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

[MadVillainy]

Weren't you the one who went on for several pages because the teenage character aimed at children wasn't physically 'idealized' enough for you?

YOu can't drop this without a thread title

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Sandler's still making movie's dude. I'm not sure what the hell you are talking about. He's literally in Oscar contention this year for best actor.

Yeah, which means the long time ago, wasn't so long time ago, was it?

 

[jmc]

Yeah, which means the long time ago, wasn't so long time ago, was it?

Are you high? Because you're making about as much sense as someone who is off their nut right now.

 

[MadVillainy]

Not a mod, but I think we can continue this thread and keep things civil

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Are you high? Because you're making about as much sense as someone who is off their nut right now.

You do this every time you don't have an answer for something.

You said Liu's casting "back then" had nothing to do with her race because that wasn't how Hollywood thought "back then". I was pointing out it was not that long ago. And yes pretty much every single casting in the history of Hollywood had something to do with the actor's race. Even in your realm on this, someone coming in for a reading to be James Bond or Batman best be white and male.

 

[C. Lee]

It's tiresome having to explain this stuff in such detail because it makes me think people like yourself can't actually understand what's being said.

Try to understand this.....when it gets too tiresome to discuss something on a discussion board....maybe it is a good idea to stop discussing it before you start insulting people.

 

[jmc]

You do this every time you don't have an answer for something.

You said Liu's casting "back then" had nothing to do with her race because that wasn't how Hollywood though "back then". I was pointing out it was not that long ago. And yes pretty much every single casting in the history of Hollywood had something to do with the actors race. Even in your realm on this, someone coming in for a reading to be James Bond or Batman best be white and male.

I don't have an answer, because you're weren't making any ****ing sense, and you're barely making any now, lol. 20 years is a long time, if that doesn't classify as back then, then frankly I don't know exactly how else it's suppose to be looked at as. Lucy Liu being cast as an original character in Charlie's Angels has little in common with Batman or Bond, lol.

 

[jmc]

Try to understand this.....when it gets too tiresome to discuss something on a discussion board....maybe it is a good idea to stop discussing it before you start insulting people.

Well I don't appreciate the insinuation that is often levelled no matter how nuanced a post one makes.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I don't have an answer, because you're weren't making any ****ing sense, and you're barely making any now, lol. 20 years is a long time, if that doesn't classify as back then, then frankly I don't know exactly how else it's suppose to be looked at as. Lucy Liu being cast as an original character in Charlie's Angels has little in common with Batman or Bond, lol.

I am sure plenty are capable of understanding what I am writing. Hollywood in 2000 is not all that different from Hollywood in 2019, nor is two decades, where Leo is still king and Tom is still kicking ass as Ethan Hunt, a great ocean of time in the industry. Even will all the fake wokeness from the studios trying to earn points. When they cast someone of a certain race in something, it is done under the consideration of how they think audiences will react. If they thought they could make more money with a black Batman, we'd have a black Batman. Instead what we end up with is a bunch of characters around Batman suddenly being black, thinking this gets them goodwill, while also not upsetting manbabies.

This is of course different from the actual work done by the creative. Black Panther and Wonder Woman could be consider virtue signalling as a concept and even marketing. The movies that were produced, were not. And what was done to those who made them, not the studios.

 

[jmc]

The system is completely different compared to the late 90's and early 2000's. We don't have stars anymore. The franchise model is what's different. Part of why something like Charlie's Angels has failed is because it was relying on the franchise name. It would have failed in 2000 too if it didn't have big actresses at the time in it, and Lucy was one of the biggest actresses in the world at the time, she almost single handedly boosted the Ally McBeal ratings.

To put it bluntly, we lack this now. We don't have stars today in our movies. No-one is seeing the new Chris Hemsworth or Elizabeth Olsen film because no-one gives a **** about them outside of Marvel. How is it that Tom Cruise, who is pushing 60, is one of the few who can still pull a crowd? 20-25 years ago you had a whole host of stars from every demographic there was, from all parts of the world, being able to open movies with their name or names alone, all of them had broad appeal. Because all we are doing now is either recycling or still using decades old franchises created when demographics were different, we are neither getting the stars with the pulling power we use to, nor are creative people being given the opportunities to generate new ideas and work with new and exciting talent. Everything is being neutralised as a result. The system is broken now because it's not looking for talent, it's looking for brands. All the stars of today, are online on Youtube. In 10 more years we'll see the full effect of this over reliance on franchises.

 

[SPO2 Dalisay]

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 bet Barrymore's credit is just some leftover clause from her previous contract. As I understand she specifically made her Angels movies gun free and this production broke out the firearms again. Cameron Diaz is retired and I guess Lucy Liu was just not interested.

In any case for cameos their movies still didn't amount to much and it is the TV actresses who made the name Charlie's Angels. You would want the trio of Kate Jackson, Jaclyn Smith, and since we lost Farrah Fawcett, Cheryl Ladd

 

[scarlet-witch]

I mean a whole lot of people demanding more equality, diversity, and more female led blockbusters? Does this not fulfill those quotients in interest of fairness?

It does, but is rebooting a property from the 70's with these things really the best idea for it? I'm not sure it is.

 

[TheVileOne]

It does, but is rebooting a property from the 70's with these things really the best idea for it? I'm not sure it is.

Why not? The perception is more diversity and gender equality are necessary now. This is a female led property that has some name value. Shouldn't this be the type of project that should get a chance in 2019?

 

[batdude]

I bet Barrymore's credit is just some leftover clause from her previous contract. As I understand she specifically made her Angels movies gun free and this production broke out the firearms again. Cameron Diaz is retired and I guess Lucy Liu was just not interested.

In any case for cameos their movies still didn't amount to much and it is the TV actresses who made the name Charlie's Angels. You would want the trio of Kate Jackson, Jaclyn Smith, and since we lost Farrah Fawcett, Cheryl Ladd

Oh, I don't know. I think Barrymore, Diaz and Liu showing up would have helped, just like the TV originals. What I think this movie needed was STAR POWER. the Jlaw/Emma Stone/ Margot Robbie idea was a pretty good one, although you could substitute somebody like Candice Patton, or Lyndsey Morgan if you wanted to go more diverse for one of them.

 

[TheVileOne]

Oh, I don't know. I think Barrymore, Diaz and Liu showing up would have helped, just like the TV originals. What I think this movie needed was STAR POWER. the Jlaw/Emma Stone/ Margot Robbie idea was a pretty good one, although you could substitute somebody like Candice Patton, or Lyndsey Morgan if you wanted to go more diverse for one of them.

It might've helped, but then this probably would've gone from a $50 million to a $150 million one. Kristen Stewart was the biggest name, but had they had those other actors involved, probably would've cost a whole lot more.

So the new movie probably loses money, but it's a smaller risk than a bigger film with three times the budget. Also, Margot Robbie might not have been available.

 

[batdude]

I wonder about that. Sure Margot might have been busy, you could have made it with say Jlaw and a couple of the CW girls for maybe the same money as this new one.

 

[psylockolussus]

Whether it would have been a good business decision or not. I would have feel a lot better if Sony tried to get big names for this even if the box office results are still disastrous.

A 1 off budget Charlies Angels movie vs A 1 off Charlie's Angels with popular actresses in the lead roles.... as a viewer, the latter sounds better. At least with that one, the discussion of its flopping would be more about the movie's quality/marketing instead of the questionable casting.

 

[nightwing06]

Girl powe...i mean woman power...right?!?



PRAISE:The new Angels Kristen Stewart (who looks like she's having the most fun)as Sabina Wilson,Naomi Scott as Elena Houghlin,and Ella Balinska as Jane Kano,have enough charm and enthusiasm to uplift writer and director Elizabeth Banks script here and there.There are nice nods to former Angels,some and i mean some of the humor works,some of the action sequences were fun.



PROBLEMS :Far to predictable and old hat.The movie takes a while to get going and i could feel the audience partially checking out like myself.The villains were cookie cutter corny.Oh and the bad editing on some of the action sequences was laughable.
To end up with turns that i have seen in dozens of films was a letdown.Especially in a movie thats supposed to be a fresh take on the decades old Charlies Angels.
Can any graphic artitst working in films ever get photoshop right??


Scale of 1-10 a 5

 

[shinlyle]

*reads what everyone is talking about*

Well...I was just coming by to laugh at how a film that nobody wanted with actresses nobody really cares much about bombed the way it should, and I've walked into a firestorm discussion about "diversity" or "lack of" and all that jazz...?

Okee dokee....you guys have fun. Glad we won't have to have another "Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle" in a couple years! High five anyone...? No? Still tearing each other apart like it's a bad FOX news or MSNBC show?

Cool...see ya' on the flip side.

 

[fan4stic]

Eh, we can speculate til we’re blue in the face. Even the older films were smart enough not to have three white women up on screen pumping solidarity and sisterhood. Audiences have not gotten less progressive.

Did that comment say anything about the characters needing to be white?

 

[Schlosser85]

*reads what everyone is talking about*

Well...I was just coming by to laugh at how a film that nobody wanted with actresses nobody really cares much about bombed the way it should, and I've walked into a firestorm discussion about "diversity" or "lack of" and all that jazz...?

Okee dokee....you guys have fun. Glad we won't have to have another "Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle" in a couple years! High five anyone...? No? Still tearing each other apart like it's a bad FOX news or MSNBC show?

Cool...see ya' on the flip side.

alt-righters versus the performative woke

 

[MadVillainy]

Oh, I don't know. I think Barrymore, Diaz and Liu showing up would have helped, just like the TV originals. What I think this movie needed was STAR POWER. the Jlaw/Emma Stone/ Margot Robbie idea was a pretty good one, although you could substitute somebody like Candice Patton, or Lyndsey Morgan if you wanted to go more diverse for one of them.

I don't understand why people keep bringing up star power when we have countless examples of movie with major star power flopping in recent years when the movie is bad. J Law couldn't save Red Sparrow, Robbie's presence couldn' save Tarzan. The Rock couldn't save Baywatch. It's not like the 90s or 2000s where you can put whatever star in whatever movie and it'll sell off the strength. Hell we have great, mid budget and not too out there in concept movies like The Nice Guys fail even though they have recognizable names.

The system is completely different compared to the late 90's and early 2000's. We don't have stars anymore. The franchise model is what's different. Part of why something like Charlie's Angels has failed is because it was relying on the franchise name. It would have failed in 2000 too if it didn't have big actresses at the time in it, and Lucy was one of the biggest actresses in the world at the time, she almost single handedly boosted the Ally McBeal ratings.

To put it bluntly, we lack this now. We don't have stars today in our movies. No-one is seeing the new Chris Hemsworth or Elizabeth Olsen film because no-one gives a **** about them outside of Marvel. How is it that Tom Cruise, who is pushing 60, is one of the few who can still pull a crowd? 20-25 years ago you had a whole host of stars from every demographic there was, from all parts of the world, being able to open movies with their name or names alone, all of them had broad appeal. Because all we are doing now is either recycling or still using decades old franchises created when demographics were different, we are neither getting the stars with the pulling power we use to, nor are creative people being given the opportunities to generate new ideas and work with new and exciting talent. Everything is being neutralised as a result. The system is broken now because it's not looking for talent, it's looking for brands. All the stars of today, are online on Youtube. In 10 more years we'll see the full effect of this over reliance on franchises.

1) I was sure you'd turn this into a "more original ideas" or "too many franchises" complaint.
2) I'm confused now what you are arguing. You were one of the first ones saying this needed stars, but now you're saying there are no stars.
3) The system is looking for brands and not talent because the movie goers are flocking toward brands more than talent. Again, except for maybe a few examples, just going to the major movie just off the strength of the cast isn't as much of a thing anymore. At least not a thing big enough to turn profit all the time.
And again to 21 Jump Street. Nobody cared about that property. nobody. It was a forgotten relic that's more famous for having a young Johnny Depp than actually being good. And then people in my generation didn't care about it at all. And then when they announced the movie most people thought it would suck. But what did they do? They made a great movie and made people care about the franchise at least for some time. Something like Charlie's Angels, Baywatch, and maybe even CHiPs have potential for way more installments than 21 Jump Street

It might've helped, but then this probably would've gone from a $50 million to a $150 million one. Kristen Stewart was the biggest name, but had they had those other actors involved, probably would've cost a whole lot more.

So the new movie probably loses money, but it's a smaller risk than a bigger film with three times the budget. Also, Margot Robbie might not have been available.

Exactly. I'm sure Robbie, Stone, and Lawrence (just to keep using those examples) command 7 figure salaries for major studio action films. While I'm sure all 3 of these women cast cost less than even one of Stone, Robbie, J.Law's salaries.

Paying more for stars does not gurantee higher profit..

Whether it would have been a good business decision or not. I would have feel a lot better if Sony tried to get big names for this even if the box office results are still disastrous.

A 1 off budget Charlies Angels movie vs A 1 off Charlie's Angels with popular actresses in the lead roles.... as a viewer, the latter sounds better. At least with that one, the discussion of its flopping would be more about the movie's quality/marketing instead of the questionable casting.

The large discussion of the movie is still the quality and the marketing. The Deadline report's first point was about how the movie wasn't good.

 

[terry78]

*reads what everyone is talking about*

Well...I was just coming by to laugh at how a film that nobody wanted with actresses nobody really cares much about bombed the way it should, and I've walked into a firestorm discussion about "diversity" or "lack of" and all that jazz...?

Okee dokee....you guys have fun. Glad we won't have to have another "Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle" in a couple years! High five anyone...? No? Still tearing each other apart like it's a bad FOX news or MSNBC show?

Cool...see ya' on the flip side.

You know better than that.

 

[Detective Conan]

 

[terry78]

I love Banks, really I do....but don't open that can of worms. You'll screw yourself.