H-Virus
Hank Scorpio
A Real Contagious Experience
Posts: 5,962
|
Post by H-Virus on Nov 18, 2019 22:41:54 GMT -5
That's inaccurate. I didn't have a stopwatch handy, but there's plenty of chases, gunplay, fistfights, and at least one explosion. No vampires, though. No vampires 0/10 movie
|
|
|
Post by DSR on Nov 18, 2019 22:59:47 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by SHAKEMASTER TV9 is Don Knotts on Nov 18, 2019 23:27:46 GMT -5
Maybe with how people wanted 22 Jump Street to crossover with Men in Black, Banks should have had her Pitch Perfect Bellas join the Charlie’s Angels universe Townsend Agency. At least it would have encouraged that fanbase to watch this movie.
In her comparisons to Spider-man, Banks maybe should realize people are really passionate about Spider-man. Raimi is a comic book fan with an adoration for the Ditko/Lee Spidey era, Andrew Garfield dressed up as Spider-man at San Diego Comic Con to tell fans his childhood dream to play Spider-man. Does Banks really care about the Charlie's Angels franchise other than Sony was going to do a movie anyway so she might as well take it? Even looking at other recent reboots like A Star is Born, whether you liked that movie or not, it was obvious to me that this was a story that Bradley Cooper really wanted to tell.
|
|
Welfare Willis
Crow T. Robot
Pornomancer 555-BONE FDIC Bonsured
Game Center CX Kacho on!
Posts: 44,259
|
Post by Welfare Willis on Nov 18, 2019 23:42:08 GMT -5
Like the variety article said:
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 19, 2019 1:58:47 GMT -5
Like the variety article said: Dr. Sleep was fantastic and was actually based on a book King wrote himself. Terminator: Dark Fate was fine but Genesis killed the franchise. Helms and Thompson’s chemistry couldn’t save the soulless MIB 4. Nobody asked for another Shaft movie. Charlie’s Angels just didn’t look that interesting. In the next month. Frozen 2, Jumanji 3, and Star Wars 9 will all make a killing at the box office. People do want to see sequels and remakes, but to be honest they just want to see good movies.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 19, 2019 11:31:03 GMT -5
Diaz, Liu and Barrymore will always be Charlie’s Angels to me. Yup, I enjoyed those ones...but the new one bombed because Elizabeth Banks wants to blame the fact that men don’t go to see women led action flicks. Bull. f***ing. Shit. I’ve bought tickets to plenty of women led action flicks...I just had no interest in this. I had no interest in the Ghostbusters reboot. Totally went to Tomb Raider and Captain Marvel though. Any film that’s entire purpose is “Hey look! Support this! #EQUALITY” is always sure to suck. I support equality but nobody likes shit being rubbed in their face. That’s why films like Wonder Woman, Hunger Games, etc appeal more to me. It has a female lead and it isn’t rubbing any PC propaganda in your face. It’s no surprise that Charlie’s Angels bombed. I don’t think I’ve ever heard a mention of it without their being some sort of “PC driven” equality talk behind it.
|
|
agent817
Fry's dog Seymour
Doesn't Know Whose Ring It Is
Posts: 21,230
|
Post by agent817 on Nov 19, 2019 12:06:08 GMT -5
The point of lack of marketable star power is a pretty good one. Like a film doesn’t need stars to be a financial success(see Get Out for an example), but if it doesn’t have actors they can market, it needs to be really damn good to put asses in seats. Let’s compare Charlie’s Angels with another mid-tier budget film releasing this month, Knives Out. I don’t know if this movie will do well either, but I at least know it exists thanks to its quite frankly jaw dropping cast list that I am stunned they were able to manage to wrangle together and make a film with only a $40 million budget. Hit Girl mentioned something like this in the "Empowered Women" thread. She said something about how Kristen Stewart had alienated the Twilight fanbase because of stuff involving her past real-life relationship with Robert Pattinson. Personally, I didn't even know the details about it, because I choose to stay out of the personal lives of celebrities. Not to mention that part of Twilight's appeal was the hunky guys and pretty boys. I am not even going to go into the feminism angle here, because I am talking about the star power here. I just looked up Kristen Stewart's filmography and it appears that she hasn't had a hit since Breaking Dawn pt. 2. I think one of the last mainstream movies she was in was American Ultra, starring opposite Jesse Eisenberg, and even that wasn't a big hit. Between that time, she had appearing in mainly arthouse films, aside from that Halftime Walk movie, which I remember seeing trailers and hearing good things about it, but it still didn't do well. In that case, I wonder if the upcoming Underwater will suffer the same fate as she is in it, despite how interesting it looks (to me, anyway). As for the other two girls, I would have guessed that Naomi Scott would have garnered SOME appeal because of Aladdin and also the Power Rangers movie from 2017. Now I know the latter wasn't that successful either, but it did sell a lot of merchandise and it did have an audience. Sure, regular moviegoers were mixed about the reception of it, because of how it took a while to get to the action. But it does have its fans. I didn't know who the other girl was, but I didn't know who Lucy Liu was before the 2000 film came out, either. I get that Drew and Cameron were already well-known by that point, so they were the draws for that film. I am not going to pretend that it didn't do well just because I actually liked the recent film. However, when it comes to this "woke" trend and all of that, I just tend to view the movie at face value and just enjoy a movie for the entertainment and writing, not the propaganda.
|
|
|
Post by BorneAgain on Nov 19, 2019 12:19:32 GMT -5
From what I've seen of reviews this feels like a film that would have done better if it had just been a straight up comedy action film or as unconnected to the brand.
Charlie's Angels as a a franchise holds little value as an even somewhat serious movie to the public, given the tone and nature of the series as well as the early 2000s films. The latter embraced the comedy and sex appeal of the main actresses in the content/marketing to reasonably strong box office success. Now perhaps that's not an angle one wants to do in this day and age, but if that's the case why go with Charlie's Angels' at all then?
The IP, rather than making this a safer film to make, probably hindered things because fans of it that wanted a silly action romp with fanservice outfits tuned out once they saw the trailers and heard word of mouth. Those wanting a genuine kickass action film with a female lead/s probably have better options than one that's famously been campy from a director/writer with virtually no experience in the action genre, and actors that are either aren't A List (Naomi Scott, Ella Balinska) or are associated with very different kinds of movies (Kristen Stewart).
Between that and the studio seemingly giving up on heavy marketing a few weeks ago, it would have been a bigger surprise if it did do well.
|
|
Spider2024
Patti Mayonnaise
Dedicated 6,666th post to Irontyger
I believe in Joe Hendry.
Posts: 39,219
|
Post by Spider2024 on Nov 19, 2019 12:19:56 GMT -5
Yup, I enjoyed those ones...but the new one bombed because Elizabeth Banks wants to blame the fact that men don’t go to see women led action flicks. Bull. f***ing. Shit. I’ve bought tickets to plenty of women led action flicks...I just had no interest in this. I had no interest in the Ghostbusters reboot. Totally went to Tomb Raider and Captain Marvel though. Any film that’s entire purpose is “Hey look! Support this! #EQUALITY” is always sure to suck. I support equality but nobody likes shit being rubbed in their face. That’s why films like Wonder Woman, Hunger Games, etc appeal more to me. It has a female lead and it isn’t rubbing any PC propaganda in your face. It’s no surprise that Charlie’s Angels bombed. I don’t think I’ve ever heard a mention of it without their being some sort of “PC driven” equality talk behind it. "All-women adaptations of" things don't bother me, even if PC Equality is intentionally part of the goal. It's not like they (most of them anyway) go too far with it. It's not like this movie saw every male in the movie beaten up or every ballsack in the movie being kicked or kneed. ("Booksmart" is a great example of a good "rule 63" movie. It was basically "female Superbad" but at the same time wasn't "just for the females". And it was a really good movie. That certainly helps in every way. ) I maintain that most of the reason why Charlie's Angels 2K19 didn't really succeed was a combination of "reboot fatigue" (where way fewer people now are inclined to go see a movie just because it was a good IP once before now coming back) as well as... it feels like there wasn't that much advertisement for this movie at all. Not as much as the 2000 & 2002 movies got back then, and I even think the 2011 TV reboot got more ad attention than this one. Weird thing, "Don't Call Me Angel", the collab song with Ariana Grande/Miley Cyrus/Lana Del Rey, was on radio airplay for at least a month before I learned that it was a tie-in to a Charlie Angels movie. Twas also the same day I even knew there was a Charlie's Angels 2019 movie coming out.
|
|
|
Post by Wolf Hawkfield no1 NZ poster on Dec 13, 2019 14:24:18 GMT -5
At first I sort of felt sorry for Elizabeth Banks.
Well that is until she felt need to open her goddam mouth and have a massive crywank about men not going to see her shitty film.
She can f*** right off with her all of entitled bitching as her movie bombed because it sucked.
|
|
|
Post by James Fabiano on Dec 13, 2019 14:36:43 GMT -5
Hey, Elizabeth, if you're all for equality, why's Tammy Whammette not in any Whammy animations on the new Press Your Luck?
/Actually, they CUT her out of the jetski whammy...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2019 14:46:08 GMT -5
A month later this is the first I've even been made aware this movie had actually released.
|
|
|
Post by Cyno on Dec 13, 2019 15:42:58 GMT -5
The point of lack of marketable star power is a pretty good one. Like a film doesn’t need stars to be a financial success(see Get Out for an example), but if it doesn’t have actors they can market, it needs to be really damn good to put asses in seats. Let’s compare Charlie’s Angels with another mid-tier budget film releasing this month, Knives Out. I don’t know if this movie will do well either, but I at least know it exists thanks to its quite frankly jaw dropping cast list that I am stunned they were able to manage to wrangle together and make a film with only a $40 million budget. There was also a lot of word-of-mouth hype for Knives Out across internet spaces. Even though they didn't have much of any advertising budget, everyone seeing it loving it, from both critics and the moviegoing audience, did a lot do raise awareness of the movie to turn it into a pretty big hit ($131 million gross worldwide against a $40 million budget).
Charlie's Angels 2019, on the other hand, the general word-of-mouth about it didn't even exist until the movie was released. And that word of mouth was "this came out?" Also didn't help that critical response to the movie has been lukewarm at best.
|
|
salz4life
Grimlock
Prichard is a guy who gets that his job is to service his boss.
Posts: 13,967
|
Post by salz4life on Dec 13, 2019 17:09:55 GMT -5
A month later this is the first I've even been made aware this movie had actually released. This was the biggest of the problems. So many people had no clue this movie was being made. The ONLY reason I knew is I happened to see a preview when I was surfing movie trailers on YouTube one night awhile back. I don't remember seeing any commercials on TV. If Banks just b*tched about that, I would get behind her (even if I wouldn't have been interested in the movie regardless).
|
|
|
Post by Natural Born Farmer on Dec 13, 2019 21:46:35 GMT -5
They cast Kristen Stewart as the lead in a Charlie’s Angels remake. She’s a fine actress but not for this part. A blind man could have seen this coming.
Remember when Fury Road didn’t make “we’ve got strong female leads!” its primary selling point and was critically acclaimed and did gangbuster numbers? That was cool.
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Attack Tribble on Dec 13, 2019 21:53:57 GMT -5
Remember when Fury Road didn’t make “we’ve got strong female leads!” its primary selling point and was critically acclaimed and did gangbuster numbers? That was cool. Much as I love that movie, Fury Road lost money. It did really well on home release though, which is why we're getting a sequel.
|
|
|
Post by Natural Born Farmer on Dec 13, 2019 22:01:18 GMT -5
Remember when Fury Road didn’t make “we’ve got strong female leads!” its primary selling point and was critically acclaimed and did gangbuster numbers? That was cool. Much as I love that movie, Fury Road lost money. It did really well on home release though, which is why we're getting a sequel. I don’t want to say I don’t believe those numbers, but a significant loss when the film grossed more than twice its budget? Did they REALLY spend that much on ads?
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Attack Tribble on Dec 14, 2019 3:01:47 GMT -5
I don’t want to say I don’t believe those numbers, but a significant loss when the film grossed more than twice its budget? Did they REALLY spend that much on ads? The bigger share of the box office came from overseas, where the studio's cut is much lower. On average the studio only receives about 50% of the box office domestically, and anywhere between 30% and 50% overseas, varying from country to country and studio to studio. So, of the $378 million Fury Road took at the box office Warner Bros. only saw - at best - $189 million. It cost about $150 million to make, leaving a "profit" of $39 million; throw in the marketing cost (typically at least $50-60 million for a mid-range blockbuster) and the numbers Hollywood Reporter gave start to look about right.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2019 3:10:16 GMT -5
Really I can't remember there being much if any hype around Fury Road when it actually came out. Lot of praise a few months later, but at least from a personal perspective my general reaction was pretty much, "Okay, they made a new Mad Max. Whatever," and I really never saw anybody talking about it.
Kind of been meaning to watch it but never really been all that motivated to.
|
|
|
Post by DSR on Dec 14, 2019 3:28:29 GMT -5
I loved the hell out of Fury Road. Thought it was incredible from start to finish.
|
|