Bros (2022)

[Scarlett45]

29 minutes ago, possibilities said:

I loved that they were saying yes and no at the same time to some of those tropes. Yes, there's pain. But there's also joy. No, we're not the same. Yes, we're the same sometimes. No, we're not aspiring to total assimilation. Yes, we can get along. No, not always. For a movie with such wild comedic swings (like the ride at the museum) it was also fairly nuanced. Even such things as the "sell-out" being the one who actually got the funding for the "too crazy" museum, and the fact that the so-called "sell-out" was actually doing wills for gay people. It's hilarious because I've seen those kinds of tensions within the community-- who's "a true freak" vs "a passing person" and how crazy that kind of division is, but it happens. So the movie exploited all of those fissures while not actually taking sides.

I thought it was the funniest movie I've seen in a long time, and maybe ever. But I really think it depends on how much of this kind of thing you've seen in real life, whether it comes across as funny vs confusing or hard to understand.

And yes, people do get excited about being on a film where all the actors are LGBTQ. It's rare. It's a relief. If you're always in the position to be the majority, you have no idea what it feels like not to be, and how exciting it feels to suddenly have an opportunity to feel what that is like. 

I didnt quote your entire post, but thank you for sharing your perspective with us, and I as a member of another minority group (of course I am not saying that my ADOS experience is the same as being LGBTQ+) I noticed and understood the bolded (mine) you mentioned above.

6 minutes ago, starri said:

It's hard to put this into words, but that seemed very incredibly realistic and perhaps why it wasn't commented on more fully.  The default assumption with a guy who looks like Aaron wouldn't go for a guy who wasn't at least also a 9, to use your classifications.  It can be brutal on the dating/hookup apps for the same reason.  While I would never compare it to what I know women go through, there are horrible issues with body image issues amongst queer men.  I belong to a Facebook group for gay male doctors, and two years ago when the vaccine was first being rolled out to health care workers, people began posting selfies of their shoulder after the shot.  A lot of the guys who didn't look like they spend a mind-numbing about of time in the gym actually prefaced their photos by apologizing for not looking like the others.  It was some of the most toxic bullshit I've seen in my life.

Which actually does dovetail into something else else I liked:  the movie didn't kink-shame.  It didn't body-shame (Guy Branum's character was allowed to be sexual and the movie was willing to acknowledge there would be guys who'd be into him).  It didn't shame the throuple.  And even Harvey Fierstein hitting on Bobby and Aaron was treated as funny, not horrifying.

Thank you. I did notice that there were men of different ages and body shapes in the film that were allowed to be sexual and it wasn't "a joke", while still being comedy, i.e. steroids into Dumbledore! 🤣I know to my eye, Bobby and Aaron were both very conventionally good looking, so I didn't know what the big deal was with Bobby not thinking Aaron was attracted to him. It reminds me of a convo I had with a friend about P-Valley (tv show not a movie), and how a female character was absolutely drop dead gorgeous but was bullied over her looks because of how toxic colorism can be in the ADOS community.

[Bruinsfan]

3 hours ago, possibilities said:

I also don't understand why so many people are upset by the excitement over it being historic. Representation matters. When these things get mainstreamed, without diluting and code switching and pandering to the heterosexual norms, it's a huge sea change in the culture and does have a real impact.

It's not so much upset as disappointed that the US marketing revolved around an aspect of the film that's nice but just not important to about 90% of the moviegoing public. I don't think I saw many people get upset until Billy melted down on Twitter after the opening weekend box-office numbers came in and articles started commenting on it.

Edited December 7, 2022 by Bruinsfan

[possibilities]

Hmmmn... the ads I saw didn't mention that aspect, it was just funny scenes.

It is true that Eichner talked about the historic aspect in interviews, though. 

I wonder how much the press tour is seen, though, vs the ads.

[Irlandesa]

1 hour ago, possibilities said:

Hmmmn... the ads I saw didn't mention that aspect, it was just funny scenes.

It is true that Eichner talked about the historic aspect in interviews, though. 

I wonder how much the press tour is seen, though, vs the ads.

The initial ads were great, IMO, and after seeing the film, were more reflective of what the movie actually was. 

But when people criticize Billy for talking about the "importance" of the film, it's part of a discussion about how they chose to market it during its final push.  Part of it was Billy talking about the importance of the film which most people don't look for in a comedy.  But he even went so far as calling out people for not seeing before it was even released.  And then they elected to highlight ads which ended with the "straight people, they've had a good run" line. 

I don't know if it would have done better with smarter decisions but some of those choices left me scratching my head. 

But that isn't to say it shouldn't be celebrated for its importance.  It should be. I just don't think that's a great marketing choice when you're trying to sell a light hearted comedy.

[Bruinsfan]

I honestly think even if they'd done everything right, releasing a gay rom-com with leads who aren't major movie stars into the current post-Covid environment would have been extremely lucky to equal Love, Simon's box office. Which made that movie a modest hit, but might have broken even at best with the Bros budget and marketing blitz.

[Scarlett45]

On 12/7/2022 at 12:46 AM, Bruinsfan said:

I honestly think even if they'd done everything right, releasing a gay rom-com with leads who aren't major movie stars into the current post-Covid environment would have been extremely lucky to equal Love, Simon's box office. Which made that movie a modest hit, but might have broken even at best with the Bros budget and marketing blitz.

Yeah I used to go to the movies all the time, but Covid, my movie companion got engaged, my responsibilities at home changed (thus limited free time) and now I only want to go to the theatre for stuff that is designed for LARGE SCREENS. Rom -coms and dramas I can just wait for streaming, especially since things come to streaming so quickly. I remember when I was a kid it was an entire YEAR before things would end up on CABLE, now the wait is what, 6weeks?

[Guest]

On 12/6/2022 at 10:46 PM, Bruinsfan said:

I honestly think even if they'd done everything right, releasing a gay rom-com with leads who aren't major movie stars into the current post-Covid environment would have been extremely lucky to equal Love, Simon's box office. 

And it’s R rated to boot. I appreciate that they made the movie they wanted to make as far as content but that also seriously narrowed the marketability of the movie. 

22 hours ago, Scarlett45 said:

Yeah I used to go to the movies all the time, but Covid, my movie companion got engaged, my responsibilities at home changed (thus limited free time) and now I only want to go to the theatre for stuff that is designed for LARGE SCREENS. Rom -coms and dramas I can just wait for streaming, especially since things come to streaming so quickly. I remember when I was a kid it was an entire YEAR before things would end up on CABLE, now the wait is what, 6weeks?

Same for me. Big screens are now reserved for movies that take advantage of the scale. Although even before Covid I wasn’t likely to go to a more sexual explicit movie in theaters. Some things just don’t need to be 30 feet tall. 

[possibilities]

10 hours ago, Dani said:

I appreciate that they made the movie they wanted to make as far as content but that also seriously narrowed the marketability of the movie. 

Why? Because straight people aren't interested? If so, that validates what Eichner said about homophobia.

[Guest]

46 minutes ago, possibilities said:

Why? Because straight people aren't interested? If so, that validates what Eichner said about homophobia.

Partially but it does not validate what he said about homophobia. People who are homophobic aren’t going to see a gay romance movie no matter what the rating is.

The R rating narrows the audience the way R ratings always do. Yes, there will be some straight people who don’t want to see somewhat explicit gay sex scenes. I am willing to guess there are also queer people who don’t want to see somewhat explicit gay sex scenes for a myriad of reasons. Everyone of all sexual orientations have different comfort levels with sex on screen. The rating also cuts out younger teens who could and would go to a PG-13 version of this movie. 

Personally, the rating was a big reason I decided not to go but not because of homophobia. I also wouldn’t go see Forgetting Sarah Marshall on the big screen for the exact reasons I didn’t see Bros. If the movie was PG-13 or R for other reasons I probably would have seen it in theaters. I seriously considered it because I really do want to support more movies like this being made. I watched it as soon as it was released on Peacock and almost rented it though PVOD sites but ultimately couldn’t justify paying more than a theater ticket to rent a movie for a few hours. 

They made a movie with a specific target market which I 100% support. They shouldn’t have to water down the representation. My problem is that Eichner then tried to equate not being interested for being outside the target market with being homophobic which is wildly reductive. 

[Scarlett45]

1 hour ago, Dani said:

Personally, the rating was a big reason I decided not to go but not because of homophobia. I also wouldn’t go see Forgetting Sarah Marshall on the big screen for the exact reasons I didn’t see Bros. If the movie was PG-13 or R for other reasons I probably would have seen it in theaters. I seriously considered it because I really do want to support more movies like this being made. I watched it as soon as it was released on Peacock and almost rented it though PVOD sites but ultimately couldn’t justify paying more than a theater ticket to rent a movie for a few hours. 

They made a movie with a specific target market which I 100% support. They shouldn’t have to water down the representation. My problem is that Eichner then tried to equate not being interested for being outside the target market with being homophobic which is wildly reductive. 

I know I’m a 37 years old woman and when I was growing up my caregivers didn’t care about the rating system, but I didn’t consider this worthy of an “R”. Would I think my 8yrs old godbaby would be interested (no of course not), but I could see teens thinking this was funny AF. There was no explicit nudity or sex (the most body we saw you could see at the beach), no violence, a few curse words. I wonder what exactly made it “R” rather than PG-13. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Scarlett45 said:

I know I’m a 37 years old woman and when I was growing up my caregivers didn’t care about the rating system, but I didn’t consider this worthy of an “R”. Would I think my 8yrs old godbaby would be interested (no of course not), but I could see teens thinking this was funny AF. There was no explicit nudity or sex (the most body we saw you could see at the beach), no violence, a few curse words. I wonder what exactly made it “R” rather than PG-13. 

The rating system is horribly biased against queer characters in general. In this instance it would have gotten the R rating for the cursing alone. PG-13 movies can only use the word fuck once in a non-sexual way. Bros got the R rating for that 2 minutes into the movie. Beyond that it depends on your definition of what is explicit but I thought the group oral sex scene was somewhat explicit even if you don’t actually see any nudity. 

My parents didn’t really care about ratings either but as a teen I couldn’t buy a ticket to see Birdcage in the theater because it was R rated. Many will find a way to still go if they want but it still narrows the audience for kids who won’t bother finding a way in or whose parents are more strict on ratings. 

The interesting thing to me is that Bobby in the movie does a good job of articulating my point in his love is not love speech in the very beginning of the movie. Which is also the point the movie became R rated by MPAA standards. 

[possibilities]

Has there been a romcom that did well in mainstream release recently? It's not a genre I follow, really the only reason I watched Bros is the cultural representation, so I have no idea how its box office compared to other recent rom coms in terms of ticket sales.

[Spartan Girl]

I finally watched it and it was fine. I get why people don’t like Billy Eichner—he did come off as a little extra here, but it was still a fun and cute watch. It definitely was the right time to watch, considering how they ripped on Hallmark movies lol.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, possibilities said:

Has there been a romcom that did well in mainstream release recently? It's not a genre I follow, really the only reason I watched Bros is the cultural representation, so I have no idea how its box office compared to other recent rom coms in terms of ticket sales.

There aren’t a lot of rom-cons being released so there’s not a lot to compare it to. Ticket to Paradise and The Lost City both did well but they also had major star power. 

The biggest problem for Bros is that it is estimated that Universal spent $30-$40 million to promote it and then they didn’t do a great job of promoting it. They set it up to fail. 

[PrincessPurrsALot]

Watched this last night.  Generally I enjoyed it.  A few positives that stood out:  

• Bobby had a group of friends (beyond people he worked with) that was not just straight women.  The movie showed gay men as men rather than girlfriends.
• They didn't body shame people.  Everyone was viewed as sexual and desirable. 
• They didn't kink shame.  
• The jokes about movies featuring straight men as gay cowboys or other gay people. 
• There was no "this person is rejecting you because you're gay" or violence against LGBTQ+ people. 
• Luke MacFarlane's performance.
• Harvey Fierstein sighting!

Then there's the bad: 

• Billy Eichner's performance was so one note.  The movie would have been better with someone else in that role. 
• Bobby's exceptionally unfunny podcast.
• A podcast qualifies you to launch a museum?

I'm glad I watched.  However, I found Bobby so exhausting I could not imagine wanting to be around him long term. I did appreciate them talking about how difficult it was for him to be himself and how often he was told to change.  But damn, he was so unpleasant so often.

ETA:  I didn't realize he was being extra with Aaron's parents until he kept going on about seeing grown men's penises because he was so OTT so often.  

[Bruinsfan]

Yeah, unapologetically being your authentic self is one thing, but it seemed to me that being gay was Bobby's whole personality and identity. His podcast was about being gay, the books he wrote were about gay characters, the script he was contacted about writing was a gay rom-com, he's the director of a new LGBTQ museum, his conversations with his friends (straight, gay, and otherwise) were all about gay relationships, he goes to gay-focused events, his date night was to a gay movie, he couldn't sit down to ONE dinner with his boyfriend's family without turning the conversation to gay activism in a crude and hectoring manner.

Great Paul Lynde's ghost dude, would it kill you to take a breath and talk about current events or ask your friends what their kids are learning in school once in a blue moon?

[PrincessPurrsALot]

8 hours ago, Bruinsfan said:

Yeah, unapologetically being your authentic self is one thing, but it seemed to me that being gay was Bobby's whole personality and identity. His podcast was about being gay, the books he wrote were about gay characters, the script he was contacted about writing was a gay rom-com, he's the director of a new LGBTQ museum, his conversations with his friends (straight, gay, and otherwise) were all about gay relationships, he goes to gay-focused events, his date night was to a gay movie, he couldn't sit down to ONE dinner with his boyfriend's family without turning the conversation to gay activism in a crude and hectoring manner.

Great Paul Lynde's ghost dude, would it kill you to take a breath and talk about current events or ask your friends what their kids are learning in school once in a blue moon?

Most of the things you list were not a problem to me: podcast focused on LGBTQ issues; books with gay characters; going to gay-themed movies and events in the LGBTQ community.  I enjoyed that we had a gay character that sees the LGBTQ community as important rather than a cookie cutter, drop two gay men into roles created for a straight couple.  The issue for me was his conversations and some of the interactions you mentioned.  When hanging out with friends or relatives and their kids, sex might not be the top topic to discuss loudly, regardless of the gender of the people involved.  He also mocked Aaron for simply enjoying things like sports.  You can be an activist and still enjoy other things.  The character did not feel complete and Billy Eichner's screamy performance did not help. 

[Bruinsfan]

Oh, individually only the interaction ones were problematic (and even then, I assume Bobby must have been able to converse about other topics at some point to make straight friends in the first place); it's only in aggregate that they paint a picture of someone obsessed with his sexual identity to the exclusion of everything else in life.