The problem with this is that to be determined to be box office poison, you have to be in front billing (as supporting or leading...see: Taylor Swift). Gaga was featured in Machete Kills and she did promo, but I'm 100% sure no one outside ATRL and her fanbase knew she was in Sin CIty 2. Also most actors considered Box office poison has at least 1 leading role, which Gaga has not.

and so?? worst comes to worst it just meant she did not have much pull to the viewers in movies as she does in her songs.. still doesn't make her a Box office poison...

you just keep on talking in circles and you're not even making sense anymore

Yes, I agree, but this doesn't take away from the fact that Lady Gaga has been a part of three films in a row that have been extremely disappointing at the box office. I feel that's kind of hard to ignore and is worth discussing. And like I've mentioned earlier, what if the fourth film Lady Gaga is a part of also becomes a box office disappointment? The pattern grows. When does it stop being a coincidence? At the fifth film? Sixth? In this way, she's can be considered "box office poison."

But is was doomed from the start (hence why they only promoted it in the Us)

It would make sense if Gaga was cast in the next Hunger Games (or any successful franchise) and it bombed.

But Machete? Come on, are you serious

Very true but they were both sequels to cult movies, I don't think they'd have been any more successful if Gaga wasn't in them.

Sad that her box office gross can't come close to Katy's or Rihanna's.