New Charlie's Angels Movie
 

Sony has released the Trailer for the new Charlie's Angels Movie.

Oh, it's a movie? I thought this was going to be a new TV show.

The acting looks solid from everyone except for Kristen Stewart. The only movies I've seen with her where she's given a decent performance are Cafe Society and Adventureland.

They tried doing a TV series like 7-8 years ago. It got cancelled after like two episodes.

This actually looks like it might have potential.

I remember reading they are treating it like a shared universe with the McG ones. So Drew Barrymore, Lucy Liu, etc. might show up or cameo.

Yeah, The movie is a continuation of the classic TV Show, and the McG Movies.

“Banks brings Charlie’s Angels into the modern age with flair, all while unapologetically raising a feminist flag, championing female friendships and subtly making a point about the urgency of the ongoing climate crisis.” – Beandrea July, Hollywood Reporter

http://www.darkhorizons.com/new-char...eviews-are-in/

Oh dear.

I wonder, if someone writes a Bot, which will complicate reviews from SJW lingo, will anybody be able to tell the difference from human "writers"?

It's bombing:

http://www.darkhorizons.com/ford-top...at-box-office/

Ouchie.
Must be some female hating misogynists or horrible male directors and writers with limited imagination, right?
It's 2019 and it is impossible for an all female movie to fail without those two factors, right?

Did anyone expect this to do well? I mean seriously....

Some of these movies and reboots are like that strange store that pops up in a local outdoor plaza where you look at it and say to yourself "why did they bother, you know that store isn't going to be there in a year".

But it has a female writer and director... how can this be?

This sums it up pretty well:

https://www.worldofreel.com/blog/201...nwwr3nqj6gzb94

Seems to me that there should be a rule against rebooting a classic television show into a movie more than once.

I liked the part of the article which explained that you can't remove the "male gaze" aspect from "Charlie's Angels" and have it still be "Charlie's Angels". That's a gutsy thing to say in this current climate, true as it may definitely be.

I sincerely miss the 70s and 80s when it was just implicitly understood that objectifying good-looking people is simply a thing all people do, and that it's inherently okay as long as it doesn't cross the line into actual physical harassment and/or assault. "I just like looking at sexy people" isn't something anyone need to feel ashamed of or apologize for, and things that were created solely for the purposes of "safe" objectification don't need to be twisted into something greater than that just to make a statement about how much more "evolved" we've supposedly become recently.

Someday we'll breed the sex drive right out of us. Only then can we enter the second age of enlightenment.

It will be a glorious time. STDs will be replaced by lethal boredom.

I assume that Hollywood insisting on trying to make Melissa McCarthy a movie star is Step One in this nefarious plan? :lol:

Because every time I see her I can't get an erection for like four hours, unless I play that Salma Hyek "Candy Girl" scene from "Dogma" on a loop. That usually fixes it.

Whenever I think I might feel a sexual urge, I just clip my toenails. It's astonishingly bracing, really kills the mood. Ya can't think sinful thoughts while clipping your grungy feet daggers.

It's already happening, man. Take a look at current birthrates and marriages and so on. People are walking around single as hell everywhere and it's like society conditioned people right out of living a life with another person.

Which isn't a bad thing in the big picture, really. I just wish it wasn't coming about because people are afraid of lazy, loud-mouthed people with purple hair.

Isn't that at least 50% of this place?

Elizabeth Banks is a poor director and this should prove it as this movie bombed in theaters as no one cares about the CA franchise anymore, sure the show was a hit in the 70s and the movie was a hit but the sequel got diminishing returns and so did the attempted reboot series and this movie tanked in theaters.

It's dead.

Eh, that's going to be the narrative, for sure, same as with Terminator. But that's not really anything about anything. It wasn't like the Charlie's Angels fandom from the 70s funded the Drew Barrymore incarnation... those movies made money because they appealed to everybody and had likable stars with slick trailers.

Dude, that's impossible, she's a woman. Stop trying to keep female directors down!!!

There are good female directors like Kathern Bigelow, but Banks is not one of them.

Or Sofia Coppola, or Patty Jenkins. You know, directors just interested in making a really great movie and not using the movie to Trojan Horse their agenda.

Kind of reminds me the "big upset" when "Booksmart" failed, from "director and activist" Olivia Wilde. On the surface it was disguised as a smart, funny female version of "Superbad"... but inside lurked pure SWJ drivel. And people had some notion of that.

---

Director Elizabeth Banks on why this movie failed: "men don't see women action movies":

https://www.indiewire.com/2019/11/el...an-1202190283/

In the end, those idiots do understand that the movie failed because it sucked, not because of some "men". They will hold this L for the rest of their lives, no matter ideology.

Lmao I don't know what men they're talking to.

Let's wait and see about Patty Jenkins. "Wonder Woman" could have been a fluke. By all accounts, the sequel is a godawful mess that they're trying to scotch-tape in post-production into something salvageable.

That could be her fault OR the fault of WB "Corporate" (99% likely), but either way, it'll be a black mark on her record if it's lousy. Nobody's gonna blame WB, even though they should.

But yeah, we'll see.

True! There is all the hubbub about how WW 1984 is going to "take the fight to the White House." I can only imagine what sort of "bold" political statement that's going to be these days.

Could be Jenkins used WW to get the platform and the studio trust... and now she can step up to the pulpit to start the agenda stuff.

I don't know. I kinda feel like Jenkins herself is mostly innocent and it's the studio pushing hard to give people what they think they want. That's just the vibe I get.

I'm obviously concerned about the political stuff, sure, but I'm MORE concerned with the fact that it's apparently solid camp and hell-bent on being over-the-top silly. It's looking like the sequel is going to be everything that the first movie wasn't... And NOT in any good way. But I kinda can't help but feel like Jenkins is just following orders to keep her job.

"Monster" was good but I think that's about all she's done otherwise.

What a deluded, insufferable piece of work. Seems like she 's in the right industry at least. :lol:

I'm not sure she's altogether wrong, though. At least, there's a tangible kernel of truth in what she's saying. Especially about how movies like Wonder Woman are still in the "Boys' Box" of toys despite being ostensibly female-centric. Although that's in itself a much more complicated issue.

The thing is... as loathe as people are to admit it nowadays, Men and Women are very different, and they like different things. That USED to be okay, but in the current climate of "tearing down walls" we're seeing how deeply-ingrained those differences really are. It's been pointed out, for example, how the movie "Booksmart" failed, despite being a "feminist version of Superbad", but not a lot has been said about the fact that... well... females generally don't like those kinds of movies, and don't pay to see them. Same thing here; they tried to reboot Charlie's Angels as a "feminist action movie", despite the fact that, statistically, MOST women don't like action movies in the first place. And NOT because they mostly star men, but because most women simply find them stupid. Same reason why men by and large hate rom-coms and dramatic stuff like "Legends of the Fall". It's not as easy to "re-wire" people as Hollywood and the liberal media seem to think. Women aren't overwhelmingly going to start paying to see action films just because they're more apt to have a female protagonist, any more than men are inclined to go see drama films starring Will Smith just because he's a Big Action Star most of the time.

As for "Men not wanting to see female action protagonists", well... I think there's some truth to that, as well. For one thing, there IS something subliminally emasculating about being a guy watching a woman do things that the guy "should", but can't or won't do. Consider the average Action Movie Fan; typically a sports-obsessed "dudebro" type, a "beer and hot wings" kinda guy who fancies themselves a "Tough Guy" but probably hasn't been to the gym in a while, if ever. They can't climb a rope, but they're expected to sit still for two hours and watch someone who looks like their little sister "save the world" and do all kinds of "bad-ass" things. They're either going to be put off by it because of their own insecurities, OR simply not find it believable that someone who looks like Kristen Stewart could even do a push-up, let alone anything more demanding. And that's a fair point, as well; most "female action stars" certainly don't look the part, which breaks the suspension of disbelief.

It's easy to dismiss Banks's statements are sour grapes, and there's definitely some of that, but I also don't think she's entirely wrong. I think Men and Women are wired to enjoy different things most of the time and that the cross-over is practically nil. YES, I know I'm going to be "corrected" by a couple of females who think "The Expendables" was a classic, or by some dudes who loved "The Notebook" or "You've Got Mail", but I would ask those people to accept that by and large they are the Exception and NOT The Rule.

Most stereotypes exist for a reason; "Men don't pay to see women protagonists" and "Women don't pay to see action movies" are two longstanding and time-tested movie stereotypes that aren't going away overnight, if ever. I'm actually inclined to agree that "Wonder Woman" and "Captain Marvel" were successful because they piggybacked on bigger, more male-centric "brands". I certainly know plenty of women who skipped one or both of those movies, simply because "I don't like those kinds of movies." The fact that they starred women was not in and of itself enough to entice them. It probably won't ever be enough.

Because Men and Women are just plain different, and that used to be okay. They're trying to shift everything into some kind of "gender-neutral", "one-size-fits-all" approach nowadays, but it simply doesn't work because it alienates both men and women for completely different reasons.

I think it can be boiled down pretty simply. The movie made 8 million dollars in weekend #1, right? Elizabeth Banks says that men don't see female action movies... so I guess that must mean that she thinks that 8 million is only female audiences, right? Mostly, at least?

OK, so let's assume she's 100% right. That 8 million dollars just came from female audiences. But now let's pretend we went back in time to this past weekend and somehow the SAME number of men also showed up to see the movie. Now that puts it at 16 million... which is still a catastrophic and fatal box office on the back of a movie that cost 50 million.

So wtf is she even talking about? She made a bad movie that nobody wanted to see. Not males, not females, not anybody.

That's a fair point and definitely says a lot. Ultimately, with numbers that low, the biggest lesson is, they simply didn't make something that was compelling for any audience. Terminator, same thing. It's one thing if "Men didn't wanna see a movie", or "Women didn't wanna see a movie", but to draw such low numbers, it means "NOBODY wanted to see this movie", and that's the bottom line.

I mean, one could make a long list of failures, as far as this thing goes. Things like...
- Even the previous Angels movie series was a tongue-in-cheek nostalgia-grab driven entirely by T&A and 'Splosions
- Even the previous films had people rolling their eyes at such a dated and paper-thin premise being revived as a feature film several decades past the point of its relevance
- The previous series had Actual Movie Stars
- The stars of the previous film series were actually pretty hot
- "Hot chicks doing bad kung-fu in tight outfits while their male boss sits back laughing at how these Sexy Hens do all his dirty work" is 100% the entire point of Charlie's Angels
- This reboot tried to subvert that fundamental truth in an effort to be "woke", thus alienating the very small number of people who might otherwise have given a sh*t
- Kristen Stewart is box office poison
- Kristen Stewart is "cute" but could also physically pass for a very sensitive teenage boy, which is not what the typical paying audience for an action movie wants to see
- Nobody knows who the other two chicks are
- Women directors historically struggle to competently direct action films in the first place, for any number of reasons
- The entire franchise is completely of its time and better left in the 70s.

That last one might in fact be the biggest one. I mean, they could have done any number of things differently - We'll never know how the same basic premise could have gone if it had starred Scarlett Johansson, Zazie Beets, and Brie Larson, for example - but c'mon, was anyone asking for a "Charlie's Angels" reboot in 2019 in the first place?

I'm quite sure that a lot of these things fail for no reason beyond, Nobody asked for or wanted them to begin with. "Baywatch" reboot bombs. "Who asked for this?" "Robocop" remake bombs. "Who asked for this?" And so on. Maybe studios should stop assuming that people will show up just because they slap a name people remember on top of whatever script they have lying in a drawer. Doesn't seem to work.

It was fun here. I just replied to Waltz. Guess i'll be seeing you all.

I don't think you said anything ban-worthy there. Seemed cordial enough.

Yeah, if anything it's far, FAR more likely that Mr. Waltz never replies or posts again, and then goes elsewhere and publicly decries the forum as a "cesspool of toxic negativity and fanboy gatekeeping". At which point, you'll inevitably be scolded by several members for "chasing off the TMNT staff" because talking to them makes certain members feel "important".

That's historically how these things have gone. Members don't get Banned, but the TMNT creators, historically, cannot handle being challenged and don't take it well when people refuse to kiss up to them. They can deny that's what they come here for, but... to some level, it IS what they come here for. They at least half-expect to be hero-worshiped, and they completely blow a fuse whenever anyone goes "off-script". Comic people, movie people, cartoon people... they show up expecting everyone here to gush, and when even ONE person doesn't, they bolt, grumbling all the while about what a bunch of jaded asshole crybabies we are. Even if 99% of the people they interact with do indeed kiss up to them like good little consumer cattle. It only takes one.

But no, you probably won't get in trouble. Some people just might be annoyed that you had the audacity to back-talk someone "With Authority" over some part of the franchise.

Oh, ridiculous. Look at the last remake staring Drew Barrymore, I'm pretty sure that one was a hit. It just depends on its done.

True. And the sequel to it was done poorly, and so that was received poorly. The math seems simple.

Drew Barrymore and Cameron Diaz were still box office fire at that point, though, and Lucy Liu was pretty much at her "peak" of relevance. Each one of them was cover modeling on many, many men's magazines like Maxim during that time period, doing bikini shoots and whatnot. Every day.

It was a totally different situation and cultural climate. The first Angels movie did alright because 1. They knew who their audience was, 2. They pandered shamelessly to that audience, and 3. They cast Actual Movie Stars who were considered, at that time, to be among the sexiest women in Hollywood. It didn't have to be a "good movie" - and it wasn't, it was terrible - because people who might be interested knew exactly what they were getting. They aimed very low and delivered what that audience wanted.

The sequel bombed because everyone had entirely gotten their fill of that brand of cheesecake from the first one, and it simply wasn't good enough to necessitate any further films. "I already saw the last one, why do I need to watch the same movie again?" T&A and 'Splosions might draw a crowd the first time, but not more than once. It's simply not the kinda thing that could ever be a sustainable "franchise".

This one... eh. Nobody with a penis has ever paid to see Kristen Stewart in anything, ever, nor has any female over the age of 15 paid to see her, either. She's simply not a good actress, nor is she attractive enough to cover up the fact that she can't act. It's either one or the other, you're either a Kathy Bates or Jennifer Aniston type. Kristen Stewart is simply the, "I get work by banging the married director" type, and that simply won't take a person very far. And again, nobody knows who the other chicks are. That won't draw a crowd.

In brief, the first film reboot had three of the hottest female stars in Hollywood at the height of their "Look At My Ass!" super-powers. The new one has one "star" who can't sell a movie, and two nobodies. It's just not even feasible how they thought this thing would make a dime. There's just no audience for it, and no reason for anyone to care about it.