Posted on 11/16/2019 9:18:49 AM PST by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at deadline.com ...
“At the end of the movie it turns out “Charlie” is really a woman all along using a male voice.”
Are you kidding?
zero, none at all... or any other kind either
The previews are awful.
She produced the Pitch Perfect series of girl group a capella movies, directed two of them, and played the female commentator in all of them.
-P
Elizabeth Banks is a babe. Maybe that’s all you can say.
Hollywood writers write from the vantage point of creepy burned-out ‘elites’... No matter what they put on paper or how they dress down the characters they’re still creepy burned-out phony elites.
Until the writers can figure out the vantage points of
the rest of us their films will be crap.
Their films will only appeal to their fellow creepy ‘elites’. (translation: the films won’t make any money - and since most of these guys can’t do ‘art’ - - the films become ‘crap that doesn’t sell)
HOLLYWOOD: Hey, wanna see ANOTHER remake of Charlie’s Angels? EXCITING, RIGHT?!
AUDIENCES: Again? Didn’t you JUST remake it in 2011? No thanks.
HOLLYWOOD: But it’s gonna be a BIG BUDGET MOVIE this time!!!! GREENLIT!!!!
AUDIENCES: Ummmm... yeah you already did that too, with Cameron Diaz, Drew Barrymore, and Lucy Liu. And that in the 2000s as well. Please stop.
HOLLYWOOD: But this time we got SIR PATRICK STEWART as BOSLEY!!! NOW you’re psyched for the movie, YESSSSSS???
AUDIENCES: Look, the ONLY reason people even watched the original 70s version was Farrah Fawcett. Got it? The concept wasn’t even that interesting to begin with. Stop wasting Patrick Stewart’s talent on trash like this.
HOLLYWOOD: But THIS version is gonna be all modern and hip and feminist enpowering and inspire young girls to—
AUDIENCES: SHUT UP ALREADY!!!!
Since gender-swapped remakes are the big-budget rage, maybe it would have done better with 3 men as “angels”.
A lot of much better porn is available currently. It doesn't even rate today.
You mean guys that identify as female or just your run of the mill tranny?
I remember watching the original TV series. .....just for the articles though :-D
I’m sure they could have found plenty of guys who would love to play a Charlie’s Angel.
My guess is that Hollywood has lost any sense of creativity. Enough with the remakes, in most cases you shouldn’t fool with the originals.
As BO openings dwindle, I wonder when the influencers will consent to simultaneous cinema & streaming openings. Of late there have been many movies I’d have bought full-price outright on release day - but they weren’t available, and I’ll not enter a cinema any more. Thanks to delay between cinema vs streaming release, I may as well wait a bit longer and get it cheaper (while watching what I likewise waited for, cheaper).
3D is the only remaining reason for paying for a cinema showing, and the only really compelling (considering >$30 one viewing vs <$20 owning) 3D titles were Avatar, Beowulf, and Christmas Carol.
They have decided to remake a bunch of movies with women in the men's roles. I see no reason why they should not remake Charlie's Angels with hunky straight guys.
But I think it's more than that.
First, there is very little I'm interested in seeing in a theater. It's not even my disgust at Hollywood's politics. Every big new release seems to be derived from a comic book, or, as you point out, a retread. I know this isn't exactly a fresh take on a new movie, but it's relevant to the discussion... was there really any need to remake True Grit?
Second, it's the expense. Not just the ticket price. Popcorn and a drink? Junior Mints? It's worse than theme park pricing.
Finally, it's the behavior of the movie-going public. Cell phones, people carrying on conversations at full voice, that sort of thing. Somewhere we as a society lost a sense of plain old common courtesy, the virtue of respecting others.
I'm trying to think of the last time I ventured to a movie theater, and I think it was to watch Zero Dark Thirty. It's been that long, and I don't miss it.
Of course, maybe things have changed since my last visit to a movie theater. Someone will have to advise me of that.
Hollywood will continue to produce flops as long as the place is controlled by gays and bitter feminists, because neither has any idea of what would connect with mainstream audiences.
They coasted on momentum as long as they could recycle old stuff that worked, and superhero movies, but even that well has gone dry.
“Are you kidding?”
No, spoiler alert.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.