Page 31 of 37 FirstFirst ... 21272829303132333435 ... LastLast
Results 451 to 465 of 551
  1. #451
    Mighty Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    1,714

    Default

    Charlies angels hasnt been a strong franchise in a while, has actresses with mediocre reputations (no clue on their skill but their names arent huge) and it looks like it had a weak story.

  2. #452
    Ultimate Member numberthirty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    17,347

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aahz View Post
    I thinkt it is more because Captain Marvel is part of the MCU, which is the most popular Moviefranchise at the moment, and came out that close to endgame.
    And Wonder Woman is one of the most iconic comic charcters.

    Most lesser know female charcters will (without beeing part of the MCU) also not do that great at the box office. (And that probaly also applies to a lot of lesser known male charcters)
    Never mind that it played a slight role in getting from one "Avengers" film to another.

    As for the "Charlie's Angels" film, what was essentially a reboot of the "Terminator" IP just face planted.

    Add that to the fact that a "Charlie's Angels" series was pulled from the air pretty quickly in recent memory, and this movie really had it's work cut out for it.

  3. #453
    Extraordinary Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    5,661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by numberthirty View Post
    As for the "Charlie's Angels" film, what was essentially a reboot of the "Terminator" IP just face planted.
    I think "Charlie's Angels" has also a bigger Problem with demographics than "Terminator".
    Alot of People that liked T2 are probably still at an age where they would look a Termintor movie.
    People that like the the "Charlie's Angels" movies from the early 2000s (or even the original Series) are probably to old to fall into the target demographic of the new movie, and people that fall into the target Demographic have probably no attacjment to the Franchise.

  4. #454
    Ultimate Member numberthirty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    17,347

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aahz View Post
    I think "Charlie's Angels" has also a bigger Problem with demographics than "Terminator".
    Alot of People that liked T2 are probably still at an age where they would look a Termintor movie.
    People that like the the "Charlie's Angels" movies from the early 2000s (or even the original Series) are probably to old to fall into the target demographic of the new movie, and people that fall into the target Demographic have probably no attacjment to the Franchise.
    As an aside from all of that...

    The "Terminator" film had that it was going to essentially wipe aside a few problematic(depending on the fan you talk to) films and function as a direct sequel to TII.

    As far as I can tell, this "Charlie's Angels" film didn't even have that sort of an angle in it's corner. It felt more like if someone had got it in their head to reboot "The A-Team" this fall.

  5. #455
    Incredible Member useridgoeshere's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    978

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aahz View Post
    I think "Charlie's Angels" has also a bigger Problem with demographics than "Terminator".
    Alot of People that liked T2 are probably still at an age where they would look a Termintor movie.
    People that like the the "Charlie's Angels" movies from the early 2000s (or even the original Series) are probably to old to fall into the target demographic of the new movie, and people that fall into the target Demographic have probably no attacjment to the Franchise.
    Do you really need attachment to the franchise? Charlie's Angels has a pretty simple and timeless concept. Hot babes kicking ass. Seems like this one walked away from that.

  6. #456
    Incredible Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    605

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by useridgoeshere View Post
    Do you really need attachment to the franchise? Charlie's Angels has a pretty simple and timeless concept. Hot babes kicking ass. Seems like this one walked away from that.
    But its also a theme that does not need to be watched in the cinema. Terminator, a certain demographic thinks otherwise, is a movie made for cinema.

  7. #457
    Extraordinary Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    5,661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DanMad1977 View Post
    But its also a theme that does not need to be watched in the cinema. Terminator, a certain demographic thinks otherwise, is a movie made for cinema.
    But why make a reboot, if the franchise doesn't have in build audience.

  8. #458
    Old school comic book fan WestPhillyPunisher's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA
    Posts
    19,283

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aahz View Post
    But why make a reboot, if the franchise doesn't have in build audience.
    My guess? This was the studio running up a flag to see if anyone would salute. But precious few did, judging from the poor showing at the box office.
    Avatar: Here's to the late, great Steve Dillon. Best. Punisher. Artist. EVER!

  9. #459
    Incredible Member TriggerWarning's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    555

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by useridgoeshere View Post
    Do you really need attachment to the franchise? Charlie's Angels has a pretty simple and timeless concept. Hot babes kicking ass. Seems like this one walked away from that.
    But the "hot babes kicking ass" is something thats been done many times over and with movie prices being what they are and so many choosing home video what appeal was there really? Those attached to the original series are all old and well past the prime moving going market and neither of the two prior movie franchises demanded a reboot.

    The only thing that stood out about this whole movie was the pre-emptive strikes from those who made it blaming sexism against anyone who dared question why they were rebooting it yet again. And thats not really a way to make people want to see it.

    Plus its a reboot. People are sick to death of reboots. I think this is what killed Ghostbusters more than anything. Had they called it a sequel and then had some of the original cast show up to pass the torch, let one of the women be the daughter of one of them, it would have done better. But instead the whole campaign was it was a reboot but with women and dammit your going to support this or your a misygonist.

    Sequels won't necessarily work either, see the recent Terminator movie, but that franchise has also been driven into the ground by the not so well received reboots and sequels that came before.

  10. #460
    Incredible Member Beaddle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    882

    Default

    So Charlie's Angel flopped, what's the real story with this one? people are saying it flopped because it went woke, how much wokeness is actually in this movie or are people just jumping on the bandwagon by calling everything Woke or was it just a bad movie couples with bad marketing.

  11. #461
    Old school comic book fan WestPhillyPunisher's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA
    Posts
    19,283

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beaddle View Post
    So Charlie's Angel flopped, what's the real story with this one? people are saying it flopped because it went woke, how much wokeness is actually in this movie or are people just jumping on the bandwagon by calling everything Woke or was it just a bad movie couples with bad marketing.
    If that movie was marketed, it's news to me because I saw nothing in the way of TV spots, neither on terrestrial networks (ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX) or on cable. Perhaps the studio knew going in the movie was going to be bad and decided not to waste good money promoting it.
    Avatar: Here's to the late, great Steve Dillon. Best. Punisher. Artist. EVER!

  12. #462
    Incredible Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    733

    Default

    I feel if done right with the right cast Charlie’s angels could have been fun like 21 jump street. A tv series that I assume none of the moviegoers had any attachment to, seen or knew really existed before. The cast alone sold it for me with 21 jump street, I felt Charlie’s angels didn’t have the pull of any big names besides Stewart. If they went the 21 jump street route with Charlie’s angels and just made it fun with star power it could have very well worked.

  13. #463
    Loony Scott Taylor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Running Springs, California
    Posts
    5,577

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by useridgoeshere View Post
    Do you really need attachment to the franchise? Charlie's Angels has a pretty simple and timeless concept. Hot babes kicking ass. Seems like this one walked away from that.
    The 1970s original was about women's lib. And boobies, too, just in case.
    Every day is a gift, not a given right.

  14. #464
    Extraordinary Member Cyke's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    6,597

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TriggerWarning View Post
    But the "hot babes kicking ass" is something thats been done many times over and with movie prices being what they are and so many choosing home video what appeal was there really? Those attached to the original series are all old and well past the prime moving going market and neither of the two prior movie franchises demanded a reboot.

    The only thing that stood out about this whole movie was the pre-emptive strikes from those who made it blaming sexism against anyone who dared question why they were rebooting it yet again. And thats not really a way to make people want to see it.

    Plus its a reboot. People are sick to death of reboots. I think this is what killed Ghostbusters more than anything. Had they called it a sequel and then had some of the original cast show up to pass the torch, let one of the women be the daughter of one of them, it would have done better. But instead the whole campaign was it was a reboot but with women and dammit your going to support this or your a misygonist.

    Sequels won't necessarily work either, see the recent Terminator movie, but that franchise has also been driven into the ground by the not so well received reboots and sequels that came before.
    Not saying this would've saved it (clearly it didn't), but this iteration of Charlie's Angels isn't a reboot, just a continuation of both the movies and the original show. There are references to earlier material, including outright photos of the TV and previous-movie teams.

    Again, not that it matters much. Quality and creativity still surpass those types of things, and it's not like the average Charlie's Angels fan is obsessed over canon and fan.wikis like Trekkies and Star Wars fans.

  15. #465
    Put a smile on that face Immortal Weapon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Bronx, New York
    Posts
    7,301

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beaddle View Post
    So Charlie's Angel flopped, what's the real story with this one? people are saying it flopped because it went woke, how much wokeness is actually in this movie or are people just jumping on the bandwagon by calling everything Woke or was it just a bad movie couples with bad marketing.
    The story here is the director making excuses for why her bombed. It wasn't in the conversation until she opened her mouth.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •