2019 Box Office Busts

[Scott Taylor]

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.

[Cyke]

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.

[TriggerWarning]

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.

[WestPhillyPunisher]

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.

[Nine Crocodile]

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.

[Scott Taylor]

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.

[Zero Hunter]

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.

[Frontier]

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.

[Zero Hunter]

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.

[Cyke]

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.

[titanfan]

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.

[Godzilla2099]

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.

[WestPhillyPunisher]

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!

[MoneySpider]

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...

[Nate Grey]

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?