MovieChat Forums > Charlie's Angels (2019) Discussion > Why do people hate movies that show empo...

Why do people hate movies that show empowered women?

posted 5 years ago by TMC-4 (20123)
45 replies | jump to latest

In response to Elizabeth Banks' recent comments to say the least:
http://officialfan.proboards.com/thread/593220/people-movies-show-empowered-women?page=10

“Look, people have to buy tickets to this movie, too. This movie has to make money,” she said. “If this movie doesn’t make money it reinforces a stereotype in Hollywood that men don’t go see women do action movies.”

Charlie's Angels 2000 and 2003 made half a billion between them.

"They’ll go and see a comic book movie with Wonder Woman and Captain Marvel because that’s a male genre,”

So why make another version of Charlie's Angels which was created by two men and produced by Aaron Spelling?

“So even though those are movies about women, they put them in the context of feeding the larger comic book world, so it’s all about, yes, you’re watching a Wonder Woman movie but we’re setting up three other characters or we’re setting up ‘Justice League.’”

Justice League was critically panned and made less money than the far better reviewed Wonder Woman.

"By the way, I’m happy for those characters to have box office success,” Banks adds, “but we need more women’s voices supported with money because that’s the power. The power is in the money.”

Or maybe a better writer and director.

“You’ve had 37 Spider-Man movies and you’re not complaining!” Banks said

Spider-Man is profitable..

“My real plea is for men to have enough empathy to go watch a movie starring women”.

They did. But she dismissed those movies as being in the "male genre" even though Wonder Woman was directed by a woman, and Captain Marvel was co written and directed by women.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

No one hates them. They just aren't interested. No matter how much we can all sit around the camp fire wishing things were exactly like we WISHED they were. They aren't. That's life, deal with it.

Not you, poster, the girl that made this movie. Welcome to reality. Some things are certain ways whether we LIKE them to be or not.

Seriously glad this thing tanked. Guess what? It means LESS of these in the future. Investors will be less stupid.

[–] LLOwens (983) 5 years ago

No one hates them. They just aren't interested.

Charlie's Angels movie is #4 on IMDb "Popularity" ranking
Lead actors:
Naomi Scott is currently #12 on the IMDb Starmeter
Kristen Stewart is currently #16 on the IMDb Starmeter
Ella Balinska is currently #22 on the IMDb Starmeter

Ford V Ferrari movie is #5 on IMDb "Popularity" ranking
Lead actors:
Christian Bale is currently #35 on the IMDb Starmeter
Caitriona Balfe is currently #45 on the IMDb Starmeter
Matt Damon is currently #93 on the IMDb Starmeter

The reason why I cite this is because many on this board erroneously claim that moviegoers are much more interested in watching Christian Bale and Matt Damon perform in a movie as opposed to watching Kristen Stewart and Naomi Scott. IMDb is currently ranked #3 in the world when it comes to internet traffic for "Arts and Entertainment". And 30.6% of all of IMDb's traffic originates from the United States.

And what about YouTube, which accounts for a whopping 11.4% of all global internet traffic! The official Charlie's Angels trailer #1 currently has 18.3 million views, which is nearly triple the amount of views as the official Ford V Ferrari trailer #1 which has 6.9 million views.

Without question, interest in Charlie's Angels and the lead actors in this film is huge. So I'm shocked as to why, despite all the interest, it did so poorly at the box office here in the U.S.

[–] mitzibishi (1835) 5 years ago

Charlie's Angels lead actors:
Naomi Scott is currently #12 on the IMDb Starmeter
Kristen Stewart is currently #16 on the IMDb Starmeter
Ella Balinska is currently #22 on the IMDb Starmeter

Go back a couple of month then see what they were on the Starmeter.

>Without question, interest in Charlie's Angels and the lead actors in this film is huge. So I'm shocked as to why, despite all the interest, it did so poorly at the box office here in the U.S.

Because there was very little real interest.

[–] LLOwens (983) 5 years ago

A few months ago, if I remember correctly, Naomi Scott was ranked even higher, somewhere in the top 10, while Kristen Stewart was as high as #44 and consistently in the Top 100. Conversely, Matt Damon was in the Top 500 while Christian Bale is somewhere in the Top 100.

[–] mitzibishi (1835) 5 years ago

Anecdotal evidence.

Besides, you are trying to argue that Matt Damon and Christian Bale are lesser-known and carry less box office draw than British TV bit-part girl with a cancelled after one season TV show.

Nobody knows who they are apart from Twilight girl and nobody cares, they have zero draw, this film has zero draw, thats why it is failing.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Why do the women have to be 'empowered'? Why can't they just be 'powerful'?

'To Empower' means the power does not come from the woman, but someone else, some outside force, that gives the woman power that she doesn't normally or naturally have - thus, the woman -becomes empowered-.

Why is it important that women are powerful anyway? Does everyone always have to be powerful?

[–] ATG6 (3000) 5 years ago

People like movies with empowered women in them. As long as they're hot.

[–] johnmiller (3889) 5 years ago

Great female directors have made great female-centered movies like Jane Campion did with "The Piano."

Liz Banks is no Jane Campion.

That simple.

Next.

[–] kuku (3510) 5 years ago

1. They're politically driven. They use to portray a world where women are always strong and independent, blacks are always charming and smart, and white males are stupid and violent. The good guys are diverse, the bad guys are systematically white males.

That's no better than Christian movies where Christians are always charming and smart, and Atheists are always mean and hateful.

2. They're immersion breakers. Normal chicks punching down big guys is completely unrealistic, even in a movie. If you check the original series, you'll see how the girls use every trick to compensate the difference in strength. That's good writing:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXouegjpnng

3. They're boring. When the main trait of each and every chick is 'empowered', that makes every character feel like a clone. Here you have a list of character's traits as a help for writers:

http://www.fiction-writers-mentor.com/list-of-character-traits/

There's almost 500. When it comes to women, modern Hollywood movies bypass all of them and reduce the whole list to one: 'empowered'.

[–] QueenFanUSA (3379) 5 years ago

Very good post.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

"They're immersion breakers. Normal chicks punching down big guys is completely unrealistic, even in a movie"

I don't agree. This can be done in two ways; in a good way, and in a bad way. If you take yourself too seriously and try to show a tiny woman as a 'badass' without any explanation or humor, it will be bad.

But if you do it like they did it in the ealier Charlie's Angels-movies, you can see there's a humor and coreography to it, and a ripped man will still kick their butt (so they're not shown to be invulnerable Mary Sues). If you do it with enough humor and fun, and not taking yourself too seriously, it can work without breaking the immersion. (Also, if the woman has some sort of 'superpowers', it can work, but that's a bit different).

Another good way to do it is the way Cynthia Khan did it in her Hong Kong Kung-Fu movies, like In the Line of Duty 4 - that works extremely well, and doesn't break immersion, because her character is shown to be extremely skilled in combat, and the moves are somewhat believable. Plus, she takes some punches and kicks even to the face.

So this type of thing does not HAVE to break immersion - it only breaks immersion, if it's done badly and without explanation. If you just take a man and a woman, and the woman kicks the man's buttocks, it's unrealistic and immersion-breaking.

If you take some super-trained combat expert asian policewoman and some random, cigarette-smoking douche, it suddenly doesn't seem too unrealistic or immersion-breaking, at least in a movie.

This 'Charlie's Angels' thing can work very well in this regard. These girls are not just ordinary women, they're trained, energetic, flexible, gymnastic, athletic former professionals that have highly-toned skills and who work well together. It's entirely plausible (at least in a movie), that a trio like this could kick the buttockses of some untrained businessmen and such.

We have to remember that a two-year old has enough power to kill an adult.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

It's highly unlikely that a two-year old kills an adult, but POWERWISE, it's possible.

So even a woman can kill a man in a fight - no matter how immersion-breaking it is in movies or unlikely in real situations.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

You mean like Captain Marvel, Wonder Woman, The Force Awakens, Alien and Aliens, etc.?

[–] Satan2016 (25525) 5 years ago

Don't forget https://moviechat.org/tt0062711/Barbarella !

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

[deleted]

[–] papamihel (1616) 5 years ago

Aliens and first two Terminators were the examples of movies which showed empowered women.
What Hollywood outputs 99.9% of the time are badly written, directed and acted movies which just happen to have some fashionable political\social crap in them.

[–] brux (14724) 5 years ago

How does it empower women to show a lot of fight scenes where 90 pound girls best 300 pound guys in physical fights?

[–] G1102 (103) 5 years ago

Agree. Even 3 Gina Carano would struggle to come alive from fighting against some of those guys, but we are supposed to belive that some 45 50 kg women could beat them so easily.
The only way to circumvent this is to make the movie goofy and just roll with it.