Why they don't make Charlies Angels 3 ?

#1 Posted by indzman (16398 posts) -

Loved Charlies Angels very much , sexy babes , great soundtracks , awesome action, funny. Why McG dosen't make Charlies Angels 3 or reboot the series with new cast ?

Anyone enjoyed Charlies Angels 2000 and 2003 starring Lucy Liu, Drew Barrymoore and Cameron Diaz ? :)

#2 Posted by Hallenbeck77 (14258 posts) -

What is it with people wanting sequels to crappy movies that really didn't warrant one in the first place?

#3 Edited by indzman (16398 posts) -

What is it with people wanting sequels to crappy movies that really didn't warrant one in the first place?

I enjoyed Charlies Angels 2000 very much , was entertaining in a cheesy way lol. Soundracks i still love ( Destinys Child - Independent Women , Main Theme ). Heh

#4 Edited by lamprey263 (22419 posts) -

well, Bernie Mac died, and I think Drew Barrymore gained a little wait (she was pregnant last I heard)

at this point they should either just reboot it with much younger actresses, or not do anything at all

#5 Edited by Behardy24 (2301 posts) -

If I remember, Charlie's Angels was that popular to begin with. I do agree that it was entertaining in a cheesy way, but I don't think the world needs/wants another Charlie's Angel movie. Especially since every movie is trying to become dark and edgy.

#6 Posted by Hallenbeck77 (14258 posts) -

Well, the second movie made less that the first, so I imagine that's the main reason. And well, the original source material was kinda goofy, anyway. The whole show was made basically just to play upon the T & A factor that was in a lot of TV shows from the '70s. Not to mention they tried to relaunch the show a few years ago, and it wound up being cancelled a few episodes in.

#7 Posted by indzman (16398 posts) -

Well, the second movie made less that the first, so I imagine that's the main reason. And well, the original source material was kinda goofy, anyway. The whole show was made basically just to play upon the T & A factor that was in a lot of TV shows from the '70s. Not to mention they tried to relaunch the show a few years ago, and it wound up being cancelled a few episodes in.

Yeah, 2nd movie was not good enough except for Demi Moore. You are saying the original TV shows were also not good ? Didn't happen to see any of those yet.

#8 Posted by Hallenbeck77 (14258 posts) -

@indzman said:

@hallenbeck77 said:

Well, the second movie made less that the first, so I imagine that's the main reason. And well, the original source material was kinda goofy, anyway. The whole show was made basically just to play upon the T & A factor that was in a lot of TV shows from the '70s. Not to mention they tried to relaunch the show a few years ago, and it wound up being cancelled a few episodes in.

Yeah, 2nd movie was not good enough except for Demi Moore. You are saying the original TV shows were also not good ? Didn't happen to see any of those yet.

It was known as a "jiggle show"--programs like that weren't exactly known for their writing, that's for sure.

#9 Edited by indzman (16398 posts) -

@indzman said:

@hallenbeck77 said:

Well, the second movie made less that the first, so I imagine that's the main reason. And well, the original source material was kinda goofy, anyway. The whole show was made basically just to play upon the T & A factor that was in a lot of TV shows from the '70s. Not to mention they tried to relaunch the show a few years ago, and it wound up being cancelled a few episodes in.

Yeah, 2nd movie was not good enough except for Demi Moore. You are saying the original TV shows were also not good ? Didn't happen to see any of those yet.

It was known as a "jiggle show"--programs like that weren't exactly known for their writing, that's for sure.

ROFL , Thanks for the info XD !!!

#10 Posted by Lord_Daemon (24229 posts) -

@indzman said:

@hallenbeck77 said:

Well, the second movie made less that the first, so I imagine that's the main reason. And well, the original source material was kinda goofy, anyway. The whole show was made basically just to play upon the T & A factor that was in a lot of TV shows from the '70s. Not to mention they tried to relaunch the show a few years ago, and it wound up being cancelled a few episodes in.

Yeah, 2nd movie was not good enough except for Demi Moore. You are saying the original TV shows were also not good ? Didn't happen to see any of those yet.

It was known as a "jiggle show"--programs like that weren't exactly known for their writing, that's for sure.

Indeed like most prime time fare in the '70s they were none too good but entertaining enough fluff with action for the kids and boobs for the adults. I revisited all the episodes multiple times last year via a channel that was playing them all in full HD and enjoyed what quickly became more of a "holy crap what ridiculously hot outfit is Cheryl Ladd going to barely wear this time" type of affair...something I fully enjoyed as well as some early nods to exploitation cinema. Though Cheryl's TV big sis Farrah Fawcett did come back for regular visits leading to some rather odd happenings...such as when she fought a roof top kung-fu battle against James Bond.

#11 Posted by GazaAli (22491 posts) -

Charles Angles was so fucking cheesy and mundane. If you want hot women with guns I bet there are porn movies that fit the description. They also take their clothes off and engage in all sorts of kink and violent sex most probably.

#12 Edited by indzman (16398 posts) -

@hallenbeck77 said:

@indzman said:

@hallenbeck77 said:

Well, the second movie made less that the first, so I imagine that's the main reason. And well, the original source material was kinda goofy, anyway. The whole show was made basically just to play upon the T & A factor that was in a lot of TV shows from the '70s. Not to mention they tried to relaunch the show a few years ago, and it wound up being cancelled a few episodes in.

Yeah, 2nd movie was not good enough except for Demi Moore. You are saying the original TV shows were also not good ? Didn't happen to see any of those yet.

It was known as a "jiggle show"--programs like that weren't exactly known for their writing, that's for sure.

Indeed like most prime time fare in the '70s they were none too good but entertaining enough fluff with action for the kids and boobs for the adults. I revisited all the episodes multiple times last year via a channel that was playing them all in full HD and enjoyed what quickly became more of a "holy crap what ridiculously hot outfit is Cheryl Ladd going to barely wear this time" type of affair...something I fully enjoyed as well as some early nods to exploitation cinema. Though Cheryl's TV big sis Farrah Fawcett did come back for regular visits leading to some rather odd happenings...such as when she fought a roof top kung-fu battle against James Bond.

Isn't that Timothy Dalton ?

#13 Edited by Lord_Daemon (24229 posts) -

@indzman: Yup it certainly is. He played a gentleman thief who was insanely wealthy but steals expensive gems for kicks. The funny part is most of the people he stole from figured it was him but didn't care because he was so hot and awesome and it gave their boring lives a kind of social cachet...Farrah Fawcett plays an ex Charlie's Angel seemingly under his spell...or is she?

But yeah....Charlie's Angels is pretty awesome for guest stars both big and small if'n you're into that sort of thing.

Yes I know too much about Charlie's Angels.

#14 Edited by Boddicker (2272 posts) -

Because the first 2 were shit?

#15 Posted by Master_Live (13612 posts) -

Because the world isn't ready for its awesomeness.

#16 Edited by hippiesanta (9731 posts) -

gahh.... Charlie's angel movies are horrid ........ they hire actrees who can't even fight in real world.