MovieChat Forums > Kristen Stewart Discussion > CHARLIE'S ANGELS FIRST LOOK

CHARLIE'S ANGELS FIRST LOOK

posted 5 years ago by Mody (183)
11 replies | jump to latest

Here is the Charlie's Angels first look

https://ew.com/movies/2019/04/11/charlies-angels-2019-first-look/amp/?xid=amprecirc1

I CAN'T WAIT it looks like kristen is the leader!!

"His expanded roster includes the crew at the center of Banks’ story: Sabina Wilson (Kristen Stewart), the hard-partying, highly skilled wild card; Jane Kano (Ella Balinska), the ex-MI6 muscle of the group; and Elena Houghlin (Aladdin’s Naomi Scott), the MIT-trained scientist who, Banks says, serves as “the heart of the movie.”

[–] Ron2011 (907) 5 years ago

That's a tough, great looking group, which seems just right for the movie! Thanks for posting that picture Mody. :)

[–] Mody (183) 5 years ago

Agree 100% and you are welcome!!

[–] CKid (3816) 5 years ago

That was cool. And it was great to see some new photos.

I must add that when I first started to read the article, I was annoyed because in the box located before the actual article began, it clearly states "Release date: 9/27/2019." Ditto for the box after the article ends. I sighed and thought that those knuckle-heads at EW mistakenly thought that 9/27, which was the original release date, still stood.

Fortunately however, the article itself correctly states that the release is scheduled for November 15th.

As for what I found to be the biggest surprise, that definitely has to be the photo of Kristen in a jockey's uniform. I sure wasn't expecting to see that.

[–] Ron2011 (907) 5 years ago

https://www.cheatsheet.com/entertainment/kristen-stewarts-charlies-angels-salary-revealed.html/

This is an article on Kristen in Charlie's Angels and a comparison of her salary versus other women in similar roles. Also discusses some on whether Kristen will get back into action films. I think she would do more, depending on the type of story and role but I don't really want to see her do action films just to follow the action kick-butt genre. I would want her to do action films with good stories and roles. I think Charlie's Angels is a very good venue for that, or should be if the writing is done well. By the way, I love her look, posture and leather clothing style in the picture there. :) She does "cool" look so well, it's a natural for her.

[–] LLOwens (983) 5 years ago

With Avengers: Endgame, smashing all sorts of box office records and about to surpass the $2.5 billion worldwide gross mark, Marvel Cinematic Universe continues to solidify itself as the highest-grossing film franchise of all time, with a combined worldwide gross of well over $21 billion for its 23 films in this gargantuan franchise. So I'm a bit surprised that Gal Gadot made only $10 million for Wonder Woman, considering this film made nearly $822 million worldwide. So Kristen's projected $7 million payday is pretty darn sweet considering CA will be making a lot less. Thanks for posting Ron, as for quite some time I've been wanting her to star in a superhero film and MCU is definitely where it's at, at the moment.

[–] CKid (3816) 5 years ago

So Kristen made $7 million for Charlie's Angels, eh?
Well good for her.

Interestingly, I believe that that's her most for any film. Granted, she made $25 million for the 'Twilight' films, but if you divide that figure evenly between the five films, that averages to $5 million per film.

Of course, that's just an average. She may have made more for the 'Breaking Dawn' films than the earlier ones, thus she may have made more than $7 million for those.

This raises another question though ... how much did she make for 'Underwater'???
Afterall, that film's budget grew to $80 million, which I've got to believe must be the film with the highest budget in her filmology. Man, those special effects must have cost a bundle. I guess we'll know on January 10th of next year.

Anyway, thanks for posting this, Ron.

Oh yeah, almost forgot ... the other day the new logo for Charlie's Angels appeared.
https://www.flickeringmyth.com/2019/05/charlies-angels-reboot-gets-official-logo/

I hate to say it, but this logo doesn't do much for me. I mean, it even took me awhile to realize that the design underneath the title of the film is supposed to be wings, as in angel's wings (or so I assume).
What do you guys feel about it?

[–] LLOwens (983) 5 years ago

I've been scratching my head and telling myself, "How could she have had a net worth of $70 million soon after her stint with The Twilight Saga film franchise was over if she earned only $25 million for starring in all five films in this franchise, considering most of her other starring roles are in small budget indies which don't pay very well?"

$25 million is by no means chump change--but to turn it into $70 million over a short period of time would be nothing short of miraculous. So I did a few minutes of research and came up with this article from the Los Angeles Times:https://www.latimes.com/entertainment/la-xpm-2011-nov-17-la-et-bill-condon-20111117-story.html

Summit Entertainment, the studio behind the films, has doubled down on the finale, breaking Meyer's book into two installments — just as Warner Bros. did with the last chapter in its "Harry Potter" franchise — upping the production budgets and paying the film's three leads $25 million each for the "Breaking Dawn" movies.

So that $25 million figure was just for Breaking Dawn - Parts 1 & 2. Other sites I came across mention how the three leads also received retroactive/back end bonuses, which would boost their salary even more, depending on how much the films grossed at the box office. For example, this Forbes article gives further clarity to this: https://www.forbes.com/sites/dorothypomerantz/2012/06/19/kristen-stewart-tops-our-list-of-highest-paid-actresses/#22fb8cd834ec

"At this point, could anyone else play Bella Swan in Twilight? Probably not; if the studio tried to switch in another actress, fans would revolt. So for the last two Twilight films, Stewart has been able to demand an estimated $12.5 million per film, plus a share of the profits."

This article also mentions how she was the highest paid actress in Hollywood from May 2011 to May 2012 because of starring in the "Breaking Dawn" movies as well as "Snow White and the Huntsman", which totaled $34.5 million. So this helps explain how she was able to amass her small fortune, despite being picky and choosy about bigger budget roles over the years.

[–] CKid (3816) 5 years ago

Thanks for clearing up the confusion generated by the article that Ron linked to LL.
You were so right in stating that the $25 million figure for the entire Saga didn't make much sense.

[–] Ron2011 (907) 5 years ago

LL, thanks for clarifying the salary amounts. I thought it was more like what you say, that she made a lot more for the Twilight series. Plus I think it's pretty standard that actors make royalties for showings of movies they are in on TV, cable, DvD sales, etc.

[–] LLOwens (983) 5 years ago

Oh yeah, almost forgot ... the other day the new logo for Charlie's Angels appeared.
https://www.flickeringmyth.com/2019/05/charlies-angels-reboot-gets-official-logo/

I hate to say it, but this logo doesn't do much for me. I mean, it even took me awhile to realize that the design underneath the title of the film is supposed to be wings, as in angel's wings (or so I assume).
What do you guys feel about it?

The logo doesn't do much for me either, Carved. Perhaps it has some sort of symbolic meaning that we will come to know about in hindsight after watching the movie. But for the time being, I really don't know what to think.

[–] Ron2011 (907) 5 years ago

I'm not a big fan of the Charlie's Angels logo either. It seems more like a generic or tech label rather than a more descriptive label. But I guess it'll work with the movie story line.