Challengers is a FLOP!

I fail to see any movie industry reporters calling these early results A FLOP!

Show us how this is a FLOP, OP?

(Not the OP here)

The production cost of Challengers was an astonishing $55 million dollars. To break even, you normally need the box office to be 2 to 2.5 times the production cost of a film to account for advertising and the portion that goes to theater owners. So the breakeven is anywhere from $110 million to $137 million in box office revenue.

It's already a wide release in over 3,400 theaters and made $25 million WORLDWIDE in the first week, usually the best revenue week for a film. So it may be a Challenge for the film to break even at the theatrical box office before it goes to streaming.

Zendaya gives the same performance in everything she does. She's an acting one-trick pony. It's a pretty good trick, but once you've seen it, there's no reason to keep watching.

Zendaya is not a box-office star. She can't open a movie. This is her second lead in a movie that has flopped--the first being Malcolm & Marie. Compare her to REAL movie stars like Julia Roberts, Sandra Bullock, Reese Witherspoon and Barbra Streisand who would have opened a movie like Challengers with 2-3X the box-office. All of those stars were huge money makers by the time they were Zendaya's age. Zendaya was a supporting player in huge IP movies with big male stars, and somehow the media thought that she was a star, too. Wrong!

Sydney Sweeney is actually the breakout star of Euphoria. Her movie Anyone But You was a legitimate hit, unlike Challengers.

Box office number crunching is for cretins

I wasn't gonna watch this whether it had 100% or 0% reviews. In fact, I'm not sure I've ever consciously read a review before watching a movie. I might have missed some classics if I had!

This is an Amazon MGM film and they don’t particularly care if it does well in theaters because they will want Prime to be the primary delivery for its audience. The same thing happened with Saltburn, it bombed in theaters but Zoomers gobbled it up on Prime.

Amazon is doing this so they can have these statistics that say, “See? Your movie will bomb if we put it in theaters. Let’s just send it to Prime and you can at least brag you have a hit, and you will be able to get cast in studio garbage with a high salary.”

Challengers was not a commercial film. Luca Guadagnino has never made commercial films. He makes art house films. If Challengers was made by a studio, they would have insisted on famous people to be her costars, not Josh O’Connor or Mike Faist. Challengers is a “Zendaya wants street cred” film like Malcom & Marie (which was Netflix). Anything like this needs to go streaming day and date which is Amazon’s goal. Dismantle theatergoing be removing buzzy low to midbudget films that three decades ago would have been released by Polygram or Miramax as alternatives to studio garbage. Saltburn is exactly the type of film Miramax would have released in the 90s: Challengers would have been released by a second tier label like Hollywood Pictures.

a Razzie Award for Zendaya!

OP, Wonka was a big hit for Chalamet

Op what are you on about?

Stand down

Op is a FLOP

R9: Wonka is IP you idiot.

Additionally, Zendaya gets $10 million for Challengers, a film destined to bomb, is insane. She should only be getting this for straight to streaming in which case she is letting her image be used to sell subscriptions.

Disney needs Megara for live action Hercules, by all means give her ten million with backend, she could earn 50 million like Margot Robbie did for Barbie. But there is no point in paying her any amount of 8 figure money that is not a four quadrant IP blockbuster tentpole. She is not that kind of star.

I hope that Villeneuve has scrapped his plans for a Cleopatra movie starring Zendaya, because that would be a massive money loser.

Hot damn, DL. Someone new to hate!

I would say this is a middle range result - not terrible, not great. They spent a ton promoting it, probably well over $20 million to get people to come. They were hoping for $20m but got $15m. The talk of streaming seems to be the new way to justify lower openings or lower box office results. As for Zendaya, she is a star with a following but it’s too early to call her a box office star. Challengers will be lucky to gross $45m in the US, well under its cost.

Poor Zendaya No Last Name!

But... but... I was told by the Sea Cow that every song on the soundtrack was a BOP after BOP!

They spent well over $20m to market this, closer to $40m. The media is desperate to save the box office so they have to pretend that a $15m opening weekend is a hit when we all know it's a flop.

Is that true that they want to do a Cleopatra film with her? They never learn.

meh 3 pasty white chicks in a movie about tennis. no wonder it flopped.

[Quote] it still dunks anything non-IP that little Chalamet has had top billing in. She’s a much bigger star than him.

Challengers BO says otherwise

Her fans can't get into an R rated movie.

Most people her age don't even watch movies. She's old-fashioned.

They keep trying to make this girl become the next big thing. She is about to expire.

Next weekend’s drop will reveal if this movie has any legs.

And is it just me, or does Zendaya present as a teenager? I don’t get woman from her even though she is approaching 30.

R16 it’s really hard for me to see an “MGM Amazon” movie in theaters because it will be available a few weeks to months after release I can’t watch it on Prime at no additional cost. It’s like a Netflix film in theaters, you are going for the theater experience more than the film because it’s going to be “like free” in a month or two.

R25 Exactly, unless she's fucking someone powerful behind the scenes, which I doubt, they're only willing to throw so many projects and money at you before they move on if you don't bring anything to table.

Other stars have gotten farther with less, faster.

R22, it's unwise to play tennis without deodorant.

R2 thank you for the breakdown.

While the film may never be a blockbuster, it is by no means a flop. Yes, it cost 55M and it may not recoup that at the box office but like most major releases, it has probably already been sold and resold in all kinds of markets throughout the world and it will more than make its investment after all is said and done.

That is the new business model but it seems like a stretch to call it a hit movie. It’s going to have one weekend at #1 and then will fade fast.

Tashi, a former tennis prodigy turned coach, turned her husband into a champion. But to overcome a losing streak, he needs to face his ex-best friend and Tashi's ex-boyfriend.

Can hardly wait to see it!

Challengers is not a. Flop. People like OP are desperate to paint every project with a black female star as a flop (Little Mermaid, Cowboy Carter) please stop it! There is room for everyone.

It had a better opening weekend than West Side Story ($10.5M) which also starred Mike Faist which was considered a major flop.

Hopefully it isn't as boring as Call Me by Your Name

[quote] Challengers is not a. Flop. People like OP are desperate to paint every project with a black female star as a flop (Little Mermaid, Cowboy Carter) please stop it! There is room for everyone.

Do shut up.

The tennis ball fucking scene looked a bit painful.

R37 FUCK YOU!

R39- MARY!

Fuck all you miserable cunts.

Anyone But You only opened with 6 million r4. The movie had legs and became a hut over time. Way too early to compare them.

Yes, but Anyone But You had the benefit of opening over the Christmas holidays, which usually will bolster box office. Look at Wonka. Its first weekend wasn't gangbusters, but it hung in there because of the holiday. Challengers is coming up against the beginning of summer movies. It's DOA.

Why should that poster shut up r37? Too many DL queens play this game every time someone with a drop of blackness does anything public. You are always ready to call them failures.

The race based threads aren’t lost on many of us.

It does give Zendaya and Luca bragging rights to their highest openings (with the footnote that the advertising expense was hefty).

[quote] Why should that poster shut up [R37]? Too many DL queens play this game every time someone with a drop of blackness does anything public. You are always ready to call them failures.The race based threads aren’t lost on many of us.

Do shut up.

R48 FUCK YOU and all you haters. We bring up discrepancies in how success is measured because it’s a never ending battle with you bigots. Now, STOP TYPING!

R47 Do fuck off you dumb cunt.

OP Is an idiot

It reminds me of the hype around “Don’t Worry Darling.” That movie opened to $19M but maxed out $45M in the US.

Granted “Challengers” has better reviews but I think the end gross will be the same in the US. Maybe it will do better overseas but we will find out.

R2 how the fuck did this movie cost $55 million? Is it her salary? Cause if so, what a bust.

I just looked it up. She got $10 million for this movie. Wow!

I can’t think of a movie she’s made where she’s warranted a $10 million salary.

[quote] As for Zendaya, she is a star with a following but it’s too early to call her a box office star.

She's almost 28! If it hasn't happened yet, it's not going to. She has 2 more years before the prime roles start drying up and going to the new IT girls in their early 20s. Julia, Sandra, Reese and Barbra were already the biggest box-office stars in Hollywood by their late 20s. Barbra and Reese had already won Oscars. You can add Fonda and Dunaway to the mix, too. They all helmed classic films with box-office success.

Re black female lead, Guadagnino, an Italian over 50 yo is trying to hard since he came to HW to give every female lead role to black actresses ( he even let Dakota Johnson down) and pairing them with white male.

Meryl became a box office star after 30. There is not one set of rules.

I wish Zendaya the best.

I don't think she'll ever reach the level of Julia Roberts and the likes. Julia Stiles level maybe.

$10m and used the same facial expression throughout.

Senile elder gay at r53 is comparing Barbara Streisand and Jane Fonda rose to stardom before I was born in the 1960s with Zendaya in 2024. The film environment , the world, technology and finance have massive changed in the last 60 years.

Why don’t you throw Lillian Gish or Mary Pickford into it.

Amateurs .

[Verse] Movie flop

Klieg lights popped

Zendy not on top

Fading stars

They dropped

Skinny fashion plates

Timotay is a fop

Future's a sad hobo in Paris

Egg plops nonstop

[Verse 2] Everyone is bored

No more thrills to explore

Once shining like a star

Now nothing more than lore

The fame and fortune couldn't last

It was just a score

Now we're left with memories of a time that's no more

[Chorus] Fading stars on the boulevard

Lost in the dark

Once ruling the world

Now just a distant spark

Oh The glamour and the glitz

They used to be our mark

But now we're left with broken dreams and a fading heart

oops

I could be wrong but I think Jane Fonda’s top film was “9 to 5” when she was in her 40’s.

Jane Fonda could act. This cunt is vapid.

^ Takes one ta....

Just like Ratboy’s fans, Zendaya’s fans are delusional and can’t face the music. In all regards this is a FLOP. $50M+ to produce plus $50M to market plus all the press events Zendays has done over the past couple of weeks. This film won’t even recoup let alone profit. The hype never lives up to the reality.

OP is Matt Anscher

He’s on disability for craziness

And he is so ugly

This is the Challengers cast we deserved. It would have debuted with $100 million worldwide. The bisexual sex scenes between Andrew and Jonathan would have been fire! And Jonathan is an accomplished tennis player.

Banks will bankroll films with DEI, so Zendaya will continue to be cast.

You can't be a flop and the number #1 film of the week. I think it'll recoup its money. The reviews and ratings are good, not that that is the same as financial viability. I honestly really really liked it. They could have shaved off 10 minutes to the run time. The time jumps would justify a second viewing.

I've been enjoying messing around with the remix album. It's not best ever or anything but does its job in the movie. It added some excitement. It matches some of the tension and has a hard thwack-y muscular sense to it.

Is it weird Zendaya commanded 10 mil for it? I thought she was good. Didn't completely get why her character is kind of an asshole. maybe just me! She's mad about her derailed career and she's mad she's in love with people. OK then. IDk, I saw an imdb comment maybe she doesn't exist. She's a figment of the two boys imaginations lol.

[quote]And is it just me, or does Zendaya present as a teenager? I don’t get woman from her even though she is approaching 30.

I honestly thought she was 18 or 19. I didn’t know her age or anything else about her, because I don’t give a shit.

[quote] You can't be a flop and the number #1 film of the week.

This happens all the time.

The cost of the production and marketing is weighed against the opening weekend box office gross and critical mass and cinemascore.

Are you new?

I am new, R71. I understand a film underperforming. It could have done worse is all I meant. I guess I'm pleased people are seeing a tennis love triangle movie at all.

[quote] You can't be a flop and the number #1 film of the week.

I'm constantly amazed people can be this stupid.

I'm not an expert on movie success and I don't pay much mind to box office, ok. Don't call me stupid! No one's said much about what it was expected to do weekend one. OK, R16 said "They were hoping for $20m but got $15m." That doesn't sound like a disaster to me. And certain kinds of movies can build something over the first couple of weeks, no? Someone suggested earlier this could do OK for foreign markets as well. Say more about what you think is going on.

[quote] I'm not an expert on movie success and I don't pay much mind to box office, ok.

Then stay quiet or don't complain when you get called out.

[quote] The cost of the production and marketing is weighed against the opening weekend box office gross and critical mass and cinemascore.

How are we quantifying critical mass? Challengers is a B+ Cinemascore. I'm not ChallengersBot but that's decent, right?

[quote] Then stay quiet or don't complain when you get called out.

Outstanding level of discussion. Calling someone stupid is calling them out? You don't know me. I expect more than that.

[quote] You can't be a flop and the number #1 film of the week.

Of course you can! Are you on crack?! lmfao

[quote] I'm not an expert on movie success and I don't pay much mind to box office, ok. Don't call me stupid!

Fine, we’ll stick with retarded.

None of you geniuses have said anything real about what constitutes a true flop.

I know you are but am I, R79.

[quote] You don't know me. I expect more than that.

Why would you expect more? Your comments are idiotic and you admit you know nothing. You've actually gotten far more attention than you deserve.

[quote] You don't know me. I expect more than that

Are you new here?

My comments are much clearer than yours R82. I made an effort to explain my thought process. You're not even engaging with me. Because you can't! LOL

Wow, "LOL!" What a cogent argument. You sure told all of us!

Truly underwhelming people.

Those little perverts can put back their thoughts of double penetration and leave Zendaya alone!

And you still haven't said shit.

We've already explained it. Just because you can't read, we're under no obligation to repeat and repeat until it penetrates your thick skull, hon.

What is it you're repeating? Insults?

Still don't know is 'critical mass' is a metric per R71 or how cinemascore is calculated. Or anything that would tell me a movie with e CinemaScore of B+ is necessarily in trouble. Get that through your thick skull.

A beautiful clothed girl and two occasionally unclothed fugs isn't a huge box office draw?

[quote] You can't be a flop and the number #1 film of the week.

Of course you can be. You have to re-coup your costs not to be a flop.

[quote] I've been enjoying messing around with the remix album.

Are you combining and re-combining all the different BOPS?

R80 A flop is when a studio loses money making a movie and there’s no profit or even recoup for losses.

An easy example would be Eddie Murphy’s “Pluto Nash”. It had a $100 million budget and made $7 million dollars.

But a $10 million salary is crazy for her! She’s been the lead in one movie years ago that bombed.

She really shits on the gender pay gap theory in Hollywood.

Blue Beetle opened at number 1 with $25 million but was considered a flop.

Stop indulging this moron. Go play on the Heartstopper thread, sweetie. It's more your speed.

It used to be a movie could find an audience. Especially ones that aren't big action or super hero movies. That might be more rare these days.

We don't even have a real source for what was anticipated opening weekend.

Is Challengers a film about astronauts? Didn't Zendaya get a career boost because someone on Joan Rivers show made fun of her?

I'm not invested in the success of Challengers especially. Everything Everywhere All At Once (budget $25). Did 77 mil domestic but it didn't go wide for two weeks and it did (only) 6 million the first weekend it was wide in 1,250 theaters. A24's biggest film so a rarity in general?

And, R102?

Dumb name for a film. Males not sexy enough. Not mysterious or twisty enough. Tennis sport as theme in backdrop of drama scariness is like Showgirls without the camp. Cinematography looked like a Disney movie of the week.

And so it's not completely impossible for a movie to grow. Again, I don't care that much. Y'all can get back to insults and shouting "Flop!". This article states

[quote] This weekend’s score makes it the second-highest opening for any R-rated original drama post-pandemic. It seems that the mix of raw emotion and risqué exchanges is a winning formula for audiences seeking a bit more spice in their cinema outings. The film has also proven to be a top seed with critics, earning an 87% Positive — and Certified Fresh — rating from critics on Rotten Tomatoes. With such a striking start, Challengers is set to continue drawing crowds and driving conversations. Amazon MGM Studios' strategy of pairing theatrical releases with future streaming availability is looking like a grand slam.

Get back to us in 3 weeks when it’s gone.

From Deadline

[quote] Some might snipe that for a movie of this budget to do this kind of number is meh, or harp on, “Oh, this is how much Zendaya is worth without a franchise.” However, the whole industry should just count its blessings in a funky marketplace, this weekend delivering some $66M, off 34% from the same weekend a year ago.

Variety is not playing along:

Some veteran box office sages aren’t on board for this new “trust us, it’s a hit” approach to Hollywood economics now that tech giants like Apple and Amazon have crashed the party. “Everybody is using this same line that the box office will propel viewership and you can’t say this is a miss,” notes Jeff Bock, an analyst with Exhibitor Relations. “And they all use this obscure downstream revenues verbiage. But when seen in terms of decades of box office numbers, something like ‘Challengers’ seems middle of the road to me.”

R99 It’s slowly coming back. Look at the Sydney Sweeney / Glen Powell movie.

[quote] Is Challengers a film about astronauts?

Yes!

Zendaya, in a fabulous 80s curly wig, plays beloved teacher-cum-martyr Christa McAuliffe.

Mike Faist plans astronaut Ellison Onizuka, whose right foot goes right through McAuliffe's head in the shuttle explosion.

Josh O'Connor plays Ronald Reagan, who has tearful words of solace to offer a heartbroken nation.

With special guest star Billy Porter, as First Lady Nancy Reagan.

Maybe they should have made it gayer. It was basically advertised as a gay movie, yet it only has one gay kiss. No wonder people are annoyed.

To be fair, r111, it really wasn't "advertised as a gay movie." There was a lot of vague and ambiguous teasing from the pre-publicity about the main male characters, but they never said blatantly that they were in a gay relationship.

R112 That may be true, but a lot of people thought it would be a gay movie. They were disapppinted when it turned out that wasn't the case. It would have been more popular if the male characters were actually bi/gay.

That would've set the box office on fire.

OP Guy Ritchie's The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare GTD is $15.4M after 10 days in release. It has a 57 Metascore. Now that's a flop!

This movie should have been about a modern day love triangle. Two guys fighting for one girl is so stale. Why not have the two guys being bi and into each other but also into the girl? Would have been much more interesting that way.

I thought the idea was the Josh O'Connor character is probably bi. He has men and women on his dating app

Is he cheating on that guy from Romania?

Gheorghe is on the farm, because it’s lambing season r118

More gay baiting shit from Luca. They totally sold it as a bi/gay fucking film.

Will you shut up r120

You don’t understand anything that’s slightly subtle and you not be satisfied if Patrick sucked on Art’s balls for 30 minutes, because only anal sex is gay.

Some media are talking about Challengers' profitability problems.

[quote] Despite the heavy marketing, and being richly reviewed Stateside, Amazon/MGM must probably be wondering, what happened? It’s not hard to figure out. “Challengers” was marketed as a “menage a trois” story when it’s not really that at all. It doesn’t help that the audience for such a film, mid-budget and adult-oriented, is now considered “niche.

[quote] Zendaya’s $10 million payday on the film is also looking more ridiculous by the day. Amazon overpaid the celebrity star. It’s no wonder that much of the hype surrounding “Challengers” seemed to stem from social media, especially Twitter/X.

[quote] The B+ CinemaScore is also indicative of a film that might not have much legs in the weeks to come, especially as the summer movie season is about to kickoff next weekend with “The Fall Guy.” It’s come to the point where many projections are veering away from “Challengers” even making back its budget, a below $50 million worldwide final tally is now very much possible.

R21 Pan to the window. Gay baiting utter shite.

Zendaya looks good in that tennis still, but those two guys are too weedy and skinny to be believable athletes.

She looks like she always does: mildly annoyed.

From the OP photo it looks good for straight-to-streaming, on Only Fans.

R122 That’s bad for Zendaya either.

If you’ve ever read the Sony emails during the hack, they very much resemble DL.

That $10 million dollar paycheck is definitely being talked about.

She and her agent were stupid to make such a bold move.

I bet they offered Zendaya a lower check and backend and she said no.

Very dumb.

Zendaya is trying to establish herself as a major star, worth $10 million or more per film. Plus she has Amy Pascal backing her. She is entitled to push for this but it’s unclear whether she can sustain that kind of demand, simply because she has a large social media following. We have to wait and see if Challengers continues to grow at the box office or tanks.

An actual reasonable and well thought out comment r129

👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼

Reminds me of the old bon mot about Ester Williams. Wet she's a star, dry she ain't! Looking like a star on the Red Carpet doesn't mean you're a good actor people want to see. She's so overexposed and selling herself for designer brand deals. She has money but not (Fuck You) money yet.

People v]can tell she's a dyke in plain sight too.

Aw, sorry you couldnt keep up R98

Like his girlfriend, Tom Holland is not a box-office draw outside of major IP movies. Everything he's done outside of Spiderman has tanked. I wonder if their PR relationship is on its last legs now that it's no longer beneficial to either one of them?

R134: Timothee Chalamet is definitely not a draw outside of IP films or films that don't have a draw of their own.

Tom Holland dating Zendaya is not credible to anyone on the Earth

Tom is miserable being a celebrity. I can see him mostly retiring from film by his early 30s, coming out, enjoying his Spider-Man millions and occasionally being a character actor.

It is similar to the Jennifer Lawrence flop “No Hard Feelings.” It would have at least made a small profit if the budget wasn’t $45 million and the reason why the budget was $45 million was Lawrence’s $25 million salary. Fascinating that Lawrence didn’t use her clout to put pressure on the studio, screenwriter, director and say “hey, this movie needs to make $120 million to justify my salary so I can keep commanding it, so why not make a movie that will give the teenage boys that we need to turn out for it what they want instead of a movie that mocks and insults them just being teenage boys?”

Matt, do you ever tire of you Timmy obsession r135?

Timmy will be major star until you choke on your own vomit or Mexican immigrants, which terrify you, beat you to death and no one will stop to help you, because you’re too ugly to live

Nicole and Renee pushed for big salaries ($12-15 million) when they were hot but then reality intervened when they couldn’t deliver hits, and their salaries went down.

In 2024, NO female actor is a sure fire box office draw

No male actor either

Except Timothee Chalamet

Which one is Tom Holland again?

Google him, you lazy whore

R140: Timothee Chalamet has never had a non-IP hit you fucking idiot.

How does is feel to be so ugly and crazy that no man will touch you Matt?

WTF ! I would have played Zendaya's role for 5mil and a carton of KY.

It's a little disingenuous to condemn anyone for not having an IP-driven hit, since 95% of what's being produced by the studios these days IS IP driven, and that's what they're putting their money behind because it's the only thing that sells.

Started watching the cam version earlier today but quickly zoned out. I don't think I'll ever watch it to completion, it's just not my thing.

And I said it when the plot synopsis came out already, but I still can't buy Zendaya as a tennis coach. People that young just. Don't. Coach. Tennis. Not a thing.

She’s good in it. Her performance is runs the spectrum from her “im sexy and I know it” face to varying volumes of her trademark resting bitch face. There’s legit star quality here, but I don’t think she has much range as an actress. She’s an alpha bitch, and pretty much can’t deviate from that space.

The standout performance is from Josh O’Connor. Not your stereotypical handsome jock, but his big dick energy is palpable throughout the movie without ever being stereotypical. Faist, on the other hand, has a poorly written part. Too one-dimensional and, sorry, major small dick energy.

It made $1.6 million on Monday. I know many of you are watching this day today and saying prayers. I am one of you.

Only it’s not a flop. People who aren’t in the industries should really stop speaking about shit they know nothing about.

Also, OP makes up 90% of the comments. Like this is not normal.

[quote] The standout performance is from Josh O’Connor. Not your stereotypical handsome jock, but his big dick energy is palpable throughout the movie without ever being stereotypical.

R148 = drunk ghost of Pauline Kael.

R146: Moreover, we shouldn’t credit a successful IP driven film solely to an actor’s appeal when there are other possible factors at play.

Agreed, R152. Quite the contrary.

Luca’s commentary on the scene where the boys eat each others churros

Such handsome men, eating their crispy fried snacks on top of each other

Honestly, how much were industry journalists expect Challengers to make? $15 million seems like a lot to me given that it's a pretty niche film. I guess Zendaya is a "star" so you could argue it should have made more. But, she's never actually been the lead in a film.

[quote] $15 million seems like a lot to me given that it's a pretty niche film.

Except that they marketed it like it was a big budget mainstream film. This movie had a massive marketing budget and has been promoted excessively for the past 8-10 weeks. That kind of marketing push should be able to buy more than $15m of ticket sales.

[quote] In the movie’s greatest scene, the teenage Tashi, a rising tennis star who dazzles everyone who sees her on the court, seduces the lads Art and Patrick with tempting kisses, as if intending to lure them both to bed. Then she withdraws, and they’re left to confront—or not—their real feelings for each other.

Is this Josh O'Connor's first movie to open at the multiplexes?

Any cock on display?

Yes, some anonymous dick in a locker room scene.

But O'Connor does show his ass in a nice lingering shot in the sauna

R157 but everyone knew it wasn’t one. And the high publication of the two guys kissing made people think it’s a gay movie and not wanna see it. They should have focused more on the love triangle and less on the gay kiss.

R161 why are you answering yourself???? Why have you replied 10 more times since last night? I think Muriel needs to see this thread.

R163 I think you're confused.

Seems like only 2 to 3 people here have seen it.

Matt Anscher who is the OP has not seen it, because his disability check budget will not allow it.

So his contribution to this thread is in publishing 50% of the posts and ranting m

Isn’t Matt Anscher the ugly?

It only came out Friday

I've seen it twice already, once alone and then I took a friend, and we both enjoyed it much.

Me too 168

I saw the film for second time yesterday, and what do you know, it was the subtitled showing. I got so much more from the subtitles, including the scene in the locker room after Patrick had defeated his first opponent: that character was PISSED about losing to “this loser”. It was hilarious.

I also got more from the performance of Mike Faist on the second viewing. Patrick and Tasha are the agents of chaos, so they commanded my attention in the first viewing. Faist’s performance is quieter than theirs, but he’s truly excellent. If there’s a video on Brokeback Mountain, the play, where he starred opposite Lucas Hedges, I definitely want to see him in that.

Jesus, don't you two have lives?

I liked it a lot. But why was the budget $55 million (according to Wiki so who knows)? There's not a ton of characters; it's simple studio and non-difficult location shooting. They must have paid Zendaya a shit ton.

Churros are expensive r171

[quote] Also, OP makes up 90% of the comments. Like this is not normal.

Oh for fuck's sake, Sea Cow: like you're one to talk.

You're over every Challengers thread yourself like stink on shit. You contributed something like fifty posts alone to the thread "“Challengers” clip shows Josh O’Connor & Mike Faist’s characters are a couple."

The funny thing about Challengers is the original script before Luca was brought on was so boringly hetero. Thank goodness he injected so much homoeroticism into it, it's that aspect that has has people talking about this movie.

It didn’t flop. People have never been keen on watching a tennis movie. Tennis movies almost always flop. Even King Richard with Will Smith only made around $15 million domestically. This movie is already the highest grossing tennis film of all time in just a few days.

To say Zendaya flopped is insane. She just gave Hollywood their first semi-hit tennis film and she gave Luca his highest grossing film ever as well. Her movie made more in 5 days than CMBYN made in 3 months.

Wimbledon with Kirsten Dunst and Paul,Bettany had a budget of $31 million and made $41.5 million.

Sorry about that comma after Paul. ^

The only who thinks CHALLENGERS is a flop is a mentally ill butt hideous troll named Matt Ancsher who’s got a grudge against Luca Guadiningo for directing Call Me By Your Name which launched Timothee Chalamet career. Anscher hates uncontrollably hates Timmy and he’s the source on 95% of the anti Timothee comments on this board.

But then we have Seacow who would give Zendaya an Oscar for pooping.

For the person upthread who asked, yes, Zendaya is famous because of the whole Giuliana Rancic thing.

Dog face Zendaya is box office poison.

Zendaya has been a very successful model. For a model to win an Emmy is impressive.

Nothing about winning an Emmy is impressive. Within five years, you'll be able to buy them in vending machines.

How many Emmys have you won r183?

Stupid argument from a stupid person.

If they had gotten Chandler Massey for this role, they would have made bank!

R168 = Tom Holland.

Wow r185 “Stupid argument from a stupid person”. What a cogent argument. You sure told all of us!

Flop.

“She just gave Hollywood their first semi-hit tennis film…”

Now that’s damning with faint praise!

The tennis scenes are virtually all special effects. They weren’t even using tennis rackets in their scenes—added later in post-production.

[quote] What a cogent argument. You sure told all of us!

Don't involve anyone else in your stupidity. I only wanted to tell you. And I did.

You only think you did .

Your false bravado is not convincing anyone

Oh, you're the Matt Anscher troll, R193. What am I wasting my time with you for?

Because you have nothing better to do in your old folks home where nobody comes to visit you r194

We're at 20mil US, 10mil foreign going into weekend two.

We, r196?

Us r197

This weekend will be a test of what the legs look like for this movie. I hope it holds up well. We want Hollywood to make more real movies rather than mindless crap, I'd like good stuff to succeed.

OP what is the real reason you have so much hate toward Zendaya and this film? Challengers was the top box office movie of last weekend and has already made more money than any of Luca Guadagnino films including CMBYN. What sad reason does the OP have for wishing failure on Zendaya? Is it the obvious and tedious one?

The fact that a movie were audiences knew would have a gay undertone and legit male on male make-out scene and only male nudity was number one at the box office should be celebrated. This movie helps prove how far we've come as a society. The most I could hope for growing up 2000s, were gay kiss scenes done for laughs. Never a serious take on bisexuality and gayness in a serious context that is the nation's number one film.

Though, this didn't stop me from jerking off to this scene so many times growing up.

The emphasis on Faist’s lean musculature, O’Connor’s hirsute limbs and torso, the sexual threat of competitive player Grosu (Alex Bancila), and frequently the arc of male buttocks become prominent compositional features. Cinematographer Sayombhu Mukdeeprom captures flesh and skin texture almost palpably, providing sensual fascination.-Armod White

[quote] Luca Guadagnino thinks that after the end of the movie, the trio went back to the hotel room together. Does Kuritzkes agree?

[quote] in is that by the end of the movie, they're all really playing tennis and they're playing the best tennis of their lives, everybody and all their cards are out on the table. There's nothing left for them to say to each other at that point. They're having the most open and honest conversation of their lives, and they're doing it through tennis, so what happens after that?

Shania is very close to an Oscar.

Liked O'Conner's genuine reply to the question "How difficult was it doing the steam room scene? "It was cold but fun!" He didn't drone on about how "challenging it was, intimacy coordinators, sexual choreography, resonance with the community, asking his fluid friends how to kiss a boy yada yada. "It was fun.'" Note to Bambi.

[quote]‘CHALLENGERS’ is set to make $8.7M in its second week at the domestic box office, a 42% drop from opening weekend.

[quote] One of the smallest second-week drops for a wide theatrical release in 2024.

Yeah it is showing signs of a good hold this weekend. Word of mouth is taking effect.

Josh O'Connors first big role was in the gay movie God's Own Country r205. He did way more gay sex and nudity in that movie, Challengers is light work.

R176 it made $41 million worldwide in its entire theatrical lifetime. Challengers has already made over $30 million worldwide in 1 week. It will soon take the #1 tennis movie ever spot away from Wimbledon. Like someone said upthread (and like I’ve seen many state on other sites and articles), tennis films ALWAYS flop. This is actually doing better than any tennis film has done, which actually is a good look for Zendaya, as people probably wouldn’t watch this if she wasn’t in it.

R183 then why do the majority of people on tv shows and tv movies not even have a nomination, yet alone a win?

R208 because Challengers isn’t a gay film, and if it was it would have made about $2-$3 million opening weekend.

🌊🐄 in da house!

God’s Own Country had a novice director with no reputation,, no stars (Josh O was a nobody then) and was a foreign film r211

But I agree…gay male films to not do well at the box office, unless the film had inconvertible straight star like Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhall

This is perfectly fine box office for a low/mid-budget movie…Marvel films have warped people’s minds to think anything that’s not a $100 million opening weekend is a flop

[quote] OP what is the real reason you have so much hate toward Zendaya and this film? Challengers was the top box office movie of last weekend and has already made more money than any of Luca Guadagnino films including CMBYN. What sad reason does the OP have for wishing failure on Zendaya? Is it the obvious and tedious one?

What a ridiculous and embarrassing series of leading questions. You might as well be a FOX pundit asking someone, "Why do you hate America so much?"

You should be ashamed of yourself for resorting to such a cheap rhetorical stunt.

Yes, Brokeback Mountain was an exception, but almost every gay film since it has burnt to the ground. BM was also a first of its kind in a way, getting mainstream attention despite the gay story and people were curious. The attendance for that film was mostly women though outside of gay men. So thank them for giving us a hit.

R214 yup. Marvel brain-rot is real.

Mind you this is a non-IP and the biggest American non-IP internationally since like 2017 or 2018. The $10 million it made internationally was the best an American non-IP film has don’t internationally (in opening weekend) since before Covid.

Zendaya must be fucking someone very powerful.

Lady is as bland as it gets.

[Quote] Challengers isn’t a gay film, and if it was it would have made about $2-$3 million opening weekend.

R211 gets it

Mind you this is a non-IP and the biggest American non-IP internationally since like 2017 or 2018. The $10 million it made internationally was the best an American non-IP film has don’t internationally (in opening weekend) since before Covid.

^^ what a crock of shit!

Oppenheimer is an adaptation of a book based on actual history….

Which does NOT = IP property as the term is used by anyone in the business. Fail.

Challengers is a lot of things, but a flop is not one of them. Now Fall Guy, on the other hand...

Isn’t Challengers going to max out around $45 million US, well below its cost? Sorry but the math ain’t mathin.

Yeah it's holding well but it's still not going to be profitable based on its box office run. Overall it's performing similar to No Hard Feelings. Another movie that did pretty well, but not good enough to be profitable at the bix office.

It was the O rings.

Did they go with throttle up?

R213 "inconvertible straight stars like Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhall"

got it half right mate

[quote] This is perfectly fine box office for a low/mid-budget movie…Marvel films have warped people’s minds to think anything that’s not a $100 million opening weekend is a flop

You can keep singing that song, but you'll still be wrong. The movie is not low/mid budget. It cost $55m to make and $40-$50m to market. That's $100m, sweets.

The greatest trick the devil ever played was convincing the world that Zendaya was attractive. She walks around looking like a zombie with sleep in her eyes.

[Quote] Challengers is a lot of things, but a flop is not one of them. Now Fall Guy, on the other hand...

R223 The Fall Guy grossed $10.4M it's opening day

Its not it's

Why does it matter if it's a flop financially if you like the movie?

Zendaya is beyond overrated.

Because Hollywood is ALL about profit, and if quality movies succeed financially,, there’s more chances that we will get more quality films r233

You are quite dense,

I think you're the dense one, R235.

R235/R236 Lord you old kweens are tiresome.

Everything is a flop considering nobody's going to the movies, OP.

CHALLENGERS is #2 at the box office this week

[quote] Challengers is stealing the younger women away from this Gosling pic. The Luca Guadagnino-directed, Zendaya- starring tennis rom-com is down -42% in weekend 2 with $8.7M, and a running total by Sunday of $30.55M

Sunday update

SUNDAY AM Writethru after Saturday AM Update: Universal’s The Fall Guy isn’t so strong, and nobody is really shocked.

While it was projected to do at least $30M, and it’s coming in at $28M, this is the range for original action comedies, even when they star Ryan Gosling. PostTrak exits report he’s 50% of the reason why people went to see the movie (versus 35% for Emily Blunt).

The opening for Fall Guy is actually on the higher end of Gosling starts, ranked third after anomaly Barbie ($162M) and Blade Runner 2049 ($32.7M), yet further down on Blunt’s. It’s looking like her tenth-best opening of her career stateside, short of Edge of Tomorrow ($28.7M) and Jungle Cruise ($35M with an asterisk – it did have a theatrical day-and-date PVOD on Disney+).

You lot are hilarious with this “highest grossing tennis movie” bs. How many tennis movies are there exactly? A flop is determined by budget vs. gross, NOT by how it’s performing compared to other movies or weekend rankings or the directors other movies or how much your worldview is based on Zendaya being the queen of Hollywood.

This thread is like watching two defensive baseliners play a five-setter on slow clay. Hours of tedium and dust.

Zendaya is a FLOP!

As of Sunday, Challengers is down to third place at the box office. It was beat by an old movie. Goodbye, Challengers, it was nice to briefly know you.

Josh O’Connor and Mike Faist are the opposite of FLOPS!

[quote] CHALLENGERS is #2 at the box office this week

It's so much fun to see a moron like you be proven wrong time and time again. You know nothing.

R222 Oppenheimer does not count as non-IP. It’s a fucking historical film. Retard.

R231 you keep bringing up Challengers costs. Start doing it for Fall Guy, retard…

What r238 said. Everything has been “flopping” lately. Including the latest Gosling film

R241 Hollywood doesn’t make them often because they all fucking flop. Stupid motherfucker. How about you sign off of here and go sign up for some classes? Might do you some good before you end up in court.

The #1 tennis movie ever was Wimbledon with $41 million worldwide. That was a Kirsten Dunst vehicle after the Spider-Man movies. I don’t remember people screaming “FLOP”, even though her name alone has never carried a film to make big numbers. Yet she’s a respected actress and name despite numerous flops attached to her name.

Emma Stone was also given a tennis vehicle after Spider-Man and that one made $18 million worldwide. No one proclaimed FLOP and she’s had numerous flops under her belt.

“Challengers” has already surpassed both worldwide in a week yet she’s a “FLOP”, despite the fact the film is out during a time when everything is flopping and is actually doing fine.

[quote] Josh O’Connor and Mike Faist are the opposite of FLOPS!

I am the Earth Mother, and they're all FLOPS!

None are flops. The film is doing fine.

Is Strangers on a Train considered a tennis movie?

R246 your blood pressure is rising over a movie which you have not even watched.

We anticipate your imminent stroke with glee

[quote] Is Strangers on a Train considered a tennis movie?

According to this website, yes.

[quote] Challengers continues its cinematic run, its ability to engage a diverse audience and spark conversations about its themes and characters demonstrates its potential not just to rally at the box office but also to make a lasting impression on its viewers, mixing sports, drama, and personal conflict, Challengers is acing its way through the season, captivating audiences worldwide and proving it can volley with the best in cinema, serving up a game-set-match performance that’s hard to forget.

R250 IM the stupid motherfucker, yet you don’t realize that being the highest grossing tennis movie isn’t an achievement when there are less than 10 and none of those really made any money.

Zendaya is a celebrity, a star even, but not a movie star.

She should transition to the catwalk.

10 years from now, no one will know what a Zendaya is.

Why is no one talking about what a flop Guy Ritchies The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare is? 17 days in release its domestic gross is $18.4 compared to Fall Guy's 3 day weekend total of $28.5M and Challengers' 10-day gross of $29.4M

Because no one had any expectations for The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare, perhaps?

A flop is a flop!

Henry Cavill's latest film, The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare, falls short at the box office, continuing a trend of financial underperformance.

The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare has so far made just under $16 million globally, with 97% of its earnings coming from North America alone. It's a disappointing sum of money, especially when the movie's $60 million production budget is factored in. Though The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare is still showing in cinemas, its total earnings are unlikely to increase by much.

After all, the film finished sixth at the domestic box office in only its second weekend, and with greater competition on the horizon, The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare is already a certified flop. 💣💣💣

I saw it today. It’s fine. The filming of the tennis action was outstanding, the story was bland. And I don’t get the appeal of Zendaya. I just saw her in Dune and now this. She’s wooden and zero charisma.

(^.^) She's an object not a star.

Pretentious but 100% correct

I will flop!

[quote] Challengers has now not only recovered its reported budget of $55 million, but it is also on its way to passing a massive box office milestone.

R258, yes. You are a stupid motherfucker. There aren’t less than 10 tennis films and the reason they’re rarely made is because THEY ALL FLOP. What doesn’t register? You also are a grown man who asked about penises on another thread. More proof for everyone that you’re a retard.

Yes, it’s earned $68.6 million worldwide in 17 days despite opening with $25 million worldwide. It is showing legs overseas.

Now now r268….you seem upset..:.come…lay your head on my breast…..shhh

[quote] Yes, it’s earned $68.6 million worldwide in 17 days despite opening with $25 million worldwide. It is showing legs overseas.

No it isn't You're a dumb fuck. Why don't you go take some classes.

R272 retard, it opened with just $10 million overseas. It has made another $20 million since then. Yes, it has legs. I don’t need to take classes, I graduated from college. I understand basic math. You’re a grown man who asked about penises on another thread. You need to learn your place.

[quote] I graduated from college. I understand basic math

No you didn’t

Yes, I did. You didn’t even attend. 🍵

Girls! Girls! You're both pretty

tiresome..

Some of the parodies are hilarious.

I love Zach Tinker.

Sorry, e, your queen flopped hard!

Wow, now you can't even say ed wine. Shit's getting serious.

Challengers has made $38M domestic and $31M foreign.

That means 50% domestic goes to studio, so around $19M.

Also means 25% foreign goes to studio, so around $8M.

That means the film has made the studio $27M off a $55M budget. Hardly a moneymaker.

The streaming release date is this Friday, May 17.

Don't forget the $40-$50m they spent on marketing, R280.

[quote] R272 retard, it opened with just $10 million overseas. It has made another $20 million since then. Yes, it has legs. I don’t need to take classes, I graduated from college. I understand basic math. You’re a grown man who asked about penises on another thread. You need to learn your place.

My place is telling you what a loser you are. Of course, as evidenced on your threads, you have so many people doing that for you, it's amazing you haven't grasped it yet.

Is r283 satire?

For his sake, I hope it is

The audacity

[quote] Zendaya’s stylist, Law Roach, revealed the five major fashion houses that would not dress the actress at the onset of her career.

[quote] “She still has never worn Dior on a carpet. She still has never worn Chanel on a carpet. She has still never worn Gucci on a carpet — any press, any appearance, never. Never,” he explained.

I love telling OP to jump because he always does. Fucking loser.

“The Fall Guy” fell to No. 2 with a $13.7 million weekend and a two-week total of $49.7 million for Universal Pictures.

Zendaya’s “Challengers” was third with $4.7 million and has earned $38 million in three weeks for Amazon MGM studios.

Maybe they're counting on there being enough closeted gay/bi guys out there who wouldn't want to be seen in a theater watching this but who will stream the hell out of it.