This seems willfully obtuse. Just skim reviews and you’ll see critics praising the film for doing something you claim is obviously not there. Again, this is a conceptual point thats not the same as arguing it wouldn’t have flopped if it had done things differently.

Heck, even the 2000 Charlie’s Angels proves my point. From culture

You could chart a mini arc of corporate feminism onto the Charlie’s Angels franchise. When it premiered in its original form on ABC in 1976, it was a marshmallow-light Aaron Spelling creation that proved to resistant network heads that audiences really would show up for a women-led hour-long series — especially if those women went scantily clad and braless (a rival exec decried it as “jiggle television”). In 2000, the show was adapted into a movie that didn’t subvert the more retrograde sensibilities of its source material so much as it transformed them into the stuff of comedy, helped along by the appeal of a giggling, drop-kicking Drew Barrymore, Cameron Diaz, and Lucy Liu

https://www.vulture.com/2019/11/movie-review-charlies-angels-starring-kristen-stewart.html

Aladdin

Clearly not arguing that Aladdin was sure to be a flop. It was comparing the content changes of the two films.