How big a flop will the Melania movie be?

[WhiteWonder 3,089]

i'm more interested in the amount of time the board liberals spent watching it, reading about it, digesting other peoples X posts about it, thinking about it, scouring the internet for tidbits to post about it, etc  compared to the board MAGAs.

I'd bet its heavily in favor of the libs 

[Mike Honcho 5,641]

I'm waiting to go until there is an entire call and response thing worked out, like Rocky Horror.  

[TimHauck 3,662]

21 minutes ago, WhiteWonder said:

i'm more interested in the amount of time the board liberals spent watching it, reading about it, digesting other peoples X posts about it, thinking about it, scouring the internet for tidbits to post about it, etc  compared to the board MAGAs.

I'd bet its heavily in favor of the libs 

You calling @Strike a liberal?

[Strike 6,255]

After a stellar opening weekend, Amazon is expanding distribution to 200 more theaters.  Way to go Meli!!!!!

[Engorgeous George 2,464]

1 hour ago, Mike Honcho said:

I'm waiting to go until there is an entire call and response thing worked out, like Rocky Horror.  

A Toast!

[FrancieFootball 517]

Newspaper issues correction to lower rating to 0 from 1, a typographical error.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/newspaper-issues-correction-to-give-melania-an-even-worse-review/

[Voltaire 5,626]

I don't know how often these numbers get reported but whenever the next batch of data comes in we'll see if it continues with the strong momentum, although I'm not sure I care that much either way.

[Engorgeous George 2,464]

1 hour ago, FrancieFootball said:

Newspaper issues correction to lower rating to 0 from 1, a typographical error.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/newspaper-issues-correction-to-give-melania-an-even-worse-review/

Interesting article. The article says this is tied with 19 other films for the lowest rating ever in their 200 + years of rating films.  That figure, 200 +, caught my attention as I am woefully unfamiliar with films of the 1820's to 1890's and beyond.

[Hardcore troubadour 16,470]

To answer the question, not that big of a flop. lol.

[TimHauck 3,662]

33 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

To answer the question, not that big of a flop. lol.

Looks like it will be choice 1 or 2

[Red White and Blue 135]

57 minutes ago, Strike said:

After a stellar opening weekend, Amazon is expanding distribution to 200 more theaters.  Way to go Meli!!!!!

How many times have you seen it?  

[cyclone24 2,165]

https://x.com/melaniatrump/status/2018827268601389342?s=46
 

Uh oh….the left is in shambles…200 more theatres

[Voltaire 5,626]

43 minutes ago, Engorgeous George said:

Inteereasting article. The article says this is tied with 19 other films for the lowest rating ever in their 200 + years of rating films.  That figure, 200 +, caught my attention as I am woefully unfamiliar with films of the 1820's to 1890's and beyond.

Leftoid newspaper critics really, really. really, really, extremely don't like anything to do with Trump.

It mirrors people with the urge to give Quality Learing Center a negative Yelp review.

[TimHauck 3,662]

1 hour ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

To answer the question, not that big of a flop. lol.

 

On 1/28/2026 at 6:10 PM, Hardcore troubadour said:

Made? Impossible.  You know how profit works, right??

Do you think the Melania movie will make a profit?

[SUXBNME 1,663]

Melania currently holds a 5 percent score on the Rotten Tomatoes Tomatometer—a drop from 10 percent, which was set following its January 30 release—indicating almost-universal disapproval among critics.

At the same time, its extremely positive 99 percent audience score has sparked discussion, with some suggesting it reflects strong support from the president’s base rather than broad viewer consensus.

Still, the reaction to Melania has created an unusual ratings profile made up of strong commercial turnout, a near‑perfect audience score on Rotten Tomatoes, and deeply negative critic reviews.

The 5 percent Tomatometer places it among the lowest‑rated political documentaries in recent years, while the 99 percent audience rating makes it one of the highest among recent high‑profile releases.

How "Melania" Rotten Tomatoes scores compare to Michelle Obama’s "Becoming"

[Red White and Blue 135]

On 2/2/2026 at 2:26 PM, Red White and Blue said:

Sitting at 8% on Rotten Tomatoes.  

Correction: 5%  

[Hardcore troubadour 16,470]

21 hours ago, TimHauck said:

 

Do you think the Melania movie will make a profit?

Why didn’t you ask Rusty if the Springsteen flop would? 

[TimHauck 3,662]

Just now, Hardcore troubadour said:

Why didn’t you ask Rusty if the Springsteen flop would? 

I’ll take that as a no

[Hardcore troubadour 16,470]

Update?

[TimHauck 3,662]

On 2/5/2026 at 9:22 AM, Hardcore troubadour said:

Update?

I don’t see anything in the past day or so about the box office performance, except an article from the UK about how it did absolutely terrible there.  Is that what you’re referring to?

And do you think it will make a profit?

[Red White and Blue 135]

Melania = Pretty Woman with soulless lizard people.

[TimHauck 3,662]

I wonder how many of the “audience reviews” on rotten tomatoes actually saw it.   I’d set the over/under at 50%

[Red White and Blue 135]

1 minute ago, TimHauck said:

I wonder how many of the “audience reviews” on rotten tomatoes actually saw it.   I’d set the over/under at 50%

I can’t find a single Geek in this MAGA fever swamp who bought a ticket. Or at least one who’ll admit to it.  

[FrancieFootball 517]

8 hours ago, Red White and Blue said:

I can’t find a single Geek in this MAGA fever swamp who bought a ticket. Or at least one who’ll admit to it.  

Apparently tickets have been bought in bulk to create fake sales numbers and either given to people or not given away at all. 

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/movies/articles/melania-movie-shows-signs-bulk-164451738.html

[TimHauck 3,662]

17 minutes ago, FrancieFootball said:

Apparently tickets have been bought in bulk to create fake sales numbers and either given to people or not given away at all. 

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/movies/articles/melania-movie-shows-signs-bulk-164451738.html

And lol that a YouTuber made a movie for 4% of what Melania cost and did over double the box office.

[Alias Detective 1,495]

What’s the root bad for her movie about?  
 

no one want to hear about her?

bad writing?

ugly characters?

OMB?

[Fnord 2,816]

4 hours ago, Alias Detective said:

What’s the root bad for her movie about?  
 

no one want to hear about her?

bad writing?

ugly characters?

OMB?

$45 MILLION paid directly to the Trumps by Amazon for the rights. Blatantly unlawful and unconstitutional. Nobody actually GAF about the movie itself, do they? 

ETA: Correction: $28 mil was paid to Melania's "production company." 

[Alias Detective 1,495]

5 minutes ago, Fnord said:

$45 MILLION paid directly to the Trumps by Amazon for the rights. Blatantly unlawful and unconstitutional. Nobody actually GAF about the movie itself, do they? 

ETA: Correction: $28 mil was paid to Melania's "production company." 

Thanks.  One vote OMB.  

 

Anyone else?

[Ron_Artest 3,077]

18 hours ago, FrancieFootball said:

Apparently tickets have been bought in bulk to create fake sales numbers and either given to people or not given away at all. 

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/movies/articles/melania-movie-shows-signs-bulk-164451738.html

They did the same thing with that "Sound of Freedom" BS, about human trafficking, but the director turned out to be a human trafficker, and now apparently the rest of Maga is as well.

[Fnord 2,816]

14 minutes ago, Alias Detective said:

Thanks.  One vote OMB.  

REALLY BAD!

The Emoluments Clauses are U.S. Constitutional provisions (Article I, Section 9, Clause 8, and Article II, Section 1, Clause 7) designed to prevent corruption by prohibiting federal officials, including the President, from receiving undue benefits, gifts, or payments from foreign governments or states without Congressional consent, ensuring loyalty to the U.S. and preventing undue foreign influence. The Foreign Emoluments Clause covers benefits from foreign states, while the Domestic Emoluments Clause restricts the President from receiving other compensation from U.S. governments beyond their official salary. 

 

Foreign Emoluments Clause (Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 )

• Purpose: 

  To prevent foreign powers from corrupting American leaders through gifts or payments, ensuring undivided loyalty. 

   

• Prohibits: 

  Federal officeholders from accepting any "present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State" without Congress's consent.

Domestic Emoluments Clause (Article II, Section 1, Clause 7)

• Prohibits: 

  The President from receiving any "Emolument" (benefit) from the federal government or U.S. states beyond their stated compensation.

• Purpose: 

  To prevent Congress from influencing the President's salary and to secure the President's financial independence from the legislature. 

   

Key Aspects

• "Emolument": 

  Broadly defined as any profit, gain, or advantage, covering financial or other benefits.

• Enforcement: 

  Requires Congressional action for consent or enforcement, though debates continue regarding its application, especially concerning presidential business dealings.

• History: 

  Created by the Framers as a safeguard against foreign entanglements and corruption, a concern heightened by common practices among European rulers.

[Alias Detective 1,495]

7 minutes ago, Ron_Artest said:

They did the same thing with that "Sound of Freedom" BS, about human trafficking, but the director turned out to be a human trafficker, and now apparently the rest of Maga is as well.

2 OMB.

Next?

[cyclone24 2,165]

9 minutes ago, Ron_Artest said:

They did the same thing with that "Sound of Freedom" BS, about human trafficking, but the director turned out to be a human trafficker, and now apparently the rest of Maga is as well.

The rest is as well?

Source? Link? I mean, you said you could back it all up with sources right? I bet I could go through every thread here and find that you don’t. This was literally the first one i even bothered.
 

Liar

[Red White and Blue 135]

On 2/4/2026 at 5:22 PM, Red White and Blue said:

Correction: 5%  

6% today. It’s on the uptick!

[Ron_Artest 3,077]

15 minutes ago, cyclone24 said:

The rest is as well?

Source? Link? I mean, you said you could back it all up with sources right? I bet I could go through every thread here and find that you don’t. This was literally the first one i even bothered.
 

Liar

Trump, Nutlick, Elon, Ratner, RFK jr, Bannon, Melania, Thiel, etc.  Do you need a link?

Also when I said "rest of maga" I was deploying hyperbole, but if you're gonna act like that then I'll correct it to "the top names in maga"

[cyclone24 2,165]

Just now, Ron_Artest said:

Trump, Nutlick, Elon, Ratner, RFK jr, Bannon, Melania, Thiel, etc.  Do you need a link?

Also when I said "rest of maga" I was deploying hyperbole, but if you're gonna act like that then I'll correct it to "the top names in maga"

Ohhhhhh so when I want proof its “hyperbole” when you want it you need links, forensics, blood samples. 
 

what a surprise 

[Ron_Artest 3,077]

Just now, cyclone24 said:

Ohhhhhh so when I want proof its “hyperbole” when you want it you need links, forensics, blood samples. 
 

what a surprise 

I never asked for forensics or blood samples.  If hyperbole is not allowed then that applies to you too.

Anyway, those prominent Maga figures are all over the Epstein files.  That's a fact.

[cyclone24 2,165]

1 minute ago, Ron_Artest said:

I never asked for forensics or blood samples.  If hyperbole is not allowed then that applies to you too.

Anyway, those prominent Maga figures are all over the Epstein files.  That's a fact.

That’s the whole point weirdo. We all talk in hyperbole. I’m guessing in your daily interactions talking to people if someone says something you disagree with you don’t ask them to pull up their phone to provide you with a link.

[Ron_Artest 3,077]

2 minutes ago, cyclone24 said:

That’s the whole point weirdo. We all talk in hyperbole. I’m guessing in your daily interactions talking to people if someone says something you disagree with you don’t ask them to pull up their phone to provide you with a link.

Actually I do.  If someone says something really stupid as fact, I will tell them to pull out their phone and ask google if it's true.  They usually don't because they know they are lying.

See we all have these devices in our pants that can provide the truth at any moment, but 35% of Americans don't want to know the truth.

[cyclone24 2,165]

2 minutes ago, Ron_Artest said:

Actually I do.  If someone says something really stupid as fact, I will tell them to pull out their phone and ask google if it's true.  They usually don't because they know they are lying.

See we all have these devices in our pants that can provide the truth at any moment, but 35% of Americans don't want to know the truth.

Why does this not surprise me whatsoever.

See your problem is I’m not lying and you know I’m not lying. Big difference. 
 

Oh my God, you are such a moron. Gee let me guess. Who’s in that 35%? But my gosh, the enlightened ones …the 65%) let me guess which way you think they vote. Comical

 

[Ron_Artest 3,077]

10 minutes ago, cyclone24 said:

Why does this not surprise me whatsoever.

See your problem is I’m not lying and you know I’m not lying. Big difference. 
 

Oh my God, you are such a moron. Gee let me guess. Who’s in that 35%? But my gosh, the enlightened ones …the 65%) let me guess which way you think they vote. Comical

 

No you are lying when you say black people are a net negative on society.  You mention things like graduation rates and single parent homes but you're not mentioning any of the positives.  You're making a terrible argument.