Page 32 of 37 FirstFirst ... 22282930313233343536 ... LastLast
Results 466 to 480 of 543
  1. #466
    Loony Scott Taylor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Running Springs, California
    Posts
    5,558

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyke View Post
    Not saying this would've saved it (clearly it didn't), but this iteration of Charlie's Angels isn't a reboot, just a continuation of both the movies and the original show. There are references to earlier material, including outright photos of the TV and previous-movie teams.

    Again, not that it matters much. Quality and creativity still surpass those types of things, and it's not like the average Charlie's Angels fan is obsessed over canon and fan.wikis like Trekkies and Star Wars fans.
    Haha Charlie's Angels "canon" thanks for the laugh.
    Every day is a gift, not a given right.

  2. #467
    Extraordinary Member Cyke's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    6,597

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Scott Taylor View Post
    Haha Charlie's Angels "canon" thanks for the laugh.
    Oh, you *know* they're not above making a pun in which the Angels bring out an actual cannon.

    This is the quality we expect from the franchise.

  3. #468
    Incredible Member TriggerWarning's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    554

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bossace View Post
    I feel if done right with the right cast Charlie’s angels could have been fun like 21 jump street. A tv series that I assume none of the moviegoers had any attachment to, seen or knew really existed before. The cast alone sold it for me with 21 jump street, I felt Charlie’s angels didn’t have the pull of any big names besides Stewart. If they went the 21 jump street route with Charlie’s angels and just made it fun with star power it could have very well worked.
    It was marketed as a comedy though and was timed right for max appeal of Channing Tatum and Jonah Hill.

    Charlies Angels just seemed a generic action movie where only Kristen Stewart is well known and thats not really a good thing given how derided she and Twilight are to the general public.

  4. #469
    Old school comic book fan WestPhillyPunisher's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA
    Posts
    19,264

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TriggerWarning View Post
    It was marketed as a comedy though and was timed right for max appeal of Channing Tatum and Jonah Hill.

    Charlies Angels just seemed a generic action movie where only Kristen Stewart is well known and thats not really a good thing given how derided she and Twilight are to the general public.
    Never mind the fact Stewart couldn't act wet in a monsoon.
    Avatar: Here's to the late, great Steve Dillon. Best. Punisher. Artist. EVER!

  5. #470
    Constant in Opal Nine Crocodile's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    540

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Scott Taylor View Post
    The 1970s original was about women's lib. And boobies, too, just in case.
    Or, to be meta, the conflict between Kate Jackson and the producers.

  6. #471
    Loony Scott Taylor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Running Springs, California
    Posts
    5,558

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nine Crocodile View Post
    Or, to be meta, the conflict between Kate Jackson and the producers.
    Yah. There is also such a thing as the curse of Charlie's Angels.
    Every day is a gift, not a given right.

  7. #472
    Extraordinary Member Zero Hunter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    5,911

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TriggerWarning View Post

    Charlies Angels just seemed a generic action movie where only Kristen Stewart is well known and thats not really a good thing given how derided she and Twilight are to the general public.
    To me that was the biggest thing was the cast. I doubt many people can even name the other two main stars. I know I can't and I usually keep up with these kind of things. The last Charlies Angels had three of the biggest female names in Hollywood at the time staring in it with Barrymore, Lu, and Diaz. Compare that with the new 3. One people know {but a lot don't really like} and two relative unknowns. I know tar power is not anywhere near as a big a factor these days as it used to be, but you have to have someone the audience at least knows to get them to at least give it a look. The same thing happened with Booksmart earlier this year in all the critics liked it but because the two main leads were pretty much unknowns and the movie didn't do well.

  8. #473
    Moderator Frontier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    45,396

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zero Hunter View Post
    To me that was the biggest thing was the cast. I doubt many people can even name the other two main stars. I know I can't and I usually keep up with these kind of things. The last Charlies Angels had three of the biggest female names in Hollywood at the time staring in it with Barrymore, Lu, and Diaz. Compare that with the new 3. One people know {but a lot don't really like} and two relative unknowns. I know tar power is not anywhere near as a big a factor these days as it used to be, but you have to have someone the audience at least knows to get them to at least give it a look. The same thing happened with Booksmart earlier this year in all the critics liked it but because the two main leads were pretty much unknowns and the movie didn't do well.
    I wouldn't call Naomi Scott a "relative unknown," she was in Power Rangers and Aladdin at least.

  9. #474
    Extraordinary Member Zero Hunter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    5,911

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Frontier View Post
    I wouldn't call Naomi Scott a "relative unknown," she was in Power Rangers and Aladdin at least.
    Yeah but if you just held up her picture to someone and said quick who is this about 99% of people would have no idea what her name was.

  10. #475
    Extraordinary Member Cyke's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    6,597

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Frontier View Post
    I wouldn't call Naomi Scott a "relative unknown," she was in Power Rangers and Aladdin at least.
    I think the point still stands, though. Naomi Scott is great and she's on the up and up. I hope her career reaches newer heights. But she also doesn't have the media presence the previous cast had back then (Barrymore and Diaz both coming off of critical and financial hits, and Liu being in one of the biggest TV shows at the time). Plus, the media campaign for the first movie took full advantage of that star power. The media campaign for this movie was less than tepid, by comparison.

    Give Naomi Scott maybe 2 - 5 years to build up her brand and maybe she'd be at that level. She's only starting to achieve her stardom, whereas the previous team were well established in theirs well before they started, or that they were cast *because* of their established star power.

  11. #476
    Mighty Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    1,846

    Default

    Never mind the fact Stewart couldn't act wet in a monsoon.
    I used to think the same thing---until I saw Charlie's Angels! She can definitely do comedy. Or Elizabeth Banks is that good a director.

    Of course you guys will never believe me because I'm the only one who saw the movie.

  12. #477
    Mighty Member Godzilla2099's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    1,194

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Immortal Weapon View Post
    According to Elizabeth Banks, director of Charlie's Angels, Wonder Woman and Captain Marvel were successful because comic book movies are a male genre
    https://twitter.com/getfandom/status...068575744?s=21
    I love it. Always an excuse. Always playing the victim. Aliens, Underworld, Resident Evil, and Terminators 1 and 2, say hi.

    I'm ok with this if it means people like Banks stop getting involved in action flicks.
    Last edited by Godzilla2099; 11-20-2019 at 03:17 PM.

  13. #478
    Old school comic book fan WestPhillyPunisher's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA
    Posts
    19,264

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Godzilla2099 View Post
    I love it. Always an excuse. Always playing the victim. Aliens, Underworld, Resident Evil, and Terminators 1 and 2, say hi.

    I'm ok with this if it means people like Banks stop getting involved in action flicks.
    Tomb Raider, Lucy, Salt and Atomic Blonde check in too!
    Last edited by WestPhillyPunisher; 11-21-2019 at 08:19 AM.
    Avatar: Here's to the late, great Steve Dillon. Best. Punisher. Artist. EVER!

  14. #479
    Mighty Member MoneySpider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    1,217

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WestPhillyPunisher View Post
    If that movie was marketed, it's news to me because I saw nothing in the way of TV spots, neither on terrestrial networks (ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX) or on cable. Perhaps the studio knew going in the movie was going to be bad and decided not to waste good money promoting it.
    I saw Kristen Stewart's "Women can do anything!" TV spot a few times on regular TV...
    Last edited by MoneySpider; 11-20-2019 at 06:42 PM.
    Blue Marvel - Man of Marvels
    Storm - Goddess of the Elements
    Black Panther - King of Wakanda/King of the Dead
    Vixen - Queen of the Red

  15. #480

    Default

    Maybe "Charlie's Angels" just isn't a viable concept anymore? This reboot is, what, eight years after the attempted TV reboot in 2011? "Charlie's Angels premiered on ABC on September 22, 2011. On October 14, 2011, the day after the fourth episode, low ratings led ABC to cancel the series. Three more episodes aired, with the eighth episode left unaired in the United States."

    Well looking at the Charlie's Angels wiki, this is interesting: "ABC attempted to create a spin-off of Charlie's Angels in 1980 called Toni's Boys. The backdoor pilot aired near the end of season four, simply titled "Toni's Boys" (season 4, episode 23). The episode starred Barbara Stanwyck as Antonia "Toni" Blake, a wealthy widow socialite and friend of Charlie's who ran a detective agency. The agency was staffed by three good looking male detectives—Cotton Harper (Stephen Shortridge), Matt Parrish (Bruce Bauer), and Bob Sorensen (Bob Seagren)—who took direction from Toni, and solved crimes in a manner similar to the Angels. The show was not picked up as a regular series for the following season."

    In a time of reboots, has anyone attempted to reboot/expand on a backdoor pilot that never became a series?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •