Want Charlie's Angels 3?
-
preppy-3 — 15 years ago(February 10, 2011 07:58 AM)
"I was surprised there wasn't a third one considering how successful the second one was (which I really hated)."
Actually the second one was a bomb which is why there was never a third. And I hated the second one too. -
thelastfaceyouwillsee — 15 years ago(February 12, 2011 08:40 PM)
The sequel can't be called a bomb at all as it performed almost as well at the box ooffice as the first film.
According to Wikipedia "By the end of its run the film had grossed $259,175,788 worldwide "
now I do it just to watch their f-n' expression change. -
peteroid — 14 years ago(February 02, 2012 06:41 AM)
wow first you WRONGLY claim this movie was a bomb because it did not mkae a profit (it almost DOUBLED the production cost) then you say if it made a profit why did it not have a sequel..
i guess you just can't accept something you didn't like did well.. well it did doesn't matter what you think- It has been said, that to write, is to live forever. the man who wrote that is dead! -
-
preppy-3 — 14 years ago(February 02, 2012 07:57 AM)
WRONGLY CLAIM huh? Look at the entry for the movie. The budget was $120,000,000. The final gross was $100,685,880. Explain to me how that made a profit. Also the movie has a User Rating of 4.7. Seems a lot of people agree with me.
-
preppy-3 — 13 years ago(November 28, 2012 04:49 AM)
Grow up. Get a dictionary too and learn how to spell. Since u were too dumb to grasp the simple facts I gave I'll put them up again:
"Look at the entry for the movie. The budget was $120,000,000. The final gross was $100,685,880. Explain to me how that made a profit. Also the movie has a User Rating of 4.7." -
HowYaLikeDemApplesWill — 12 years ago(February 23, 2014 03:17 PM)
1 - It was neither a big hit, nor was it a bomb.
It had a $120M production budget, and grossed almost $260M worldwide.
Considering theater owners get from 40-45% of ticket sales, and the marketing budget was likely in the $20-30M rangeit probably came pretty close to breaking even.
2 - Hollywood
often
makes sequels to big hits.but not
always
. The tentpole franchise has become more prevalent since the budgets are so high for today's movies that studios like to bet on known and proven entities, but this isn't always the case.
The first Charlies Angels movie was very successful, and thus Full Throttle.
Full Throttle was not overly-successful, and thus the end of the franchise.for now.
This is not unprecedented. There were plans for sequels in the past that were cancelled because the first sequel underperformed coupled with the fact that most principal actors get significant raises for the sequel and thus the budget for a sequel nearly always surpasses the original, and the revenue generally also
underperforms
the original.it happens.
Whose idea was it for the word "Lisp" to have an "S" in it? -
mark_g_1 — 13 years ago(November 27, 2012 02:21 PM)
the second one wasn't a bomb preppy-3 you beep pr*** 250m+ gross is far from a bombits a very respectable amount and would merit another sequel, my guess is the girls had other projects they wanted to per suelucy lui with kill bill for instance and you can see why she would do that, kill bill was amazing but yeah don't throw words around like bomb when its completely unjustified charlies angels were good FUN moviesthat's why they did so well just because you dont like them doesn't mean you have to spew your venom on here you sad beep
-
eeleyebrown — 15 years ago(January 21, 2011 08:27 AM)
I love the first movie. The second was a typical overkill sequel with too many cameos and excess everything, but it was still alot of fun. I'd like to see another but it should involve different angels, a new Bosley and a new Charlie. I'd like to see them revisit the franchise in another five years or so for a third movie with a new set of popular, young actresses. They should explain that the others have gone on to other positions, careers or retirement (aka marriage, family, etc). Drew should be the veteran angel now newly-promoted to VP of the organization, welcoming and training three new girls.
If they can't get McG to come back and direct, Mark Neveldine and Brian Taylor ("Crank", " Jonah Hex") would be good choices. They have a similar frenetic, suspension-of-disbelief style, though more action-oriented than visually stylish.
Would be nice if they could reign in some of the original angels like Kate Jackson, Cheryl Ladd, Shelly Hack and Tanya Roberts for small cameos as well as Lucy and Cameron. Also a nice, respectful homage to the late Farrah Fawcett and John Forsyth, the face and voice of "Charlie's Angels", respectively. And also Bernie Mac R.I.P. -
L8O1S5T — 15 years ago(January 24, 2011 10:31 PM)
Drew said she'd be down for a third one. "I'm so into it. Im so into itCharlie's Angels 3," exclaimed the original Hollywood bad girl. "They're hard movies to make, but they're fun."
Drew's producing partner Nancy Juvonen said, "It's percolating up. It's rising to the surface."
So no need for a petition. Charlies Angels 3 is on the way. -
L8O1S5T — 15 years ago(February 10, 2011 10:48 AM)
Yes, "Full Throttle" didn't make back the money in cost to produce like the first one did. Domestically it failed but worldwide, it made pretty close to what the first one did. Drew has a hand in creating these movies with her production company so if she wants to make another, she can. So you can't say "sorryno third one" because it's not up to you.
-
preppy-3 — 15 years ago(February 10, 2011 12:34 PM)
You're rightit's not up to me. However they ARE rebooting "Charlie's Angels" for TV. Drew has a hand in that. So what's the point of making another theatrical film? It would be confusing with two sets of Angels (Drew, Diaz and Liu are def. not gonna be in the TV series) and people would rather see it for "free" on TV and not trudge out to a theatre.
-
L8O1S5T — 15 years ago(February 13, 2011 07:42 AM)
Yes, I know they're coming out with a TV-Series. What's the point? They've done it in the past with films that are brought to the small screen. Perhaps it's to familiarize people with the Drew/Cameron/Liu version and open people up to watching the TV series. Or perhaps it depends on how successful the TV series is. If the TV series is good, perhaps Drew will use them instead. If not, why not make one that has a better chance at being successful? We don't really know at this point. But honestly, I'd prefer Drew's version. They're hotter than the Tv cast. And I doubt the show will be as funny as Drew's version. I like the mix.
-
preppy-3 — 15 years ago(February 13, 2011 09:30 AM)
True movies have made it to the small screenbut not with both playing at the same time with different casts! That would cost too much and confuse people. Also there is no way Barrymore, Cameron and Liu would do a TV series. For Cameron and Barrymore it would be a step down and they probably demand salaries a lot higher than a TV actor would get (or that the production could afford). So it's just a TV series. Also, if it bombs, don't expect a movie to come out of it.
-
L8O1S5T — 15 years ago(February 13, 2011 10:17 AM)
I never said Drew, Cameron, or Lui were doing the TV series Just referring to the movie aspect. And if the TV series bombs, it doesn't mean the movie with Drew/Cameran/Lui will (if they do it). Anythings possible.
-
preppy-3 — 15 years ago(February 15, 2011 12:00 PM)
I just heard Bosley in the new TV series is going to be played by a handsome latino 20-something. My guess they'll try to add some sexual tension between the Angels and him. I haven't decided if that's good or not. And the voice of Charlie will be Robert Wagner. That is a good choice.