World of KJ
http://www.worldofkj.com/forum/

Charlie's Angels - Trailer #1
http://www.worldofkj.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=28&t=85911
Page 1 of 2

Author:  Chippy [ Thu Jun 27, 2019 11:37 am ]
Post subject:  Charlie's Angels - Trailer #1


Author:  nghtvsn [ Thu Jun 27, 2019 12:03 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Charlie's Angels - Trailer #1

As soon as I saw Kristen Stewart in this role, it just seemed like she was out of place for this. I don't buy it.

Author:  Chippy [ Thu Jun 27, 2019 3:18 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Charlie's Angels - Trailer #1

Not sure they've had a more attractive cast for these films.

Stewart looks tremendous.

Author:  Magic Mike [ Thu Jun 27, 2019 8:16 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Charlie's Angels - Trailer #1

I'll check it out. Still not a fan of the main cast but Stewart looks quite good I'll admit. Also excited for new music from Lana Del Rey though being a team-up with Cyrus and Grande has me worried it won't be great.

Author:  publicenemy#1 [ Fri Jun 28, 2019 2:27 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Charlie's Angels - Trailer #1

It looks kinda eh. Nice to see Kirsten Stewart look like she's hsving fun though.

Author:  Tuukka [ Fri Jun 28, 2019 7:57 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Charlie's Angels - Trailer #1

Looks okay. My main problem is that every joke felt flat and unfunny. I like the cast and the concept, but jokes are a miss, and the action looks very generic and unimpressive.

And I think I'm easy to please with movies like this. I like both previous CA movies. I like The Spy Who Dumped me, which was pretty funny and had cool action scenes. I'm not seeing either here.

Author:  Thegun [ Sat Jun 29, 2019 9:17 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Charlie's Angels - Trailer #1

Looks really terrible.

Am I the only one that misses Cameron Diaz shaking her ass making dick jokes as a vocabulary?

They really should have just brought them back, probably would have had a 50 million opener. Now we have a 50 million grosser.

Author:  Dil [ Mon Jul 01, 2019 12:13 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Charlie's Angels - Trailer #1

This looks generic as fuck. I'm not even the biggest Charlie's Angel's fan, but those first two at least had some kind of fun energy to them. Maybe it's because I actually didn't mind the original cast, but this really doesn't look that inspired at all.

Author:  Barrabás [ Tue Jul 02, 2019 2:51 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Charlie's Angels - Trailer #1

The noughties Charlie's Angels movies aren't classics or anything but the trio is well-remembered. Drew, Cameron and Lucy were low key iconic.

These three look pitiful in comparison, nowhere near as sexy and bad ass and glamorous. They should've waited another 10-20 years before remaking this.

Author:  MadGez [ Thu Jul 04, 2019 11:36 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Charlie's Angels - Trailer #1

It does look lame and will tank which will be good for everyone.

Author:  i.hope [ Fri Jul 05, 2019 10:54 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Charlie's Angels - Trailer #1

It seems it is going for the young crowds, not the nostalgic ones. Let's see if it pays off.

Author:  Keyser Söze [ Fri Jul 05, 2019 11:21 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Charlie's Angels - Trailer #1

Will twilight fans show up for this? That might help have initial BO and then crash. I saw this at my dolby screening yesterday. Looks meh. It followed hobbs and show trailer which looked terrible as well.

Author:  Mister Ecks [ Mon Jul 08, 2019 9:10 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Charlie's Angels - Trailer #1

I'm not sure why they keep going back to Charlie's Angels. The original was campy silliness, as far as I know, but was there ever enough nostalgia to bring it back for three different revivals? The original movies kept the campiness but upped the budget. Then there was the TV revival a few years back that tanked. Now it seems like they've lost the silliness and are going for a more straight-forward action comedy?

And again, why? No one was demanding an update. This will need incredible reviews to succeed, and even if it managed that, chances are it won't break out.

I hate being negative about something, but I think this could have been so much better or the efforts could have went to better use.

Author:  Thegun [ Tue Jul 09, 2019 8:07 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Charlie's Angels - Trailer #1

Well the first ones adjust to 67/210, 56/150.

I agree that there is potential but you need some real bigger names and the campiness as well. This one will probably do the new Tomb Raider numbers. The others had Bill Murray, Sam Rockwell, Tim Curry, Luke Wilson and Matt LeBlanc at their popularity heights. Even the second had Moore, Shia, Bernie Mac, Bruce Willis, etc.

Author:  Barrabás [ Tue Jul 09, 2019 10:21 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Charlie's Angels - Trailer #1

The main difference is that Cameron Diaz, Drew Barrymore and Lucy Liu are household names whereas now we have Kirsten Stewart, ???? and ????.

Author:  Chippy [ Wed Jul 10, 2019 12:56 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Charlie's Angels - Trailer #1

Diaz was in 3 big films prior to Charlie's Angels.
Barrymore was in... 4-5? outside of ET.
Liu was in... literally nothing of note.

Stewart is more high profile than all of them at this same point.
Scott was JUST in a huge film.
Balinska is the Liu of the group.

It's honestly not that different. Nostalgia is clouding your view of that first Charlie's Angels film.

Author:  Thegun [ Wed Jul 10, 2019 7:59 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Charlie's Angels - Trailer #1

Stewart hasn't starred in anything that people have seen in almost 7 years. I haven't seen Aladdin but Scott is pretty much a non factor to general audiences, never heard of the third.

Diaz was right off of There's Something About Mary, everyone at least knew who Barrymore and came off about 5 hits in a row where she was prominent prior to CA, and Lui had just come off of memorable roles in Payback and Shanghai Noon. And you had Bill Murray returning to his first real comedic role in almost 5 years.

But you're right, the casting really isn't the issue. The others were just marketed better and looked bigger and slicker. Also, it's Charlie's Angels, it's suppose to make you feel Nostalgic.

Author:  Chippy [ Wed Jul 10, 2019 9:05 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Charlie's Angels - Trailer #1

"the previous thing was more known because I was younger and could remember more!"

is essentially what you're saying. Shanghai Noon and Payback made less than $150 mil combined. Liu was a non-factor.

Stewart has been in 6 films, all making $155+ mil, as the LEAD. Who cares if it's been 7 years since her last blockbuster. And you can't say Scott is a non factor. That's like saying Chris Pratt was a non-factor for Jurassic World.



WHAT A TRAILER! WHAT GREAT MARKETING!

Author:  Malcolm [ Wed Jul 10, 2019 12:28 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Charlie's Angels - Trailer #1

It kind of seems like you have some weird grudge against Charlie's Angels 2000. Were you molested during a screening, or something ;) ? Anyway, Diaz/Barrymore/Liu is unquestionably more of a box office draw than Stewart/Scott/&friend--nostalgia has nothing to do with it.

Barrymore was already famous for 20years and was most recently coming off Scream, Ever After, The Wedding Singer, and Never Been Kissed in the three years prior to Charlie's Angels--all successful films where she's either the lead, co-lead, or the famous cameo.

Diaz's three years previous to Charlie's Angel's consist of My Best Friend's Wedding, There's Something About Mary, plus Being John Malkovich and Any Given Sunday.

Liu was certainly more of a "who?" but she'd still been generally featured in a couple successful movie (plus Ally McBeal). Bill Murray certainly didn't hurt the box office prospects, either (even if he and Liu hated each other).

I find it ridiculous to say it's no big deal that Stewart hasn't been in a movie that made more than 18mil DOM since Twilight wrapped seven years ago, as should anyone following box office trying to make educated guesses about the future. The *one* successful movie series the most famous person of this new trio was in ended a good long while ago--in what world is that a non-factor, but it makes sense that Diaz/Barrymore were less of draw in 2000 because...2019 nostalgia?

You also must be kidding yourself if you think Chris Pratt post-Guardians of the Galaxy/Lego Movie is somehow comparable to Naomi Scott post-Aladdin/Power Rangers. :funny:

Author:  Chippy [ Wed Jul 10, 2019 12:42 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Charlie's Angels - Trailer #1

Who the fuck said they had LESS of a draw? Is everyone on this site just insane? Like, honestly, do you people just read what you want to read?

Author:  zwackerm [ Wed Jul 10, 2019 2:13 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Charlie's Angels - Trailer #1

Cameron Diaz and Drew Barrymore= A list

Author:  Thegun [ Wed Jul 10, 2019 2:43 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Charlie's Angels - Trailer #1

And Chippy, that is a great trailer, and Full Throttle had a good campaign as well. They had that Bond, Mission Impossible, Matrix kind of pop parody that just seemed fun. And this is a great teaser.


Author:  Malcolm [ Wed Jul 10, 2019 9:13 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Charlie's Angels - Trailer #1

Chippy wrote:
Who the fuck said they had LESS of a draw? Is everyone on this site just insane? Like, honestly, do you people just read what you want to read?


I responded to things you said, no mystery there ;)

Chippy wrote:
Diaz was in 3 big films prior to Charlie's Angels.
Barrymore was in... 4-5? outside of ET.
Liu was in... literally nothing of note.

Stewart is more high profile than all of them at this same point.
Scott was JUST in a huge film.
Balinska is the Liu of the group.

It's honestly not that different. Nostalgia is clouding your view of that first Charlie's Angels film.


Such as you equivocating the 2019 cast with the 2000 cast in terms of bankability, when I think that's silly. And then you said other things I pointed out as disagreeable, in terms of box office forum discussion. All seems above board to me!

Author:  Barrabás [ Thu Jul 11, 2019 12:01 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Charlie's Angels - Trailer #1

Chippy wrote:
Diaz was in 3 big films prior to Charlie's Angels.
Barrymore was in... 4-5? outside of ET.
Liu was in... literally nothing of note.

Stewart is more high profile than all of them at this same point.
Scott was JUST in a huge film.
Balinska is the Liu of the group.

It's honestly not that different. Nostalgia is clouding your view of that first Charlie's Angels film.

I honestly don't remember if Lucy was a big thing before 2000 but she kind of became a household name between that and Kill Bill. She got name-dropped in "Hey ya!" for a reason.

Drew and Cameron felt way more high profile than Naomi Scott prior to that film, 100%.

Kirsten Stewart is a known name but she hasn't been in anything relevant since Twilight ended. I would say Cameron Diaz coming off My Best Friend's Wedding and Something About Mary was much more of a star than Kirsten is in 2019.

Anyway a film like this lives and dies on the casting. The 3 girls they have now just pale in comparison to this:

Image

Author:  publicenemy#1 [ Thu Jul 11, 2019 12:54 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Charlie's Angels - Trailer #1

Uh... yeah, Cameron and Drew were stars in the early 2000s

I like KStew but I don't think she adds that much star power to this. Naomi Scott was great in Aladdin so hopefully she's good here but I think they should've gotten a bigger name for the third actress.

Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/