Elizabeth Banks on Charlie's Angels reboot criticism: 'You've had 37 Spider-Man movies' -

[Manwithn0n0men]

Elizabeth Banks on 'Charlie's Angels' reboot criticism: 'You've had 37 'Spider-Man' movies'

In the age of reboots, revivals, and sequels, Elizabeth Banks wants to know why people are criticizing her for creating another chapter in the Charlie’s…

ew.com

In the age of reboots, revivals, and sequels, Elizabeth Banks wants to know why people are criticizing her for creating another chapter in the Charlie’s Angels franchise.

In a recent profile in WSJ Magazine, the Charlie’s Angels writer/director/star responded to the criticism she’s been facing for rebooting the franchise with Kristen Stewart, Ella Balinska, and Naomi Scott. “You’ve had 37 Spider-Man movies and you’re not complaining!” Banks says. “I think women are allowed to have one or two action franchises every 17 years — I feel totally fine with that.”

Charlie’s Angels stars Stewart, Balinska, and Scott as three new angel operatives, while Banks plays a former angel turned Bosley (which is now a rank in the Townsend Agency organization rather than the name of one person). And Banks gave some insight on why Stewart has returned to a mainstream movie franchise after sticking to indie films for so long post-Twilight.


“Being in a big franchise allows you to have it all,” Banks says. “I recognize the same thing, it’s almost unfair for women. The best roles are usually in small movies, but then you don’t make any money. It’s okay to want to make money.”

Charlie’s Angels is now playing in theaters.

This movie was actually a candidate for one of my 10 worst of the year

 

[garakfan69]

Anyone old enough to actually care about Charlie's Angels doesn't want to watch a reboot for Millennials.

 

[CatParty]

I mean she’s not wrong

 

[Hatoful Dandy]

Yes, and she was in 3 of them.

 

[Manwithn0n0men]

Elizabeth Banks also spoke to Digital Spy recently, where she promised that there would be some great deleted scenes added to the DVD and opened up about her approach to making the movie.

"The blend of action and comedy I think is always a little scary," Banks explained.

"I set out to make an action movie first, but that was a lot of fun. I think it is funnier than people expect it to be. Finding that right tone was the most important thing to me."

Charlie's Angels' Elizabeth Banks hits out at reboot criticism

With a scorching comeback.

www.digitalspy.com

Elizabeth Banks: How Making ‘Charlie’s Angels’ Is Part of My Business Plan

The writer, director, producer and actress says she made a franchise from nothing with Pitch Perfect. Now she’ll tackle Charlie’s Angels for a new generation of women

www.wsj.com

The goal of the film, Banks says, was to try and capture what the TV show did: telling the story of women at their unconventional job without relationships or pesky personal problems bogging them down. “That’s how James Bond does it, that’s how Mission Impossible does it,” she says. “These women work together, and there’s enough drama in their daily lives. I do not need to add anything else to it. They don’t need to be more relatable.”

 

[Iron Hamster]

You’ve had 37 Spider-Man movies and you’re not complaining

Might want to read more than what googling your own name brings up.

 

[Jewelsmakerguy]

See, Spider-Man actually sells, regardless what the quality of the movie is.

No one gives two shits about Charlie's Angels. Not the original series, not those crappy 2000s movies and certainly not this nightmare.

 

[NOT Sword Fighter Super]

Of course you're allowed to have/make as many shitty movies as you want.

You just might have trouble continuing to do so if you keep losing the investors money.

 

[Bread Fetishist]

Did literally anyone even know this was a thing?

 

[heyilikeyourmom]

A Charlie’s Angels movie without Tom Green will never truly feel like Charlie’s Angels to me.

 

[Easterling]

That feel when totally spies probably has more of an active fan base than Charlies angels at this point. They should put more effort in coming up with something original so that they can have thier own creative lisence without being constrainted by an existing property and inadvertadly pissing people off when they fuck it up.

 

[RumblyTumbly]

I never viewed Charlie's Angels as a huge bankable property.

You had the original show and the reboot films from the early 2000s. I felt like that was about as far as it could go, and clearly there was no interest in this new one. Hell, I didn't even know it came out until I started reading articles about how it bombed.

I mean she can get mad at men for spoiling the box office, but clearly women didn't go see it either.

 

[Hatoful Dandy]

Ya Boi Zack lays into this movie and compares it to the Starbucks losing foot traffic story

 

[XYZpdq]

Yes, and she was in 3 of them.

I recall Bruce Campbell arguing that there were too many Herbie The Love Bug movies on grounds that even he had been in one.

 

[Manwithn0n0men]

So I saw this movie and it was very bad

Spoiler

So it takes a while to really get when the ACTOR is the problem, or when the SCRIPT is the problem or when the Director is the problem.

The worst actress in this movie was banks, all the actors were choking on what the script gave them [which was written by banks], and the directorial choices were all just terrible [Banks] And her EP should have stopped her [Banks again]

This is a rare case where the point of failure is a single person in a movie and it shows

The Cinematography is all over the place. And her Cinematographer worked on things like "Baby" and "The Matrix trilogy"

And its all over the place because they stitched together the action sequences in patches. This means the actresses couldn't do the stunts and they couldn't find adequate stunt people.

The decision to hire women who couldn't do the action her action movie required falls 100% on Banks

Rumor in Hollywood is the script WAS presented to actresses who had a bigger name [and could do the action] but they refused to do it because the script was so god-awful [The script written by Banks]

every time they cut between set pieces, every time they go to a new city, every time they are about to go to a Townsend location.....and every time a recurring character pops in there is a glamorous music que. Its distracting and takes you out of the action thats supposed to be high paced. That decision comes from Banks.

The movie works when the characters bantering and having fun between legs of their mission. The movie doesnt give those moments any time to breath [ and doesnt give the natural charisma and chemistry of the cast time to work] That problem once again falls on banks

The structure of the script is super simple: By the book hyper competent agent teamed with "go with the flow" but also hyper competent agent by a mentor figure who knows they are actually a good team. They go to rescue some one with information about a macguffin...the mentor gets killed and they have to learn to work together and initiate the audience viewpoint character into their secret world. There is a traitor in their organization and they don't know who to trust . They do a swerve traitor reveal and they find out the traitor is working to get the macguffin for himself and he underestimates the heroes and they win.

How the movie screws it up: we introduce three mentors in the beginning [Bosley is a rank now, not a title]. The Bosley who is supposed to be the emotional heart that gets cut out when he died? Least amount of screen time and basically is only in one scene. Traitor Bosley [Played by Patrick Stewart] is introduced in the stinger before the opening and is basically not in the movie except two scenes to telegraph he is the traitor and to telegraph the "Is the other bosley the traitor"

The only Bosley the characters interact with as a woman is Bank's character so there is no emotional investment in Patrick Stewart's betrayal. Also Stewart doesn't interact with the people who would be emotionally invested in his treason at all so it has no emotional weight in the movie. And Banks is the PERFECT female boss. And after the "is she or isnt she" the traitor swerve happens

The defeat of Stewart? Happens because of things that Bank's character did off screen. Only thing the characters did was kill the chief henchman and defuse the macguffin so it could never be weaponized [which Stewart couldn't weaponize without the heroes help. So it turns out the Macguffin was never all that serious of a threat]

The movie makes a point that the Townsend Agency uses non lethal weapons except for the Initial action set piece AND the "All is lost" action set piece. So the movie cant even keep the logic of its action consistent . They do elaborate costume changes that dont make sense with the action they do in the movie and don't make sense for professional spies. This was done as a sort of fan service to the 90s movies but when they dressed like that in the 90s movies it made more narrative sense.

It changed international cities more then a Jason Bourne movie [and that was super distracting as well because of the above]

There is a sub plot about a middle manager who is holding back a Wahmen . But the Big Bad was director of security for the company. He could steal it at any time.So a greedy middle manager did it for...for reasons?

And a movie that wants to promote Wahmen in Stem uses Star Trek levels of technobabble

And all these bad decisions are on Elizabeth Banks

[/spoilers]

 

[Hatoful Dandy]

I recall Bruce Campbell arguing that there were too many Herbie The Love Bug movies on grounds that even he had been in one.

The Chin is right.

 

[toilet_rainbow]

I completely forgot about this movie until my mom asked me if I was going to see it (I’m into female team shit). If I do see it in the theaters, it’s only because I have A List and I’ve watched enough movies this billing cycle that AMC is technically paying me to see it.

Drew Barrymore tried to revive the TV show a few years ago and it was a gigantic flop. The audience just hasn’t been there for a while.

 

[Michael Dummett]

That's 34 too many Spider-Man movies. The Raimi trilogy should have been the last Spider-Man movies for a LONG time tbh. Your movie's still shit thot.

 

[Manwithn0n0men]

I completely forgot about this movie until my mom asked me if I was going to see it (I’m into female team shit). If I do see it in the theaters, it’s only because I have A List and I’ve watched enough movies this billing cycle that AMC is technically paying me to see it.

Drew Barrymore tried to revive the TV show a few years ago and it was a gigantic flop. The audience just hasn’t been there for a while.

I also only saw it because of the glory of the A-List

Also all men are oafs or jerks if they are there for more then scene window dressing.....except for the character that is clearly CODED as Gay [they call him the saint] and the one thats in two scenes just so the main character can flirt with him

 

[Jewelsmakerguy]

I recall Bruce Campbell arguing that there were too many Herbie The Love Bug movies on grounds that even he had been in one.

He at least has a point- All but the first one are pointless. Especially Goes Bananas and Fully Loaded.