Jump to content

sfran43

Weekend Thread: FvF vroooms past 30M+; Say Goodnight Angels with 8M for CA; Waves washes up 37k+ PTA

Recommended Posts



7 minutes ago, CoolioD1 said:

the reviews surprised me for sure. if there's a fun movie in there the trailers have done an excellent job of hiding it.

Yea I thought it was going to get panned based on trailers/marketing. I’ll admit I was shocked it got good reviews. Seems like studios don’t know how to market these kinds of movies or something? 

 

9 minutes ago, Alli said:

Should i state the obvious...why Charlie failed? everyone is thinking it...

 

Most people think KStweart acting sucks. This flop is on her. Even Tomb Rider with unknown Alicia Vikander opened with 23M. People simply dislike KStweart as an actress, especially when she's supposed to play a charismatic lead.

 

Critics try to prop her up, but people aren't buying it

I don’t think this falls on just Kristen Stewart’s shoulders....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That Good Liar number is just laughable, the latest of WB's fall bellyflops. Fortunately for them, it only cost $10M, with WB on the hook for 3/4 of that, so basically just a few days give or take of Jokah's profits.

 

Looked at in the aggregate, they're going to report a really nice 4th quarter, but when you parse out the details, it's shocking how many they've missed on.

 

Still thinking Richard Jewell has breakout potential for year end if it gets solid reviews.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



59 minutes ago, Alli said:

Charlie's Angels opened with 40M in 2000. That's star power

 

Yep, plus the brand was still relevant back then. It was 20 years after the TV show, but it had run in syndication for years so a lot of people knew it and were fond of it. In the 16-19 years since the last movies, there's been a failed TV reboot that was canceled after 4 episodes and is barely remembered, and the movies were a lifetime ago. The brand is meaningless to a lot of people. I realize it's not in the studios' makeup to let IP die...but they should have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Elizabeth Banks' vision of women-empowerment heaven plays more like a checklist of topics from the feminist discourse of the past few years than a coherent movie."

https://slate.com/culture/2019/11/charlies-angels-2019-movie-reboot-kristen-stewart.html

Review by Inkoo Kang, asian-american female, staff writer at Slate. Top critic on RT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



Floppage of these movies has nothihng to do with male/female cast. Action movies are not automatic hit. Ask Stallone (another tired franchise) and Will Smith (Gemini Man). Oh and mixed male/female leads didn't fare better either when it comes to dead franchises (MIB International). People won't see movies that look like wait-for-cable to support this or that political thing, nor they'll skip movies they want to see in order not to support a political thing. So I don't get lament over female-led action movies flopping. They are flopping like male-led ones when they don't look like something worth the price of the admission. I bet that, like DF, CA will have Tuesday jump for it isn't worth seeing for the full price. if you want gender equality than you have to accept that flops will happen because they happen on male side too. For every Rambo 9 flop there will be Terminator 9 or CA 9 flop. It's actually worse for Gemini Man. At least these dead franchises have "shouldn't have been made for franchise has been run into the ground already" excuse. What's GM's excuse? 

 

BTW, "Proper" Ghostbusters will flop like female version for franchise is deader than dead. Screencap this.

Edited by Valonqar
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



I dunno I'm sure the movie is fine, but the ads made Charlie's Angels look generic and forgettable, like a disposable action movie on Netflix or something. Doesn't help it's a brand I don't care about and actors I barely know, but it's hard to get invested in something that looks lame.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean, it's campy female detectives...with the right cast I think that can work anytime, regardless of if people even know what the tv series is. Had this starred Zendaya, Lili Reinhardt, Lupita, Emma Stone, JLaw, Emma Watson, Florence Pugh, Awkafina, it'd probably have been fine.  You could even keep KStew and just go bigger with the other two. 

 

But this was never going to sell with just KStew and two nobodies. And I do think Naomi Scott WILL be big eventually, but this was too soon to expect her to have any audience draw.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites



3 minutes ago, Eric Plus said:

I dunno I'm sure the movie is fine, but the ads made Charlie's Angels look generic and forgettable, like a disposable action movie on Netflix or something. Doesn't help it's a brand I don't care about and actors I barely know, but it's hard to get invested in something that looks lame.

This. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one cares for this brand. It didn't have star power to intrest people (unlike Hustlers that benfited from Lopez/Chu/etc as strippers). Previews looked generic. But the key is that brand was weak and nothing strengthened it (no stars, no creativity). Unlike John Wick. That was an original concept that intrigued people with wacky "Keanu takes revenge on the killers of his dog" premise and jaw dropping choreography. the rest is history. Or Lucy, another original concept that had a star, Scarlett, in a wacky "Drug explodes in Lucy's stomach and makes her super smart and capable for action" concept. 

Edited by Valonqar
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites



I have to question the premise that CA was a big franchise to begin with. Sony never completed the trilogy because the second movie didn't work. They tried to take it to TV but it didn't even last one season. They were smart to keep the budget low enough that it will probably break even at some point in the future. I also don't think casting bigger names would've helped all that much. There just aren't any actresses in that age range who have any track record of carrying movies. JLaw is probably the biggest name and her last two movies have disappointed/flopped. With her the movie would've cost $20 million more and probably earned $30 million more so you are back to where you started.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

CA trailers lacked conviction... offering mostly generic spy action with a bit of soapboxing on top. Not exactly a riveting combo. Unless you were a stan of the lead actors, the trailers offered very little urgency to hit the cinema.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites





10 minutes ago, Marathon said:

CA trailers lacked conviction... offering mostly generic spy action with a bit of soapboxing on top. Not exactly a riveting combo. Unless you were a stan of the lead actors, the trailers offered very little urgency to hit the cinema.

 

10 minutes ago, TheUndertaker said:

According to Deadline/PostTrak, Females over 25 gave Charlie's Angels a 63% grade while Males over 25 gave it 70%.

:Gaga:

 

Ladies proved smarter than gents again. :bravo:

Edited by Valonqar
  • Haha 2
  • Astonished 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites





~40m in new openers, 70m for holdovers, 110m total.

Next weekend 60m holdovers, 130-150 for Frozen and another 25-30 for the other two, $215-240m total.

 

Biggest pre-thanksgiving weekends:

2009: $258m

2011: $222m

2012: $250m

2013: $226m

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



1 minute ago, Napoleon said:

I would wait for the holds in the coming days before declaring Charlie's Angels anything, word of mouth seems pretty good, and the budget is under $50 million.

i think ive heard this from you about Dark Fate and Doctor Sleep too. lol

 

if it flops OW, it will have a hard time recovering

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites





1 hour ago, KC7 said:

Yep, plus the brand was still relevant back then. It was 20 years after the TV show, but it had run in syndication for years so a lot of people knew it and were fond of it. In the 16-19 years since the last movies, there's been a failed TV reboot that was canceled after 4 episodes and is barely remembered, and the movies were a lifetime ago. The brand is meaningless to a lot of people. I realize it's not in the studios' makeup to let IP die...but they should have.

 

This is what went wrong. Not sure it's a big mystery. Charlie's Angels means jack to people in 2019.

Link to comment
Share on other sites





  • 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.