Discussion in 'TV + Film' started by Mr. Mr., Oct 3, 2011.
The trailer featuring Donna's signature 70's hit >>>>>
New trailer actually looks really decent. Colour me perched.
The new trailer seems to be a reaction to the negativity of the first one, and it seems much more in the same vain as the original two movies. So Elizabeth Banks is going to be the shock thought they were on our side, but is actually a baddie for this movie yes?
Do we think the movie got retooled after the first trailer got negativity, or would it be too late for that?
Dear Lord no
It's going to be a mess, but hopefully it can at least be an iconic future cult mess.
I just noticed yesterday that the original series is being reshown on The Sony Channel here in the UK.
Good to see it back, on screens it's been a long time.
"From Director Elizabeth Banks... Directed By Elizabeth Banks" is giving me
Is Elizabeth Banks even a draw? I don't particularly care for her.
Miss Elizabeth Banks’ agent is earning their keep by negotiating that fourth billing.
New trailer made me cringe a bit, fam. Sorry. They all just seem really lacking in charisma. Kristen is not working for me, at all. Neither is Elizabeth. Also why the awful photoshop on these posters?
I don't know that I'll pay money to see this but I'll check it out if there's decent word of mouth for a fun silly film to spend my Saturday afternoon on.
I feel like they're attempting to market this at a much younger audience than the previous movies... or am I missing something?
Like when the Jem movie said ‘fuck you’ to the old fan base, threw in a One Direction song in the trailer to attract that young audience and she flopped.
Will I see this film in theatres? Probably. Will I pay full price? No, I’ll wait for Tuesday prices.
I just cant understand casting these three actresses that don’t really seem to have any charisma or character. Kristen Stewart being the worst of the bunch. The two previous movies worked because the three leads had a bunch of varying dynamics between the them all and they all were overflowing with charisma.
They seem pretty young too... Maybe they are similar ages to what Drew, Cameron and Lucy were (I don't know) but I always thought Charlie's Angels were meant to be seen as strong women not teenage girls.
They are. Drew was 24. Cameron was 27. Lucy was 30.
Kristen is 29, Naomi is 26, Ella's 23.
On that note, lets give props to Drew. Everyone loves patting Reese Witherspoon on the back for being a female power producer and creating content for women, and Drew was doing that at 22 years old. I feel like she doesn't get much credit for being one of the first big female movie star turned producers because she's slowed down so much nowadays.
This just doesn't look appealing whatsoever especially when you had Drew, Cameron and Lucy who each had so much natural charm, talent and charisma.
Well that's literally each one of them being 1 year younger
......yes, which is "similar ages".
Oh right, misread which part of the quoted post you were agreeing to
Separate names with a comma.