MovieChat Forums > Charlie's Angels (2019) Discussion > Charlie's Angels Stars, Naomi Scott, Ell...

Charlie's Angels Stars, Naomi Scott, Ella Balinska and Kristen Stewart are ranked #4, #6 and #8, on the IMDb STARmeter!

posted 5 years ago by LLOwens (983)
32 replies | jump to latest

Charlie's Angels movie: Currently #2 on the IMDb "Popularity" ranking
Lead actors:
Naomi Scott is currently #4 on the IMDb Starmeter
Kristen Stewart is currently #8 on the IMDb Starmeter
Ella Balinska is currently #6 on the IMDb Starmeter

Ford V Ferrari movie: Currently #1 on the IMDb "Popularity" ranking
Lead actors:
Christian Bale is currently #21 on the IMDb Starmeter
Caitriona Balfe is currently #18 on the IMDb Starmeter
Matt Damon is currently #72 on the IMDb Starmeter

The reason why I cite this is because many on this board here on MovieChat are erroneously claiming that moviegoers are much more interested in watching Christian Bale and Matt Damon perform in a movie as opposed to watching Kristen Stewart and Naomi Scott. IMDb is currently ranked #3 in the world when it comes to internet traffic for "Arts and Entertainment". And 30.6% of all of IMDb's traffic originates from the United States.

And what about YouTube, which accounts for a whopping 11.4% of all global internet traffic! The official Charlie's Angels trailer #1 currently has 18.3 million views, which is nearly triple the amount of views as the official Ford V Ferrari trailer #1 which has 6.9 million views.

Without question, interest in Charlie's Angels and the lead actors in this film at the time of its theatrical release is huge. So I'm shocked as to why, despite all the interest, it did so poorly at the box office here in the U.S.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Do you work for the production company? Show us their numbers BEFORE this movie was on notice. Thanks. We'll wait. :)

[–] LLOwens (983) 5 years ago

A few months ago, if I remember correctly, Naomi Scott was ranked even higher, somewhere in the top 10, while Kristen Stewart was as high as #44 and consistently in the Top 100. Of course nowhere near her consistent top 5 rankings when the Twilight films were in theaters, but still respectable nonetheless. Conversely, Matt Damon was in the Top 500 while Christian Bale was somewhere in the Top 100.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Elizebeth Banks could be #1..... and yet..... here we are. It is tanking. Life is.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

for info, read the people's reviews on rotten tomatos, and IMDB

[–] LLOwens (983) 5 years ago

The "Audience Score" (Verified Ratings) on Rotten Tomatoes is currently at 80%.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

and yet.... bombed ? How can that be? :D Unpossible! :D

[–] LLOwens (983) 5 years ago

High rated movies by critics and audiences alike often don't do well at the box office.

[–] HelpMeRhonda (1158) 5 years ago

Yeah those numbers seem skewed.

[–] LLOwens (983) 5 years ago

All I can say is the last time that Kristen Stewart was ranked this high, her movies (Breaking Dawn - Part 2, Snow White and the Huntsman) were raking in hundreds of millions of dollars.

[–] Moonglum9 (11309) 5 years ago

Shut up, Kristen! Get off this site and grow your hair back out like when you were in Sparklepires.

[–] LLOwens (983) 5 years ago

Kristen cut her hair very short for her movie roles in Underwater and Seberg. Now that those roles are finished she's letting her hair grow out a bit.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

hahahaha this guy/person doesnt get the hint does he/she/it? NOBODY CARES LLOENS. Literally nobody

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

[deleted]

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

most likely. more boards and noise, the more they can show their employer how "well" they are doing, thus keeping their job. when bosses get a clue and learn about the "interwebs" those jobs will vanish.

[–] darkpast (8756) 5 years ago

you can buy clicks and votes for IMdB

[–] LLOwens (983) 5 years ago

Do you have a source that can verify such a statement?

[–] darkpast (8756) 5 years ago

https://www.thesocialmarketeers.org/buy-imdb-votes/

[–] LLOwens (983) 5 years ago

But doesn't this apply only to "Movie meter" votes, not "STARmeter" votes, which could explain why over 37% of the votes for Charlie's Angels are "1-Star" votes. Are you implying that someone is buying up 1-Star votes to negatively impact this film's rating on IMDb, which is currently hoovering at around 4.0?

[–] LLOwens (983) 5 years ago

Charlie's Angels is currently the #2 movie on IMDb in terms of "Popularity". All three leads are now in the top 10 (I edited my OP to update this):

Naomi Scott is currently #4 on the IMDb STARmeter
Ella Balinska is currently #6 on the IMDb STARmeter
Kristen Stewart is currently #8 on the IMDB STARmeter

Again for emphasis, with the popularity of the movie Charlie's Angels and its stars on the rise on IMDb, one wonders why this film isn't doing better at the box office.

[–] LLOwens (983) 5 years ago

I forgot to mention that Charlie's Angels director Elizabeth Banks is #11 on the IMDb STARmeter.

[–] MoviesSuck (964) 5 years ago

Three charisma-void “stars” in a movie void of charisma. How appropriate.

[–] LLOwens (983) 5 years ago

The "Critics Consensus" on Rotten Tomatoes states:

Earnest and energetic, if a bit uneven, Elizabeth Banks's pulpy Charlie's Angels adds new flair to the franchise with fun performances from its three leads.

The way these critics are collectively describing CA sure seems to be the very definition of charisma. Of course this film has its flaws, such as the screenplay for example. But the critics in general are saying good things about the performances by Kristen Stewart, Naomi Scott and Ella Balinska.

[–] MoviesSuck (964) 5 years ago

That was nice of them.

[–] LLOwens (983) 5 years ago

I don't know if you are aware of this but Kristen Stewart is actually a critics darling. For example, in 2015 she won a first place award from the New York Film Critics Circle:
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/race/awards-chatter-podcast-kristen-stewart-851189

For her performance in the French indie, Stewart became the first American actress ever to win a Cesar Award (France's equivalent of the Oscar) and was subsequently chosen as the year's best supporting actress by the New York Film Critics Circle and Boston Society of Film Critics (she finished second with the Los Angeles Film Critics Association)

The NYFCC is widely considered the most prestigious film critics group in the world and was a precursor to winning an Oscar before politics and campaigning lessened the impact that film critics have on who receives Academy Award nominations.

[–] kwestmo (4385) 5 years ago

F V F - Cumulative Worldwide Gross: $105,897,875

C A - Cumulative Worldwide Gross: $44,145,846

That tells you what people were willing to pay to see, not meaningless ratings on IMDB

[–] LLOwens (983) 5 years ago

It's no surprise that Ford V Ferrari is earning more than twice of what Charlie's Angels is grossing at the worldwide box office as FVF's production budget is $97.6 million while CA's is $48 million. That would be akin to comparing FVF to Frozen II, which wouldn't be fair at all in my opinion. Additionally, many medium budget films struggle to do well at the box office.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

[deleted]

[–] kwestmo (4385) 5 years ago

By "ambassador", you mean "focus of obsession", right?

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

[deleted]

[–] LLOwens (983) 5 years ago

Thanks for your concern, but I'm by no means stressing at all. I actually find it fun to crunch numbers when it comes to movies I'm interested in.

[–] kwestmo (4385) 5 years ago

Yet your conclusions are not based on the results of the number crunching