Follow TV Tropes
Elizabeth Banks, the talented actor turned blockbuster director, will produce and probably direct a new movie version of the series for Sony Pictures, according to the Hollywood Reporter.
The show—which follows a group of mysterious and seductive private detectives—ran from 1976 to 1981, first starring Farrah Fawcett, Kate Jackson and Jaclyn Smith (pictured below). Mc G then directed a film version in 2000 with Cameron Diaz, Drew Barrymore and Lucy Liu, which garnered a 2003 sequel (above). Then, in 2011, ABC brought the show back with Annie Ilonzeh, Minka Kelly, and Rachael Taylor, but it only lasted a few episodes.
The question on everyone’s mind is probably, “Why?” But the answer is simple. Charlie’s Angels is a recognizable brand name with a concept (beautiful, talented women kick ass) that’s incredibly malleable and marketable. While it’s usually played on the kitschy side, you can easily imagine versions that vary in tone from from Naked Gun to James Bond. Goofy and funny, sly and cool, serious and striking, Charlie’s Angels can be anything. And audiences still turn out for good spy movies.
edited 16th Sep '15 4:03:09 PM by windleopard
Kristen Stewart is hosting tonight's episode of SNL to promote Charlie's Angels.
Which begs the question: is anyone looking forward to the new Charlie's Angels? Or is everyone just "eh" on the whole thing?
Edited by TargetmasterJoe on Nov 3rd 2019 at 7:39:08 AM
Talk about something other than hating Sony.
Talk about how The Blockbuster Buster hates Robots or whatever.
Eh, we'll see how it turns out. Todd in the Shadows did a review of the single released to promote the movie. Turns out it's pretty mismatched.
My friend, I've grown beyond such pettiness.
Anyway, we got a new-ish trailer last month:
And upon seeing the first one and recalling the commercial from last night, I realized Charlie might be a lady this time around...which makes for an interesting twist, no?
Edited by TargetmasterJoe on Nov 3rd 2019 at 7:52:51 AM
The Elizabeth Banks-directed-written and produced pic is also opening in 27 offshore markets, China being one where it’s also bombing, with a $7.8M 3-day take in third place behind No. 1 local title Somewhere Winter ($13.1M). All of this is primed to further spur a WTF reaction and anxiety among film development executives in town in regards to what the hell exactly works in this have-and-have-not era of the theatrical marketplace. Many will make the hasty generalization that old, dusty IP doesn’t work, or is now deemed too risky when it’s not a superhero project. However, moviemaking is an art, not a science, and annoying as it might sound, good movies float to the top, and this Charlie’s Angels reboot didn’t have the goods going back to its script.
Summary of the article in the link should be enough to get the point across, but this film tanked and won't be much else but a bomb.
Double Toasted said it best. Totally Spies is better than this. There are more costume changes than plot.
Yeah, as someone who grew up watching Totally Spies I never thought it was hard to re-imagine Charile's Angels into a concept for modern audiences like most other people do. Instead we have what looks like a lack of competence mixed with poor marketing.
I've heard that this movie puts all three continuities (the 70s show, the 00s movies and this one) together, essentially creating a Charlie's Angels shared universe.
Ya know I've seen several commercials of this & I'm still not sure what its about aside from women doing stunts.
Also yeah Totally Spies, that was a fun show.
The previous batch of movies already did that. It's strongly implied in the second the Angels we've been following are second or third generation.
As I mentioned elsewhere, the film overall is very "meh".
It doesn't do anything that hasn't been done in other spy comedies already. It's your typical "normal citizen gets wrapped up in a crime, gets saved by spies, and said citizen wants to join them, and be taught the ropes" plot. That sort of thing.
In fact, I saw a lot of parallels between this film and The Spy Who Dumped Me from last year.
But there's a lot of other overused tropes, like the character that's set up to seem like the villain, then turns out not to be, a character that's presented as a good guy, but then turns out to be the actual villain, minor characters seen in the beginning of the film are revealed to be secret agents too, etc.
I myself went to see the movie purely for Kristen Stewart, because I think she's hilarious when she does comedy (even if she's more or less, just playing herself) and she totally steals the show, even though, I think Naomi Scott's character is supposed to be the main focus.
Edited by Brandon on Nov 18th 2019 at 4:19:09 AM
Even the original show had a revolving cast, so much like Mission: Impossible the idea of progressing the timeline rather than doing a Continuity Reboot made sense as you weren't attached to specific characters but the premise. The entire appeal was largely gorgeous women looking gorgeous while doing spy stuff, which was appealing to both men and women.
What little I've seen of reviews seem to suggest the movie is actually not as action packed and fast paced as implied in the trailers, but has a lot of sisterly bonding over their wardrobe and accessories. That might have its' own appeal (much like many Disney tween-focused movies), but you are going to lose the action/spy movie audience they should have been going for.
I thought it was fairly action-oriented, but then again, I've never seen the other incarnations of Charlie's Angels, so I have nothing to compare to in regards to that.
Maybe what the reviewers meant was we don't see any action-oriented stuff that hasn't already been seen in other films.
I haven't seen the film and don't really plan on it (I see 1-2 films a week in theaters, even still right now is actually rather crowded with more interesting material like Ford v. Ferrari), but the 2000's films were modestly popular for being flat out insane. BIG personalities, epic action and broad comedy.
I think in this day and age, if you can't afford the big budget Wire Fu green screen stuff, in order to stand out you need to be more intense John Wick-esque brutality. Not necessarily bone crunching, throat ripping, headshots on all the bad guys action, but something more convincing than the quick cutting Waif-Fu shown in the trailers.
Having seen the film I thought it was just okay. Not too good, not too bad, more just average and in the middle somewhere.
If nothing else though, seeing Kristen Stewart having some real fun on screen is a treat. Her Angel is a complete 180 from Bella Swan in all the best ways.
Yes it is. :) I miss it. :(
I only remember Totally Spies because of the weird fetishy stuff they got passed the censors
And that’s why the show had a fairly sizable male audience. Then again, joking aside, even the original Wonder Woman comics put in bondage and similar stuff to attract male readers to female led action stories about empowered females.
This film had the bad luck of no promotion, little star power, and a relatively isolated November week where the lion’s share of attention was taken by an Oscar contender with big name actors. Not to mention with Frozen 2 hitting theaters, it has zero legs, while Ford V Ferrari is going to attract a different crowd (and I might go and see it myself with some discount tickets over the weekend).
Community Showcase More
How well does it match the trope?