Jennifer Lopez Pulls Out of Savannah Film Festival After ‘Kiss of the Spider Woman’ Fumbles

[macbeth]

Posted: 10/28/25 at 9:51am

https://www.worldofreel.com/blog/2025/10/24/jennifer-lopez

ouch. I thought they did a good job with this film, and yes I know there was another thread. Why did it do so poorly? 

[Rentaholic2]

Posted: 10/28/25 at 11:12am

It was always going to be a tough sell, and I guess they didn't market it well.  I never thought we'd get a movie version of this, so I'm thankful it even got made.  And hopefully the dreadful box office performance accelerates its path to streaming platforms.  

[BJR]

Posted: 10/28/25 at 11:45am

Rentaholic2 said: "It was always going to be a tough sell, and I guess they didn't market it well. I never thought we'd get a movie version of this, so I'm thankful it even got made. And hopefully the dreadful box office performance accelerates its path to streaming platforms."

That's exactly how I feel. 

Folks seem to be gleeful at her continued struggle to put her career back on sure footing. But I'm glad we got the film, as I love the show and hope it eventually brings greater awareness and viability for a revival. 

There's another thread on BLUE MOON, which also failed to find an audience. But so did Julia Roberts' new Luca Guadagnino film, and even the extremely well reviewed PTA film starring Sean Penn and Leo DiCaprio - an early Best Picture fave, I've read - is going to lose 100 million.

[quizking101]

Posted: 10/28/25 at 12:37pm

Movies in general have seemed to hit a downward spiral since the pandemic, especially with the rising cost of going to a movie and the fact that there is the capability of doing it from home. But that’s another diatribe for another day…

KISS OF THE SPIDER WOMAN has never been a “mainstream” property, even with the original acclaimed film, because of the content/storyline.*** So like some have said, this was always going to be a very hard sell. However, I don’t even think there was even a modicum of effort to actually market this film. I seldom if ever saw any commercials or YouTube ads. There also wasn’t much in the way of a press tour for the film. 

(***Matt Baume actually has a great video on this topic)

Considering it’s one of the more acclaimed musical films of the modern era, you would think there would be a bigger push for visibility and awards, but apparently not. I didn’t even get much of a chance to see it because it has all but disappeared from theaters in under three weeks.

I’m sure this will be a film people will rediscover as a “forgotten gem” decades from now, but seeing this flop so hard is kind of tragic.

 

[tacotheatrelover]

Posted: 10/28/25 at 2:13pm

Most film companies write off films that aren't successful, mostly like in the 'Producers' where they'll make more money on a flop than a success. The movie theatre employees didn't even know it was out when I went to see it, that's how poorly it was marketed. It's a sad thing to happen and will probably lead to the death of the film and entertainment industry if they continue to focus on profits in the short term rather than the long term. It's the erasure of art and the continence of the rich lining their pockets and buying their 7th yacht. They don't care about the consumer anymore, with more independent companies giving the people what they want.

[BrodyFosse123]

Posted: 10/28/25 at 2:46pm

 

[Scarywarhol]

Posted: 10/28/25 at 2:59pm

macbeth said: "ouch. I thought they did a good job with this film, and yes I know there was another thread. Why did it do so poorly?"

"Before anyone tells me that there was absolutely no reason to start a thread exclusively to point out one embarrassing example of a reception that has/is being discussed at length, I already know."

[CoffeeBreak]

Posted: 10/28/25 at 3:14pm

Poor producing, low end producers, struggle to get distribution, VERY limited screenings and times across the country including NYC.

[DAME]

Posted: 10/28/25 at 3:21pm

Well;  yesterday I received my "for your consideration" screener.  And for the life of me I just do not understand why they send out this media in such poor form.  These screeners are always in 2 channel sound and without proper mixing.  It also has airline quality feel to the image.  How is anyone even going to consider voting for this?  And that is the way most screeners come.  I don't get it.   Spend a little money.  Have a little pride in your product.  Glad I got a chance to catch it at the academy screening. 

[Alex Kulak2]

Posted: 10/28/25 at 3:45pm

tacotheatrelover said: "Most film companies write off films that aren't successful, mostly like in the 'Producers' where they'll make more money on a flop than a success. The movie theatre employees didn't even know it was out when I went to see it, that's how poorly it was marketed. It's a sad thing to happen and will probably lead to the death of the film and entertainment industry if they continue to focus on profits in the short term rather than the long term. It's the erasure of art and the continence of the rich lining their pockets and buying their 7th yacht. They don't care about the consumer anymore, with more independent companies giving the people what they want."

Studios will even use Leo Bloom's beloved "creative accounting" to make movies appear as financial failures, even when they'd be seen as break-even or successful by any other business's metrics.

Ed Solomon (writer of Men In Black) said that he's never received his cut of the profits for MIB because, according to Sony Pictures, the movie is still deep in the red.

Makes perfect sense that a studio would make 3 theatrical sequels, 6 video games, and an animated series off of a film that was ostensibly a flop.

[Jeffrey Karasarides]

Posted: 10/28/25 at 4:21pm

quizking101 said: "I’m sure this will be a film people will rediscover as a “forgotten gem” decades from now, but seeing this flop so hard is kind of tragic."

As Dreamworks Animation alum Tim Johnson says, "I love making movies, I just hate releasing them."

[Jeffrey Karasarides]

Posted: 10/28/25 at 5:22pm

BJR said: "There's another thread on BLUE MOON, which also failed to find an audience. But so did Julia Roberts' new Luca Guadagnino film, and even the extremely well reviewed PTA film starring Sean Penn and Leo DiCaprio - an early Best Picture fave, I've read - is going to lose 100 million."

Many have talked about how stars are no longer a driving force for a movie's success in this day and age. Although I did see someone mention on LinkedIn recently that they appear to have a lot more pull on streaming. They said:

"Think about it - you're scrolling movies you've never heard of because you already watched all the ones you really wanted to see. You spot a poster with a familiar face. Maybe even one that you admire but hasn't been in any superhero films lately so it's been a while since you watched them. You're way more likely to stop and read the blurb, watch the trailer, and give the film the benefit of the doubt.

Movie stars are for streaming. Not for theaters.

A successful theatrical run usually relies on a couple things:
1. Buzz that makes it seem like a MUST see in theaters. Either because of the experience, or being able to take part in the cultural conversation.
2. Budgets low enough that a modest return isn't considered a flop.

The budget part is an easy fix. Stop paying movie stars and other ATL talent like it's the early 2000s. That's it. Your budgets will drop drastically. They aren't enough of a draw on their own to justify their up-front salaries and this has been repeatedly shown.

For the buzz, well that's a larger ask. There's a lot of things for people to spend their time and money on so the question is why do you think your film justifies them going to the theater?

Several recent star-studded releases are not doing great - Roofman, After the Hunt, Good Fortune, The Smashing Machine, and A Big Bold Beautiful Journey. But none of these look like must sees in the theater. In fact I would say they all look very strongly like must waits for streaming, even if you want to see them.

It compares them to some successes this year like Sinners, Weapons, F1, and One Battle After Another (which probably won't be profitable in theaters but I think will be profitable after all is said and done).

Sinners has great buzz from Coogler's deal getting tons of press before the film released, Weapons got great buzz for being a fun time, F1 had great buzz for catering to the F1 audience, and OBAA is doing OK but I would say it had more buzz for being a PTA film than for Leo.

That previous list? I've only really heard of the Smashing Machine getting buzz and the WOM on that has been middling to poor. I'm most interested in Good Fortune (because I like the cast), but it doesn't seem like I'm missing anything waiting to watch it at home."

[MerchMan]

Posted: 10/28/25 at 5:25pm

"Fumbles"? That's a nice way of saying bomb!!! Lopez is box office poison! Failed movies, failed albums, failed tour and a failed marriage!!! Her delusional arrogance is a turn off to audiences for a movie that really didn't have an audience to start off with!

[joevitus]

Posted: 10/28/25 at 7:58pm

DAME said: "Well; yesterday I received my "for your consideration" screener. And for the life of me I just do not understand why they send out this media in such poor form. These screeners are always in 2 channel sound and without proper mixing. It also has airline quality feel to the image. How is anyone even going to consider voting for this? And that is the way most screeners come. I don't get it. Spend a little money. Have a little pride in your product. Glad I got a chance to catch it at the academy screening."

Does this mean screeners are usually of higher quality? I don't know why I had the impression that, as a rule, they are poor so as to deflect attempts at pirating them. While I don't think the visuals are amazing or anything, the look of the fantasy sequences are clearly central to the movie's appeal. Too bad that won't really register. Also sucks that sound isn't good for, you know, a musical. 

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 10/28/25 at 9:27pm

MerchMan said: ""Fumbles"? That's a nice way of saying bomb!!! Lopez is box office poison! Failed movies, failed albums, failed tour and a failed marriage!!! Her delusional arrogance is a turn off to audiences for a movie that really didn't have an audience to start off with!"

She's not to blame here though--well except for the fact that she didn't bring in audiences like they had hoped.  

[kdogg36]

Posted: 10/28/25 at 10:12pm

MerchMan said: ""Fumbles"? That's a nice way of saying bomb!!! Lopez is box office poison! Failed movies, failed albums, failed tour and a failed marriage!!! Her delusional arrogance is a turn off to audiences for a movie that really didn't have an audience to start off with!"

Yeah, you sound totally hinged.

[George in DC]

Posted: 10/28/25 at 10:19pm

EricMontreal22 said: "MerchMan said: ""Fumbles"? That's a nice way of saying bomb!!! Lopez is box office poison! Failed movies, failed albums, failed tour and a failed marriage!!! Her delusional arrogance is a turn off to audiences for a movie that really didn't have an audience to start off with!"

She's not to blame here though--well except for the fact that she didn't bring in audiences like they had hoped."

 

Hmm. She can't act. Her singing now is questionable. And now her name has no impact. Yes, this is on the untalented Jello

 

 

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 10/29/25 at 3:15am

Meh, I thought she was more than fine in the role and her performance certainly didn't bring the film down.

[jimmycurry01]

Posted: 10/29/25 at 7:04am

The movie was really just OK. It looked and felt cheaply made. The acting was good enough, but not great. Lopez wasn't anything special. On top of that, it's not a popular musical with name recognition.

There was nothing particularly terrible about the movie; it certainly wasn't Cats, but there was nothing particularly great about it either. I think it's what the kids call mid. 

[Scarywarhol]

Posted: 10/29/25 at 8:50am

She did pretty well with what she had. It was completely misconceived on a creative level as an adaptation and as a film, and it alienated what little existing audience there was without courting a new one. The obsessive vitriol aimed like a laser at Lopez is getting weird all over the place. Or got weird years ago. 

Updated On: 10/29/25 at 08:50 AM

[Bette's Turban]

Posted: 10/29/25 at 9:08am

joevitus said: "DAME said: "Well; yesterday I received my "for your consideration" screener. And for the life of me I just do not understand why they send out this media in such poor form. These screeners are always in 2 channel sound and without proper mixing. It also has airline quality feel to the image. How is anyone even going to consider voting for this? And that is the way most screeners come. I don't get it. Spend a little money. Have a little pride in your product. Glad I got a chance to catch it at the academy screening."

Does this mean screeners are usually of higher quality? I don't know why I had the impression that, as a rule, they are poor so as to deflect attempts at pirating them. While I don't think the visuals are amazing or anything, the look of the fantasy sequences are clearly central to the movie's appeal. Too bad that won't really register. Also sucks that sound isn't good for, you know, a musical."

Screeners have in the past been of poor quality.  Unless the film already has a home release by the time campaigning begins, you usually get the cheapest thing they can make.  Even the digital offerings are just as bad.  I don't think pirating is as much the concern it used to be. I hate screeners.  I Usually only watch them if I am 100% sure I won't be able to get to the theater or if a home commercial streaming opportunity is not around the corner.

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 10/29/25 at 8:18pm

Scarywarhol said: "She did pretty well with what she had. It was completely misconceived on a creative level as an adaptation and as a film, and it alienated what little existing audience there was without courting a new one. The obsessive vitriol aimed like a laser at Lopez is getting weird all over the place. Or got weird years ago."

It is weird, although I didn't find it completely misconceived (and I haven't noticed that it particularly alienated any existing audience but I may have missed that.)

[joevitus]

Posted: 10/30/25 at 10:36am

George in DC said: "EricMontreal22 said: "MerchMan said: ""Fumbles"? That's a nice way of saying bomb!!! Lopez is box office poison! Failed movies, failed albums, failed tour and a failed marriage!!! Her delusional arrogance is a turn off to audiences for a movie that really didn't have an audience to start off with!"

She's not to blame here though--well except for the fact that she didn't bring in audiences like they had hoped."



Hmm. She can't act. Her singing now is questionable. And now her name has no impact. Yes, this is on the untalented Jello



"

Tell us you didn't see the movie without telling us you didn't see the movie.

[joevitus]

Posted: 10/30/25 at 10:37am

EricMontreal22 said: "Scarywarhol said: "She did pretty well with what she had. It was completely misconceived on a creative level as an adaptation and as a film, and it alienated what little existing audience there was without courting a new one. The obsessive vitriol aimed like a laser at Lopez is getting weird all over the place. Or got weird years ago."

It is weird, although I didn't find it completely misconceived (and I haven't noticed that it particularly alienated any existing audience but I may have missed that.)"

Same.

[joevitus]

Posted: 10/30/25 at 10:38am

Bette's Turban said: "joevitus said: "DAME said: "Well; yesterday I received my "for your consideration" screener. And for the life of me I just do not understand why they send out this media in such poor form. These screeners are always in 2 channel sound and without proper mixing. It also has airline quality feel to the image. How is anyone even going to consider voting for this? And that is the way most screeners come. I don't get it. Spend a little money. Have a little pride in your product. Glad I got a chance to catch it at the academy screening."

Does this mean screeners are usually of higher quality? I don't know why I had the impression that, as a rule, they are poor so as to deflect attempts at pirating them. While I don't think the visuals are amazing or anything, the look of the fantasy sequences are clearly central to the movie's appeal. Too bad that won't really register. Also sucks that sound isn't good for, you know, a musical."

Screeners have in the past been of poor quality. Unless the film already has a home release by the time campaigning begins, you usually get the cheapest thing they can make. Even the digital offerings are just as bad. I don't think pirating is as much the concern it used to be. I hate screeners. I Usually only watch them if I am 100% sure I won't be able to get to the theater or if a home commercial streaming opportunity is not around the corner."

Thank you for this!