Anonymous wrote:It made only $1.3 million, which is one of the worst openings ever for a movie that's opened on 2,100+ screens. It reportedly cost $15M to make, oof. Anyone see it? Links to back up these stats below.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/paultassi/2025/11/10/sydney-sweeneys-new-movie-has-one-of-the-worst-openings-in-box-office-history/
https://deadline.com/2025/11/sydney-sweeney-christy-box-office-comments-1236613020/

Wow, that has to be the lowest budget movie made in a long time, outside of indie films.

Kudos for not money laudering tens of millions of dollars with "production costs" I suppose.

Anonymous wrote:Has anyone seen it?
Christy is such a bad title too

I was hoping it was about Christy, the young woman who goes to teach in Cutter Gap TN in 1912. I loved that book.

I saw on Reddit that her PR team was trying to get reviewers to put a more positive spin on the numbers.

Unfortunately her "base" isn't going to support anything where she doesn't look hot, and she alienated a lot of other people soo...

I feel bad for the actual Christy; finally her story gets a big name and then bombs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The culture wars really cut against anyone liking this movie. The right-wingers who decided they like her do not like her for her acting and will not go see her portraying a character who is not beautiful and is not embracing their idea of femininity.

Meanwhile, the folks on the left - who are interested in women of lots of different shapes, sizes, and social roles - have been alienated, both by the right wingers celebrating her and by her decision not to reject the right wing messages about good genes and proper feminine appearance.

Not sure why she starred in this movie. She's polarized herself and needs to be in movies which appeal to right wing audiences, with blonde hair and boobs out.

Sure...all those right wingers in Hollywood and the entertainment industry making movies as you described.

Sounds like she has a bad manager who gave her bad advice.

Naked Gun was just so left wing, same with Happy Gillmore 2, I guess.

Maybe starring in a film about a lesbian wasn't the best use of her time after coming out as MAGA.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The culture wars really cut against anyone liking this movie. The right-wingers who decided they like her do not like her for her acting and will not go see her portraying a character who is not beautiful and is not embracing their idea of femininity.

Meanwhile, the folks on the left - who are interested in women of lots of different shapes, sizes, and social roles - have been alienated, both by the right wingers celebrating her and by her decision not to reject the right wing messages about good genes and proper feminine appearance.

Not sure why she starred in this movie. She's polarized herself and needs to be in movies which appeal to right wing audiences, with blonde hair and boobs out.

Sure...all those right wingers in Hollywood and the entertainment industry making movies as you described.

Anonymous wrote:The culture wars really cut against anyone liking this movie. The right-wingers who decided they like her do not like her for her acting and will not go see her portraying a character who is not beautiful and is not embracing their idea of femininity.

Meanwhile, the folks on the left - who are interested in women of lots of different shapes, sizes, and social roles - have been alienated, both by the right wingers celebrating her and by her decision not to reject the right wing messages about good genes and proper feminine appearance.

Not sure why she starred in this movie. She's polarized herself and needs to be in movies which appeal to right wing audiences, with blonde hair and boobs out.

The culture wars really cut against anyone liking this movie. The right-wingers who decided they like her do not like her for her acting and will not go see her portraying a character who is not beautiful and is not embracing their idea of femininity.

Meanwhile, the folks on the left - who are interested in women of lots of different shapes, sizes, and social roles - have been alienated, both by the right wingers celebrating her and by her decision not to reject the right wing messages about good genes and proper feminine appearance.

I'm 55, so in the who cares demographic, but I know who she is and like her - I thought she was good in The White Lotus and I thought she was really funny in the the romcom with Glenn Powel, can't remember the name. I'm looking forward to The Housemaid, with Sweeney and Amanda Seyfried, based on the book, coming out in December. I've seen the trailer a couple of times as commercials during network TV.

I listen to two pop culture podcasts. I read parts of the news, I follow pop culture on Instagram. I've heard th eoscar buzz on the other actresses and movies someone mentioned earlier.

But I had no idea about this movie. Zero. Zero buzz.

I've not been watching late night or paying attention to other pop outlets - I thought the press she did where she wouldn't apologize for the good genes thing was advance buzz for the Housemaid.

Bottom line, I'm reasonably attuned (though not fully) and had not a whiff of this movie.

It's another tough year for movie going, but I really don't think this one had a big marketing budget at all.

So, I think the American Eagle commercial drama was overblown. It was not particularly clever, which good ads should be, but I also don't think it was advocating for eugenics the way others tell it.

I also don't think she's a particularly good actress. She's okay, like 98% of other actresses as someone else in this thread said. She's not a Meryl Streep or an Anne Hathaway or even a Margot Robbie. She just isn't. But neither are most actresses. But America is not exactly high-brow, the most popular movies these days are remakes and marvel movies. So, I don't believe that the same people who like 5,000 different versions of Batman movies were like "OMG I can't stomach this film about a strong woman played by a mediocre actress." I think it's literally backlash over the ads.

Which, to be fair, Sydney was given a chance to refute the claims that she supported eugenics and she could've taken it but she said no.

I thought it was a great movie, have you even seen it OP?

Oh please she keeps bombing
Christy, a gritty biopic of boxer Christy Martin, opened to just $1.3 million across more than 2,000 theaters—one of the worst openings on record.

weeney’s 2024 superhero feature, Madame Web, bombed with critics and audiences alike, grossing just over $100 million globally on a production budget of around the same figure.

She is not a draw. She's just big boobed.

Anonymous wrote:I don't go to movie theaters so this wasn't really on my radar, but right after seeing this thread on DCUM I saw the headline for this article in Us.

On social media, many seemed to believe the box office was not strong. Us has learned the narrative being pushed is false and the companies behind the film have already earned their money back through international sales of the film. One insider called the film a “runaway success.”

Sweeney is also garnering talk of a potential Oscar nomination. She has already taken home the Spotlight Award at the SCAD Savannah Film Festival, the Hamptons International Film Festival’s Achievement in Acting award and will be receiving the Virtuosos Award at the Santa Barbara International Film Festival.

https://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/sydney-sweeneys-christy-movie-has-earned-money-back-despite-critics-excl

Oh please US Maganzine LOL if she gets an Oscar for this Trump gave it to her.

https://nypost.com/2025/11/10/entertainment/sydney-sweeney-reacts-to-christy-box-office-disaster/.

If the NY Post is saying it is a bomb well..... "But there weren’t enough of them to save it. “Christy”’s box office flameout makes the movie the latest flop in a rocky year on the big screen for Sweeney."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It made only $1.3 million, which is one of the worst openings ever for a movie that's opened on 2,100+ screens. It reportedly cost $15M to make, oof. Anyone see it? Links to back up these stats below.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/paultassi/2025/11/10/sydney-sweeneys-new-movie-has-one-of-the-worst-openings-in-box-office-history/
https://deadline.com/2025/11/sydney-sweeney-christy-box-office-comments-1236613020/

Worse than Waterworld?

Waterworld made ~ $20M opening weekend so yes, a lot worse.

Anonymous wrote:It made only $1.3 million, which is one of the worst openings ever for a movie that's opened on 2,100+ screens. It reportedly cost $15M to make, oof. Anyone see it? Links to back up these stats below.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/paultassi/2025/11/10/sydney-sweeneys-new-movie-has-one-of-the-worst-openings-in-box-office-history/
https://deadline.com/2025/11/sydney-sweeney-christy-box-office-comments-1236613020/

Worse than Waterworld?