MovieChat Forums > Charlie's Angels (2019) Discussion > What if Drew Barrymore and Lucy Liu came...

What if Drew Barrymore and Lucy Liu came back...

posted 4 years ago by TMC-4 (19411)
10 replies | jump to latest

Would it have been more successful at the box office? I don't know about Cameron Diaz since she's for all intents and purposes, retired at this point. But none the less, I keep hearing that one main reason why this iteration of Charlie's Angels flopped because there weren't any real bankable stars. Kristen Stewart is of course the biggest name but her biggest commercial success, Twilight was from nearly a decade ago. And a big knack about Stewart as an actress in general, is that she isn't exactly the most charismatic person to have as the main draw.

[–] kuku (3510) 4 years ago

Drew Barrimore is still a cutie. Lucy Liu looks like a plastic surgery brochure.

[–] exithereplease (3553) 4 years ago

I doubt it would have mattered.

This wasn't a movie anyone was asking for.

[–] ReelReviews14 (1030) 4 years ago

If you got ALL THREE of them back and managed to make a "Charlie's Angels 3" after all this time, it probably would have done better at the box office even it was crap (for example, I think Men in Black 3 and The Mummy 3 did pretty good after the franchise had been on hiatus for over a decade). People's curiosity would be piqued and they liked that trio far more than the cast of the remake.

[–] ivankyazze (179) 4 years ago

Yeah ‘Men in Black 3’ even grossed more than the original at the box office.

[–] Snoopy828 (496) 4 years ago

I'm sure if Drew and Lucy signed on, Cameron would follow suit.

Hard to say since Charlie's Angels 2 was a flop. But I'd bet that a part 3 with those girls would have fared much better then this garbage

[–] darkpast (8033) 4 years ago

Charlie's Angels 2 was not a flop, it at least broken even in cinemas and in 2003 the DVD market was quite healthy , often matching domestic take

[–] TMC-4 (19411) 4 years ago

https://www.quora.com/How-come-there-was-never-a-third-Charlies-Angels-movie-with-Cameron-Diaz-Drew-Barrymore-and-Lucy-Liu/answer/Frank-Martin-15

The second movie had a massive jump in star salaries for the three women, nearly a 30% jump in production budget, and the same worldwide boxoffice with a smaller percentage in domestic boxoffice which yields higher studio revenue. As the salary demands weren’t going down, there was no compelling reason to take the huge financial risk of a third one.

Cameron Diaz was paid $20 million for the Charlie’s Angel’s sequel, but she is said to have made over twice that amount 8 years later for Bad Teacher, a low budget film (1/6 budget of CA sequel) for which she accepted a $1 million salary plus points. Bad Teacher missed the CA sequel worldwide boxoffice by 17%, and Cameron Diaz made a whopping $42 million in participation.

In a sense Cameron Diaz got her payback for her film 13 years previously, There's Something About Mary, another low budget comedy that made other people a fortune while she was paid $2 million.

Cameron Diaz made another 5 films after “Bad Teacher”, but none of them were lightning in a bottle, so she seems to have retired after a 20 year movie career.

In a ranking of domestic box office, Cameron Diaz comes in 5th of the top 10 women. However, Julia Roberts only played the same character in Ocean’s 10 and 11. In all other cases female box office totals are largely from playing the same character in multiple films.

[–] johnmarti59 (2356) 4 years ago

It would still be rotten.

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8291) 4 years ago

What does that have to do with the box office?

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8291) 4 years ago

I'm sure it would've made more money. Not only are those girls bigger stars but the original film from 2000 was actually a lot of fun.

The more money it made though might have been offset by a bigger budget, so who knows if it would've actually been more successful.