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?