UPDATED ON DEC 18, 2019: I didn’t realize that “Charlie’s Angels” producer Leonard Goldberg, a force in Hollywood and TV, passed away recently at age 85. He had great successes. It’s too bad that the failure of the new movie coincided with his passing. Condolences to his family and friends. He will be sorely missed.

EARLIER The 2019 version of “Charlie’s Angels” has ended its run in theaters. The numbers come to 26 days, $17.6 million US. The international numbers were $38.2 million for a total of $55.8 million.  Official budget was $48 million. This doesn’t mean the even broke even. It lost almost everything.

There was of course the original TV series in the 70s. Then were two hit “Charlie’s Angels” movies before this one, in 2000 and 2003. Then there was a revival TV series in 2011, which died on arrival. No matter how you look at it, this was a franchise, and a valuable one. So now what?

This “Charlie’s Angels” had no life to it, no fun, no sexiness. That was what the show was all about, smart ladies balancing personal and professional lives. It was also a little tongue in cheek by the time it reached the 2003 movie.

Now Sony and executive producer Leonard Goldberg’s company, which still owns the title and is 85 years old, have to figure out a way to save the Charles Townsend Agency from going under. Obviously, they should wait a minute to let this carcass be buried or cremated. And then do a re-think.

The next “Charlie’s Angels” movie has to have Tina Fey, Amy Poehler, Kate McKinnon, and Maya Rudolph. It also needs Jaclyn Smith, Cheryl Ladd, and Kate Jackson. It needs to tie back to what everyone loved about the original series. And it needs romance. Overtly old fashioned romance, updated. This version felt sterile. And it needs glamour. (Also, Lucy Liu.)

So for now, “Charlie’s Angels” will take a needed nap. And it’s best just to forget this ever happened. But for Sony, which also had a flop reviving “Men in Black,” maybe some new attitudes and possible team leaders on these things.

UPDATE: “Richard Jewell” was killed at the box office with just a $5 mil weekend. The movie is excellent, and the whole thing is a shame. If you can, see it. I’m very disappointed that so many forces against it– on purpose.

EARLIER Clint Eastwood’s “Richard Jewell” should be a movie everyone’s talking about right now. And indeed they are, but not for the right reasons. With a controversy surrounding it, the Warner Bros. film has had a disappointing launch on its opening night.

“Richard Jewell” made just $1.5 million on Friday night in over 2,000 theaters. Its weekend cume will come to under $4.5 million. Coupled with a lack of awards nominations– a mistake, I think — the film doesn’t have the brightest future. What a shame.

click here for all of today’s headlines

The true story of how Jewell’s life was ruined by local law enforcement, the FBI, and the media in Atlanta when he was falsely accused of bombing the 1996 Olympics is extremely well conveyed by Eastwood and a sterling cast. But the secondary plot– of a real life reporter from the Atlanta Journal Constitution sleeping with a source to break the story– has turned “Richard Jewell” into a marketing nightmare.

The AJC is conducting a war against the movie, denying that the late reporter, Kathy Scruggs, would have done such a thing. Everyone who knew Scruggs has spoken out, too, including her colleagues and her family, all in agreement that while she was unconventional, and wore short skirts (that part is the most amusing), Scruggs wouldn’t have crossed that line.

To make matters worse, the movie uses her name but not the real name of the FBI agent she supposedly slept with. So Jon Hamm’s character is basically fictional, while Olivia Wilde is representing a real person.

The debate about this plot point has come to taint what would have otherwise been a critical and possible financial hit. We’ve seen this before–a great movie can be killed in the marketing. Look at Nate Parker’s “The Birth of a Nation,” which died because of the revelation Parker had been acquitted in a college rape trial. That was the end of that movie, which was on track for awards acclaim.

Wilde, who’s so good as “Scruggs,” has defended her role. The movie company has pointed out that the AJC nevertheless was culpable in ruining Jewell’s life. But either the AJC’s campaign against the movie, or a sub rosa Hollywood campaign against “Richard Jewell,” has certainly made the movie’s situation unfavorable.

It’s not great for Warner Bros. on a different score. They’ve been unable all year to make non branded adult films catch on. (“Joker” can’t be counted in there because it comes from DC Comics.) Their last chance is “Just Mercy,” with Jamie Foxx and Michael B. Jordan, which is also excellent and just landed Foxx a SAG Awards nomination. So far, there’s no controversy (fingers crossed). “Just Mercy” deserves an Oscar comeback after disappointing rounds with the Golden Globes and Critics Choice Awards.

In the meantime, go see “Richard Jewell.” As I said when I saw it, it’s a jewel of a movie and one of Eastwood’s best.

Danny Aiello was like the New York actor. He was a hit here before he was a hit anywhere. Everyone in New York knew him from the movies and loved him. He was our guy. And he responded that way, too. He loved everyone he met. He became friends with everyone, on a first name basis. You could tell he loved life, and appreciated his fame. He died at age 86 yesterday, and there’s an outpouring of love for him all over social media.

I could say I knew him, but he knew everyone and everyone’s names. Even if he hadn’t seen you in a while, Danny acted like you were long lost friends. He was the kind of person who made you feel good for his success.

And that success: “Godfather II.” “Fort Apache: The Bronx.” Two Woody Allen movies, “Purple Rose of Cairo,” “Radio Days.” “Moonstruck.” And then “Do the Right Thing” brought him the celebrity, the Oscar nomination, all the accolades. He was off and running. Wherever he went people wanted to hug him. That’s what you did before everyone started asking for a picture. In Elaine’s, if he stopped by, they’d be talking about it for days. Danny Aiello was here.

Thanks, Danny. It was great knowing you. The funny part now will be people going back to the old movies, and saying, Look, it’s Danny Aiello. He’s in every movie. It seemed like that.

FRIDAY NIGHT UPDATE: “Playmobil,” an animated film based on a children’s toy, made just $11 per screen Thursday night at 2,337 locations. The film cost $75 million to make, and has so far earned just $797,702 in 7 days. On Wednesday night, it made $17 per screen.

For new studio STX this is quite a disaster. It’s especially heartbreaking since STX’s fortunes were looking up with the success of “Hustlers” and Jennifer Lopez getting some nice awards attention. Earlier this year, STX also had a hit with “The Upside.” Each of those films made over $100 million.

But “Playmobil” is a total write off. Reviews were terrible, too, coming in at 16% on Rotten Tomatoes. It’s not like the bar is that high. The goal here is to make something where you can park kids on the weekends. The movie ticket price is supposed to be a bargain compared to a baby sitter. But if the movie is so bad that even that can’t happen, you know you’re in trouble!

“Playmobil” is directed by Lino DiSalvo. It’s his first directing job, but he was head of animation on “Frozen.” These days, such a failure could mean DiSalvo directs the next “Star Trek” movie.

Playmobil is a toy for small children– very small. It’s owned by German company, Brandstatter. It’s a little unclear if they licensed the product or invested their own money in the movie. The credits include 21 different producers including the husband of Princess Grace’s granddaughter, Dmitri Rassam.