Action-Adventure Elizabeth Banks in talks to direct new 'Charlie's Angels'

[-JKR-]

Man, this looks bland.

 

[-JKR-]

Looks kinda fun. Nothing exceptional, but cool.

I think my only hangup is Elizabeth Banks. I just don't have confidence in her directing. And isn't she writing, directing, I'm addition to having a Supporting role? That's a lot for a 2nd time director. They should've gotten a woman director with at least one good film under their belt

It doesn't necessarily have to be a woman director.
But someone who has a knack for comedy and action.

 

[Kane52630]

With them pushing the album just as much as the movie, I can see it be a hit among teens next month.

 

[terry78]

Off topic but I find it hilarious that Ariana Grande is the only one to really have a successful career after that show.

 

[Kane52630]

Yeah it's a shame Elizabeth Gillies didn't become super popular.

 

[Black Narcissus]

Is Elizabeth Banks involved in this?

 

[terry78]

She's got it.

 

[DarkKnight88]

‘Ford v Ferrari’ To Dominate Over ‘Charlie’s Angels’ With $23M-$30M Start: Box Office – Deadline

On the downside, Sony’s reboot of Charlie’s Angels directed by Elizabeth Banks and starring Kristen Stewart, Naomi Scott and Ella Balinska is off to a very slow start in forecasts, ideal now with young females, but right now at $16M, with the studio seeing lower between $12M-$13M for what is being reported as a $48M net production. The first 2000 movie with Drew Barrymore, Cameron Diaz and Lucy Liu opened to $40.1M with the 2003 sequel Full Throttle debuting to $37.6M. Now sometimes pics arrive low on tracking because the studio hasn’t unleashed its full TV spot blitzkreig, however, social media and online trailer play have plenty to do with the diagnostics, hence, this isn’t good.

 

[KaijuDude1992]

Well that doesn't sound like a very good start at all for this, but how can they really be surprised though when nobody asked for this or a MIB reboot? Sony really should think more carefully when it comes to agreeing to make these franchise reboots.

 

[MadVillainy]

Well that doesn't sound like a very good start at all for this, but how can they really be surprised though when nobody asked for this or a MIB reboot? Sony really should think more carefully when it comes to agreeing to make these franchise reboots.

Eh I don't like the whole "who was asking for _____" excuse. There are plenty of movies that aren't being asked for and they turned out successful.
The general public wasn't asking for Guardians of the Galaxy and look how that turned out. Or a better example is another TV to film reboot/sequel, the 21 Jump Street reboot. No one was asking for it. Hell a lot of people, including myself, thought it would be trash. But both of them are some of the most well liked comedies of the last couple of years

The problem is when they don't make good looking movies. MIBI I thought would a) be a better movie and b) would make more money. But with Charlie's Angels:
-None of the cast seems to be anything special. I mean star power doesn't usually mean much anymore, but I would've been way more into this if they cast at least 1 "bigger" actress. A Lupita Nyongo, Constance Wu... Anna Kendrick I think would've been a great choice for this. But then again I think she's good for any comedic role. EDIT: actually a Blake Lively/Anna Kendrick team up would've been great for this
Kristen Stewart is a really good actress, but she just seems so weird in this movie.
-Beyond the cast, from the trailers this movie seems to be an awkward mishmash of comedy and action. Like it doesn't seem funny enough and the action doesn't seem cool enough to be interesting. And it just looks kinda bland overall

But at least this one doesn't seem to be taking itself as seriously as that TV reboot from way back

 

[psylockolussus]

Sony just seems to have a lot of failed attempts in reboots in the last couple of years... Ghostbusters 2016, Men in Black, The Ring and I'm sure there's more I'm forgetting. They are also rebooting The Grudge for next year. In every Jumanji, there's 5 failed attempts. They probably should have brought back the 2000s cast for this for nostalgia's sake, similar to Bad Boys, Zombieland and Ghostbusters 3. Seriously, I know Cameron retired but did they seriously approach the trio? Like it wouldn't make the film a guaranteed success but I doubt it would have gotten the same early lukewarm reaction compare to this. The fact thatthe analysts are already saying that it won't open #1 and its opening under 20 million are already big red flags. Like why would a rebooted franchise should be happy with that tracking even if cost less than 50 million.

 

[Filmfreak]

Compared to those other franchises though, I don't think there is any serious fanbase around the 2000 movies. There were critically panned movies that audience seems to dislike for the most part and has pretty much completely forgotten. Sony constantly rebooting and hoping for the best obviously backfires more than half of the time but at least they had some chance that way.

 

[psylockolussus]

The first one wasn't critical planned and was pretty popular. The second movie wasn't a complete disaster either. I always see those 2 movies in cable networks, so there must be a reason why.

Its far from something like Elektra, Catwoman, Ultraviolet or any female led action film that people only remember when terrible movies are being talked about.

 

[pixen]

The two Charlie’s Angels movies are enjoyed by a lot of people. They might not have been adored by the critics but they both had a very nice balance of tongue-in-cheek humor and actual well thought out action scenes. Part of me wishes this was instead the final film to make it a trilogy.

 

[Filmfreak]

I don't know. Even the first one has a 45% audience score on RT, a 5,4 on Metacritic and 5,5 IMDB, let alone the sequel. They surely don't look loved to me. And even though they did well in the box office they weren't that much of a hit so that they would consider bringing them back after so long and play the nostalgia gimmick. Honestly I doubt most people even remember them.

And to clarify, on a personal level I kind of enjoyed them a bit too when I was a kid and they came out and even though they haven't aged well, this new one seems even worse and I have no interest whatsoever watching the film.

 

[pixen]

I don't know. Even the first one has a 45% audience score on RT, a 5,4 on Metacritic and 5,5 IMDB, let alone the sequel. They surely don't look loved to me. And even though they did well in the box office they weren't that much of a hit so that they would consider bringing them back after so long and play the nostalgia gimmick. Honestly I doubt most people even remember them.

And to clarify, on a personal level I kind of enjoyed them a bit too when I was a kid and they came out and even though they haven't aged well, this new one seems even worse and I have no interest whatsoever watching the film.

That’s one thing I never get about RT. These are films that came out before Rotten Tomatoes were a big thing. When people lol at films prior to RT becoming a thing and then referencing it’s freshness based on a handful of Reviews. As for the two Charlie’s Angels films, they’ve become cult films to certain groups of people as I’m pretty sure they are gay cult classics.

edit: Wow! Did not expect the first one to have 143 reviews and be 68% fresh. The audience scores though are meh between the two of them but I stand by my statement that it’s enjoyed by people.

 

[MadVillainy]

I think they aren't these huge well loved things, but they were pretty successful.

And the potential in there for a new series of movies, whether this one lives up to the potential remains to be seen

 

[psylockolussus]

I don't know. Even the first one has a 45% audience score on RT, a 5,4 on Metacritic and 5,5 IMDB, let alone the sequel. They surely don't look loved to me. And even though they did well in the box office they weren't that much of a hit so that they would consider bringing them back after so long and play the nostalgia gimmick. Honestly I doubt most people even remember them.

And to clarify, on a personal level I kind of enjoyed them a bit too when I was a kid and they came out and even though they haven't aged well, this new one seems even worse and I have no interest whatsoever watching the film.

Yet that didn't stop Sony to make Zombieland 2.

And back in those days, there weren't a lot of female led action films/franchises which makes those films stand out more compare to the other early 2000s films. I disagree that only few people remember unless you ask the Gen-Zers, then sure.

 

[Filmfreak]

Well, that alone didn't. But the 2009 movie was received very well by both critics and audience so they saw something there. That's why my post listed a number of reasons that combined together make the other examples of movies you gave far more sensible than a third Charlie's Angels film.

 

[psylockolussus]

And Sony managed to release 5 Underworld and 6 Resident Evil films, none of those outgrossed any of the 2 Charlie's Angels movies in North America or received better reviews... I'm sure there were major reasons why a Charlie's Angels 3 movie didn't happen. Who knows really but I wouldn't say those movies, are forgettable now hence why Charlie's Angels 3 movie didnt happen and Sony had to reboot it with anew cast.

Also for more comparisons:
Charlie's Angels 2000: 124 million in NA, 264 million ww
Full Throttle: 100 million in NA, 259 million ww
Zombieland: 75 million in NA, 102 million ww

Not even close, especially there's a big ticket price difference between 2009 and 2003/2000.

 

[DarkKnight88]

To be fair, the budget for Zombieland was way, way less.

 

[psylockolussus]

Yeah but it was still seen by fewer people. That's the point. And a Charlie's Angels 3 movie in 2019 could have been made under a lower budget since Cameron, Drew and Lucy aren't as popular now compare to the early 2000s.

Anyway, I get the point of getting a new cast since they could do a trilogy of films with the new cast if the film turns out to be successful versus, completing a trilogy or doing a final film with Cameron, Drew and Lucy. However, the reaction from trailers are already out, the early reaction/box office forecast are out. The word of mouth is simply not good and I doubt the general public would suddenly have hype/interest in this if it gets good reviews.... like the ABC 2009 Tv reboot, they should have just played the nostalgia card and brought back the original movie cast.

 

[jmc]

What movie is this from? You know....just in case the question comes up in a trivia night. Legit reasons, of course.

 

[Filmfreak]

The point for movies is to make profit. The Charlie's Angels ones were way more expensive than all Underworld, Resident Evil and Zombieland entries. We are talking about two or three times the budget of almost all of those films without making two or three times more money. Half the Resident Evil movies even made more cash, basically.

And had Zombieland made more they surely wouldn't have waited a decade to make a sequel. But because of the low budget, it made good profit, it is considered more succesful, and again, audience reactions and critics showed it enough love for the studio to consider making another one, which is definitely not the case with the two Charlie's Angels movies.

I understand liking those movies, whether for the sake of nostalgia or not, but thinking another sequel would make money today is nothing more than wishful thinking. That being said this movie won't make money either, but had it not look so underwhelming at best it would surely have more chances at the box office. The whole franchise is kind of forgotten at this point, anyway.

In any case, I think we are off-topic and I know we are again at a dead end in our argument so there's hardly a point for me to go on.

 

[Black Narcissus]

What movie is this from? You know....just in case the question comes up in a trivia night. Legit reasons, of course.

Brightburn.