It will bomb.

If they aren't using trans men then its sexist.

UnderoosAg said:

---

If they aren't using trans men then its sexist.

---

This is kind of my question. I'm 1000% sure this thing is going to absolutely bomb.

I guess my curiosity stems from the following question:

Is hollywood aware that not many people want to see this woke-ertainment and willing to lose money to make their political points.

or.....

are they stupid and actually think people want this?

Why is this "woke-ertainment" as you say? Charlie's Angels has always been female driven.

Jim01 said:

---

Why is this "woke-ertainment" as you say? Charlie's Angels has always been female driven.

---

Have you seen who they cast as the "lead"

Its a,... um..... butch lesbian. I really don't have any problem with that but it kind of goes against what Charlies Angels was really based on. Using femininity as an advantage against men.

Absolutely a thread I would expect from a politics board guy. The movie won't bomb because "people don't want to see 'woke' movies" - the movie will bomb if it's not entertaining; it will be a surprise hit if it IS entertaining. That's it. And yes, it can absolutely be entertaining with a "butch" female lead. No doubts.

Quote:

---

I really don't have any problem with that

---

cough, cough bull ****, cough, cough.

TresPuertas said:

---

Jim01 said:

---

Why is this "woke-ertainment" as you say? Charlie's Angels has always been female driven.

---

Have you seen who they cast as the "lead"

Its a,... um..... butch lesbian. I really don't have any problem with that but it kind of goes against what Charlies Angels was really based on. Using femininity as an advantage against men.

---

I don't think you know what a "butch lesbian" is.

TresPuertas said:

---

UnderoosAg said:

---

If they aren't using trans men then its sexist.

---

This is kind of my question. I'm 1000% sure this thing is going to absolutely bomb.

I guess my curiosity stems from the following question:

Is hollywood aware that not many people want to see this woke-ertainment and willing to lose money to make their political points.

or.....

are they stupid and actually think people want this?

---

A) Hollywood is run by executives trying desperately to keep their jobs.

B) Literally every movie is a massive gamble.

If a certain studio's slate doesn't perform well over X number of years, those execs are removed and a new team is brought in. This happens over and over and over again in Hollywood. So the best chance a team of execs has at keeping their jobs is to make as many "safe bets" as humanly possible. This is where IP - intellectual property - comes in. If a property has name brand recognition, or an already built-in audience, execs are more willing to bet on it because they know at least a certain audience will likely show up. This is how and why we get so many sh*tty reboots like this latest iteration of Charlie's Angels. Some of these IP bets are extremely smart. Some of them are extremely dumb. CA certainly seems to fall in the latter category.

It never ceases to amaze me that people - especially those who frequent the politics board - think Hollywood's business model is somehow based solely on trying to be "woke." I promise you, the people running the show are nothing more than money-hungry capitalists trying desperately to keep their jobs. That doesn't mean they're not "Libs" and that doesn't mean that diversity or "wokeness" or whatever isn't an aim from time to time.

But self-preservation, above-all, is what drives the decision-making in this town.

Not idealism.

CapCityAg89 said:

---

Quote:

---

I really don't have any problem with that

---

cough, cough bull ****, cough, cough.

---

Sorry. Maybe I should rephrase. I really don't give a ****

Whenever I see something from the politics board, I think of something that Frasier Crane once said to Cliff Clavin on Cheers.

"What color is the sky in your world, Cliff?"

TCTTS said:

---

TresPuertas said:

---

UnderoosAg said:

---

If they aren't using trans men then its sexist.

---

This is kind of my question. I'm 1000% sure this thing is going to absolutely bomb.

I guess my curiosity stems from the following question:

Is hollywood aware that not many people want to see this woke-ertainment and willing to lose money to make their political points.

or.....

are they stupid and actually think people want this?

---

A) Hollywood is run by executives trying desperately to keep their jobs.

B) Literally every movie is a massive gamble.

If a certain studio's slate doesn't perform well over X number of years, those execs are removed and a new team is brought in. This happens over and over and over again in Hollywood. So the best chance a team of execs has at keeping their jobs is to make as many "safe bets" as humanly possible. This is where IP - intellectual property - comes in. If a property has name brand recognition, or an already built-in audience, execs are more willing to bet on it because they know at least a certain audience will likely show up. This is how and why we get so many sh*tty reboots like this latest iteration of Charlie's Angels. Some of these IP bets are extremely smart. Some of them are extremely dumb. CA certainly seems to fall in the later category.

It never ceases to amaze me that people - especially those who frequent the politics board - think Hollywood's business model is somehow based solely on trying to be "woke." I promise you, the people running the show are nothing more than money-hungry capitalists trying desperately to keep their jobs. That doesn't mean they're not "Libs" and that doesn't mean that diversity or "wokeness" or whatever isn't an aim from time to time.

But self-preservation, above-all, is what drives this town.

Not idealism.

---

I appreciate this response. This is pretty much why I brought this particular question here because I was trying to understand the degree in Hollywood that Politics and Capitalism intersect. I don't live there, and I know you do, so I was hoping to get to clarity on the thought processes between the creatives and the studios. I'm not an action movie guy, but in my mind, when you speak to target demographic of this type of movie, they likely aren't going to be to receptive of Kristen Stewart, and I don't see how studios don't see this? Its just kind of perplexing.

If Elizabeth Banks wanted to go that direction I personally think the place to go would have been Ruby Rose because she has some real cross over appeal, particular to female audiences.

I just can't get over Kristen Stewart. Shes universally thought of as a bad actress, isn't in any sort of demand and they have her anchoring a pretty big budget movie. The whole thing just doesn't make sense to me. Hence the thought that this may be political. Its almost like someone owed her a favor.

I promise I'm not trying to be overly conservative on this issue, regardless of what you guys think. Im just trying to understand this decision and what led to it.

Fair enough. Though, I think you're underestimating Stewart's appeal. I'm not a particularly a big fan of hers either, but critics absolutely love her. I don't know where you're getting this "universally thought of as a bad actress" thing. Again, *I* don't think she's that great, but she does tons of indie films, works with tons of name/indie directors, and still has huge name recognition from Twilight. I look at this CA cast and she's the one anchoring/legitimizing it in my mind.

Quote:

---

I'll be the first one to tell you that I lurk and occasionally post on the politics board

---

My brain read this as "don't bother with the rest of this post or thread". I regrettably ignored.

Didn't they just make a reboot of Charlie's Angels? It was stupid too.

Ha, yes... in 2000. Followed by a sequel in 2003. So... 16 years ago.

Can we just talk about how hot Cameron Diaz used to be?

Her entrance in The Mask might well have been my sexual awakening.

TresPuertas said:

---

TCTTS said:

---

TresPuertas said:

---

UnderoosAg said:

---

If they aren't using trans men then its sexist.

---

This is kind of my question. I'm 1000% sure this thing is going to absolutely bomb.

I guess my curiosity stems from the following question:

Is hollywood aware that not many people want to see this woke-ertainment and willing to lose money to make their political points.

or.....

are they stupid and actually think people want this?

---

A) Hollywood is run by executives trying desperately to keep their jobs.

B) Literally every movie is a massive gamble.

If a certain studio's slate doesn't perform well over X number of years, those execs are removed and a new team is brought in. This happens over and over and over again in Hollywood. So the best chance a team of execs has at keeping their jobs is to make as many "safe bets" as humanly possible. This is where IP - intellectual property - comes in. If a property has name brand recognition, or an already built-in audience, execs are more willing to bet on it because they know at least a certain audience will likely show up. This is how and why we get so many sh*tty reboots like this latest iteration of Charlie's Angels. Some of these IP bets are extremely smart. Some of them are extremely dumb. CA certainly seems to fall in the later category.

It never ceases to amaze me that people - especially those who frequent the politics board - think Hollywood's business model is somehow based solely on trying to be "woke." I promise you, the people running the show are nothing more than money-hungry capitalists trying desperately to keep their jobs. That doesn't mean they're not "Libs" and that doesn't mean that diversity or "wokeness" or whatever isn't an aim from time to time.

But self-preservation, above-all, is what drives this town.

Not idealism.

---

I appreciate this response. This is pretty much why I brought this particular question here because I was trying to understand the degree in Hollywood that Politics and Capitalism intersect. I don't live there, and I know you do, so I was hoping to get to clarity on the thought processes between the creatives and the studios. I'm not an action movie guy, but in my mind, when you speak to target demographic of this type of movie, they likely aren't going to be to receptive of Kristen Stewart, and I don't see how studios don't see this? Its just kind of perplexing.

If Elizabeth Banks wanted to go that direction I personally think the place to go would have been Ruby Rose because she has some real cross over appeal, particular to female audiences.

I just can't get over Kristen Stewart. Shes universally thought of as a bad actress, isn't in any sort of demand and they have her anchoring a pretty big budget movie. The whole thing just doesn't make sense to me. Hence the thought that this may be political. Its almost like someone owed her a favor.

I promise I'm not trying to be overly conservative on this issue, regardless of what you guys think. Im just trying to understand this decision and what led to it.

---

It mainly seems like you really hate Kristen Stewart. But it kind of comes across like you strongly dislike all women who dont want to have sex with men and that you cant comprehend why anyone would think otherwise.


It's a crappy 70s tv show. What legacy is being harmed if this movie is pure crap? Same as the recent CHiPs movie and the less recent Dukes of Hazzard movie.

Kristen Stewart is what I love about women.

And I say that as a very happily married man and father.

I hate that so many women have been brainwashed by a shallow culture to believe they have to be perfect like a Victoria Secret model or an Instagram hooker.

She has so much appeal in her eyes and the way she holds her mouth. It's sexy.

My point is every woman is unique in their own way and sex appeal and beauty comes in many shapes and forms. She never struck me as butch, not even close. So many Hollywood women are not perfect 10's by modeling standards, same for singers, and god bless them for it.

TCTTS said:

---

TresPuertas said:

---

Jim01 said:

---

Why is this "woke-ertainment" as you say? Charlie's Angels has always been female driven.

---

Have you seen who they cast as the "lead"

Its a,... um..... butch lesbian. I really don't have any problem with that but it kind of goes against what Charlies Angels was really based on. Using femininity as an advantage against men.

---

I don't think you know what a "butch lesbian" is.

---

This. Kristen Stewart is anything but butch.

Don't get worked up about it. It's his schtick to patrol this board and jump on anyone he thinks is to the right of the average sensibility in CA.

This movie will suck and bomb. From a financial perspective, it's probably relatively cheap to make so overall once all avenues of distribution are met, it may turn a modest profit but likely nothing more.

And Hollywood is no different than any other industry or my tax return for that matter. Taking a dog now and then can be useful just like unloading some crap stocks to offset some income can be. It's all a shell game.

TCTTS is right though for the most part. It's all bottom line driven. Mistakes get made everyday but the pursuit of the almighty dollar sets the stage.

Did they reverse it and get Craig Robinson, James Franco, and Chris Pine to be the angels and someone like Jennifer Aniston to be Charlie?