Elizabeth Banks in talks to direct new 'Charlie's Angels'

[jmc]

Killed it box office wise? I don't think that's a guarantee. All 3 have been in their share of box office disappointments and flops

You would have a much better outcome, at the very least you've got bigger draws. Everyone seems to love those three actresses. Kristen Stewart is hit and miss for most people, and not to put too fine a point on it, but the other two actresses are no-names.

 

[MadVillainy]

Zombieland 2 isn't really popular and JLaw just appeared in Dark PhoeniX, but those three is going to at least draw more people, especially if they are marketed as three Oscar winning or nominated actresses as a trio. Though I would replace one of them for Gal Gadot.

You would have a much better outcome, at the very least you've got bigger draws. Everyone seems to love those three actresses. Kristen Stewart is hit and miss for most people, and not to put too fine a point on it, but the other two actresses are no-names.

Again casting bigger stars is not a guarantee success. Star power isn't like it was back in the day and we've seen this multiple times in recent years. Analysts have even spoken about it.
Proof: All 3 of the actresses named have had relatively recent movies flop. And it's not uncommon. The Rock, Tom Cruise, Will Smith, Chris Hemsworth, Scarlett Johansson, Brad Pitt, Charlize Theron, Natalie Portman are all very well known stars.They have been for years. But they haven't been immune to their major releases flopping within the last 5 years at least. And then we see movies with lesser known draws or stars make good or even great money.
Also casting bigger stars can drive up the budget. Using the ladies mentioned as examples: can you imagine the budget , for a franchise starting movie for getting 3 leads that consist of:
-2 relatively Oscar winners and a frequent nominee
-Who all also have blockbuster successes under their belts?
-Who are pretty in demand in Hollywood?
That's probably another 10-15 mill added on the budget for a franchise movie that's not guaranteed to be a success even with them being cast. Maybe the movie might've grossed a bit more, but then when you realize how much more they would have to spend and deal with and after all that they could still take a loss.

Would I have cast this movie differently with slightly bigger, but maybe not household, names like Nyongo, Hailee Steinfeld, Constance Wu, etc? Sure. But even then that doesn't guarantee anything.

I think people always try and over analyze when a movie flops when sometimes the answer is just the movie wasn't that good and didn't look like it's that good.
Just look at the trailers. The comedy bits weren't funny enough to see it as a comedy, the action set pieces didn't look good enough to sell it as an action movie. So the trailers just sold an action-comedy movie with both mediocre comedy and mediocre action. All that caused mediocre buzz weeks before the movie was released. Then, surprise surprise, the movie gets mediocre reviews the week of release too.
And then you also have to take into account that I think Charlie's Angels was always going to be a hard sell to men. I can see a lot of guys going like: "Yeah I don't want to see that" just because of what franchise it is. Is that fair? I don't think so, but it is what it is. Female centric movies with a majority female cast seem to have a ceiling. If you count Fury Road, that might be the biggest one. EDIT: Not counting Fury Road, it's probably Ocean's 8

If this movie was getting really good reviews, had a good marketing campaign, had this same release date (which is a good one) and it was still flopping like this? I would say it was for sure the cast or that there's something deeper here. But it doesn't seem like there really is much other than the movie didn't look good

 

[Prison Mike]

I wonder if Cameron, Drew, and Lucy supported this movie? Kind of disappointed they didn’t make any cameos in it. I think this movie needed better publicity. Other than the trailer on YouTube and the occasional tv spot, I didn’t see any other advertisement.

 

[MadVillainy]

I wonder if Cameron, Drew, and Lucy supported this movie? Kind of disappointed they didn’t make any cameos in it. I think this movie needed better publicity. Other than the trailer on YouTube and the occasional tv spot, I didn’t see any other advertisement.

I read that Berrymore was an executive producer. Diaz is pretty low key since retiring so I"m not surprised. With Liu, i don't know.

But I don't think it matters nor do I think a significant number people care. But then again, I never saw how people get disappointed about not having a cameo from certain people in the movie. It really doesn't make the movie any better

 

[I Am The Knight]

I mean, fans like that stuff. It might make the movie "better" for them to see a cameo from one of the original stars.

 

[MadVillainy]

I mean, fans like that stuff. It might make the movie "better" for them to see a cameo from one of the original stars.

But it's not going to translate to more money. The few fans who care about that stuff are most likely already going to see the movie. Those are the kind of people that when people say it's "for the fans" they mean them. The die hards. I don't think anyone is like: "Wow this looks great. But it doesn't have a cameo from (insert actor/actress from previous IP iteration). So I'm not going to see it."

So making the film "better" for them, isn't going to do much.

 

[Da-Scribe]

You would have a much better outcome, at the very least you've got bigger draws. Everyone seems to love those three actresses. Kristen Stewart is hit and miss for most people, and not to put too fine a point on it, but the other two actresses are no-names.

There’d have been so many think pieces about the lack of representation if the three you mentioned were cast that it’d tank the movie just as hard.

 

[DarkKnight88]

The right actor in the right role can absolutely draw in box office. Again, in the right role.

Joaquin Phoenix as Joker drew people. It couldn’t have been just anybody. Now outside of that role, he doesn’t have a huge box office draw.

Will Smith in the right role. Gemini Man no. Aladdin yes.

I think the same thing applies here. The right actresses in those roles, would draw people just as the 2000 version did.

 

[MadVillainy]

The right actor in the right role can absolutely draw in box office. Again, in the right role.

Joaquin Phoenix as Joker drew people. It couldn’t have been just anybody. Now outside of that role, he doesn’t have a huge box office draw.

Will Smith in the right role. Gemini Man no. Aladdin yes.

I think the same thing applies here. The right actresses in those roles, would draw people just as the 2000 version did.

I don't think it's that cut and dry either. But I see what youre saying

The movie still needs to look good. Using your example, Will Smith vs Will Smith isn't the wrong role at all. The trailers just didn't look that interesting other than that and then the movie itself wasn't that good

 

[Da-Scribe]

Yeah you’re kinda comparing largely original work to major franchises. Not that I’m completely disagreeing, but to singularly point to successful casting is a bit of a stretch with work like that imo.

 

[I Am The Knight]

But it's not going to translate to more money. The few fans who care about that stuff are most likely already going to see the movie. Those are the kind of people that when people say it's "for the fans" they mean them. The die hards. I don't think anyone is like: "Wow this looks great. But it doesn't have a cameo from (insert actor/actress from previous IP iteration). So I'm not going to see it."

So making the film "better" for them, isn't going to do much.

You said that you didn't understand why people were disappointed to not get a cameo from the original stars. I explained why. I didn't say that was gonna translate to more money.

 

[psylockolussus]

I actually enjoyed this movie. Its a popcorn spy flick. The locations look nice and the cinematography is fine. Though I think if they were really aiming for a glossier Charlie's Angels, they could have done more. The new Angels didn't really feel like Charlies Angels.

Spoiler

well the trio only talked to Charlie once in the movie and that was in the end. Since Townsend is now a global agency, Kristen, Elisa and Naomi just felt like another set of Angels. Being an Angel kinda lost its prestige, because basically anyone can be an Angel and in every country, there's a set of Angels. So for that Elizabeth Banks' idea of Charlie's Angels didn't work for me. I knew Patrick Stewart was the villain before I saw the film, because of his line in the trailer and that he was featured in Chinese posters. The opening montage was random and I wish they had something different for the opening title. I also wish the other two were doing something else when they were showing the training scenes of Naomi.

I also think they could have developed all 5 main characters more. I didn't really know much about the new Angels and I didn't really care about Elizabeth Banks as Bosley, sometimes I felt like she just took screentime from the actual Angels. The action is probably the best part of the movie, but nothing extraordinary.

Comparing this to the films feat. the legendary angels that are Cameron, Drew and Lucy. This movie wasn't that fun. When I watched those 2 movies, I ended loving the Angels. With the new Angels, I just liked them. They are likable in the movie but I miss the charm, the giggles, the laughter, the cheesyness and campyness of the 2000s angels. I would like to see a sequel for this, I want to see their life outside work which this movie didn't have. But of course thats not gonna happen because of the box office results, which goes back to my point that they should have hired bigger/more appealing actresses for this or they should have rehired Lucy, Cameron and Drew!

Over all Its just an okay movie. Its just sad that there's a potential for Charlies Angels movies but Sony just doesn't know how to make it work.

Spoiler

I liked how they photoshopped Patrick Stewart to the pictures of the previous Angels, even though it didn't make sense. And as expected they ignored the Abc reboot.

 

[MadVillainy]

You said that you didn't understand why people were disappointed to not get a cameo from the original stars. I explained why. I didn't say that was gonna translate to more money.

Fair enough but you didn't explain why fans are disappointed. I don't think it actually makes it better for them at all. I think if the movie is good it doesn't affect them really at all. You just said it makes it better for them, which I don't think it's necessarily true.

 

[I Am The Knight]

Fair enough but you didn't explain why fans are disappointed. I don't think it actually makes it better for them at all. I think if the movie is good it doesn't affect them really at all. You just said it makes it better for them, which I don't think it's necessarily true.

Well not every fan out there needs that cameo obviously (I don't) but I think most fans appreciate that kind of fun nod to the original or previous version of the IP getting rebooted. You probably don't care for that kind of stuff, but some people do, so if they get that, it's a plus in their book.

 

[psylockolussus]

You would have a much better outcome, at the very least you've got bigger draws. Everyone seems to love those three actresses. Kristen Stewart is hit and miss for most people, and not to put too fine a point on it, but the other two actresses are no-names.

They could have played the nostalgia factor and who knows, if they brought the campyness/sillyness of Charlie's Angels, it would have convinced more people? A Charlie's Angels 3 feat. Drew, Cameron and Lucy wouldn't guarantee 100 million in North America but it wouldn't open as low as this. In hindsight like the Abc reboot, they should have just brought back those three!

Edit: i thought you were referring to the 2000s Angels.

I think Jlaw/Margot/Emma as a spy trio would definitely draw in more people. I just think them working together as best friends and at the same time kicking butts would be way more marketable than Kristin/Jasmine/newcomer. Then they could have hired Meryl Streep or Helen Mirren as Bosley for that extra star power! Though of course, there are people that are gonna complain that its 3 white blondes and that it would be disastrous due to lack of diversity.

 

[Gold Samurai]

Elizabeth Banks responded to the criticism that the film has been receiving.

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

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.

 

[terry78]

I was surprised they didn't with all the torch passing that goes on with these types of decades later sequels.

 

[psylockolussus]

I wonder if Cameron, Drew, and Lucy supported this movie? Kind of disappointed they didn’t make any cameos in it. I think this movie needed better publicity. Other than the trailer on YouTube and the occasional tv spot, I didn’t see any other advertisement.

Well the movie is better than the trailers!

So there's that, I guess. They should have highlighted the action more in the trailers.

 

[psylockolussus]

Well not every fan out there needs that cameo obviously (I don't) but I think most fans appreciate that kind of fun nod to the original or previous version of the IP getting rebooted. You probably don't care for that kind of stuff, but some people do, so if they get that, it's a plus in their book.

Hmm there wasn't a cameo fromthe 2000s Angels. But there was a plus in my book!

 

[I Am The Knight]

 

[LoganGambit87]

bigger names couldn't hurt hell compare oceans 8 which had sandra bullock,anne hathaway,cate blanchett and had a 41 million OW

to this films barely 8 million OW

 

[NotNickFury]

Elizabeth Banks responded to the criticism that the film has been receiving.

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

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

I mean, not yet, but please don't give Marvel Studios and Sony any ideas, Ms. Banks...

 

[Black Narcissus]

My version

Directed by Jenkins

 

[Prison Mike]

Elizabeth Banks responded to the criticism that the film has been receiving.

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

It’s funny considering she was in 3 of those “37” Spider-Man movies

 

[I Am The Knight]

I think she's still mad about the Raimi Spider-Man thing.