Let's start a list of successful female action movies that Elizabeth forgot about when blaming sexism... - Charlie's Angels (2019) Discussion

[–] MickyMac (3191) 5 years ago

Also women do go to see male driven movies, Rambo Last Blood had more female viewers.

reply

[–] bobbydallas (8556) 5 years ago

Ripley in Alien(s)3 was the baddest hero ever! man she destroyed an entire evil organism !

fucking amazing female character

reply

[–] Kowalski (76265) 5 years ago

DO YOU PEOPLE INTENTIONALLY MISREAD/UNDERSTAND ALL THESE COMMENTS BY FILMMAKERS,OR ARE YOU ALL JUST EMPTY HEADED REACTIONARIES?

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

[deleted]

[–] bozo_500 (13151) 5 years ago

"Terminator 1 2 and 3"

I'm assuming you mean Dark Fate as 3? as the 2003 T3 was really just the female villain .. (actually T5 was also sort of considered as 'T3' at the time and was sort of centred around Emilia Clarke but everyone hated that movie)

I'd also add Mad Max Fury Road, Silence of the Lambs, Basic Instinct

reply

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8759) 5 years ago

Silence of the Lambs and Basic Instinct are action movies?

reply

[–] bozo_500 (13151) 5 years ago

Well theres action in them

reply

[–] fc31 (5498) 5 years ago

Those are original movies, not female version of male oriented movies.

Male oriented movies work certain ways, simply putting women in men's places is unlikely to work.

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Charlie's Angles isnt a male oriented movie.

reply

[–] fc31 (5498) 5 years ago

I think it is. The key is not the angels, but 3 beautiful girls working for a mysterious man. 3 girls working for a woman changes the entire dynamic.

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

ohh , thats whats changed is it?
and people are upset about that?
The women dont have a male gang-master telling them what to do now?

oh lordy!

reply

[–] fc31 (5498) 5 years ago

I don't know what works for you. But a whole women cast just has no sparks. You usually need both men and women in the picture.

I don't know whether you have watched the movie "The Negotiator". It is almost entirely male cast (some minor female characters just there so it is not a total sausage fest), but Samuel Jackson (the lead) in crisis mentioned his family, that was his motivation, he was a family man, that is a tiny detail but it changed his image and the perception of him, without that it is just bunch of guys shooting at each other. So you don't even need a woman to be present but still hint of women and love is needed.

When I watch Charlie's angels (the previous versions), in the back of my mind I was always wondering who that guy is, what the story is, why were angels so motivated to work for him, it is almost love, is there romance between them? Everyone would come up with a different story in the back of their minds, and that is what is interesting, otherwise it is no difference from other mindless action films.

But 3 girls working for a woman, how is that in anyway interesting?

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

A mix is nice but not essential . No women in "The thing" , and thats ok. Same with "dog soldiers" , and "Deliverance"
So i dont see why we cant have entirely female movies .
why were angels so motivated to work for him, it is almost love, is there romance between them?
would you be wondering that if 3 guys got a message from a female boss - probly played by Helen Mirren like in Bond :) ?
As far as im concerened the angels could get their orders from a letter in abox , that then explodes MI stlye.

reply

[–] B1cKsurN (17484) 5 years ago

Not essential? Dude, it bombed. Hard.

Charlie's Angel's was always written for a male audience, when you take that away...literally no one cares anymore.

Hence: Bombed. Hard.

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

yeah but it didnt bomb 'cos Charlie was female , no one cares about that , except maybe the miiltant anit-SJW brigade.

reply

[–] B1cKsurN (17484) 5 years ago

It bombed because no wants to see woke crap. Which pretty much includes man-hate by default.

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

so whats woke crap about it again? just to be clear.

reply

[–] B1cKsurN (17484) 5 years ago

lol, it doesn't matter...that's the problem with "woke" culture. The instant it was associated as anything woke, it was tainted and destined to fail.

All it takes is a director or actor calling out fans for it to be tainted. See Terminator Dark Fate.

reply

[–] fc31 (5498) 5 years ago

would you be wondering that if 3 guys got a message from a female boss - probly played by Helen Mirren like in Bond :) ?

That was literally the new bond movies (ever since Pierce Brosnan. Well, one guy instead of 3) and it worked.

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

and was everyone coming up with a different back story about wether they were sleeping together? no. becasuse we wernt treating them like sex objects - which you implierd was the point of having a man in carge of the Angels

reply

[–] fc31 (5498) 5 years ago

Like I said everyone comes up with a different story, yours says more about you than the movies.

reply

[–] fc31 (5498) 5 years ago

I think "this means war" is sort of 2 men version of Charlie's angels, 2 male agents working for a black woman. That movie I think broke even financially in terms of box office numbers. Maybe a small profit after digital sales.

reply

[–] Wint3rFir3 (7188) 5 years ago

a whole women cast just has no sparks

Hustlers seems to have done pretty well. Also, what about Girl, Interrupted? A League of Their Own? Mean Girls? The Help? Bad Moms? Boys on the Side? Crazy Rich Asians? Not to mention the plethora of female-heavy casts of foreign films.

Women-led action films specifically often miss the mark because of an in-balance between following the typical action formula and incorporating women into their films - so the tone of these films can turn out pretty strange or one-note.

For example, the OP listed a lot of films led by a woman, but with mostly male counterparts. Of the 16 items listed, only 2 (Maleficent and Ocean's 8) had a female-heavy cast, rather than just a female lead at the helm and a male-heavy accompaniment. Even something like Mr. and Mrs. Smith, which conveyed an all-female team behind the woman lead, was a pretty small part of that film. When the cast is all-female in an action film, the director is usually doing their best not to over-sexualize the characters, so there's a lack of romance, or the polar opposite and oversexualize the characters to a point of comical nonsense.

reply

[–] fc31 (5498) 5 years ago

Hustlers seems to have done pretty well. Also, what about Girl, Interrupted? A League of Their Own? Mean Girls? The Help? Bad Moms? Boys on the Side? Crazy Rich Asians? Not to mention the plethora of female-heavy casts of foreign films.

Among them the only ones I watched are "Mean Girls" and "Crazy Rich Asians" and from what I can remember there are guys in them. In fact much more presence than Charlie in Charlie's angels.

reply

[–] Wint3rFir3 (7188) 5 years ago

Very few recent films show only one gender throughout the entirety of the film. Does The Hangover only have men? Of course there are women in it. Charlie's Angels had men in it, as you stated, but the cast is still female-heavy, where multiple women are the leads. Even Ocean's 8 featured male characters.

reply

[–] fc31 (5498) 5 years ago

I guess you didn't really understand what I said before. Charlie was hardly in the movies, yet he is very important to these movies. In fact he could be just a voice and still important to these movies.

It is the male and female dynamic, that is what is important.

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

I think it is. The key is not the angels, but 3 beautiful girls working for a mysterious man. 3 girls working for a woman changes the entire dynamic.

Is anybody getting what fc31 is getting at here?
anyone?

reply

[–] Wint3rFir3 (7188) 5 years ago

Yeah, lol, that pretty much sums up my feelings as well.

reply

[–] fc31 (5498) 5 years ago

It seems you guys are satisfied living in denial. I guess whatever makes you happy.

reply

[–] fc31 (5498) 5 years ago

I don't know whether you have watched "annihilation", a more recent whole women cast movie.

The woman's husband went to a mysterious mission and became critically ill. The woman went on to the same mission to find out why.

A simply enough story. And if it were a typical male version of the movie so to speak, there would be flash backs of happy times, and the male lead would be so in love he is going to sacrifice everything to find out what happened to his girl.

But no, in this one the woman has to have an affair with a married man. So first of all we have no respect for this woman. And you don't fully understand her motivation. Why would you go on such a dangerous mission, for some residue feeling or family obligation? Or it is just pitiful self destruction because of shame or boredom? I was watching a bunch of women shooting some weird animals and I don't care about any of them.

In my opinion that movie failed because it was just lame, whether it is a whole female cast is not relevant.

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

hmm, sounds pretty weird.
Was the womans motivation to find out if her new guy had anything to do with current guy's dissapaerence?

reply

[–] fc31 (5498) 5 years ago

If you want to talk about it I think you need to watch it. It is probably on streaming services now.

reply

[–] fc31 (5498) 5 years ago

I don't know whether you watch geek movies such as star wars. Other than the chosen one, prophecy and powerful villain such as Vader. There is a traditional love story there. A immoral scoundrel (Han Solo) reformed because of love (Leia), that I think is the real story.

Look at the new star wars movies, there is none of that. But let's have a look what is in it, shall we? A reformed imperial trooper killing people he grew up with to impress a girl who detests him, that must have been true love. Leia basically sent Han to death (bring back our boy, but I don't seem to care what happens to you). These new movies seem to have no heart, other than we women don't give a damn about men.

And that spin off movie "solo", in the end the girl gave up her boyfriend to seek power. What a beautiful story, I am so touched I am going to cry. Neither Solo or his girl seems to care that much about each other, why should we care at all? I don't even care enough to remember that girl's name.

The star war movies still can sell because of the powerful franchise and a very large base of fans, but in the end I don't care about any of the people in any of these new movies.

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Dont get me astarted on Star wars .. :)

in the end the girl gave up her boyfriend to seek power.
Yeah - that was a refreshing change from the typical "guy gets girl , sails off into sunset .."
well done them!

reply

[–] fc31 (5498) 5 years ago

Look at the numbers on IMDB for solo:

Budget:$275,000,000 (estimated)
Opening Weekend USA: $84,420,489, 27 May 2018
Gross USA: $213,767,512
Cumulative Worldwide Gross: $392,924,807

People are not buying it. Disney is losing money on these numbers. That movie bombed even as a part of star wars franchise, that is saying something. Well done indeed. I am wondering how many of these money losers Hollywood is going to make before they wake up.

reply

[–] thenewnexus (1913) 5 years ago

I wouldn't count Capt Marvel or the recent star wars movies both have mary sues. Liz banks likes them

reply

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8759) 5 years ago

Lucy was super-successful, even though no one remembers it now. Atomic Blonde also made money.

I can't resist the opportunity to mention a female-fronted action movie that was NOT successful but should've been: The Long Kiss Goodnight. Great movie. Lots of fun. Should've been a big hit for Geena Davis.

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Lucy was a pile of crap because the whole movie's premise was based on a long-debunked myth about the human brain.

reply

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8759) 5 years ago

Fictional film, broski. Suspension of disbelief and all that.

reply

[–] Xcalat3 (3749) 5 years ago

-Edge of Tomorrow (yes a Tom Cruise movie but Emily Blunt was basically the main star and kicked major ass)
-Annihilation
-Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon
-Resident Evil movies (Horrible at times but still made a lot of money)

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

"Edge of Tomorrow"
Excuse me, Blunt was only a supporting role, it was Cruise who defeated the alien menace.

reply

[–] sokar (2098) 5 years ago

Only due to Emily Blunts character.

reply

[–] hbenthow (83) 5 years ago

And Luke Skywalker was only able to blow up the Death Star because Obi-Wan helped him. But he was still the star.

reply

[–] TheArgentinian (7109) 5 years ago

No one went to see Edge of Tomorrow because of Emily Blunt. Don't be ridiculous.

Annihilation bombed at the box office.

reply

[–] kuku (3510) 5 years ago

Nope, but Emily Blunt became my favorite part of the movie. Tom Cruise does a great job, as usual, but Emily Blunt was the one who really shined in the movie.

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Yeah, Emily was pretty cute in that movie, can't imagine the flick without her now. And I always enjoyed a Tom Cruise flick with a bucket of popcorn, however, he really hit it out of the park with that one. My wife even loved EoT, and she hate action flicks.

reply