Humm..... I thought it was doing a little better than expected at the box office. It's a chick flick - always has been and I didn't realize women weren't going to see it.
That's because it's "safe," and these idiots in Hollywood can cash in on the name, rather than actually doing the story justice. They've been playing this game over the last decade, where they remake or reboot a well-known franchise, tell a terrible, politically-correct version that has terrible acting and story-writing, and rake in what little cash they can before people send them hate mail and death threats.
They don't dare do something original, because frankly, the idiots running the 'biz right now wouldn't know original if it walked up and slapped them. That, and they can't think up unique movie ideas to save their lives, so they gotta leech off of what more creative and daring people have made before.
Well, it looks like you are more pissed off at Hollywood than I am. I don't disagree with you, but I probably won't let suspected wokeness stop me from going to see something I want. I generally don't like chick flicks anyhow so unless it's a major screw up like Dark Fate most of what I like has less wokeness creeping into the story line. Next film up is 1917 so I don't expect any in that.
I was perfectly happy with an old BBC version and have yet to watch the 1994 film - but I thought this was a surprisingly good take and, I have to admit it, there was the odd tear as Beth slipped away.
Is it really that surprising that people didn't flock to see another take of a story that has been done better before with a far better cast. Staring Emma "i cant act" Watson and a bunch of nobodies. And with the way thing are now. Probably more politically correct to.
If you are a white, straight, gentile male who was actually born with XY chromosomes and a pecker, EVERYTHING is your fault! Didn't they teach you that in college? Bonus fault points if you are more than fifty-five years old, you raping, planet-burning bastard!