Supersonic 49,376 Posted September 28, 2015 Share Posted September 28, 2015 Gay rights drama Stonewall has failed to make any significant impact at the US box office, amid a sustained boycott. The Roland Emmerich film is based on the 1969 Stonewall riots, which are often considered the birthplace of the gay rights movement. Prior to release, the film came under fire amid claims of whitewashing and trans-erasure, after the first trailer suggested it would be centred on a white middle-class gay hero. Though Emmerich and the film’s star Jeremy Irvine both defended it, it has been panned by critics and audiences alike. Figures released today show the extent of the film’s woes, failing to make a solid impact at the US box office, and falling well short of expectations. According to Indiewire, the film raked in just $112,414 over its opening weekend, despite costing over $17 million to make. It was shown in 129 theatres, with average takings at a measly $871 – which equates to just 107 people bothering to turn up to see the film per theatre, combining all opening weekend screenings. Read more: http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/09/28/stonewall-crashes-at-us-box-office-amid-boycott/ God is real guys Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubbaboi 94 Posted September 28, 2015 Share Posted September 28, 2015 good idk what to put here Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morphine Prince 104,948 Posted September 28, 2015 Share Posted September 28, 2015 I hope everything that is white washed fails. Tell a story how it is and stop promoting to the majority. Trash. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gagzus 15,772 Posted September 28, 2015 Share Posted September 28, 2015 Well considering it's main target audience already stated their detest for it based solely on the fact it's made entirely for & from the perspective of saviour complex straight people i'd expect it too Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
VenusBlackStar 1,301 Posted September 28, 2015 Share Posted September 28, 2015 Good. Nobody could pay me to go watch an inaccurate portrayal of something like this that's still so important today. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sugarfall 3,723 Posted September 28, 2015 Share Posted September 28, 2015 LMAO that's what they get for replacing the ICONIC Martha P Johnson with some random twink. Also it isn't the type of movie GP is interested in, so losing the gay audience is the worst thing that can happen to them Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JanPianoMusic 730 Posted September 28, 2015 Share Posted September 28, 2015 100 per cent deserved. You will never please everyone. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JusKeepBreathin 19,311 Posted September 28, 2015 Share Posted September 28, 2015 Gay rights drama Stonewall has failed to make any significant impact at the US box office, amid a sustained boycott. The Roland Emmerich film is based on the 1969 Stonewall riots, which are often considered the birthplace of the gay rights movement. Prior to release, the film came under fire amid claims of whitewashing and trans-erasure, after the first trailer suggested it would be centred on a white middle-class gay hero. Though Emmerich and the film’s star Jeremy Irvine both defended it, it has been panned by critics and audiences alike. Figures released today show the extent of the film’s woes, failing to make a solid impact at the US box office, and falling well short of expectations. According to Indiewire, the film raked in just $112,414 over its opening weekend, despite costing over $17 million to make. It was shown in 129 theatres, with average takings at a measly $871 – which equates to just 107 people bothering to turn up to see the film per theatre, combining all opening weekend screenings. Read more: http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/09/28/stonewall-crashes-at-us-box-office-amid-boycott/ God is real guys so basically the cast and crew went to see the movie. "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." -Martin Luther King Jr. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesse Pinkman 4,660 Posted September 28, 2015 Share Posted September 28, 2015 That's really sad. With the success of Empire, Straight Outta Compton, and other successful minority shows and films They were doomed from the start. Not to mention the latest fight for transgender rights and yet they excluded their portrayal. Sucks to suck. It's science, bitch Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrewStevens 5,249 Posted September 28, 2015 Share Posted September 28, 2015 Another day another slay First the Duggar family, then Kim Davis and Azealia Banks, now Stonewall... The LGBT+ is coming for every homophobe and transphobe Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jed 7,716 Posted September 28, 2015 Share Posted September 28, 2015 that's what you get for trying to whitewash historical moments. Must be a shame that black trans women don't make as great of leading actors as gay white men do (sarcasm) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JbGaga 2,261 Posted September 28, 2015 Share Posted September 28, 2015 I don't know anything about the story of stone wall. All I know is the trailer didn't look good... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SychosSoChic 9,995 Posted September 28, 2015 Share Posted September 28, 2015 I don't know anything about Stonewall, which was why I wanted to watch this movie so badly. Surprise surprise when I found out just how inaccurate and whitewashed it was when I did just a little bit of research Like sure, go ahead, just whitewash a vital moment in gay history, no problem, I mean who cares about the "T" in LGBT, not to mention the black gay and trans community, who deserve more than this BS This was a chance to educate those who don't know about Stonewall, from people like me, to the newer generation of the gay community, to the straight GP just trying to learn more about LGBT Culture and history, and they ****ed up. And honestly, were any of the actors gay? Like Jeremy Irvine, is he gay? Like how could he ever understand this movie? I honestly hoped this movie would help expose more LGBT actors to the mainstream audiences, but nope. But maybe that's just me. Life ain't Hollywood for any one of us. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
retroglamx 5,174 Posted September 28, 2015 Share Posted September 28, 2015 $871? What was the movie's budget? Pink flamingos always fascinated me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKANK 14,288 Posted September 28, 2015 Share Posted September 28, 2015 Another day another slay First the Duggar family, then Kim Davis and Azealia Banks, now Stonewall... The LGBT+ is coming for every homophobe and transphobe It's insane to compare those situations. Stonewall's failure at the box office will be used in board rooms all over Hollywood as a justification for not green lighting more gay films. "The gay audience didn't show up to a film about the birth of their revolution, why should we fund a project about Marsha P. Johnson, etc..." The film makers offered a specific version of history in the hopes that the story would be palatable to a larger audience. They were misguided and wrong. They weren't motivated by homophobia or transphobia. The film makers didn't molest their sisters, they didn't deny anyone their right to marriage, and they didn't call a flight attended a *******. They just ****ed up, in the same way HBO turned Leonardo Da Vinci into a ladies man, or Spielberg made no mention of Lincoln's homos-xuality. People should have seen the movie, and made criticisms about it's historical inaccuracies afterward. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Featured Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.