On your first bullet point I would have to say that it's very rare to have a film that's totally original. The vast majority of films either pay homage to previous films in its genre or borrow heavily from them.
On the second point, gauging the amount of interest in having a reboot prior to its release is very difficult to pinpoint--the reason why I used the word "fickle".
On the third, this one is definitely subjective, as far as taste and preference. From my POV, the angels from the original television series were world-class beauties (i.e., Farrah Fawcett, Jaclyn Smith, Cheryl Ladd). The funny thing is, I guess it's because I oftentimes find brunettes more attractive, I consider Kate Jackson as the prettiest. As far as the 2000's films, I wouldn't consider any of them to be classic beauties in the strictest sense of the word. Sure, I consider Drew Barrymore and Lucy Liu as cute, while Cameron Diaz is the prettiest of that trio. But the same could be said of Naomi Scott, who has nearly flawless facial bone structure, while Ella Balinska has the face of a fashion model and the body of a supermodel, if you ask me. And with regards to Kristen, she's one of the faces of iconic fashion house Chanel, so to claim she's "unattractive" would fly in the face of what the modeling world considers attractive. I made this video edit of Kristen, Naomi and Ella, to showcase what I consider to be attractive: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wp03-pdygQM
The fourth point is perhaps the most perplexing and difficult to put a finger on, so I'll leave it at that for now.
And as far as the fifth point, admittedly, I watch tons of films each year, on average one per day, mostly through sites such as Netflix, while I don't often go to watch movies in a theater. So yes, this is a major reason why many films struggle to earn back their budget at the box office, as there are so many viewing options. Of course the exception is the films that look exceptional in theaters, such as from the MCU, DCEU, and Star Wars film franchises, continue to do exceedingly well at the box office, because these are films than many feel must be seen on the silver-screen.
reply
share
[deleted]
5 years ago
I think it is wrong to blame or accuse the audience of anything to be honest. Films are a product just like anything else and if you want people to give you their money you have to produce something they want to watch. This is going to crossover a few of the points I make but before I do, I do agree with you not much is entirely original anymore. That said for the past 30 or so years remakes and reboots, franchises in general have grown out of control and I think people's interest is waning. Just my opinion but you can look at the films which have bombed for yourself, this being one of them.
That said a lot of these reboots, remakes, don't pay homage to the original creations either. They tend to make a mockery of them.
Taste is subjective, the original Angels (all of them not just original cast) were all beautiful. The 2000's films, I always liked Drew, Cameron was nice and Lucy I never got into but she looked the part all the same. It was also a fun film, despite their looks I would have walked away if it was SJW crap being shoved in my face. The 3 women in this one, I don't care for, just my opinion and I actually don't find a lot of what the modeling world considers beautiful to be well beautiful so I don't put much stock in their opinion.
My 4th point is probably the most important, these films just keep tanking....
I don't think it is because it is a female cast, CA was always female that is the point. It is the SJW nonsense and propaganda that puts people off.
reply
share
LLOwens (983)
5 years ago
I don't think it is because it is a female cast, CA was always female that is the point. It is the SJW nonsense and propaganda that puts people off.
One of the primary rules of screenwriting I've garnered over the past few years is to avoid being too preachy, regardless of the subject matter, allowing the audience to decide for themselves what is right or wrong. So I would agree that this is one of the major flaws of this film. Religious films almost always make this mistake, a primary reason why I believe such films in this genre don't do well at the box office either. Another important rule in screenwriting is to show, not tell. So even if the film is primarily about feminism, it would be much better for the actors to show examples of feminism rather than spend most of the time preaching feminist ideology. Still another screenwriting rule--the screenplay must have a powerful moral premise. This film also lacked any deep-seated convictions other that women triumphing over men. A young, impressionable female viewer may take this in the same vein as good triumphing over evil, thus equating women as good and that men are basically incompetent or even evil. And ultimately, the screenplay must tell an unforgettable story that will stand the test of time.
And to help prove this point, there have been several films about female social justice warriors which are among the best films made during the past few decades, which I believe appeal to both men and women alike because of avoiding being too preachy. Take for example Emily Blunt in "Edge of Tomorrow" and "Sicario", Jessica Chastain in "Zero Dark Thirty", Jada Pinkett in "Set It Off", Uma Thurman in "Kill Bill", Julia Roberts in "Erin Brokovich", and Charlize Theron in "Mad Max: Fury Road". If you go further back in movie history, there's Sigourney Weaver in "Alien", and Geena Davis and Susan Sarandon in "Thelma & Louise", to mention just a few.
reply
share
[deleted]
5 years ago
That's interesting about the screenwriting rules as I have noticed the opposite. Particularly in TV shows characters will make speeches that have nothing to do with the premise quite often as well as wearing TV shirts with slogans etc.
Religious films have the same problem in that they divide people. Even if you follow a particular religion you may not see things the same way as the movie makers do etc.
Sicario is an interesting example. I recall the IMDB page at the time with some people complaining that she was too weak or in other words not a Rey who became a superstar. I thought it was rather realistic and the character was chosen specifically because she was inexperienced and from memory they wanted her to fail. I like those sorts of real and multi faceted characters.
I love older films and women in a lot of the old westerns and film noir are actually far tougher than the Woke princesses we have now. And more importantly they didn't walk around saying how tough they thought they were they just got on with it.
reply
share
LLOwens (983)
5 years ago
Exactly, regarding the subtext of the characters, in that what they say often has no correlation to what's going on in the story or even how they feel at the moment. A talented screenwriter knows that the text is not the subtext.
One of my all-time fave directors Alfred Hitchcock once said, "When the screenplay has been written and the dialogue has been added, we're ready to shoot." In other words, it's vastly superior to show a character acting it out rather than merely spewing out dialogue.
Sicario is an interesting example. I recall the IMDB page at the time with some people complaining that she was too weak or in other words not a Rey who became a superstar. I thought it was rather realistic and the character was chosen specifically because she was inexperienced and from memory they wanted her to fail. I like those sorts of real and multi faceted characters.
And yet another major rule in screenwriting: The lead character must undergo major changes in his or her life. In many cases, the more extreme the metamorphosis the better. After all, this will translate to more layered characters and force the actor to exhibit tremendous acting range. Naomi Scott's character made a bit of a transformation from her first scene to her last in Charlie's Angels, but not quite enough to make a lasting impression. Elizabeth Banks should have spent a bit more time developing her character into a muti-faceted one like you mentioned.
reply
share
ATG6 (3000)
5 years ago
yeah, the reboots should treat the originals with respect, not mockery
reply
share