are you glad this bombed?

Do I care that this bombed? I don't think anything of it.

yup. got to send a message to these stupid agenda MESSAGE movies

Very much yes. It's nice to see condescending liberals eat shit.

Y E S

https://www.city-data.com/forum/movies/3060568-charlies-angels-movie-5.html

11-27-2019, 10:37 AM

The new remake had two cardinal sins: A-the director focused on TELLING us how feminist the film was instead of SHOWING us. Nothing wrong with a film having a feminist vibe, but please don't make it a point to abrasively let us know about it. Films are about showing, not telling. Plus, when you start framing feminism in the context of "men against women!!" instead of 'women simply being powerful", you are going to lose half the potential audience ( Wonder Woman is a feminist icon and the Wonder Woman film touched on many feminist tropes in a manner that was unobtrusive, inclusive, and overall cool. No wonder it was a critically acclaimed 821-million-dollar grossing global smash that audiences loved.)

And B-the casting of the new Charlies Angels was incredibly underwhelming. Without taking anything away from Kristen Stewart and Naomi Scott, who have been effective in various other films, and without bashing Ella Belinska (who I am sure is a lovely girl), this new Charlie's Angels needed bigger, more relevant names as the leads. Names that modern audiences could get excited about. Imagine a Charlie's Angels (still directed by Banks because I think she is a decent director) but starring say, Gal Gadot, Lupita Nyongo, and Margot Robbie as the three main angels.

Now imagine that same film having cameo appearances by Jennifer Lopez, Gia Carano, Salma Hayek, Angela Bassett, Angelina Jolie and Michelle Yeoh, as either former Angels or Bosleys on different parts of the world? That would have helped a bigger audience get all pumped up for the film. Granted, a film like this would probably be too expensive to make it cost effective, but sometimes you HAVE to spend money to make money.