Jump to content
kayumanggi

CHARLIE'S ANGELS | 15 NOVEMBER 2019 | Sony | Elizabeth Banks directing. Kristen Stewart, Naomi Scott, Ella Balinska

Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, Napoleon said:

If it really makes over $120 million worldwide that's actually good for a $48 million budget. Will definitely be profitable.

Yeh that would definitely save face. 
 

Any chance of a sequel is already DOA though with this US performance. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

My local is dropping Last Christmas before this on Friday so I guess....that says something? I know LC came out the week before but given how low CA debuted to, and given the subject matter of LC, you'd think LC would outlive CA.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The actresss that played Effie Trinkkett  in The Hunger Games said men didn't ike to see women in action films and roles.

She did four of those.

:redcapes::apocalypse::insane::hahaha:

What is happening to these people, just a few years ago, they all mostly appear sane in their interviews and now they lost the plot or something ...

 

Edited by The Futurist
  • Thanks 1
  • ...wtf 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, The Futurist said:

The actresss that played Effie Trinkkett  in The Hunger Games said men didn't ike to see women in action films and roles.

No that not what she said, she talk about it being a stereotype among Hollywood executive, not talking about it being a reality or not and not about featuring about a woman in action, but a woman made movie.

 

If you look only at that part

'Look, people have to buy tickets to this movie, too,' she said in her interview. 'This movie has to make money. If this movie doesn't make money it reinforces a stereotype in Hollywood that men don't go see women do action movies.' 
 

In regards to female superhero films, Banks added, 'They'll go and see a comic book movie with Wonder Woman and Captain Marvel because that's a male genre.

 

Woman do actions movies isn't not woman happening to be on the screen or not, it is about the sensibility, type of story and so on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I watched this yesterday and it’s functional. Only Scott and Banks actually have a character arc, and the movie functions as an origin for Banks’ Bosley more than the Angels. It needed a big setpiece or something to promote in the trailer.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Barnack said:

No that not what she said, she talk about it being a stereotype among Hollywood executive, not talking about it being a reality or not and not about featuring about a woman in action, but a woman made movie.

 

If you look only at that part

'Look, people have to buy tickets to this movie, too,' she said in her interview. 'This movie has to make money. If this movie doesn't make money it reinforces a stereotype in Hollywood that men don't go see women do action movies.' 
 

In regards to female superhero films, Banks added, 'They'll go and see a comic book movie with Wonder Woman and Captain Marvel because that's a male genre.

 

Woman do actions movies isn't not woman happening to be on the screen or not, it is about the sensibility, type of story and so on.

Banks would make a great female joker, she knows the victim  playbook.

"It s the (male)( I won't use the P word) system, stupid ! Poor me (us, women) !"

 

I am amazed by the brainwashing of the last 10 years still.

Read any celeb interview today and you ll find all the same insane talking points normal people would have made fun of you until let s say, late 2000's ?

The crazies have become the normies.

And I blame social media for it.

Edited by The Futurist
  • Like 4
  • ...wtf 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

This did worse than Peppermint, a terrible movie staring a 46-year-old Jennifer Garner...an original action film led by a middle-aged woman. CHARLIE’S ANGELS did worse than that. That doesn’t speak to the industry, that speaks to the movie. Look at what made Jumanji work. It was also a reboot, yes, but it was a fresh take on the property, had a great and bankable cast, and appealing marketing. This had none of those. There are problems in the industry, sure, but don’t use that as a copout for your own failures.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the most absurd example I have ever seen of taking someone's word completely out of context. Elizabeth Banks was talking about how other people view the performance of female led action movies, and she gave the interview before the movie opened. Serious websites are spreading this fake news.

 

I guess that's what happens when the original interview is behind a paywall so no one can check the context? https://www.heraldsun.com.au/subscribe/news/1/?sourceCode=HSWEB_WRE170_a&dest=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.heraldsun.com.au%2Fentertainment%2Felizabeth-banks-charlies-angels-needs-to-be-a-box-office-smash%2Fnews-story%2F6734bbb011c524237b8bd58b54108531&memtype=anonymous&mode=premium

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would have actually loved a reboot of the 2000 CA cast with them getting pulled back into the life and maybe trying to juggle being middle-aged, maybe having a family, and still doing that kind of thing.  Honestly, that could have been funny. 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, TheUndertaker said:

It's already been reported that they spent 50 million on advertising. So no.

So maybe. Because you’re ignoring ancillary markets where this will probably find most of its audience. 
 

$120m worldwide for a $48m budgeted movie is good, especially one with only $50m P&A. That’s just the start of its run. 
 

(I can’t see $120m happening, but for the example) 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol at people pretending that Full Throttle wasn't disliked. Bringing back the 2000's Angels would lead to a bigger budget and it would still flop. What was needed was new buzzed about actresses and interesting visuals. I care about KStew but the public doesn't and the other actresses weren't at her level, even the Aladdin girl. 

  • Like 2
  • Not Cool 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, sabrecmc said:

I would have actually loved a reboot of the 2000 CA cast with them getting pulled back into the life and maybe trying to juggle being middle-aged, maybe having a family, and still doing that kind of thing.  Honestly, that could have been funny. 

Sounds like an SNL sketch. But hey, it probably would have still made more money. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Guidelines. Feel free to read our Privacy Policy as well.