“Kristen Stewart, Naomi Scott & Ella Balinska are the new Charlie’s Angels” links

71st Annual Cannes Film Festival - 'BlacKkKlansman' - Premiere

Kristen Stewart, Naomi Scott & Ella Balinska are officially the new Charlie’s Angels in Elizabeth Banks’ reboot. [LaineyGossip]
Pamela Anderson is not here for threesomes. [Dlisted]
Emily Ratajkowski really loves that ‘70s style. [Go Fug Yourself]
Jeff Goldblum is a charming self-parody. [Pajiba]
Is Japan hiring ninjas or what? [Buzzfeed]
How screwed up is your life if you’ve been on Maury twice? [Starcasm]
I keep forgetting that Brandi Glanville has a podcast now. [Reality Tea]
Britney Spears made a surprise appearance on the Tonight Show. [OMG Blog]
I used to go to a women-only gym but it was awful and I’m so much happier now that I go to the YMCA, quite honestly. [Jezebel]
Die Hard has influenced every movie that came after it, basically. [Looper]

71st annual Cannes Film Festival - AmfAR Gala

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

58 Responses to ““Kristen Stewart, Naomi Scott & Ella Balinska are the new Charlie’s Angels” links”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Christina S. says:

    Is Hollywood out of ideas?

    • Sigh... says:

      Nope. It’s out of confidence.
      It’s all about the money-/Oscar-grabs, not storytelling.

    • Tiffany :) says:

      It is cheaper to make films based on existing properties to which they already own the rights. Also, audiences are more likely to see films that they have some familiarity with, even if they are bad. Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, for example. The 2 recent remakes made hundreds of millions of dollars.

      The entertainment industry is a business. It has always been about making money, storytelling comes secondary. If people want storytelling to be a bigger priority, they need to put their money towards smaller films and not just nostalgia trips. The audience holds the power to dictate what is made. Studios just want people to spend their money, they don’t care on what.

      • Sigh... says:

        ITAWY. My meaning in “confidence” is that they’ll go for what they “know” will make them money over all else, incl story for story’s sake (despite being proven otherwise thru bombs featuring mostly white, hetero male/”name” stars casts and blockbusters featuring a diversity of unknowns). Story telling/originality was higher priority at *some* point (even when there was a MUCH HIGHER percentage of women WRITING and LESS nepotism), and there are a handful of “original (as far as an usual story told unsusally/diff POV)” content that goes on to do well now, but only if a RISK is taken. No confidence, no risks taken = no ideas.

        The bottom line is money over stories/ideas. I don’t deny that. It may have always been that way, but it’s much more apparent now (“Charlie’s Angels” has gone thru a semi-successful movie reboot AND a failed TV reboot, just to be re-rebooted again…and we’re to believe that’s because NO ONE has an “idea [per the OP]?” Naaaah.)

      • magnoliarose says:

        Agree with you guys.
        It takes about a billion dollars in lost revenue for Hollywood to finally catch on that certain ideas don’t work anymore. As in mediocre white dude vehicles.

        They could have easily hired some writers to create a story about women who were detectives as an homage.

        Did CAs really call for this ongoing nostalgia?

      • merigold says:

        So Kristen Dead Eyes Stewart is going to play a cute blonde or a cooky red head?
        I don’t think that works in any way.

        And I am not sure the audience would swallow that because that Charlies Angels movie with Diaz/Barrymore/Liu worked because the actresses are both well-known and well-liked and capable. Stewart isn’t. Never heard of Balinska. Not sure about harris.
        The original Charlies Angels didn’t have poc as Angels. Not sure about that either cause it looks like desparation. Like “put in a poc because that makes it media-proof”.

    • Rescue Cat says:

      Yes. In terms of pushing the envelope and producing ground breaking films Hollywood is dead. Most of the films I see these days are indies and films from around the world. I rarely want to see anything at multiplexes these days

      • Blinkbanana says:

        Aren’t you at least thankful that it’s a female lead film with 2 out of 3 of the Angels being WOC and a female writer/director?? Not to mention the other lead being an openly queer woman??

        By all means moan about Hollywood running out of ideas, but this feels good to me and the way Charlie’s Angels is set up lends itself to reboots and recasts over the years. That’s my hot take anyway…

      • Censored says:

        @blink
        Both Naomi and Ella are half – white

      • merigold says:

        @ Censored

        Does that mean that Naomi and Ella aren’t dark enough to be poc?

      • Censored says:

        @merigold
        Never said that but White supremacy is such a self absorbing condition that even when the Hollywood casts an Asian , Black or MENA actress for certain roles they still choose the most white adjacent /eurocentric option usually someone who is half white

        Certainly biracial actresses deserve to work as anyone else but ask yourself this, what percentage of minority community is half white/biracial is it 5%, 10% 15% 20% percent ?because what we are seeing is the perversion of the 80/20 rule whereby people who make up 20 % of the population get 80% of certain roles as the media would have you believe that every WOC under 40 is actually half white

        I am not sure what is more damage to the psyche of young minority girls to never see yourself represented or that you are only acceptable if you are half white or as adjacent to white as possible . The notion that in 2018 this is something we should be “thankful ” for is irksome

  2. Ruyana says:

    Kristen Stewart? Kristen the Dour, the Cheerless, the unemotional? Sorry, but that’s just weird.

  3. mela says:

    She always has bags under her eyes

  4. Katrina says:

    Why does Charlie’s Angels need to be rebooted AGAIN?

    Hollywood really sucks these days. They used to make some good, at least genuinely entertaining movies back in the 90s. Now it’s just endless remakes, superheroes and comic book adaptations.

    • mia girl says:

      I agree.

      Used to think I needed to see the major Hollywood movies on the big screen and often saved indie titles for home viewing. Not anymore. I find myself less and less interested in what Hollywood puts out because it’s same old/same old and not worth the cost of going to a cinema…but a lot of indie fare is.

      I recently saw 8th Grade, Sorry to Bother You & Damsel. All worth the $ and would highly recommend them all.

    • Beth says:

      Hollywood seems to be running out of ideas for new TV shows, movies, and music. Boring

    • magnoliarose says:

      I watch more things from streaming services, cable or foreign offerings. That is where I have found good writing and interesting plots and characters.

      • AnneC says:

        Exactly. The best stuff now is on Netflix, amazon, Hulu and foreign series. 95% of what comes out of Hollywood and networks is a steaming pile of boring predictable rehashes and ridiculous action filled junk with terrible scripts and no character development. And absolutely no creativity.

  5. Eileen says:

    I thought Angels are supposed to smile and express emotions? Stewart is as mechanical as a bull at a country western roadside bar

  6. minx says:

    Oh, Kristen Stewart. Yippee. 🙄

  7. iconoclast59 says:

    I’m kind of “meh” about Kristen Stewart, but I’m loving her lipstick in the second photo!

  8. Juliette says:

    This will be one I will have to make sure I miss! I wish they’d stop with the reboots and come up with something new. There are some wonderful books out there would make great movie adaptations.

    One book I recently that, if done properly, I think would be great. is Girls burn brighter, highly recommended reading. Also, The House with no windows. I loved them both and would be so happy to see them on the big screen.

    Take a look around Hollywood – lots of great ideas out there if they just look for them lol.

  9. Mia4s says:

    That’s much lower star power than they were going for initially. I’ve never even heard of two of those actresses! Interesting. Eh, if they Lee the budget tight they could do well. I’m not interested but I suppose someone will be.

  10. Naddie says:

    I would protest but Michelle Williams blew me away as MM so I’ll just wait.

  11. Source says:

    If I need a two-hour nap, I’ll catch the rebooted Angels.

    It’s sad. Because these people forget what made these series so awesome in the first place. They were cheesy in a really good way. Just bad plots, bad acting, bad everything, all combined to make it awesome.

    The problem is, they’re taking themselves way too seriously and making it about explosions. So now there’s none of the good cheese. It will just be bad acting and a bad plot with a bunch of actresses who don’t care and will phone it in.

    The magic of Charlie’s Angels is locked in a 70s vault. They need to let it go.

  12. Michelle says:

    Nothing against these three actresses, but another Charlie’s Angels reboot will be a hard pass for me.

  13. Nicole says:

    Casting Kristen Stewart would be really clever if they made her the monotone, expressionless Angel who smoked a ton of weed and was able to pick locks with tightly braided strands of her underarm hair. But I digress, who knows, maybe comedy might work for her? I didn’t really care for the other Angel reboot but I do like Elizabeth Banks so it could work? All kidding aside, Too Many Reboots Hollywood! I’m not an old person but I wouldn’t mind a Perry Mason one. Damn, that sounds old. In my defense I’m laid up with a broken collarbone and they play them at nite? That’s the ticket!

  14. AnotherDirtyMartini says:

    Charlie’s Angels again… I wonder how many great & original scripts are just out there lying around & never get made.

  15. CK says:

    Lots of new and original films/movies get made and released every year. People just expect it to be handed to them in the way that big budget pictures, meant to make money and draw in audiences i.e. remakes/sequels/super hero flicks, are. Those films usually don’t have the marketing budgets or distribution and as such have to be actively sought out. Follow a dedicated film/tv blog and your viewing experience will vastly improve.

  16. Rescue Cat says:

    The economy stinks, bees are dying, and movies are pretty much all sequels now.

  17. Elo says:

    Can I just say how much I am board with Brit. She looks great and healthy and my god if that girl has had work done it has been minor and good. She is settling in nicely to her age.

  18. Flipper says:

    Please explain the appeal of Kristen Stewart. I have watched her in several movies and she’s as emotive as a log. This project smells like she’s not getting work. Lupita was smart to pass.

  19. FF says:

    The best KStew is a silent (and photographed) KStew, so if she’s their leading light it’s definitely a hard pass from me.

    I’m sure this is good news for those who love her, though. That’s just not me. She single-handedly put me off her in every interview since New Moon.

    I think they should have at least cast a comensurate star with opposing appeal and fanbase to balance the casting of Stewart out but it’s their box office funeral.