MovieChat Forums > Charlie's Angels (2019) Discussion > Get woke, go broke; Charlie's Angels "ta...

Get woke, go broke; Charlie's Angels "tanking big time" with $10.5M opening

posted 5 years ago by PrimeMinisterX (8758)
20 replies | jump to latest

According to Deadline:

"Charlie’s Angels is tanking big time with an estimated $4M today (including $900K from previews –and not all from last night as there were showtimes Wednesday) and a $10.5M opening, which is below what Sony was seeing at $12M-$14M. The pic reportedly cost $48M with co-financing from Perfect World and 2.0 Entertainment; we’ve heard more in the mid $50Ms. The first two Charlie’s Angels movies in 2000 and 2003 opened respectively at $40.1M and $37.6M and finaled at $125.3M and $100.8M domestic."

So this film only brought in 1/4 of the money that the 2000 film did? Could that be because the 2000 film was a fun, crowd-pleasing romp with no agenda but to entertain and this is an explicitly "feminist and modern" take on the story?

Throw this one on the pile with Terminator: Dark Fate and that female Ghostbusters reboot. Get woke, go broke fuckers.

[–] darkpast (8756) 5 years ago

They lowered it to 8m+, lol. While the big "guy" film this weekend Ford v Ferrari is a huge smash

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8758) 5 years ago

Damn. Even worse.

So it's official then. This film is a failure.

And I'm very glad to see that Ford v Ferrari is a hit because it looks damn good and like a lot of fun, all without the filmmakers trying to sell us on their leftist politics.

[–] LLOwens (983) 5 years ago

The good news for Charlie's Angels was that it had way more bang for the production budget buck overseas in comparison to Ford V Ferrari. The bad news for CA is that it did not meet expectations domestically:

Charlie's Angels box office opening weekend:
Domestic: $8.6 million
International: $19.3 million
Worldwide: $27.9 million

Production budget: $48 million

Ford V Ferrari box office opening weekend:
Domestic: $31 million
International: $21.4 million
Worldwide: $52.4 million

Production budget: $97.6 million

Ford V Ferrari's production cost is about twice that of Charlie's Angels, and yet CA grossed just a couple million less than FVF internationally. FVF grossed over half of its production budget if you consider worldwide gross on opening weekend. So did CA, which has a worldwide gross of $27.9 million. Of course, it should be stated that it's more profitable for a studio when a film grosses more domestically. But that being said, I still find it interesting that 69.2% of CA's worldwide gross on opening weekend came from overseas box office. Similar thing happened with "Terminator: Dark Fate" which had a whopping 75.7% of its worldwide gross come from overseas. So even though TDF bombed domestically, it currently has a worldwide gross of over $233 million in just two weeks.

So thus begs the question: Did CA fail to meet box office expectations because US moviegoers don't embrace the "woke" subculture that many on this board are claiming is the reason--or is it more because US moviegoers are becoming increasing more fickle? Sure, the Marvel Cinematic Universe continues to churn out one billion dollar franchise after the other--yet for most other films, earning back a film's production budget at the box office is becoming increasingly more daunting--well at least here in the U.S. Thus, this could partly explain the demise of medium budget films. This appears especially the case for CA which has a narrow target audience, one-quadrant as the major trade publications describe it, making it even more difficult to grab market share/slice of the box office pie.

[–] Guitar King (4911) 5 years ago

Why are toxic Twitter femcels not driving box office numbers? LOL!

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

If the target demographic for most films is teens to late 20's than how many would know the original series let alone the remakes? And of those that do know the original series or films, why would you want to watch this crap?

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8758) 5 years ago

I could see them wanting to resurrect the idea and introduce it to a new generation, somewhat similarly to what Casino Royale did with James Bond. I'm sure for a lot of younger folks, CR was their first Bond film.

The thing about CR is that it was the same idea as what came before it, just updated in superficial ways, with modern cinematography, action choreography, etc. This is also essentially what the 2000 Charlie's Angels film does and I think that movie is pretty enjoyable. But instead of doing that, the filmmakers with this new Charlie's Angels movie decided to get political and push their feminist agenda.

The film was probably doomed anyway though, because that trailer looked like shit.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Never got into the Bond resurgence films but they seem decent enough.

The Barrymore Angel's films were made with love, Drew is a child of the 80's herself and approached it with a good mix of spoof, humour and action. CA will naturally have some girl power attitude to it being 3 women however there is a way of just being subtle (and fun) about it and as you say ramming it down people's throats and alienating at least half your potential audience in the process.

Helps if you have attractive women who actually look capable of action as well. These 3 look too small/weak as well as just being unattractive.

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8758) 5 years ago

Agreed on your last sentence for sure. These girls just have no physical gravitas. Of course Barrymore, Diaz and Liu weren't physical Adonises, but they did have a certain something where they came off as more stout and physically capable than the likes of Stewart and Co.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Barrymore, Diaz, Liu all have woman's bodies, I can for the sake of a film buy them doing action scenes. I just can't get my head around the 2019 cast.

Same with Wonder Woman, Linda Carter looked the part and looked capable. Gal Gadot, another undersized woman playing the part of action hero.

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8758) 5 years ago

Well, I actually like Gal in that role a lot. She's super-powered anyway though, so the rules are different. She's not operating under normal human muscle power.

[–] kuku (3510) 5 years ago

Yeap, that's something woke Hollywood never gets.

If you see a normal chick punching down big guys, that's a big immersion breaker. And that's not even related with sexism or any similar bullshit. Watching a normal guy punching down gorillas would be another immersion breaker, and that doesn't mean you hate gorillas or normal guys or whatever.

Of course, the moment you introduce some scifi/supernatural explanation, that changes.

What's interesting is that even in those cases, you see the non-woke guy portrayed as somebody who can't accept that a chick with superpowers has... superpowers, because, well, he's very evil white male and very misogynist and then some.

It's like woke writers can't even understand that somebody is driven by logic: if you're a normal chick, then you'll lack strength to take down big guys, if you have superpowers and some super-strength, that case you'll do have strength to take them down. End of the story, it's no rocket science.

[–] LLOwens (983) 5 years ago

While this movie got mixed reviews from critics, moviegoers overwhelming like this film as it currently has a B+ grade on Cinema Score and currently has an 81% "Verified Audience" score on Rotten Tomatoes. So hopefully this translates to positive word of mouth from moviegoers who watched it and will give this film legs to do better at the box office in the coming days.

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8758) 5 years ago

I think the writing is already on the wall for this film. If it somehow managed to recover and turn a profit from ticket sales I'd be shocked.

[–] LLOwens (983) 5 years ago

I was hoping this would be a four-quadrant, tent pole. But like the trade publications are saying, it's more like a female oriented, one-quadrant film that will appeal to mostly women between the ages of 13-39. Difficult to grab a substantial share of box office when three-quarters of moviegoers, plus a substantial percentage of the target audience, feel left out. But then again, I'm a straight-as-an-arrow, heterosexual male, who fancies big budget actioners and edge-of-your-seat thrillers, and yet I would still give this film 3 stars out of 4.

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8758) 5 years ago

Calling it a "modern and feminist" take on the show is immediately going to turn off vast swaths of potential viewers. McG's film from 2000 worked because it was just a fun, energetic, high-budget romp that wasn't trying to preach to anybody.

[–] kuku (3510) 5 years ago

The 'verified audience' score in RT is a joke. For the last month or so, it has become completely fictional. Before that, it wasn't accurate (it was 'adjusted') but at least it showed the trend. Right now, picking a random number 1-10 would be more accurate than it.

[–] LLOwens (983) 5 years ago

So you would rather trust the completely unverified audience scores on sites such as RT and IMDb?

[–] kuku (3510) 5 years ago

Of course I'd do! I just said RT audience score was completely tweaked number, so of course the logical behavior is to trust it, because that makes so muuuch sense!

- Your girlfriend is cheating you.
- So you would rather trust her, isn't it?

LOL

[–] TMC-4 (20179) 5 years ago

Could Charlie's Angels 2019 be considered a 'box office bomb'?

https://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/enat9y/could_charlies_angels_2019_be_considered_a_box/

Budget: $48–55 million Box office: $64.4 million

Wikipedia doesn't list it as a box office bomb... yet from various media articles, it seems to be one? Also comparing it to other flops... it seems to be one in the same; box office being not much higher than the budget.

Is there some sorta graph to measure the success/failure of a film? I mean, if it earn $1 more or less than it's expected total... is it successful or not? Also, does critical/audience reception lesser the blow of being a box office failure?

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

You can cut basically cut box office in half as the split between the studios and theater, and you can double the production budget to account for marketing.

So the studio's take is around $32 million from box office, against a total budget of ~$100 million, equals $68 million to break even.