Why the Charlie's Angels reboot bombed at the box office

[TMC]

https://www.looper.com/175393/why-th...he-box-office/

Charlie might be disappointed to hear that his Angels didn't max it to box office heaven.

Following the November 15 release of the Elizabeth Banks-directed Charlie's Angels reboot starring Kristen Stewart, Ella Balinska, and Naomi Scott (alongside Banks herself), Sony Pictures executives are reeling after the movie's disappointing turn at the box office. When the film's opening weekend came to a close on November 17, the numbers didn't lie: according to Deadline, Charlie's Angels had a bleak $8.6 million domestic opening, and earned a paltry $27.9 million internationally across 26 markets. The film had an especially bad opening in China, making just $7.8 million in the lucrative overseas territory.

From the outside, the Charlie's Angels reboot had a lot going for it: a sharp-eyed director in Banks, who famously helmed the Pitch Perfect sequel (in which she also starred as Gail Abernathy-McKadden-Feinberger); a female-led cast featuring indie darling Stewart, up-and-comer Balinska; and recent Disney movie princess Scott (who starred as Jasmine in the live-action Aladdin); a long-standing property upon which to build its plot; and even Patrick Stewart as the titular Charlie's original assistant John Bosley.

Unfortunately, the new Charlie's Angels flick was reportedly plagued by problems that contributed to its poor box office performance. Here's why the Charlie's Angels reboot bombed at the box office.

Script problems, fresh faces, and lackluster action may be to blame for Charlie's Angels' bombing

According to Deadline's box office editor Anthony D'Alessandro, the dismal box office returns the Charlie's Angels reboot pulled were partially due to issues with the script, which underwent a number of changes during development and production. There were apparently certain pain points in the script that "could never be resolved" — even with input and rewrites from Banks, Evan Spiliotopoulos, Jay Basu, Craig Mazin, and Semi Chellas.

After all those script changes, it was reportedly nearly impossible for the Charlie's Angels reboot to "attract top talent" — namely Jennifer Lawrence, Emma Stone, and Margot Robbie, whom D'Alessandro noted "would have potentially jazzed up business." The apparent inability for the production to pull in Oscar-nominated (and Oscar-winning) actresses like Lawrence, Stone, and Robbie is said to have led Sony brass to pick two relative fresh faces to star alongside Stewart. However, Balinska and Scott may have been too fresh-faced for general audiences, with their lack of household name status being a detriment rather than a drawing point for the Charlie's Angels reboot.

Additionally, D'Alessandro mentioned that the inclusion of Stewart — who is "in a different place in her career professionally, publicly, and privately" than her co-stars — may have caused the new Charlie's Angels flick to flop. He doubled down on Stewart's role in the film's poor opening weekend by saying that after years of arthouse films and low-key projects, it was unlikely that the actress would be able to draw a huge audience for a movie like Charlie's Angels, especially when she's paired with new faces like Balinska and Scott.

But the film's grim box office showing isn't entirely on Stewart and her fellow Angels. The film's lackluster action sequences may also be to blame, with D'Alessandro arguing that the reboot makes the scenes in the previous two Charlie's Angels films look like Star Wars.

Did anyone even want a new Charlie's Angels movie?

Another possible reason why the Charlie's Angels reboot bombed at the box office? Many people questioned the mere existence of the film, and weren't convinced that the world needed another Charlie's Angels movie.

According to D'Alessandro, Sony was sold on the project after Banks threw her hat in the ring for a "Charlie's Angels reboot with a modern feminist spin." But while studio executives had little doubt that the movie should be made, there was no telling how audiences would respond. Sure, it's been years since the original Charlie's Angels films (which starred Cameron Diaz, Lucy Liu, and Drew Barrymore) debuted in theaters, but was a reboot really necessary? Based on the film's poor opening weekend, it apparently wasn't.

The Charlie's Angels reboot may be a blow to female-led films

Unfortunately, in the wake of Charlie's Angels' box office hell, there's likely to be a flood of think-pieces about how female-led movies don't bring people to the box office — despite the fact that the opposite has proven true more often than not.

A recent example is Hustlers, the Jennifer Lopez-led vehicle that premiered to great returns in September 2019, telling the real-life story of a group of New York City dancers who fleeced Wall Street Bankers out of their fortunes. The film, fronted by a female cast and made by a predominantly female creative team, ended up earning an impressive $33.2 million domestic debut — marking the largest opening of Lopez's storied career and proving that movies made by and led by women can and will succeed.

In the end, the issues with Charlie's Angels may have been rooted in its script and production, but it's still disappointing across the board to see the film financially flounder this badly, especially when you pair it with a middling 58 percent rating on Rotten Tomatoes. Stars like Stewart and Banks will absolutely survive this career blip, but as for Balinska and Scott, it's not a great sign that their ambitious effort was DOA at the box office. Going forward, it's clear that studios need to recalibrate and learn their lessons from the mishaps behind Charlie's Angels.

Read More: https://www.looper.com/175393/why-th..._campaign=clip

http://www.agcwebpages.com/BLINDITEMS/2019/NOV.html

190. ENTERTAINMENT LAWYER 11/18 **#2**
As I told you last week, the studio was still hopeful the third installment of a movie would hit $10M after seeing its expectations drop in half the past several months. It way under performed even that. The former A/A- list franchise actress is taking most of the blame. Se has not exactly been box office gold. "Charlie’s Angels"/Kristen Stewart ('Charlie's Angels' Flopped Big Time At The Box Office) (Why ‘Charlie’s Angels’ Failed Its Latest Box Office Mission)

The Weekend of November 15th saw the release of Charlie’s Angels, the reboot where the main selling point was “see it, or you will further the notion that “men don’t go see women do action movies”. Neither men nor women went to see it.

In this postmortem, @AndreEinherjar will explore what Charlie’s Angels are, why the movie bombed, who director Elizabeth Banks thinks is to blame, and finally, who Andre thinks is really to blame.

[TMC]

Reading around online, I've gathered the opinion that maybe this particular iteration of Charlie's Angels could've likely done better at the box office if it had just been a straight up comedy action film or was unconnected to the brand.

I haven't seen this version of Charlie's Angels yet, but I think that it's safe to say that Charlie's Angels as a a franchise holds little value as an even somewhat serious movie to the public, given the tone and nature of the series as well as the early 2000s films. The latter embraced the comedy and sex appeal of the main actresses in the content/marketing to reasonably strong box office success. Going the opposite way may have been one big factor for why the 2011 remake that aired on ABC didn't last very long.

I'm assuming that people tuning into something with the Charlie's Angels name attached to it, expected to see a silly action romp with fan-service outfits. But they may have tuned out once they saw the trailers and heard word of mouth. To put things quite bluntly, the general word-of-mouth about it didn't even exist until the movie was released. In other words, many people had no clue this movie was being made.

Even without the "word of mouth factor" or the underwhelming marketing campaign, the movie was still dealt with a director/writer with virtually no experience in the action genre, and actors that are either not A-List (Naomi Scott, Ella Balinska) or are associated with very different kinds of movies (Kristen Stewart).

Think about it this way, looking at Kristen Stewart's filmography it appears that she hasn't had a true hit since Breaking Dawn pt. 2. One of the last mainstream movies she was in was American Ultra, starring opposite Jesse Eisenberg, and even that wasn't a big hit. Between that time, she had appearing in mainly art-house films. The bottom-line is that Stewart isn't a box office draw even though she was cast as the lead in a Charlie’s Angels remake.

I don't buy Elizabeth Banks' logic that people don't want to see female led action films. People don't want to see something that isn't PC propaganda in their faces. It's ironic coming from her considering that she was in the Hunger Games franchise with Jennifer Lawrence playing the lead heroine.

[TMC]

Would Elizabeth Banks have been better served had she used her Pitch Perfect castmates as the Angels? At least it would have encouraged that fanbase to watch this movie. Let's say, this alternate version of Charlie's Angels starred Anna Kendrick as the defacto lead (instead of Kristin Stewart) with Anna Camp and Brittany Snow as the other two Angels.

[Mood Ring]

I predicted it would bomb months before it was released. Bingo!

[JamesG]

There was no real demand for a new Charlie's Angels movie.

I think people would rather have another sequel to the 2000's movies w/ Drew Barrymore, Lucy Liu, and Cameron Diaz over this one.

[opus]

Nowadays people are so starved to get back to movie theaters that they’d go see a Charlie’s Angels movie team that consisted of Carrot Top, Bugs Bunny, and the MyPillow guy.

[TMC]

Originally Posted by JamesG

There was no real demand for a new Charlie's Angels movie.

I think people would rather have another sequel to the 2000's movies w/ Drew Barrymore, Lucy Liu, and Cameron Diaz over this one.

The earlier Charlie's Angels movies perhaps, benefited from being from a time in which action-adventure movies with female protagonists were still a relative novelty. But since then, we've seen the likes of Captain Marvel, Wonder Woman, The Hunger Games. By the time that we got to Charlie's Angels (2019), we've had two other movies (the last one coming out over 16 years prior), and a failed reboot TV reboot from 2011. There was perhaps a general feeling of "been there and done that" with the franchise.

The 2019 movie just had lukewarm reviews, with 2 stars who are not household names and 1 who is not exactly bankable/well liked, and a lot of people have grown bored with constant franchise and reboot nonsense. If it was an entertaining film with popular stars like the Cameron Diaz/Drew Barrymore/Lucy Liu films then it would have been successful, like their films were.

Doing a CA reboot was risky anyway because Full Throttle underperformed, indicating that Charlie's Angels wasn't that beloved even back in 2003. Over 15 years later, it seems there's little interest in them.

[TMC]

Originally Posted by JamesG

There was no real demand for a new Charlie's Angels movie.

I think people would rather have another sequel to the 2000's movies w/ Drew Barrymore, Lucy Liu, and Cameron Diaz over this one.

To follow up on what I said before, the first Charlie's Angels movie from 20 years ago, was one of those "right place right time" sort of things. Like I said before, it came out during a time in which action movies with females front and center, was still a bit of a novelty.

Plus, Drew Barrymore, Lucy Liu, and Cameron Diaz were pretty much at the peaks of their popularity when it came out. Drew had just come off of The Wedding Singer, Ever After, and Never Been Kissed. Lucy, while not as big of an attraction as Drew and Cameron were at the time, was none the less, on Ally McBeal, which was a very popular TV show at the time. And Cameron had just come off of My Best Friend's Wedding, There's Something About Mary, and Being John Malkovich. And then you of course, also had Bill Murray in it, who is pretty much a comic deity.

It also perfectly fell right into the zeitgeist at the time. It came out off of the heels of The Matrix, with its emphasis on "wire-fu" and bullet-time effects. It also came out when it was still in vogue to adapt an old TV series and update it for modern times like Tom Cruise did with Mission: Impossible.

Again with the 2019 movie from Elizabeth Banks, I'm not entirely sure that there was much of a consumer demand for another Charlie's Angels movie. I think had it been a proper third movie with Drew, Lucy, and Cameron, then it may have had a chance of doing better simply for "nostalgia" reasons.

[TMC]

Originally Posted by JamesG

There was no real demand for a new Charlie's Angels movie.

I think people would rather have another sequel to the 2000's movies w/ Drew Barrymore, Lucy Liu, and Cameron Diaz over this one.

It's a miracle that the first movie from the year 2000 did reasonably well given all of the chaos behind the scenes and number of cooks in the kitchen. We've all have presumably heard by now, the stories about Lucy Liu's on-set clash with Bill Murray.

But did you also know that, the entire script was literally being written and rewritten on the fly. Supposedly, the original premise had something to do with the Angels going undercover as models because someone was kidnapping actual models to clone them.

And for better or worse, Drew Barrymore a very hands on producer and insisted on the angels not carrying guns and being shown with healthy eating habits (hence the random scene at the drive through).

[TMC]

Originally Posted by Mood Ring

I predicted it would bomb months before it was released. Bingo!

WhatCulture wrote about this. One tale-tell sign that a movie is going to bomb is that it's an expensive reboot that seemingly nobody really asked for.

[SitcomsHeydayfan]

Probably because I've never heard of those 3 actors who played the Angels!

[TMC]

Why The Charlie’s Angels Reboot Bombed At The Box Office

Thus far, Charlie’s Angels has had four incarnations in the television and movie landscape. Arguably the most successful thus far are the Lucy Liu, Cameron Diaz, and Drew Barrymore films that came out in the early 2000s. Charlie’s Angels and its sequel, Charlie’s Angels: Full Throttle, made over $500 million worldwide. Nearly ten years later, the intellectual property returned to the television format; however, the updated Charlie’s Angels show was trashed by critics – and holds an abysmal 0% on rotten tomatoes – and barely made it through the first season. The series was canceled after the fourth episode due to low ratings. The franchise has been locked in a vault ever since. Audiences weren’t exactly clamoring for a reboot; however, one ended up happening anyway. Charlie’s Angels starred Kirsten Stewart, Naomi Scott, and Ella Balinska as the three leads, with Elizabeth Banks taking the reigns as the director. The 2019 remake came back with a lukewarm critical receptionist, boasting a middle-of-the-road 52% on rotten tomatoes. Despite the past success of the previous entries, Charlie’s Angels bombed in theaters, with the film only earning back $28.20 million worldwide based on a $40 million production budget. So, what happened? Despite the failure of the TV adaptation, the series was a major success back in the early 2000s. Let’s dive deeper into the reasoning behind the failure of the Charlie’s Angels reboot.

Elizabeth’s Controversial Comments
Heading into the opening weekend, Elizabeth Banks sparked some controversy regarding why Charlie’s Angels needed to succeed. The writer/director/actress spoke to the Herald Sun, stating that it would re-enforce the sentiment that men don’t go see female-led pictures if the movie failed. When the filmmaker was reminded of the success of Wonder Woman and Captain Marvel, Banks dismissed them off by stating they were in the male genre because they’re superhero features. Not surprisingly, this didn’t necessarily go over well with audiences and the statement that men don’t go see female-led pictures rings false especially since the previous two Charlie’s Angels films did so well at the box office. Let’s not forget Bridesmaids, Hunger Games, and Maleficent are some of the features that saw worldwide success prior to Banks Angels’ reboot. Her dismissal of Wonder Woman and Captain Marvel was also eye-rolling. Yes, those pictures are in a male-dominated category; however, the success of those features ultimately proved to executives that men are willing to shell out money for big action vehicles starring a female lead. The reason that there hasn’t been much success with female features is that producers and executives have had the mindset that women don’t equal box office success. There are considerably fewer female-led films because of this notion. Not every female-led movie does well, but that shouldn’t be faulted because men opted not to see the movie. Are there men out there who would absolutely refuse to watch a film with a female lead? Yes, the Ghostbusters reboot is a strong example of that. At the end of the day, Charlie’s Angels just didn’t seem like an interesting film. Despite the level of talent attached to the project, the 2019 feature came across as a bland television movie, not something many audiences felt was necessary to see in theaters.

This Was Clearly A Feminist Movie
61% of the audiences were females for the Charlie’s Angels reboot. And for good reason, as Banks may have turned men off of this movie. Her comments certainly didn’t help, but the trailers showed that this was another “women are superior to men” type of film. The actual feature only re-enforced the statement, with a good majority of the males within the movie either being pervy *********s or evil. It’s been documented at this point that movies that spread hate towards men tend to flop. The most notable is Birds of Prey (and The Fantabulous Emancipation of One Harley Quinn). Filmmakers need to understand that trashing a gender is not the way to go to get their point across. There’s nothing wrong with showcasing strong women and the powerful messages behind it, but there’s also no need to tear down and call men s**t in the process. Bridesmaids focuses on a female cast but is relatable to both men and women. The film never tears down men to get its message across and is actually pretty damn good as well. You can have a movie with a strong man and woman side by side; Wonder Woman and Steve Trevor are notable examples of this. With the Charlie’s Angel’s reboot clearly smacking its feminist themes in the audience’s face, it surely turned off most men. Unfortunately, it appeared that women weren’t all that interested either, as the responses to Banks’ comments from women showed that they couldn’t have cared less about the movie.

[Mood Ring]

Originally Posted by TMC

Why The Charlie’s Angels Reboot Bombed At The Box Office

Get woke... go broke.

Will Hollyweird ever learn?

[Mood Ring]

Originally Posted by SitcomsHeydayfan

Probably because I've never heard of those 3 actors who played the Angels!

VERY good point!

[James28]

I didn't think the 2019 reboot of Charlie's Angels was necessary, either (regardless of who was cast and its perceived feminism), and I agree. The current reboot trend in Hollywood is just inexcusable.