“Anti-male.” “Virtue signaling.” God, you guys are boring. So, a movie starring women has an agenda. A movie starring men is just a movie. We got it. I’m sure Elizabeth is grateful for your mansplaining. Thanks for taking the time to be helpful.
Funny how he is rather repetitive himself. What he never seems to understand is that as a member of the "market" the film needs to appeal to me rather than me decide to watch a film I don't like.
Simple really. Unless you are a SJW.
It's the quality of the film that matters, the story and character dictates race or gender.
shareTo be honest I would be just as bored with a male character who struts around making statements about "man power" and and being a man and a film that is laden with any type of political propaganda. So despite what people like Feig like to think it isn't that the cast are female, it is that I am supposed to think they are brilliant just because they are female that bores me.
shareWell making speeches about man or woman power isn't raising expectations too high as just attaching ridicule.
They failed not they were women it's because they're not interesting enough, they don't have the sex appeal of the original.
The lack of sex appeal as well as just not looking physically capable doesn't help. Also helps if characters are multi faceted not just Girl Power caricatures.
shareMen would want to see women with sex appeal and physically capable would bring in better numbers if not necessarily lead to a better film. You would have to be physically fit to be a secret agent.
shareSome realism needs to apply in the end and I think even from a "Girl Power" point of view it would piss physically strong and fit women off to see 3 stick insects who would be rather mousey in real life play Rambo.
It's the same when you see a character who has never done something before take to it like a duck to water than outshine people who have been at it for decades. It doesn't say much for their achievement in the end if it is that easy.
>Also helps if characters are multi faceted not just Girl Power caricatures.
The Drew Barrymore Charlies Angels came with the positive baggage of being well known and having a career to bring something extra to the role and in 2000 Barrymore and Diaz were a draw, with Lucy Liu bringing something to the table.
There was appeal to both men and women.
To top it off Bill Murray is Charlie, Sam Rockwell, Matt Le Blanc off the back of Friends, Tim Curry, Luke Wilson, LL Cool J and Crispin Glover filling up the cast.
In this version two no names and the Twilight girl bring nothing, the Twihards are too old to care if Bella is in a movie 10 years after the fact.
Main casting is awful in this one. I look at the poster and my face is blank. I see they tried something with adding Patrick Stewart but he alone is not enough to captain this sinking star ship.
Drew's version was fun, maybe not too faithful to the original but fun. The women were sexy too although of course that is subjective but they also looked physically capable they weren't stick insects as such.
I find Kristen Stewart to be so boring, she looks bored always. Twilight only really appealed to females as well so most men wouldn't care about her and in fact would be deterred by her. She even looks bored in this Asian movie poster where given her martial arts try hard pose she should be looking very determined https://www.blackfilm.com/read/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Charlie-s-Angels-International-Poster-Kristen-Stewart.jpg
Don't get me started on the lesbian hairdo either!
Unless it's Star Trek or X Men is Patrick Stewart really a drawcard? I don't think anyone could save this ship. You could CGI in the original TV show cast and as sexy as they all were if you stuck with the same plot and script it would still tank.
As Midnight's Edge pointed out female audiences didn't go to see the movie but went to see Rambo Last Blood, some women audiences would want to see male driven movies no matter to see tough guys or heart throbs.
shareI would love to see the statistical breakdown of who went to see the movie based on sex.
I would bet it would be very similar on the numbers of men and woman seeing it.
I love how they don't complain at all the woman not going to see it, even though that was obviously there target audience.
Imdb voters are not really representative, but:
The M:F ratio is 7:2. For men, twice as many 30+ than 18-29. The later gave the lowest rating.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5033998/ratings?ref_=tt_ov_rt
It's possible that women are just not into rating movies. What is the ratio of the entire IMDb voters?
shareBy the same token if you were to go to an action film with a male lead women would probably vote it lower than men. I know it really irks these people as it flies in the face of their belief system but in the end men and women like different things, shocking.
I find it interesting that females under 18 rated the film lower than anyone else, you would think they would be the prime demographic for this film.
I read in an article about the last Terminator one that audience was 60% female. Take it with a grain of salt, but I'd say that here it can be similar.
shareSo a fem is trying to shame men into buying tickets for a movie that appears to appeal no one? Interesting business strategy, Paul. Let us know how that works.
share80% of moviegoers ("Audience Score" - Verified Ratings) on Rotten Tomatoes liked this movie.
Rotten Tomatoes 'verified audience score' has been a joke for the last month. Since nobody was paying attention to critics anymore, they decided to 'adjust' the audience score.
shareWhich proves what, exactly, in relation to my point of, 'A douche is trying to shame men into spending their money on crap.'?
It's a typical chick move that's not working any longer.
Last I checked, Dark Fate had an 83% Approval on Rotten Tomatoes as well, yet both movies are tanking.
Beyond the fact that the gals ain't supporting their own empowerment movies, it seems to me that Rotten Tomatoes is being review bombed or bought-off by the studios.
It's a typical chick move that's not working any longer.
And yet, the top reviews I'm seeing on IMDB are indicating it is a snooze fest with very little action - from reviewers that are self-identifying as women.
Many of these women are indicating that their husbands/brothers/boyfriends are falling asleep in the theater.
You are correct, I haven't seen the movie, I was commenting on Feig's typical broad tactic of shaming men for their failures.
Face it gals, men aren't all princes, but you're perfectly capable of f##king things up all on your own.
Banks has apparently made something that even her own sisters don't want to see . . . that takes talent and a special kind of stoopid.
Blaming her failures on men, however, is both predictable and priceless.
To be frank none of the lead actresses are particularly huge draws at the box office.
shareAnonymous
on November 17, 2019 3:14 am
Nowhere in that jumble of words did you accurately express why audiences stayed away from this film — it was a poorly-marketed mess with no star power and a weak plot that wasn’t designed to appeal to anyone.
The first Charlie’s Angels came out twenty years ago and was a four-quadrant film — three A-list stars at the top of their game, style for days, a kickass soundtrack and had audiences itching for more. It has nothing to do with “the pendulum swinging too far”.
The brand is poison. It wasn’t that long ago that tried rebooting it for TV with Minka Kelly and a bunch of other no-names, and it flopped harder than the Hindenberg. You can absolutely make films with strong lead female characters — but audiences don’t care when you try to pander to them. We had successful female heroines like Ellen Ripley, Sarah Connor, Princess Leia and plenty more forty-to-fifty years ago.
This movie was poorly marketed, and created by a director who seemed to go out of her way to antagonize potential audiences. Tim Miller did the same thing a few months ago with the marketing for Terminator: Dark Fate — and we all saw how that turned out; possibly one of the biggest bombs of all time. Hollywood still hasn’t learned that you shouldn’t go around defecating where your meal ticket is.
The movie just isn't good. You can tell from the trailer that the movie sucks.
share[deleted]
Someone's response to Paul Feig on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/unfrikicongafas/status/1196886694190026753?s=19
Problem with Paul Feig is that he seems to try too hard to be progressive.
share