Current Events > Feminist reboot of Charlie's Angels is a major flop

(+) Yeah! (+)

Honestly, I almost wonder why they bothered calling it Charlie's Angels. You could have just made a movie about a team of female agents. It's like somebody was offended that they were called "angels," or that a guy was the boss, or that there was an emphasis on beauty.

It's no skin off my nose. I never saw the original series and I wasn't a big fan of the 2000s movies. But it seems a bit odd to to make such changes to a preexisting property instead of creating a new one.

*Barely advertised movie with no active audience does poorly*

"Ha! Take that feminism!"
---

Umbreon posted...

*Barely advertised movie with no active audience does poorly*

"Ha! Take that feminism!"

All you people saying this must not get out much. I've been seeing the trailers in theaters for the past 3 months.

Skye Reynolds posted...

Honestly, I almost wonder why they bothered calling it Charlie's Angels. You could have just made a movie about a team of female agents. It's like somebody was offended that they were called "angels," or that a guy was the boss, or that there was an emphasis on beauty.

It's no skin off my nose. I never saw the original series and I wasn't a big fan of the 2000s movies. But it seems a bit odd to to make such changes to a preexisting property instead of creating a new one.

Because the franchise has always sucked and adding a new bad movie to a terribke franchise means nothing.
---

Purely posted...

Umbreon posted...

*Barely advertised movie with no active audience does poorly*

"Ha! Take that feminism!"

All you people saying this must not get out much. I've been seeing the trailers in theaters for the past 3 months.

And everyone blaming feminism is ignoring that it's just not a good movie. It's not bad because it's a "feminist movie." Its bad because it's a poorly written poorly acted,and frankly poor movie.

A bad movie should fail. Sadly not all to.

By saying the sole reason it failed is because it's a feminist movie is saying quality doesn't matter.
---

creativerealms posted...

And everyone blaming feminism is ignoring that it's just not a good movie. It's not bad because it's a "feminist movie." Its bad because it's a poorly written poorly acted,and frankly poor movie.

A bad movie should fail. Sadly not all to.

By saying the sole reason it failed is because it's a feminist movie is saying quality doesn't matter.

Not to mention saying "they've played the trailers at the movies for months!" is a misnomer because theater-only trailers are borderline irrelevant advertising today, especially with how scarcely people go to the movies now.

It failed because it was badly promoted, it doesn't have the star power as the original, and nobody cares about the franchise anymore anyway.

---

creativerealms posted...

And everyone blaming feminism is ignoring that it's just not a good movie. It's not bad because it's a "feminist movie." Its bad because it's a poorly written poorly acted,and frankly poor movie.

A bad movie should fail. Sadly not all to.

By saying the sole reason it failed is because it's a feminist movie is saying quality doesn't matter.

I don't know, I think you're overreaching. Bad movies can be successful, and people don't know if it's bad until they see it. This has a 60% on Rotten Tomatoes so obviously reviews are mostly favorable.

If I advertised a movie I made "for months" in my neighborhood but didn't bother to hype up the movie on the internet or shell out to advertise it on regular television.... then most people probably won't know my movie exists.

They should have advertised more in places people would actually see.
---

creativerealms posted...

Skye Reynolds posted...

Honestly, I almost wonder why they bothered calling it Charlie's Angels. You could have just made a movie about a team of female agents. It's like somebody was offended that they were called "angels," or that a guy was the boss, or that there was an emphasis on beauty.

It's no skin off my nose. I never saw the original series and I wasn't a big fan of the 2000s movies. But it seems a bit odd to to make such changes to a preexisting property instead of creating a new one.

Because the franchise has always sucked and adding a new bad movie to a terribke franchise means nothing.

If they'd made it a fun and lighthearted action movie about three sexy agents, it would have had an audience. If they'd made it a fun and empowering action movie about three female agents who don't have to be sexy, that likely would have found its audience too.

But when your remake has nothing to do with the thing its remaking, you risk alienating everyone. Returning audiences won't be interested in the new take and new audiences will think it's a shameless cash-grab.

Maybe Elizabeth Banks made an awesome competent action movie first and afterwards The studio executives with their meddling made her add some female empowerment scenes & dialogue. Maybe theres an original Banks-Cut & we can hold signs at comic-cons for the release of it. Release the Banks-Cut
---

I didn't even know Charlie's Angels came out this weekend. Only thing I ever saw advertisement for was Ford vs Ferrari.

Although I really have no interest in either movie, it says something that I atleast new the racing story one was out and not Charlie's Angels.

While I'm betting a lot of you are cord cutters, y'all are really downplaying ads about it.

The past 3 weeks have been hammering this, 21 Bridges and Doctor Sleep on most channels. I've actually seen less commercials about Dark Fate. The commercials actually make Kristen Stewart look really hot.

I first heard about this during a trailer with Endgame. I'll probably check it out since the audience score seems pretty good.


---

The 2000 remake made 40 mill on opening weekend.

And yea the only white CA looks like a crack addict feminist looking for her next score.

---

The marketing for the movie was s*** too. Didn't even know it came out this weekend
---

i'm curious to see if the companies exploiting real causes and "wokeness" to profit off the audience double down so they don't look like hypocrites if they decide to do a complete 180 and go back to the manipulative corporate greed persona they've always had in the eyes of the people despite knowing that keeping up with the current schtick makes them significantly less money

in either scenario the big corporations shoot themselves in the foot and there's more money to go around in the hands of the people so fuck 'em

Studies have shown for decades that the majority of movie-going women today are simply not as interested in the formula used for this movie. It's an action flick loaded with pro-girl power scenes. That can work....but only when it's balanced out with a proportionate amount of action and social elements. According to critics and viewers, that was not achieved. It's a quirky girl power action flick with little action...

Some women are still willing to buy tickets for something like that. The grand majority of men are not.

Basically what multiple studies found is in general men and women have different expectations when going to see a typical "action flick" in theaters. Too much action in between the social events within a movie begins to turns off a % of female viewers (they lose interest in finishing the story). In contrast, too much/many social "intermissions" in between action scenes begins to turn off a % of male viewers in the same way. If a consumer of any gender doesn't feel like seeing the ending of a movie, they're notably less likely to come back for a second viewing or bother telling their friends to buy tickets.

Bottom line: the beat-em-up action flick genre is not that popular with women compared to men. Some women like that stuff, but not enough to make it a box office smash. Many of these women also prefer to watch with friends including male cohorts and relationship partners. But when the guys are bored out of their minds watching content loaded with girl power, expect them to fall asleep or turn to their phones.
---

It looked about as good as the ones from the early 00's
---

BilalPowell posted...

I wish that it could be considered a failure if I only made 8 million dollars in 3 days.

It would if you invested way more than that.

---

plenty of women also like action movies
but many of us like them more with company

straight women are less likely to go see a movie like this if their male SO or friends are not interested

most of the trustworthy reviews are busting this flick for being advertised as an action movie when it barely has any action...

that's a turn off for BOTH men AND women
---

PopOutAtYoParty posted...

i'm curious to see if the companies exploiting real causes and "wokeness" to profit off the audience double down so they don't look like hypocrites if they decide to do a complete 180 and go back to the manipulative corporate greed persona they've always had in the eyes of the people despite knowing that keeping up with the current schtick makes them significantly less money

in either scenario the big corporations shoot themselves in the foot and there's more money to go around in the hands of the people so fuck 'em

Theres the new Ghostbusters coming out next year.

Instead of doing the right thing and doubling down on the all female ghostbusters Sony is going back to a male cast for the 2020 film.

Misogynist nerds win again. #MisogynistSony #BoycottSonyPictures #NotMyGhostbusters
---

iPhone_7 posted...

PopOutAtYoParty posted...

i'm curious to see if the companies exploiting real causes and "wokeness" to profit off the audience double down so they don't look like hypocrites if they decide to do a complete 180 and go back to the manipulative corporate greed persona they've always had in the eyes of the people despite knowing that keeping up with the current schtick makes them significantly less money

in either scenario the big corporations shoot themselves in the foot and there's more money to go around in the hands of the people so fuck 'em

Theres the new Ghostbusters coming out next year.

Instead of doing the right thing and doubling down on the all female ghostbusters Sony is going back to a male cast for the 2020 film.

Misogynist nerds win again. #MisogynistSony #BoycottSonyPictures #NotMyGhostbusters

Lol Why would they continue to do something that doesn't make money?

I didnt even know it came out until i saw this topic.
---

The vocal minority of SJWs, who doesn't have enough money to go out of their houses, didn't go to see this crap. They decided to spend their time crying about Trump on twitter.

Purely posted...

Stewart stars with two actresses no one knows anything about. Im sure theyre lovely but I dont know their names and you dont either.

What? People dont know Elizabeth Banks & Naomi Scott?

---

I have defend this movie not seemingly like "WOKE" movie.

However I do have to say the directer has said some pretty messed up things. For example

if this movie flops it proves the stereotype that men won't go see women in action movies .

---

another way to look at this is that the growing trend of streaming services producing their own films (some of which are actually good) may not be killing the huge-name blockbuster films (ie, marvel/disney properties) but it is killing the second-tier movies without the massive ad budgets of the blockbuster films

might not be related to the nature of the content at all.
---

Who is it for though? Charlie's Angels is a 70's show. The old movies were made around when 70's nostalgia was pretty big or at least still significant culturally. Now though?
---

Southernfatman posted...

The old movies were made around when 70's nostalgia was pretty big or at least still significant culturally.

You mean 2000 and 2003?

---

Sackgurl posted...

another way to look at this is that the growing trend of streaming services producing their own films (some of which are actually good) may not be killing the huge-name blockbuster films (ie, marvel/disney properties) but it is killing the second-tier movies without the massive ad budgets of the blockbuster films

might not be related to the nature of the content at all.

Truuuuuu

CyricZ posted...

You mean 2000 and 2003?

Yeah, when people who were young during the 70's were in their 20's and 30's and the current nostalgia trend was aimed at them like how the 90's are aimed at 20-30 year olds now.
---

Southernfatman posted...

CyricZ posted...

You mean 2000 and 2003?

Yeah, when people who were young during the 70's were in their 20's and 30's and the current nostalgia trend was aimed at them like how the 90's are aimed at 20-30 year olds now.

Very true. We were getting comedies based around Starsky and Hutch, Get Smart and The Brady Bunch (though the Brady comedies were mostly in the 90s). Those movies wouldn't get greenlit today because the people that remember and have nostalgia for them are too old. They're people in their 50s and sixties, and no studio in their right mind would treat them as a target audience.
---

Skye Reynolds posted...

Honestly, I almost wonder why they bothered calling it Charlie's Angels. You could have just made a movie about a team of female agents. It's like somebody was offended that they were called "angels," or that a guy was the boss, or that there was an emphasis on beauty.

It's no skin off my nose. I never saw the original series and I wasn't a big fan of the 2000s movies. But it seems a bit odd to to make such changes to a preexisting property instead of creating a new one.

Name recognition.
They want to make a new movie but use name of an old ip to boost interest even if the new movie they want to make has nothing to do with old ip.

I would totally see a Tarrintino- Charlie's Angels movie.
---

BilalPowell posted...

I wish that it could be considered a failure if I only made 8 million dollars in 3 days.

I mean if you put in 50+ million or whatever it cost to make the movie and only make 8 million in 3 days, and want that... Sure. Give me the 50 million and I can give you back 8.
---

Supposedly the trailer reeked too much of "wokeness" and a lot of movie-goers (both men and women) said nope before it even hit theaters.

Yes, folks. There's even modern women ages 18-40 now who are turned off by what this movie tried to be. And, no, they're not all conservative/republican lmao. Some older women were actually looking forward to a reboot of a classic series, but what they got was boring as fuck...
---

OpenlyGator posted...

Supposedly the trailer reeked too much of "wokeness" and a lot of movie-goers (both men and women) said nope before it even hit theaters.

Yes, folks. There's even modern women ages 18-40 now who are turned off by what this movie tried to be. And, no, they're not all conservative/republican lmao. Some older women were actually looking forward to a reboot of a classic series, but what they got was boring as fuck...

"Supposedly"?

Watch the trailer and try saying that. There was nothing really woke about it. It's just normal female empowerment.
---

AsucaHayashi posted...

Purely posted...

Stewart stars with two actresses no one knows anything about. Im sure theyre lovely but I dont know their names and you dont either.

this is a pretty bad take since one of them is the new jasmine

Is it really though? You just called her the new Jasmine. Do you know her name, or did you just call her new Jasmine because you dont think many would recognize her name? Either way it kind of proves the point of the part you quoted.
---

darkphoenix181 posted...

Skye Reynolds posted...

Honestly, I almost wonder why they bothered calling it Charlie's Angels. You could have just made a movie about a team of female agents. It's like somebody was offended that they were called "angels," or that a guy was the boss, or that there was an emphasis on beauty.

It's no skin off my nose. I never saw the original series and I wasn't a big fan of the 2000s movies. But it seems a bit odd to to make such changes to a preexisting property instead of creating a new one.

Name recognition.
They want to make a new movie but use name of an old ip to boost interest even if the new movie they want to make has nothing to do with old ip.

And because people are aware of this, audiences tend to avoid such movies. You can't just write an original story about a discharged police detective on the run from corrupt cops and call it Dirty Harry. People are too wise to the game to fall for that kinda stuff anymore. If your original property needs a familiar name from an unrelated property to carry it, people know it's not that good.

If it had been called something other than Charlie's Angels, it might've had a fighting chance. But calling it Charlie's Angels when it's clearly not is a sure sign that they're sitting on a film that's decent at best.

codey posted...

"Supposedly"?

Watch the trailer and try saying that. There was nothing really woke about it. It's just normal female empowerment.

Yeah some women are tired of that too.

So this movie made 8 million dollars and Elizabeth Banks is mad that men didn't go see it? What about the women that didn't go and see it? If there is a new movie that comes out that my wife wants to see and I don't, she usually goes with her mom or her friends...

I didn't even know this movie existed
---

Naomi Scott is so gorgeous.

---

The reboot from 2000 didn't get the greatest reviews but still made 40 million opening weekend(on a 90 million budget and went on to make 250 million worldwide). It starred Cameron Diaz, Drew Barrymore, and Lucy Liu. All 3 actresses were very well known actresses at the time and had a very distinct look from each other.

I don't think this new reboot of the reboot was something that people really cared about being made.

The "woke" branding of the movie was not entirely from the critics either.

If you look up articles from the past few months, you'll find promotional quotes from Elizabeth Banks and Kristen Stewart attaching the label to the flick themselves...

crowkillers posted...

The reboot from 2000 didn't get the greatest reviews but still made 40 million opening weekend(on a 90 million budget and went on to make 250 million worldwide). It starred Cameron Diaz, Drew Barrymore, and Lucy Liu. All 3 actresses were very well known actresses at the time and had a very distinct look from each other.

They were also well known sex symbols at the time. Which meant women had an easier time convincing their men to tag along, adequately increasing the movie's market.
---

ThePrinceFish posted...

RdVEHfJqAvUPIbk posted...

cjsdowg posted...

What makes this more woke then first one ?

TWO of the Angels aren't fully white.
The first one only had ONE.

Or something

Right, it's not the cringy dialogue where an ever so evil man tells one of the Angels to smile. Or the feminist lectures about how women are treated invisibly in society and subjected to low expectations. Real action movie stuff there.

It's your bullshit strawman that nobody is complaining about.

So you went and saw it then?
---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGSOJlW59wY

There's a scene with two kids mashing buttons while FF8 is on the TV

---

crowkillers posted...

So this movie made 8 million dollars and Elizabeth Banks is mad that men didn't go see it? What about the women that didn't go and see it? If there is a new movie that comes out that my wife wants to see and I don't, she usually goes with her mom or her friends...

thats actually a really good point

Elizabeth Banks said in an interview that comic book movies were a "male genre" basically implying that superhero female leads are not really groundbreaking when it comes to representing women since they're predominatedly crafted to cater to male audiences (ie: Wonder Woman)

she went on to say that the whole Charlie's Angel series was a "female genre" and therefore deserved more consumer support for the sake of female representation

but if thats a female genre like she said than it would be mainly on women to support the film
if you haven't checked, that didn't happen...

im lez af with plenty of girlfriends who are all about girl power, but none of us wanted to see this
yet Banks was all about dumpin blame exclusively on men lol
---