Charlie’s Angels director guesses he could do a third one
McG is down to return to Charlie's Angels if Drew Barrymore, Cameron Diaz, and Lucy Liu are
Aux News Charlie's Angels
Yeah, we’ve all learned our lesson about the pitfalls of legacy revivals never living up to the energy of the original, but… maybe we could do just one more legacy revival, as a little treat? McG, director of Charlie’s Angels and Charlie’s Angels: Full Throttle, says he’d be down to do another if his cast is. That’s Drew Barrymore, Lucy Liu, Cameron Diaz, and whoever they decide to recast as Bosley (the role played by Bill Murray and Bernie Mac in the first two movies).
“It would take a long discussion with those three wonderful performers who I adore,” McG tells Entertainment Weekly in a new interview. “I was very happy to see Elizabeth Banks take the helm and do what she did, which was fun. There always seems to be chatter about that. I’m very happy to discuss it with Drew and Cameron and Lucy, but at the same time, I’m very happy to pass the torch. I mean, I love the Tim Burton Batman movies, I love the new Batman movies. It’s just sort of like there can be a keeper of the flame and you can pass the torch.”
In this day and age, it’s hard to believe some plum IP like Charlie’s Angels (which began as a television series in the 1970s) would be left to languish for long. Banks’ 2019 take on the franchise (which starred Kristen Stewart, Naomi Scott, and Ella Balinska) served as a continuation of the Angels lore rather than a full reboot, tying elements of the TV show and the 2000s movies together into a fresh take.
Unfortunately, that take debuted to mixed reviews and a disappointing box office that Banks is still answering for to this day. Earlier this month, she once again decried the “gendered agenda” that surrounded the release of the movie, saying it “pigeonholed” her and the audience. “I happen to be a woman who directed a Charlie’s Angels movie that happened to star three incredible women. You can’t control the media saying, ‘You’re a lady director, and that’s special!’—which it is, but it’s not the only thing.”
At the time, Banks had the support of Drew Barrymore, who was an executive producer on the 2019 film after having served as a producer on McG’s Angels movies. The talk show host has said she would return to the franchise as an actor “in a heartbeat.” So, “Who knows? Maybe we’ve got one left in us that tells a very compelling story if the opportunity presents itself,” McG muses to EW. “I love the three of them so much. They put me on the map. They looked out for me when I was a first-time filmmaker. I was very nearly fired off that film on many, many occasions, and Drew stood up for me and I’m forever indebted to her. And obviously, those are three performers where God broke the mold. They don’t make ‘em like that. I mean, those are three special ones.”
30 Comments
I will love McG for him helping getting Supernatural made and for both babysitter movies! So if he does a another Charlies Angles I would go watch it!
I really liked the style and premise of the Babysitter movies but didn’t particularly care for the actual narratives. I thought the stories were a little weak.But absolutely give that man the Supernatural credit. McG and Kripke were a good pairing.
I really like the 1st one as the villians were hilarious goofs in it. Part 2 I was just happy they had enough good will to make.
I did like that they branched out in the second one and didn’t just rehash the same plot points. I tend to be harder on stuff that I think came close to good than stuff like Neil Breen movies where clearly the lunatic hack can’t make a competent film to save his life.FWIW, I felt similarly about McG’s Terminator movie. He’s got a great sense of style but the substance isn’t quite where I’d like. Supernatural benefitted a lot from Kripke being so smart and that writing staff being pretty damn good. (At least for the first 6 seasons. I mostly checked out after Kripke left.)
Yeah Season 7-10 were bad to boring.Funny enough season 11 was as good as the worst season of season 1-6, it was very very good. Season 12-13 also were strong but yeah by 14-15 the show was so ready to end.
I would check in now and then and would rarely be totally put off but it felt like the show really lost direction when Kripke left. Like… where is this show GOING? I like the dynamic between the leads and there were supporting folks who I enjoyed but… yeah. A little aimless. Based on what you’re saying maybe I should give 11-13 a shot.
I will say this, season 11-13 we finally and I mean Finally get them always getting mad at each other and not talking to each other. It just 10 years of that for them to chill out. lol!I will say episode 5 of season 10 (Fan Fiction) is probably the best (well 2nd best after season 5 ending) to end the show. If you feel like watching season 11-13, check out Fan fiction 1st as it helps with season 11-13.
I actually did watch Fan Fiction at the time because I had read about it! And because I have a not-so-secret and admittedly kind of unfair hatred of fanfic. Not just slash shit, but the entire field.
I loved the Episode because I in general also hate Fan Fic and loved how stupid the fan fic about them was but somehow had a great ending in the 2nd act for them.
I’d see a third one. The first two were dumb as hell, but the chemistry and energy were high enough that they were both fun times. I thought Diaz and Liu retired from acting and Barrymore is doing a talk show so I doubt it would come together, but sure.
Liu is working. Cameron retired in 14 but is making something with Jamie Foxx now. This sounds like a bad idea tho.
Although I like her a fair bit, I thought Demi was a significant problem in the second film. And I would never excuse Murray’s behavior and have no personal issue with Bernie Mac but he was not a good Bosley. Honestly neither of them were. They were both too much *themselves* and too present in the plot. Bosley should go to someone charming but who doesn’t divert too much attention. Someone who has good Right Hand Man energy. Someone who can do comically officious without seeming dowdy or a bummer. Adam Scott, maybe?
Ted Danson for Bosley!
I don’t hate that idea! I think he’s *maybe* a little distracting but he’s a lot less attention-hungry than Murray or Mac.
I don’t think you have to worry about Bernie Mac returning to the role.
If Bernie Mac returned to the role I would be VERY worried!But point taken.
Hope so. That sexless woke lesbian reboot sucked.
So did the other two.
i would be in favor of a 3rd McG movie although i think it would be better if it starred a new cast as well as bringing in the prior Angels, along with lots of meta jokes. Not sure whom i would cast as the 3 “new” angels – feels like you would need a trio with some box office heft to get some buzz going
I quite enjoyed the Banks movie but would say that the relatively unknown status of the two non-Stewart Angels hurt it. I kinda agree with you that a new one would need some star power. Lucy Liu wasn’t a huge megastar but she was known. And obviously Barrymore and Diaz were big names.It’s not a complaint I always take seriously but part of me *does* think that a lot of the contemporary crop of young actors just don’t seem like “grownups”. I watch the Barrymore Angels and those are badass WOMEN. Again, I liked the Banks movie. But they just looked like girls. Capable of a beatdown, don’t get me wrong! But just… I dunno. Too freaking young! Like I bet Zendaya would be down to play an Angel but she always seems like a teenager to me despite being 26. Or Selena Gomez, who is 31 going on 13.If they could play nice together without egos getting in the way (and I think they could), maybe Gal Gadot, Margot Robbie, and Karen Gillan? Let them have their native accents to underscore the idea that the Angels are international? They all have action chops, they’re all known quantities, they’ve all done some comedy stuff. The budget obviously would be an issue but shit, when hasn’t it?
Yeah, we’ve all learned our lesson about the pitfalls of legacy revivals never living up to the energy of the originalHave we? Top Gun: Maverick just made like a trillion dollars, Jurassic World made like .8 trillion, the Creed movies are all hits, Bad Boys for Life was a hit and getting a 4th.
So there might be an argument in here about the *appeal* of legacy revivals as reflected by the box office but box office doesn’t really say anything about “the energy of the original”. So you might have a point but it’s not a point that refutes the one you quoted.
Isn’t there a minor problem that it’d be easier to repeal the law of gravity than to get the three lead actresses in a room together?
Not really?
Is Charlie’s Angels really plum IP waiting to be rebooted or is it just some show from the 70’s that people liked at the time (because there weren’t that many choices) but no one really cares about now. Maybe it’s like how it is not surprising that no one (as far as I know) is trying to maks a new version of There’s Company or The Love Boat.
It’s a highly recognizable, woman-centric series with a timeless premise that can be adapted to just about any action scenario and varying casts.Three’s Company was a horny sitcom, imitated ad nauseum.
Eh, there’s *kind of* a Love Boat remake. It’s a reality competition show, though, so I could see an argument that’s not a remake as much as an IP skin.For similar reasons I think that yes, Charlie’s Angels is plum IP. Even if you set aside the popularity of the Barrymore film, the premise is three beautiful women doing action movie spy shit with some fluffy comedy on top. There will always be room for that kinda thing, even if they don’t directly tie it to the Charlie’s Angels IP.
No! No 3rd Charlie’s Angels movie. I recently saw the first two after so many years and both did not age well. And don’t get me started on the 2019 atrocity. Leave Charlie’s Angels alone and try something original for a change.
Charlie’s Angels was one of the first movies who’s action was based on copying The Matrix, and I felt that really muddied the potential of what it could truly be. Both his movies are bad, but the first one can hit the right way if you’re in the right, silly mood. It’s all about the ladies, so I might watch a third if they returned, but no McG, please. He sucks.
some plum IP like Charlie’s Angels
Is it plum IP, though? It’s a nearly 50 year old franchise that was largely popular because attractive women ran around with insufficiently supporting bras. Jiggly boobs are no longer hard to find in popular entertainment.
There have been three Charlie’s Angels movies and they’ve been fine (yes, even the most recent one). The 2011 reboot series (remember that?) lasted a whole seven episodes.
People just don’t care.
The only people who think that there’s an audience panting for more Charlie’s Angels are the folks in Hollywood who stand to make a buck off it.