How ‘Charlie’s Angels’ Fell From Grace At The Box Office With An $8M+ Opening

Deadline ^ | November 16, 2019 | Anthony D'Alessandro

[EdnaMode]

In the wake of Terminator: Dark Fate’s failure at the B.O., and Paramount’s recent decision to make Beverly Cops 4 for Netflix, we have the further breakdown of cinema IP in Sony’s Charlie’s Angels reboot, which is tanking with a God-awful $8.2M opening, 3 Stars on Screen Engine-Comscore’s PostTrak, and a B+ Cinemascore.

The Elizabeth Banks-directed-written and produced pic is also opening in 27 offshore markets, China being one where it’s also bombing, with a $6M two-day take in second place behind local title Somewhere Winter ($8.8M). All of this is primed to further spur a WTF reaction and anxiety among film development executives in town in regards to what the hell exactly works in this have-and-have-not era of the theatrical marketplace. Many will make the hasty generalization that old, dusty IP doesn’t work, or is now deemed too risky when it’s not a superhero project. However, moviemaking is an art, not a science, and annoying as it might sound, good movies float to the top, and this Charlie’s Angels reboot didn’t have the goods going back to its script.

[Karma_Sherab]

Licks finger to see which way the wind is blowing)

She should be paired in a movie with Cara Delevigne. She has the same acting ability, and a couple of caterpillars over her eyes.
I think she likes licking things too.

[GOPsterinMA]

This makes what, the 5th? 6th? remake/reboot?

The concept was interesting when it was new and fresh 40+ years ago. Now? It’s like trying to put an 8 track into a USB port - it doesn’t work for a multitude of reasons.

[Clemenza]

I only watched because as a toddler Jaclyn Smith gave me pleasant feelings that I didn’t yet understand.

[NFHale]

RE Remakes:

Not sure. But any “remake”, “reboot”, blahblahblah made recently is going to have every libtard cliche and socialist “justice” warrior talking point imaginable in it.

So in my estimation, they can keep their delusional trash; I won’t spend a dime on it.

[NFHale]

RE Pleasent Feelings:

Well, yes, I was a teen was that show was on. Jaclyn Smith and Farrah were amazingly appealing, attractive, and downright hottie.

I liked Suzanne Somers too, from that time period too; she had a body that was built to kill...

[BillyBoy]

Hollywood has gotten out of control with remakes/reboots/sequels. 90% of them are unnecessary. When it comes to remakes, there are really only TWO legitimate reasons to remake a movie:

1) The source material is very good and beloved, but the first adaptation of that material was terrible (e.g., I would not oppose a remake of Bonfire of the Vanities since the 1990 movie sucked and was horribly miscast)

2) The first adaptation of that movie was well received and popular at the time of its release, but has not aged well and is now completely gone from popular culture and doesn’t relate to modern audiences (e.g., I would not oppose a remake of Charlie Chan, if they cast an actual Asian actor and did a serious adaptation of the books)

One notable example of the kind of remake I can get behind is the upcoming remake of Dr. Dolittle starring Robert Downey Jr. (see the trailer here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEf412bSPLs)

I’m hoping to take my 4 year old nephew to see it in 2020. Supposedly it will be an rousing, epic adventure film/family film that is actually faithful to the Hugh Lofting books. The previous film adaptations (Rex Harrison in 1967 and Eddie Murphy in 1998) strayed VERY far from the books and were basically Dr. Dolittle In Name Only— ESPECIALLY the Eddie Murphy version!)

Examples of recent films that SHOULDN’T have been remade are a dime a dozen: Ghostbusters, Beauty and the Beast, Dumbo, The Lion King, Aladdin, Godzilla, The Mummy, Robocop, Tomb Raider, Robin Hood, A Star Is Born, How the Grinch Stole Christmas, Hellboy, The Addams Family, Child’s Play, Jacob’s Ladder, Charlie’s Angels... take your pick!

[fieldmarshaldj]

Not like I have much intention of watching it. It’s clearly a feminazi dumpster fire of political “wokeness” (sic). The earlier film reboot (with Drew Barrymore) was done as a breezy, action-adventure comedy, which is how most of this stuff should be treated. They won’t do that, because it ALL must be political and adhere to the sick and evil ideology they spew. Doesn’t matter if it loses $hittons of money.

Almost everything produced by Hollyweird today is political propaganda to rival anything the Soviets put out in their heyday. If anything, probably far, far worse. At least the Soviet stuff was “patriotic” to make the regime look good, this crap today is about undermining the culture and our administration.

[fieldmarshaldj]

I actually liked “Bonfire of the Vanities.” I’m amazed it got made at the time, tackling the racist, shake-down artists of the Je$$e Jack$on and Al $harpton ilk. Back when NYC was averaging over 2,000 murders a year.

[NFHale]

RE “The Mummy”

I saw the version with Tom Cruise; after watching it a second time, I came to see it as not so much a “remake” as a different story.

Same idea, yes, but it was different - like the old Boris Karloff Vs Christopher Lee versions.

RE Godzilla:
Loved the 1998 version; funny as hell, the special effects were great (my sonny boy lost his mind when he saw it - EVERYTHING was “Godzilla!!!” for Christmas that year...
The newer ones aren’t bad, they’re just too serious.

Robin Hood:
Errol Flynn, “Welcome to Sherwood”...Olivia DeHavilland... Basil Rathbone... Calude Rains... ‘Nuff said. The green tights, though... they needed to go. Hard to remake perfection...

[fieldmarshaldj]

I’d only watch the Cruise version of “The Mummy” because I have a crush on Sofia Boutella.

[NFHale]

She is extraordinary, indeed....

[LS]

Which is precisely why uber rich GOP like Foster Friess and Peter Thiel should be putting money into conservative filmmaking and programming, NOT wasting it fighting the rear guard of elections.

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks fieldmarshaldj.

[GOPJ]

Hollywood needs to hire writers who are NOT butt kissers of the white liberal ‘elites’ running Hollywood.

Hollywood’s been making movies for the 2% for a long time - and people are sick of being preached to
AND at by phony garbage ‘elites’...

[GOPJ]

If anything shows a modicum of success, the industry floods us with mimics and rehashes.

There's very little talent in Hollywood... lots of little creeps sitting on the shoulders of giants... What else can we expect out of white liberal garbage 'elites'?

[Jim Noble]

Get woke, go broke.

Check in with “The Last Jedi” and “Terminator 6”.

[BillyBoy]

Really? I've never seen it but it got scathing reviews at the time and everyone involved in the film says they regret getting involved in it. For example, the character of Peter Fallow the journalist (and narrator of the story) is supposed to be a pompous British muckraker reporter who despises all things American. The author pictured John Cleese in the role. The studio forced the director to cast Bruce Willis in the role anyway, because of his name ID from the Die Hard fame.

The original novel, on the other hand, is considered to the be the quintessential 1980s American story... much the same way that The Great Gatsby is considered to be the quintessential 1920s American story.

I wouldn't mind if they took another stab at adapting the book into a feature film.

[fieldmarshaldj]

I’ll admit I didn’t read the novel, so that would probably cause me to have a different opinion had I done so. I think the film was a time capsule of that late ‘80s/early ‘90s period of rapid decay and out-of-control crime in NYC. It would have to be dramatically reworked for today for it to have relevance (I’d rather tell the Ferguson, Missouri story from the perspective of the cop and make a sweeping indictment of the media/political class and debauched and corrupted Black “leadership” coming to the defense of a massive rampaging thug).

[BillyBoy]

>> Not like I have much intention of watching it. It’s clearly a feminazi dumpster fire of political “wokeness” (sic). <<

Some left-winger was whining about how all the "reviews" of the new Charlie's Angels on IMDB are from "Right wing trolls with an anti-feminist agenda who haven't even seen the movie".

I replied, "Gosh, you guys know how it felt when those of us trying to read LEGITIMATE reviews about the film Ender's Game only found angry rants from left-wingers who hadn't even seen movie, talking about how the movie "deserves to fail" because the author of the book is a "nasty homophobic bigot"

The difference, of course, is that Ender's Game is a critically acclaimed novel that had NEVER been adapted before, whereas Charlie's Angels is yet another remake of a cheesy 70s TV show that wasn't even very good to begin with.

And of course, the writers of the film version of Ender's Game weren't even aware of the author's views on homosexual marriage and had no intention of using the movie to 'sell' his views. The writers of the film version of Charlie's Angels, on the other hand, pretty much beat their third wave feminism views over the audience's head with a sledgehammer.

[fieldmarshaldj]

Even my left-wing rag of a paper gave it thumbs-down. They didn’t give it one star (two), but I can’t see how even left-wingers could find the film remotely enjoyable unless they are the most militant of wanting a strident political/feminazi diatribe for their entertainment.