Elizabeth Banks Blames Sexism for ‘Charlie’s Angels’ Flop

[Anti Federalist]

Posted for nothing more than the highlighted rant in bold.


Elizabeth Banks Blames Sexism for ‘Charlie’s Angels’ Flop

https://www.breitbart.com/entertainm...s-angels-flop/

JOHN NOLTE 18 Nov 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’s 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 $#@! 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!

[euphemia]

Seriously? Did they see the original television series?

[acptulsa]

Sexism is clearly to blame. But it's not that men are too sexist, it's that women aren't sexist enough.

Take Hillary Clinton. Please. If women were sexist enough to support everything aimed at them, no matter how awful, lame, unsupportable and downright frightening, she'd be president.

[Origanalist]

First click here.

Then here.

Then here.

There seems to be a certain progression going on there......

[Origanalist]

[VIDEODROME]

Charlie's Angels (2000) opened with $40.1 million. Did sexism change that much since then?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charli...ilm)#Reception

[acptulsa]

“They’ll [meaning: evil men] go and see a comic book movie with Wonder Woman and Captain Marvel because that’s a male genre.”

And since when are private eye shows not a "male genre"?

[dannno]

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!

Holy $#@!, it's Zack Morris!!

[jmdrake]

Charlie's Angels (2000) opened with $40.1 million. Did sexism change that much since then?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charli...ilm)#Reception

The look of the cast?



Charlie's Androgynous Angels just doesn't have the same appeal.

[jmdrake]

This belongs here.

[Anti Globalist]

Or maybe it flopped because the movie was terrible.

[Superfluous Man]

Charlie's Angels (2000) opened with $40.1 million. Did sexism change that much since then?

That 2000 version used sex appeal and male-oriented humor. It succeeded by catering to sexism (so the thinking goes). The new one tried to prove that it could do just as well if it starred unknown actresses who are much less attractive and omitted everything misogynists might laugh at or enjoy. And it failed at that. Ergo, sexism reigns.

As I see it, whether you want to label the well-known and long-standing proclivities of the market "sexist" or not doesn't really matter if you're trying to earn money and not lose it. You're a fool to invest in a guaranteed flop like that.

[acptulsa]

That 2000 version used sex appeal and male-oriented humor. It succeeded by catering to sexism (so the thinking goes). The new one tried to prove that it could do just as well if it starred unknown actresses who are much less attractive and omitted everything misogynists might laugh at or enjoy. And it failed at that. Ergo, sexism reigns.

As I see it, whether you want to label the well-known and long-standing proclivities of the market "sexist" or not doesn't really matter if you're trying to earn money and not lose it. You're a fool to invest in a guaranteed flop like that.

Either that or it was the second attempt to cash in by remaking a TV series that was so forgettable that half the cast couldn't stomach making it any more after a few seasons. Or because the trailer gave away too much of the movie--like the fact that the writing was awful, the situations unbelievable and the acting deplorable. Or the fact that remakes of Leisure Suit Era Television have been done to death. Or...

...maybe it flopped because the movie was terrible.

But props to Banks for trying to blame it on men. I'm sure the world's full of executive producers who are totally reassured by her whining and will line up to have her lose their money too.

[Stratovarious]

Lets see here, I prolly got this wrong, but was ms Banks not being extremely sexist
in writing , producing , and staring in this sexist film?

[Stratovarious]

Lizzy Banks will not only be remembered for her sexism, but attempts to
attain unearned inhancement from profiteering and the exploitation of
women , not all that different from human trafficing.
Left to her own devices and if she were a he, she would self prosecute
and giver herself consecutive life sentences without parole.

[Superfluous Man]

It just hit me how much this sounds like the complaints I heard about this year's world champion women's US Soccer team making less than the much better men's team. Supposedly, people who didn't want to watch women playing soccer are sexist too, and a large percentage of those who did force themselves to sit through women's soccer games did so just to not be sexist.

[Anti Federalist]

It just hit me how much this sounds like the complaints I heard about this year's world champion women's US Soccer team making less than the much better men's team. Supposedly, people who didn't want to watch women playing soccer are sexist too, and a large percentage of those who did force themselves to sit through women's soccer games did so just to not be sexist.

Who's complaining...I think the whole thing is hilarious.

[Superfluous Man]

Who's complaining...I think the whole thing is hilarious.

Nobody here. But some people did. And this Banks lady sounds like them.

[Anti Federalist]

Nobody here. But some people did. And this Banks lady sounds like them.

OIC...gotcha.

[jmdrake]

It just hit me how much this sounds like the complaints I heard about this year's world champion women's US Soccer team making less than the much better men's team. Supposedly, people who didn't want to watch women playing soccer are sexist too, and a large percentage of those who did force themselves to sit through women's soccer games did so just to not be sexist.

Since gender is just a social construct, women should break the glass ceiling and just play on the men's team.

[Anti Federalist]

Since gender is just a social construct, women should break the glass ceiling and just play on the men's team.

The TERFs need to hear that.

[angelatc]

Who's complaining...I think the whole thing is hilarious.

I thought this picture was pretty hilarious. That chick on the right is either fixing to either get her finger broken or have a cup of tea
- could go either way

[oyarde]

Elizabeth banks is some kid from Mass. playing the part of a man . Ya , nobody is watching that .

[Anti Federalist]

I thought this picture was pretty hilarious. That chick on the right is either fixing to either get her finger broken or have a cup of tea
- could go either way

Or she's getting ready to beat down 20 CGI men built like Randy Savage.

ROFL.