Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

Hello and thank you for being a DL contributor. We are changing the login scheme for contributors for simpler login and to better support using multiple devices. Please click here to update your account with a username and password.

Hello. Some features on this site require registration. Please click here to register for free.

Hello and thank you for registering. Please complete the process by verifying your email address. If you can't find the email you can resend it here.

Hello. Some features on this site require a subscription. Please click here to get full access and no ads for $1.99 or less per month.

"Charlie's Angels" is a gigantic flop!

It was too dyketastic for mainstream audiences.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 30Last Saturday at 10:43 PM

Is anyone surprised? The angels are supposed to be pretty, not butch and ugly. And who in the fuck keeps putting that miserable cunt Kristen Stewart in movies?? She fucking sucks.

by Anonymousreply 111/15/2019

This was a retread of a retread. Enough of this shit, already.

by Anonymousreply 211/15/2019

R2, its next incarnation will be animated.

by Anonymousreply 311/15/2019

I don't understand the strategy behind these multimillion dollar decisions.

In what way does the TV series from the 7Os resonate with teen/young adult moviegoers now? In what way does the 2000 movie (or the flop sequel) resonate with viewers not yet born when it was released?

Hollywood is a collective failure of imagination and common sense.

by Anonymousreply 411/15/2019

Hollywood needs to die. Garbage product from a dead industry.

by Anonymousreply 511/15/2019

At least they kept the budget for CA reasonable. That might save the film.

by Anonymousreply 611/15/2019

Box office revised downwards from 10 million to 8 million


Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 711/16/2019

R7 LMAO! When is retarded Hollywood going to learn to quit putting that miserable ugly cunt Kristen Stewart in movies? Nobody likes her butch ass.

by Anonymousreply 811/16/2019

R4, I would agree with that. The older generation can watch their favorite shows in so many ways now whether it be in reruns on cable, Amazon Prime/Hulu/Netflix, etc., or on DVD. Younger people couldn't care less about them. Although the 2000 movie did pretty well. I think it was a fluke, though. Reboots of old shows rarely work out.

by Anonymousreply 911/16/2019

The 2000 movie succeeded because it was a product made for a generation which still devoured MTV. It was directed by a music video director, McG, and had a tie in single by Destiny’s Child which was played relentlessly that summer. So, even though the IP had no relevance with young people at the time, the makers understood how to create an audience for it.

I don’t think there was any such motivation behind this one other than “Elizabeth Banks has deemed it important”.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 1011/16/2019

Gen X was hungry for 1970s nostalgia, including young people who were raised on MTV. The cast included actors who were very popular with young people. A generation of young people grew up with Drew Barrymore. The 2000 reboot made sense.

by Anonymousreply 1111/16/2019

I can't speak for everyone but they needed more star power to succeed. I have no idea who those other two girls are.

by Anonymousreply 1211/16/2019

Thank the lord. Give me another one with Drew, Lucy and Cameron not Dull Surprise, the other two and white feminist Elizabeth Banks.

by Anonymousreply 1311/16/2019

This could have worked. The problem here was the casting is so unexciting and the marketing was even worse.

by Anonymousreply 1411/16/2019

Cant they just CGI a movie with original, sexy, charismatic, beautiful and charming women. I'd go see that movie.

by Anonymousreply 1511/16/2019

Loyal friend, Adam Scott, likes it!

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 1611/16/2019

The first two movies with Drew Barrymore, Lucy Liu, and Cameron Diaz (at near the height of her box office pull) only made $260 worldwide.

The people making these movies need to do practice actual market segmentation instead of wishful thinking. The Angels franchise does not and will not appeal to women who want to watch "empowered" women. It is fundamentally a jigglefest in terms of share of mind of audiences.

You focus on the target audience, then add something in for other segments, like those wanting to see powerful women.

They love Scarlett Johanson's ass kicking Black Widow. They love Summar Glau's River from Serenity; Buffy, Sidney Bristow from Alias, Peggy Carter, Okoye from Black Panther.

The list goes on. It's not that women can kick ass.

by Anonymousreply 1711/16/2019


It's not that women CANNOT kick ass.

by Anonymousreply 1811/16/2019

they should have given it over to tyler perry, they would have made a half billion.

by Anonymousreply 1911/16/2019

they should have given it over to tyler perry, they would have made a half billion.

by Anonymousreply 2011/16/2019

they should have given it over to tyler perry, they would have made a half billion.

by Anonymousreply 2111/16/2019

Not surprised. There were a million red flash I picked up on when I saw the first trailer that told me it’d flop.

The biggest one is that it’s a remake of a remake. People are tired of remakes and rehashings. They’re everywhere.

The second biggest one is casting. An actress nobody has heard from in over a decade and two nobodies playing roles as big as Charlie’s Angels? Of course it flopped. None of them have charisma, especially Kristen and the chick who was in Aladdin.

The third is that the movie looked ugly. Everything about it was either harsh in a bad way or uninteresting. It looked factory made. It looked like a movie we’d seen before. Nobody was hooked or interested because of how plastic and mechanical it looked. It had no unique style or aesthetic, no visual appeal. Watching the trailer was like watching a car commercial.

by Anonymousreply 2211/16/2019

r17 Isn't $264.1 million against a budget of $93 million pretty good? It was the 12th highest grossest film that year

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 23Last Friday at 6:05 AM

*grossing even!

by Anonymousreply 24Last Friday at 6:07 AM

To whoever said Full Throttle was a flop, I seem to remember it doing very well at the time. It was Demi Moore's big comeback film, and a lot of fun, even more so than the original.

That was a big part of the problem with this remake. Nobody sees Kristen Stewart and thinks "fun". Elizabeth Banks was also fresh off her disastrous turn as Rita Repulsa in the Power Rangers movie... Which also got way too serious with his camping Source material and a deviated in style noticeably.

McG may have been criticized for his bombast, but those first two movies had plenty of colour, memorable set pieces and humor. They were like really fun extended commercials. If they kept nothing else for this remake, they should have kept a little bit of that aesthetic and tone in mind.

Casting those two unknowns really didn't help matters either.

I think it helps tremendously that Drew, Cameron and Lucy were in on the joke and having lots of fun making the first two films. These days, all actresses want to be serious and want to appear as feminist as possible. It was going to be difficult finding any A-list actresses willing to go out on that limb in the currency political environment. As you all have pointed out, does the world really need more women bouncing around giggling in skimpy outfits?

I still haven't seen the remake, but I will give it a look because I heard that they got one or two things right.

by Anonymousreply 25Last Friday at 6:39 AM

*way too serious with its campy source material*

by Anonymousreply 26Last Friday at 6:41 AM

[Quote] It was Demi Moore's big comeback film, and a lot of fun, even more so than the original.

Lots of articles about the procedures she got done to look her best. And she was fun, but Full Throttle was a bit too ridiculous compared to the first movie.

by Anonymousreply 27Last Friday at 7:53 AM

It was a blast. The laws of physics weren't respected but who cares? Bigger laughs, better Bosley, great cameos and a fun plot.

by Anonymousreply 28Last Saturday at 5:31 AM

Stewart is the typical Lez who loses all humor by 30. I think it’s hormonal. They either lose it or become sadistic like Ellen.

by Anonymousreply 29Last Saturday at 6:05 AM

R29 thirty?? I don't think she ever had one.

by Anonymousreply 30Last Saturday at 10:43 PM
Need more help? Click Here.

Yes indeed, we too use "cookies." Don't you just LOVE clicking on these things on every single site you visit? I know we do! You can thank the EU parliament for making everyone in the world click on these pointless things while changing absolutely nothing. If you are interested you can take a look at our privacy/terms or if you just want to see the damn site without all this bureaucratic nonsense, click ACCEPT and we'll set a dreaded cookie to make it go away. Otherwise, you'll just have to find some other site for your pointless bitchery needs.


Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!