July 6, 2015 at 5:35 am #189703
This hotly anticipated sequel to the surprise 2012 hit was a dud at the box office, making only $27 million over the five-day holiday weekend.
It got decent reviews (60 at MetaCritic) and the stars certainly strutted their stuff in promoting the picture.
Why did it get stiffed?July 6, 2015 at 6:54 am #189705
I think mainstream audiences were baffled at the idea of a plot and character development in the first one. It’s literally what is wrong with today’s audiencesJuly 6, 2015 at 7:13 am #189706
It certainly baffled/annoyed me as those characters and plots were underdeveloped and drab. Apparently and thankfully this one has a greater ass shaking quoutient. I’ll still wait for pay per view.July 6, 2015 at 9:09 am #189707
I saw this on the weekend and the theatre was mixed genders and ages. It’s about as good as the first imo but with the dino, robot , and family fare/competition, I guess this seems tame by comparison.July 6, 2015 at 9:43 am #189708
Yeah that’s the other thing, it is an apple in a large fruit basket of movies that are out right now. You have Jurrasic and Terminator for the blockbuster fans, Inside Out for the families, Ted 2 for the raunch comedy crowd, and then Magic Mike. And it’s really strange that Park is still doing so wellJuly 6, 2015 at 10:01 am #189709
The novelty of seeing “legit” male actors play strippers isn’t there anymore. And it also coulda hurt that they didn’t cast a couple of new-familiar faces to put on some thongs instead of random dancers/models. Certainly they coulda gotten a Ryan Phillippe or Ryan Reynolds up in there.July 6, 2015 at 4:42 pm #189710
Judging from discussions over the years with female friends and gay male friends about the important topic of male nudity in film, gay men like to see gorgeous, young guys naked, full frontal. It doesn’t seem to matter if they are unknowns. Women want to see famous men naked, they don’t get as turned on by some anonymous, handsome guy as they do by seeing a famous actor naked.
I think the prospect of seeing both Tatum and McConaughey naked in the first one resulted in the much bigger opening. This time out – they could see Tatum naked (sort of) in the original film and none of the other actors have the fame level or the female fanbase (from romcoms) of McConaughey. They should have, like Icky says above, cast one of the many Ryans (Reynolds, Gosling, Philippe) or Chrises (Pratt, Helmsworth, Evans, Pine, etc.).
Also, it was widely reported that there was less nudity in this one than in the first. What’s the point of a stripper movie with LESS nudity?July 6, 2015 at 6:58 pm #189711
R rated sequels were mostly a failure ???
Loses novelty, lustre, titillation, etc … the 2nd time around !!!
Like Sex and the City, Ted, etc …July 6, 2015 at 7:03 pm #189712
I thought when I saw Etchie’s name I was going to see ” It FAILED because MERYL wasn’t in it”July 6, 2015 at 7:17 pm #189713
I thought when I saw Etchie’s name I was going to see ” It FAILED because MERYL wasn’t in it”
NEARLY ….. I deleted the last statement in my post ….. “Ergo, No Sequel for Streep”July 11, 2015 at 1:37 am #189714
Umm, because men who shave their chest hair are gross?!July 12, 2015 at 9:03 am #189715
This isn’t doing what it was expected…but it’ll still end in the $70-75 million range. A decent profit, considering its profit, and let’s remember the original made $113m.
Not nearly the dropoff that Ted 2 is going to be. Wow. That sequel is only going to make about a third of what the original did.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.