Log in

View Full Version : Who said Charlie's Angels won't make $100 million?



JonathanLB
Nov 5th, 2000, 07:06:16 PM
Gee, I seem to remember having some conversations with some people who obviously still do not understand the box office too well and these unnamed people said Charlie's Angels wouldn't do too well.

Now, that's really interesting, because anyone who has followed the box office since The Phantom Menace should CERTAINLY have enough common sense to understand why a movie like Charlie's Angels will easily clear $100 million.

$40.5 million opening weekend means that it would have to demonstrate the worst staying power in the history of the box office not to make $100 million. NO movie ever debutes above $40 million and fails to crack $100, so that's case closed.

Some of you guys even were saying how sorry you thought the trailers looked, damn, talk about retarded. Those trailers ruled, anyone not totally excited about a movie with action directed by Yuen Woo Ping and featuring stars like Barrymore and Diaz in an action movie with Bill Murray must have NO PULSE!

Charlie's Angels was excellent, absolutely the best type of escapist fun. It wasn't a masterpiece, but it was a solid 3.5 star movie that seemed to go by even faster than its 90 minute running time. The pacing was perfect and there was action throughout, which really is the way it SHOULD BE. No movie that has even ONE action sequence should ever use this stupid plot structure where you sort of have a big action sequence, dick around for 50 minutes, then have some more action, dick around some more, then one final action scene.

That is the way a HACK would direct his movie, a good action movie MUST be action throughout the entire movie, and Charlie's Angels delivered.

Charlie's Angels will bomb? Gee, who on this forum said that to me again? I won't mention names, but I guess I was right once again. It's like someone saying "Little Nicky will bomb!" Well, yeah the movie looks really stupid, but so are other Adam Sandler movies and they all seem to do JUST fine! ($160 million each lately). Little Nicky really looks sorry, though, but I still think it will probably clear $25 million during its opening weekend.

Come on, if you couldn't see this coming with Charlie's Angels, there is NO HOPE for your box office predicting skills. Nevertheless, I'm just giving you a hard time, it's all good, but don't forget this experience! :)

Better luck predicting next time, but don't worry, it's just a game.

:) :) :)

ReaperFett
Nov 5th, 2000, 07:10:41 PM
I said Charlies Angels looks good!


and LITTLE NICKY LOOKS AWESOME! Sandler, Tarantino, Iyfens, Tiny, Ozzy, rumours of Buscemi, Keitel- WOW!

JonathanLB
Nov 5th, 2000, 07:23:07 PM
I'm not talking about you, this was just a total joke anyway, not seriously intended as a diss or something. I'm not saying, "I'm right, (whoever) is wrong."

I'm just messing around, because I really liked Charlie's Angels and I'm glad it's doing very well :)

I'd love to see a sequel, hey, why not. That movie kicked ass.

Little Nicky might have some funny parts, but it looks sorta insulting to my intelligence, lol.

I like the part where the dude is like, "Oh my God Chicago is AWESOME!"

That is so funny.

DvdJervs
Nov 5th, 2000, 07:33:56 PM
Who on this forum said this film would bomb?
As far as I'm aware, no one did. Some said it looked crap, but I don't recall anyone saying it would bomb. And boxoffice perfomrance is not a true reflection on the quality of a film either (if that was the case then Titanic would be the greatest film ever).

Regardless, was it necessary to start a new thread on this with an already established Charlie's Angels thread just down below?

JonathanLB
Nov 5th, 2000, 07:46:34 PM
You don't see everything that goes on here at the forum, and plus, how do you know I wasn't talking about an ICQ or AOL IM conversation or something?

I said someone on this forum, not something that someone said on this forum.

I know a few people here who thought that Charlie's Angels would bomb, but obviously, they were wrong. :)

There is another thread on Charlie's Angels, the movie, this was not about that.

I don't have time to waste discussing this, you guys need more threads anyway, there is not enough activity here, lol.

DvdJervs
Nov 5th, 2000, 08:18:55 PM
Point taken. I read it as though you were referring to a comment made on the forum, that's all. :)

It hasn't come out down under yet - I'm still trying to download the stupid trailer (which I saw whilst waiting to see the Art of War - I agree i looks cool :) ).

Bromine
Nov 6th, 2000, 12:56:09 AM
So, is this an official "Everyone look at me I was right and someone else was wrong" thread?;)

I think the movie looks like crap (I don't care who directed it), but considering all the other crappy mmovies that gross big, I'm not really surprised by CA's success. Still, I doubt anyone will remember it in a year or so.

Darth23
Nov 6th, 2000, 03:43:42 AM
I don't know if I said that it wouldn't make 100 million, but I thinK idefinitely said thait I hope that is doesn't.

And I still feel that way.

:)

Dutchy
Nov 6th, 2000, 05:23:36 AM
$40.5 million opening weekend means that it would have to demonstrate the worst staying power in the history of the box office not to make $100 million. NO movie ever debutes above $40 million and fails to crack $100, so that's case closed.

Yep, that's true. Batman & Robin came kinda close though. $42.9M opening and a $107M final gross. Scream 3 failed to make $90M after a $34.67M opening. But a $40M opener not making $100M has yet to occur indeed.


I'm not saying, "I'm right, (whoever) is wrong

Yeah, coz that is SO not you, huh? :)

Darth23
Nov 6th, 2000, 05:49:57 AM
Pokemon made 50 million in 5 days and didn't crack 90 total.

:)