« POPE 5 Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

Re: Man-Hating Woketards Kill Another Franchise 

By: Beldin in POPE 5 | Recommend this post (2)
Tue, 19 Nov 19 8:20 PM | 28 view(s)
Boardmark this board | Pope 5
Msg. 44950 of 62138
(This msg. is a reply to 44748 by Decomposed)

Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

Here's a funny and true follow-up from Nolte regarding the new misandric Charlie's Angels box office FLOP. 

Nolte: Big Fat Liar Elizabeth Banks Blames Sexism for "Charlie's Angels" Flop

http://www.breitbart.com/entertainment/2019/11/18/elizabeth-banks-blames-sexism-for-charlies-angels-flop/

By John Nolte
Breitbart
November 18, 2019

Prior to Charlie's Angels (2019) fiery death at the box office, writer-director-star Elizabeth Banks had already formulated sexism as an excuse for her coming flop. Per IndieWire:

Prior to the movie's disastrous opening weekend, Banks gave an interview to the Herald Sun that is now proving to be somewhat controversial. The filmmaker, who also wrote and produced "Charlie's Angels" and stars in the movie as Bosley, called out a potential box office bomb as being sexist. "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."

To explain away the box office success of Wonder Woman and Captain Marvel, two female-led smashes, Banks added, "They'll [meaning: evil men] go and see a comic book movie with Wonder Woman and Captain Marvel because that's a male genre."

"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,'" she added.

Banks' comments are not only a pathetic act of pre-emptive crybabying, they are a bald-faced lie.

First off, Charlie's Angels (2019) is not just a flop. That $8 million opening weekend is a catastrophe a humiliation, and hopefully a wake-up call that no one - man, woman, young, old - is interested in these obnoxious, joyless, sexless, woketard movies.

Already five major franchises - five - have been killed at the box office after being rebooted to exclude and demean men.

How many more before this slaughter of golden geese comes to an end?

And of course, the dried-up harpies blame men. Male critics were blamed when Disney stripped A Wrinkle in Time of its Christianity and replaced it with woketardianity - and it flopped. Men were blamed for avoiding the misandry of the objectively terrible all-girls Ghostbusters reboot.

You see, it's our fault guys, because we're not enlightened enough to spend our hard-earned money and free time on movies that inform us the future doesn't include men - that even though we fight all the wars and do all the dangerous jobs (weird how feminists never fight to work in coalmines), that we are the problem.

Sorry, Hollywood, but this is still America, where even men are allowed to choose how to spend their money and time, so fuck you ... Go unclog your own toilet, open your own jar, kill your own spider, fight your own wars, dig for your own energy, build your own skyscraper, trim your own trees, pull your own fish out of the ocean, shingle your own roof ...

But then there's Banks' lying ... The lying ...

NEWSFLASH: You do not need even one man to produce a hit movie. Hell, you don't even need women who live in red states, or women who sold out to the patriarchy by getting married. Get this ...

Two million women live in Los Angeles and 73 percent of them are single. That's 1.46 million single women in one super-blue city alone ...

There are ten million women living in New York City and 55 percent of them are single. That's 5.5 million single women in another super-blue city.

If just those women had gone to see Charlie's Angels, that's a $60 million opening weekend.

In other words, while Banks is blaming men for not showing up, her lousy movie could not even attract 15 percent of the single women in two of the most left-wing cities in America.

Banks' second anti-science whopper is a bald-faced lie that says men are only willing to see women in action if it comes from "male genre" of superhero movies that lead to a male-dominated Justice League or Avengers.

Uhm ...

Aliens, Resident Evil, Hunger Games, Underworld - all successful, female-led franchises that have nothing to do with male super heroes.

Kill Bill Vol. 1 and 2, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Atomic Blonde, Salt, Wanted, Tomb Raider 1 & 2, Mad Max: Fury Road, Lucy, and ... Oh, yeah! Let's not forget a 2000 movie called - no joke - Charlie's Angels, that opened to $40 million, and its 2003 sequel, Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle, that opened to $37 million ...

How could this be? How is this possible? All of these hit action franchises starring women, all of these hit action movies starring women, and all of it happening before The Woke Era enlightened and uplifted us?

You want to know why Charlie's Angels (2019) is going to lose $75 million?

First click here.

Then here.

Then here.

Any other questions?

Man, I miss T&A.

Hey, we don't hate you Hollywood!

We're just hating you back.

And good luck with that new James Bond movie!




Avatar

The essential American soul is hard, isolate, stoic, and a killer. It has never yet melted. ~ D.H. Lawrence


- - - - -
View Replies (1) »



» You can also:
- - - - -
The above is a reply to the following message:
Man-Hating Woketards Kill Another Franchise
By: Decomposed
in POPE 5
Sat, 16 Nov 19 4:47 PM
Msg. 44748 of 62138

Oh, but clo will love it.
November 15, 2019

‘Charlie’s Angels’ (2019) Review: Man-Hating Woketards Kill Another Franchise

by John Nolte
Breitbart.com



The Woketards have destroyed the Charlie’s Angels franchise, just like they did Ghostbusters, Terminator, and Men in Black.

We now have four lucrative franchises that were originally created to appeal to everyone — men, women, young, old… Then the strident feminists goosestepped in, took over, and abused their power to exclude men, demean men, humiliate and mock men. And each time, the result is the same: box office catastrophe, the death of a golden goose franchise.

Based on a dismal opening night, and the fact that at the first screening of Charlie’s Angels in my local theater I was the only person there (something that hasn’t happened to me in 30 years), it seems safe to predict director-screenwriter Elizabeth Banks has doomed her Angels to box office oblivion.

Whether you are talking about the iconic television show that ran for five seasons starting in 1976, or the pair of Angels films (2000 and 2003) that starred Drew Barrymore, Lucy Liu, and Cameron Diaz, the idea had been to entertain everyone.

1) Men enjoyed the action scenes and the sex appeal that comes with gazing upon stunningly beautiful women who love to showcase their effect on men.

2) Women enjoyed the wish-fulfillment of watching other women kick ass, solve crimes, join a sisterhood, get pampered by Charlie, and wear all the latest fashions.

The Feminist Woketards have decreed that number one, the “male gaze,” is now “problematic” and therefore a Thoughtcrime, and what we will be punished with is the joyless, preachy, unimaginative death march that is Charlie’s Angels (2019).

The opening credits serve as a warning: a sanctimonious montage of empowered teen and pre-teen girls doing science and sports and stuff… As this was unfurling before me, I quickly prayed for at least one shot of a woman vacuuming or ironing or bringing her man a beer in a bikini — something, anything that would reassure or surprise me, something that said, Don’t worry, this is going to be fun.

Nope.

Charlie’s Angels isn’t about fun. Instead, it’s about cheap, unearned cheer moments, about preaching to a choir that hasn’t smiled since Anita Hill was proven a liar.

And then there’s the movie’s opening scene where Androgynous Bisexual Angel (Kristen Stewart) kicks a sexist pig’s ass while lecturing us about how “Women can do anything.” Soon she’s joined by Diversity Hire Angel (Ella Balinsk). Although together they weigh less than 89 pounds, both are able to take down more than a dozen 200 pound bodyguards.

This $55 million piece of exhausting garbage delivers 119 minutes of insufferable GRRRRRL power cheese… And other than one somewhat clever scene involving a wig, nothing works. Forget the ham-handed man-hating… Nothing, and I mean nothing works.

Unlike the series and the previous movie adaptations, the three leads have no charisma and absolutely no chemistry. Not for a moment do you buy the relationships or that there is a growing camaraderie. And then there are the so-called plot twists. I don’t want to give too much away, but once you realize how hostile this movie is towards men, the outcome is about as surprising as Beto O’Rourke’s presidential campaign.

If all of that is not unappealing enough, the plot involves *yawn* clean energy and the fate of the world.

Worse still, this is a bit of an origin tale. For some reason, even though this franchise is pushing 50, even though there have been two movies, two television shows (a failed 2011 reboot) and even an animated version in 2003, Naomi Scott is brought on as the audience surrogate to justify a ton of unnecessary exposition.

Naturally, there has to be world building in the hopes of an eventual Angels Cinematic Universe, so what had been the story of three women working out of a local detective agency managed by a sweet and protective Uncle figure named Bosley, is now a worldwide superspy organization managed by a “Bosley,” so now women can be Bosleys too!

Banks is basically remaking Kingsman, but a tedious, joyless, colorless, direct-to-video version of Kingsman that leaps all over the globe but still manages to make every city look like every other city. The cinematography is shockingly dull, as are the so-called action sequences, which confuse quick cuts with excitement.

I know I’m not supposed to say this, but Banks is a terrible action director. She’s no Kathryn Bigelow. You can hardly tell what’s going on, who is where, how an unarmed, 45-pound girl dropped a trained, 220-pound armed man on his back. And when Banks cuts in-between simultaneous action scenes hoping we’ll hold our breath as Diversity Hire Angel tries to fight the patriarchy in time to save Androgynous Bisexual Angel from a shredder, you just… Man alive, it’s just so bad, so inept, so mishandled.

You know, earlier this week I saw (and reviewed) Harriet, a rousing, inspiring movie about escaped-slave-turned-abolitionist Harriet Tubman; the true story of a woman — a strong, capable, righteous black woman, who took charge of men, who shamed men for their inaction, who led men into battle during the Civil War… And not for one moment did I feel insulted, demeaned, excluded, or talked down to as I was manspreading in my seat. What I did feel, though, was awe, respect, admiration, and the pleasure that comes with discovering a new hero.

You see, it can be done, and Harriet managed to do it with a third of the money wasted by Elizabeth Banks.

Charlie’s Angels (2019) is deliberately divisive and the product of an insecure woman who doesn’t have the confidence in herself, or her targeted audience, to make her point without a ham hand, without lecturing us using cartoonish male characters, sexless female characters, and thuddingly bad dialogue…

STUPID SPOILER ALERT…

By the time Banks revealed that Charlie is really a woman using a man’s voice, my boredom and frustration turned to pity. To be handed a beloved franchise and $50 million, and then bungle it because you confused your own touchy neuroses with inspiration…

How humiliating.

http://www.breitbart.com/entertainment/2019/11/15/charlies-angels-2019-review-man-hating-woketards-kill-another-franchise/


« POPE 5 Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next