Why the low box office draw?

Let's look at the obvious stumbling block: the title. Billy Lynn's Long Halftime Walk.

Firstly, who the funk is Billy Lynn and why should I give a damn about his long halftime walk? Might as well be called Billy Lynn goes for groceries, or Billy Lynn files a tax return. Zzzzzzzzzz.

Secondly, it's a "long" Halftime Walk. For most people long = boring. So it's a boring halftime walk. Again, Zzzzzzzzz.

Thirdly, if you're not American or don't follow football, what the funk's a halftime walk? I'm sure people in the UK, Ireland and Australia are familiar with the concept of a halftime wank, but a walk? At halftime? Zzzzzzz.

It just sounds like a boring movie. Even before you've even seen the trailer or learned what it's about, it's kinda like, who cares?

By and large, Americans in the middle of the country are not interested in Anti-War movies that make the military look bad. Lions for Lambs, for example, did horribly bad at the box office, because these kind of simple tropes of "Military Bad" usually don't work. Obviously, that is not always the case, as Avatar made a gaggle of MINTS, and that cast the Military as evil. But movies like Redacted, Stop-Loss, and In The Valley of Elah all lost money. Which is as it should be. Billy Lynn's Long Halftime Walk just wouldn't connect with pretty much anyone not on the coasts.

It was a turgid film.

It's that man again!!