The film industry is always a gamble, box-office is often not a good measure of the artistic quality of a film, and even the best directors or those with the best intentions can soar one minute and crash hard the next with their work.
That said, defensiveness is not a good look when it comes to discussing disappointing box-office for a film and the recent crash landing of the mixed reviewed “Charlie’s Angels” this weekend has seen the film’s director and co-star Elizabeth Banks speaking up about why it bombed in a way that could have gone better.
First she spoke to Wall Street Journal Magazine and says there is an inherent bias against female-led action franchises and that no-one complains about reboots of male-led properties: “You’ve had 37 ‘Spider-Man’ movies and you’re not complaining. I think women are allowed to have one or two action franchises every 17 years – I feel totally fine with that.”
She then followed that up with an interview with the Herald Sun in which they asked her then about recent female-led franchise success stories such as “Wonder Woman” and “Captain Marvel”. She says audiences will pay money to see the comic book films, even with female leads, because it’s part of a ‘male genre’:
“They’ll 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.’
By the way, I’m happy for those characters to have box office success, but we need more women’s voices supported with money because that’s the power. The power is in the money.”
No mention was seemingly made of the strong success the previous “Charlie’s Angels” films had, nor other female-led action film franchises like “The Hunger Games,” “Tomb Raider,” “Alien,” “Resident Evil,” “Underworld,” or standalone success like “Lucy” or the “Kill Bill” films.
The most obvious reasoning of course is lack of interest in the franchise itself, let alone another reboot of it, with little to no star power beyond Kristen Stewart who has scored rave notices as the best thing in a decent if rather bland film according to the reviews.
“Charlie’s Angels” cost a fairly cheap $48 million to make, but opened to a dismal $8.6 million in the States and while Sony won’t lose money on it, don’t expect a sequel.
Source: The Playlist