• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

“Charlie’s Angels” - 2019, starring Kristen Stewart and Naomi Scott

Grinchy

Grinchy

Banned
The fact that she didn't start bitching about how men are at fault for her movie bombing until after it was out tells me that it's less likely that this was a publicity stunt for attention like the Ghostbusters "marketing."

It tells me that she's just an idiot who actually believes what she's saying (which on some level I appreciate more). People saw the trailer for her movie and decided they didn't want to see it. It's that simple. But her low-functioning brain can't accept that that's possible because in her bubble, everyone thinks she's amazing and she never fails at anything.

Welcome to the world outside of your bubble, Lizzie.
 
Last edited:
GreyHorace

GreyHorace

Member
She starred in a blockbuster series of movies with a female main character based on a bunch of young adult novels written by a woman. I never read Suzanne Collins' The Hunger Games books but I was hyped to see the film because I'm a fan of Jennifer Lawrence. Where is she getting this delusion that men don't want to see women on film?
 
Heebie Jeebies

Heebie Jeebies

Banned
Whitecrow said:
Of course it's men fault, and not the obsession of pushing female protagonists like if there was no tomorrow.

Get woke, go broke. Will somebody learn....
Click to expand...

Nothing wrong with pushing female protagonists, many great protagonists in entertainment have been female. However, in the case of Charlie's Angels, you have a reboot no one asked for, a director no one cares about, an insipid main cast, with the icing on the cake being an IP that died long before it's target audience was even born.
 
Whitecrow

Whitecrow

Banned
HeebieJeebies said:
Nothing wrong with pushing female protagonists, many great protagonists in entertainment have been female. However, in the case of Charlie's Angels, you have a reboot no one asked for, a director no one cares about, an insipid main cast, with the icing on the cake being an IP that died long before it's target audience was even born.
Click to expand...
I mean, there's a difference between pushing female for protagonists, and suddently convert all new movie protagonists into females.

There's a subtle way, and a 'down your throats' way.

But your post is right.
 
Last edited:
sol_bad

sol_bad

Member
HeebieJeebies said:
Nothing wrong with pushing female protagonists, many great protagonists in entertainment have been female. However, in the case of Charlie's Angels, you have a reboot no one asked for, a director no one cares about, an insipid main cast, with the icing on the cake being an IP that died long before it's target audience was even born.
Click to expand...

It's not a reboot.
:)
 
Dural

Dural

Member
I love Elizabeth Banks, but she's out of her mind. You had a movie with an unlikable main cast, compared to the two Charlies Angels movies from the early 2000s which had actresses that people like.


DKJNIPQ.jpg


wvEjqrt.jpg
 
Last edited:
sol_bad

sol_bad

Member
Mihos said:
https://www.etonline.com/elizabeth-...ies-angels-reboot-despite-flop-opening-136567
Click to expand...

oh
Thanks for sharing that link, I must be wrong, me, who has actually seen the film.
I must be wrong that the film does not discard the history of the previous movies and original show. I must be wrong that it's still set in the same timeline of the original movies and TV show.
The nods that were there and the pictures we saw of Cameron, Lucy and Drew were not really in the film.

Thank you for setting me right.

Wait, let me just look at what a reboot means. From Wikipedia.
In serial fiction, a reboot is a new start to an established fictional universe, work, or series that discards all continuity to re-create its characters, plotlines and backstory from the beginning.

oh
Guess I was actually right,
Neither the 2000 or the 2019 movie are reboots. They are continuations of the original show. The original show, the 2000 movie and the 2019 movie all have different characters, new members of the agency.
 
Kenpachii

Kenpachii

Member
The whole movie feels like a knock off b grade version of the old one. Zero interest to see it.

Wonder woman was great, because it had that star trek guy in it. And i like fantasy movies.

Other movie never saw it. maybe should check it out seems interesting.
 
LMJ

LMJ

Member
This doesn't seem like another case of get woke go broke to me, rather just a movie most people weren't intrested to see...

Just like ocean's 8 before it, it doesn't sound like it was a bad movie per-se, just nothing new or that interesting for most people, And despite Banks BS excuse for why the movie didn't do well (just like the ocean's 8 director whined about might I point out) At the end of The day it didn't perform well, not because of "evil men" but rather general disinterest lol
 
KingGhidorah

KingGhidorah

Banned
sol_bad said:
The stairwell fight?
Click to expand...

stairwell or the rope fight one, can't choose which one is better

LMJ said:
This doesn't seem like another case of get woke go broke to me, rather just a movie most people weren't intrested to see...

Just like ocean's 8 before it, it doesn't sound like it was a bad movie per-se, just nothing new or that interesting for most people, And despite Banks BS excuse for why the movie didn't do well (just like the ocean's 8 director whined about might I point out) At the end of The day it didn't perform well, not because of "evil men" but rather general disinterest lol
Click to expand...

It is a get woke go broke case. The director is a men-hating hardcore feminist who, even before the movie was released, is ready to blame men if/when it failed. Idiotically, she helped fulfill her own prophecy
 
Sygma

Sygma

Member
Who's willing to bet that the woman directed Birds of Prey will make $$$ and Banks will go "pffff its a comic book movie, of course it has appeal !!!!!"

 
Last edited:
kunonabi

kunonabi

Member
Stiflers Mom said:
I love Elizabeth Banks in every role she played in, since she is cutest cutie pie ever for me, but damn, don't defend that turd of a movie you created, girl.
Click to expand...

Nothing wrong with defending it but insulting people and claiming that the movie is entitled to an audience is where she's screwing up. Of course, you have asshats like Paul Feig egging her on which isn't helping. She did seem to cool off a bit with some of her more recent comments though.
 
ExpandKong

ExpandKong

Banned
kunonabi said:
Nothing wrong with defending it but insulting people and claiming that the movie is entitled to an audience is where she's screwing up. Of course, you have asshats like Paul Feig egging her on which isn't helping. She did seem to cool off a bit with some of her more recent comments though.
Click to expand...

I imagine Sony told her to shut the hell up.
 
cryptoadam

cryptoadam

Banned
Why are men to blame, this is on women. They make up 50% of the world why didn't they go see this movie?

What kind of idiot makes a feminist action movie starring 3 women and think its going to sell to men? I'll make a movie about how great Hitler is and Nazi values and then blame Jews when they don't go see it.

If she wanted to get men to see it then you need to make the stars hot sexy badasses, and add a cool male character that the men can live through. Wonder Woman had Chris Pine in it who was a cool guy that guys could want to be, and Gal Gadot was hot and sexy as shit as WW.

You made a movie for women, and they didn't want to see your movie, blame them.
 
Rest

Rest

All these years later I still chuckle at what a fucking moron that guy is.
MilkyJoe said:
Here we go

Click to expand...

Men make up half the population. If you don't want your movie to bomb, you can't make something that half of them won't care about.

Plus, Charlies Angels is about hot chicks kicking ass. No one is going to go see a movie about hot chicks kicking ass if Kristen Stewart is supposed to be the main "hot" chick. Know your audience.
 
MilkyJoe

MilkyJoe

Member
cryptoadam said:
Why are men to blame, this is on women. They make up 50% of the world why didn't they go see this movie?

What kind of idiot makes a feminist action movie starring 3 women and think its going to sell to men? I'll make a movie about how great Hitler is and Nazi values and then blame Jews when they don't go see it.

If she wanted to get men to see it then you need to make the stars hot sexy badasses, and add a cool male character that the men can live through. Wonder Woman had Chris Pine in it who was a cool guy that guys could want to be, and Gal Gadot was hot and sexy as shit as WW.

You made a movie for women, and they didn't want to see your movie, blame them.
Click to expand...

I pretty much said this to a complaining feminist on twitter

"WAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHH...... I loved this movie, and you girls deserve a sequel, but now that's not going to happen because of sexist men"

Me: "Why are you blaming men for not going to see a movie made for women, promoting girl power and feminism? Surely you girls should have stepped up and supported it yourself? Men are not obliged to go see movies made for another market"

****Frumpy Tweeter whore has blocked you****
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

What Does Star Trek Mean to You?
Social Opinion Community 2
82
2K
sono replied
Ridley Scott's GLADIATOR 2 budget is now at 310 million dollars
2
60
3K
nkarafo replied
Saber CEO said Space Marine 2 will retail for $70, but only because he’s concerned audiences would see a cheaper price as emblematic of poor quality
News 2
90
3K
MasterCornholio replied
Where the actual f*ck are the realistic shooters with great sound design?
2
62
3K
Games of Today replied
  • Locked
Gina Carano was going to get her own Star Wars spin-off before the internet mob got her fired
2
75
3K
ahtlas7 replied
Top Bottom