports this whole bloated Hollywood beast if their narrative pushing movies don't make money? The successes can't possibly make up for all these failures anymore.
>people payed and showed up to a movie of two dudes making out for 2 minutes on a big screen
>it flops
how suprising
It's a great film. It's funny that Zendaya has been in the two best movies of the year so far.
>make movie about nothing that appeals to noone
>surprise pikachu when it fails
Never heard of this movie. What's it even about?
mutt gets spitroasted for 90minutes
Sounds boring
Lies. THERE'S NO SEX SCENE
Zendaya turns two white boys gays
They were gay before they met her.
About to watch Bones and All
what am I in for
I watched the first 5 minutes, before the title card pops up, and it's kino. Will report back when it's done.
It's an okayish ya+cannibal story. It looks vaguely scuzzy in the literal sense with 2 smelly-looking main characters. Also though I usually dislike him Rylance does a good job in this movie.
He dindu nuffin wrong
>a homoerotic art film didn't make 1 billion dollars
shocking
truly woke leftists are losing the culture war
>a homoerotic art film that cost upwards of 70 million to make*
That part when Patrick does Art's serve during the final set to let Art know he's been cucked, they then play the most mutually fulfilling tennis either of them has played before embracing over the net literal kino.
She is being pushed to the moon by the entertainment media.
What are some good Mike Faist movies
I've only seen him in West Side Story, he's good but I didn't like it.
the public wants gentle lesbian porn
not some homosexuals crassly sodomising each other
Its a female gooner film. It was never going to be a smash without advertising like the other female gooner movies.
>other female gooner movies.
What are the classics of the genre?
50 shades of grey is the standout success of the genre. Less popular would be things like Lady Chatterley's lover. Jennifer's Body.
Pride and Prejudice in all its iterations basically.
The female gooners best media is books however like ACOTAR and similar books.
>50 shades of grey
Yeah, except that movie was about a woman being dominated by a really hot 'dangerous' guy, the sex fantasy of 99.9% of straight women.
This movie is about a female and two beta gays, that's the sex fantasy of 0.1% of women in total.
MFM has been a common female fantasy for like 3 decades now. Both the guys are good looking and rich. You have aged out of the target demographic or dont interact with females in their 20's
The point of MFM for women is that the two hot guys are after HER not gay for each other
MFM is not two males making out while the female watches, you fricking moron
I've talked to lots of young women and most them aren't very interested in MFM threesomes, it's a largely pornbrained fetish for men. If anything women are more curious about MFF threesomes.
>Actually this singular girl I know (completely real) proves your entire statement incorrect
Please look at what kind of sex is in female gooners books. These are thing 10's of thousands of women read and are a reflection of their sexual tastes.
>I know what young women like actually and its not the things they look for in their porn
Cool story homosexuals.
pornbrained moron, probably a troony
At least you don't pretend to have an argument this time.
>Please look at what kind of sex is in female gooners books
99% are about a female ending up controlling a hot dangerous guy through wild sex
Yep. It's like bisexual men who pretend that women are super duper into BBC porn when it's their own kink mostly.
>rich
Patrick has $70 in his checking account when we meet him and he can't afford food or a shitty motel room.
Once I found out there was no threesome, I instantly lost interest. Add in homosexual drama and hard pass
But people on twitter said it was really good and that the homosexuals were the best part of it.
>As a teenager, Guadagnino was a registered member of the Italian Communist Party, and wrote for the Palermo youth wing newspaper.
Ah, so that's why his movies are so ugly and disgusting.
Will they learn the lesson this time?
of course not
Weird, I haven't been paying attention to this, but when I opened my news feed this morning it said that Challengers had won this weekend's box office.
Which is it? Hit or flop?
"Winning" the box office these days is Hollywood's version of the special olympics. The news sites frame it that way so as to twist the narrative into something that seems to be actually good news instead of another example of Hollywood's downfall.
>Challengers had won this weekend's box office.
The Marvels had won the weekend's box office.
>Which is it? Hit or flop?
Why does a tennis drama need a budget of $55M? Lol. These "stars" like Zendaya are way overpaid yet no one is going to these movies for them.