Charlie's Angels (inc. 2019 reboot) | Page 10 | The Popjustice Forum

Charlie's Angels (inc. 2019 reboot)

Discussion in 'TV + Film' started by Mr. Mr., Oct 3, 2011.

  1. It looked shit, Liz. The marketing was way off.
    Last edited: Nov 18, 2019
  2. Both of those...ARE points...but are not soley to blame here. Oh, at all.
  3. Female-led action movies are always going to have a tougher ride, we been knew, but I think the issue was the marketing, the tone was totally confusing and way off. Charlie's Angels is high camp and I think it needed to go down a more self-aware/comedy route to work.
    Last edited: Nov 18, 2019
  4. Charlie's Angels needed to scream FUN! - the casting of Kristen Stewart who I hear is a decent actress after the whole Twilight dragging, does not scream fun and neither do the other leads. It needed to be pure unadulterated camp with winks here and there all rounded off with a generational cast.
    POPGASM and bonnieetclyde like this.
  5. Sexism is inherrent in cinema, but that comparison is quite the reach. Wonder Woman and Captain Marvel are iconic characters that could be played by anyone. Charlie's Angels are three interchangable characters that need to be played by recognisable faces.

    The casting on the new movie is dreadful. Kristen Stewart hasn't headlined a blockbuster since Twilight, of which she's not remembered in the most favourable light. And the other two...don't even need mentioning. It also doesn't help they all look so young. When I first watched the trailer I was convinced it was a Disney channel type reboot for tweens.

    My perfect cast would look something like -

    Keke Palmer
    Gemma Chan
    Vanessa Kirby
    Tribal Spaceman likes this.
  6. You guys keep saying they need recognizable actresses and then name nobodies as your ideal casting. Keke Palmer people know, although she's nowhere near as famous as Kristen Stewart. The other examples you guys are coming up with are no more famous than Naomi Scott.
    Subspace88, iRyan, POPGASM and 11 others like this.
  7. Uno


    Vanessa Hudgens, Daisy Ridley, and Zoe Kravitz.

    Maggie Q as Bosley.
    Remorque likes this.
  8. Ariana Grande, Miley Cyrus and Lana Del Rey
  9. Well they should have aimed for Margot, Emma Stone or Jennifer Lawrence as the lead but I doubt they'd nab the latter two.
    Remorque likes this.
  10. A Deadline article I read made it seem like they were offered the original script and all 3 passed. Kristen is not a bad get. She might not be a box office draw anymore, but she's a big name who attracts press. She keeps getting erased from everyone's alternate casting, but pretty much all the reviews I've read have said she's the only one that makes any impression.

    Zoe Kravitz is a good suggestion. Kristen, Margot, and Zoe would have been strong.
  11. It just needed to be a better movie.
    2014, Subspace88, PopCrushed and 5 others like this.
  12. Is it true Lupita was considered or offered a role? I think she would be a great action lead as she was awesome in Us... although I wonder as an Oscar winner if she would consider doing Charlie's Angels.
  13. BTG


    All this tea.

    There’s two ways to sell Charlie’s Angels. You either go for big name casting and get people excited to see three huge actresses having a ball onscreen, or you have to totally embrace the camp tone and let viewers know it’ll be a fun, silly watch. Ideally, you do both.

    The tone of this looked so muddled, even in the trailers. They didn’t have a clue how to market it, or who to market it to.
  14. I'm not sure the casting is the issue, or at least not the whole issue. Female led action movies do struggle. Look at Salt, Atomic Blonde and Red Sparrow - three films with A-list, Oscar-winning leading ladies that were clearly made with one eye on a franchise. None were disasters, but it would be a stretch to call any of them an outright success either. And I wouldn't hold your breath for the sequels.

    All that aside, remember we are talking about a franchise based on a TV show that's been off the air for nearly 40 years - its last iteration being a TV reboot that didn't even last through its original 13 episode order. The Spider-Man comparison is a false equivalence, and I think Elizabeth Banks knows as much herself.
    Uno likes this.
  15. Red Sparrow isn't even an action movie really. I don't know why they were advertising it like it was. It's a spy thriller, sure, but there's no real ass kicking in it.
    lushLuck likes this.

  16. At least that‘s funny
  17. Lol at the people responding that it was a marketing issue and they didn't even know it was out. This movie had significant marketing and publicity, starting 2 months before its release and at least a 2 week press tour with its stars on multiple talk shows, SNL, viral content, and a Vanity Fair cover. Marketing issue my ass.
  18. I was in 2 fairly packed out screenings for films in September/October-ish time where the trailer for Charlie's Angels played beforehand, and I've never felt such a nothing reaction from a crowd before. There were no laughs, no comments, no grumbles, no reaction. Just silence.
    bonnieetclyde likes this.
  19. BTG


    Also, while they’re certainly is a deeply sexist attitude towards female-led action movies (as you can see from the shit Brie gets daily online) that deserves to be called out, there’s something inherently tasteless in undermining Patti’s success with Wonder Woman. I mean, nobody was checking out “event film” Justice League. WW succeeded by its own merits.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.