www.forbes.com
With a budget of 200 million maybe they should have got Chris Hemsworth or something instead of this loser to front it.
View attachment 631442
With a budget of 200 million maybe they should have got Chris Hemsworth or something instead of this loser to front it.

Box office poison Jared Leto was a much bigger problem. People see his name attached and immediately boycott.
It's complete madness. Only thing I can think is he was cast several years ago for the role and got grandfathered into the project.
You don't spend 200m and have Jared Leto in your movie.

Leto is a faggot but I cannot imagine he had any noticeable effect on ticket sales.



any noticeable effect on ticket sales.
Yeah what parent wouldn't take their kid to see a sex pest?
As for the box office-- they have AI for that now. Anyone can google his ticket sales and track record.
Box office poison Jared Leto was a much bigger problem. People see his name attached and immediately boycott.
It's complete madness. Only thing I can think is he was cast several years ago for the role and got grandfathered into the project.
You don't spend 200m and have Jared Leto in your movie.
I have to agree with Seananigans on this one even though you have a point on why waste the money when he's never been any good. The kind of people who care about his personal history probably aren't taking their kids to a really old IP for boys from the 80s. A show that focuses on male heroes fighting weird looking bad guys with a sword? That's just not their kind of movie.
This movie was just never going to make money. Having Leto in it didn't help but that's because he's a bad actor that makes terrible choices. I agree he was a terrible choice but for different reasons. He sucks and he was probably expensive. They said he did a good job though, so I'll probably watch if it stays on through this weekend.
