What happened to the new Charlie’s angels? Or is this another one of those “girls stink unless they’re from my generation where movies were cool” things?
Out of nearly 18,000 ratings on imdb the movie has a 4.2/10 rating.
According to Elizabeth banks the reason for it failing was because men don't want to see females in action movies, and nevermind the fact that this has been proven to be incorrect time and again.
.
It's all the mens' fault. Though I think we're also conveniently ignoring the fact that the movie failed to draw a female audience, either. I'm sure men are to blame for that, too.
Ive never seen the original so I wasn’t super interested, but it didn’t seem bad from the previews. There were just a lot of great things to go see lately
Some people that don't have a weird grudge against men have suggested that other things may have been a factor in people disliking the movie, such as:
.
-it's a reboot of a franchise no one has any interest in anymore
.
-it stars an actress notoriously disliked for her inability to have more than one facial expression
.
-they (apparently - I'm citing reviews I've seen) removed most of the "sexiness" and/or "lightheartedness" that were what drew audiences to the original Charlies angels in the first place
.
-Elizabeth Banks was a writer, producer, and star in the movie (so mayhaps she was too close to the project to see where it was going wrong)
.
-the plot was lackluster and pointless
.
-the writing was not good
.
As it stands, I hadn't ever heard the rumour that denying responsibility and simultaneously insulting a large percentage of your target audience was a GOOD marketing strategy, but a lot of Hollywood people seem to be doubling down on it lately
Well, that’s sad. I think they should be busy making new roles/films for female leads that aren’t necessarily “she’s a girl and she does girl things” or “she’s a girl and does guy things RESPECT HER, COWARDS”.
.
Also don't you go putting the new Charlies Angels anywhere near the likes of Eowyn/Sarah Connor, etc
According to Elizabeth banks the reason for it failing was because men don't want to see females in action movies, and nevermind the fact that this has been proven to be incorrect time and again.
.
It's all the mens' fault. Though I think we're also conveniently ignoring the fact that the movie failed to draw a female audience, either. I'm sure men are to blame for that, too.
.
-it's a reboot of a franchise no one has any interest in anymore
.
-it stars an actress notoriously disliked for her inability to have more than one facial expression
.
-they (apparently - I'm citing reviews I've seen) removed most of the "sexiness" and/or "lightheartedness" that were what drew audiences to the original Charlies angels in the first place
.
-Elizabeth Banks was a writer, producer, and star in the movie (so mayhaps she was too close to the project to see where it was going wrong)
.
-the plot was lackluster and pointless
.
-the writing was not good
.
As it stands, I hadn't ever heard the rumour that denying responsibility and simultaneously insulting a large percentage of your target audience was a GOOD marketing strategy, but a lot of Hollywood people seem to be doubling down on it lately