Related Sections: Interviews Movies News
A new Charlie's Angels might happen, and here's who'd be in it
Charlie's Angel producers Drew Barrymore and Nancy Juvonen are thinking of getting the gang back together for a second sequel, Juvonen told SCI FI Wire in an exclusive interview. This despite the lackluster box-office performance of McG's last sequel, Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle in 2003.
After a press conference for their latest romantic comedy, He's Just Not That Into You, Saturday in Beverly Hills, Calif., Juvonen stayed to hang out with us, brainstorming Charlie's 3 ideas. The following Q&A features edited excerpts of that interview.
Are you seriously looking at a third Charlie's?
Juvonen: Seriously, I've been in total denial for years. I've been like, "Don't talk to me. Do not even mention it." Then I started, about a year and a half ago, going, "All right, what if I started to think about this again?" Then, about eight months ago, I started actually pitching in my head sort of what I'd do, but we don't want to go back in without story. I want [one] from start to finish, all the way to the third-act ending, a great document. There, we'll go nuts.
Is the idea the same three Angels, Drew Barrymore, Cameron Diaz and Lucy Liu—not to start over with a new trio?
Juvonen: I think that's part of it. I'm really into that when the show had the four Angels on for a while, and Farrah [Fawcett]'s little sister, Cheryl Ladd, came in. There was something fun with that, I think, that's very iconic of the show. So I'm a little on that.
So actresses should start pitching themselves for the fourth Angel?
Juvonen: They should. I'm having a Rihanna fixation myself. What are you going to do?
Would you get McG again? [He's currently finishing up Terminator Salvation, wants to do Captain Nemo next and may be on the hook for more Terminator films if his first one hits.]
Juvonen: We'd have to do it with McG. I don't think we could do it without McG, and I think that the Angels all at least need to be there. Right?
Unfortunately, you'd need a new Bosley again, though, since we lost Bernie Mac last year.
Juvonen: Well, you know what? You've got to make something out of that, but that's sad.
Have you gone there yet?
Juvonen: I really have gone there, but I don't know where I'm going. In other words, I've sort of got all these "What if that? And then that happens, and then that."
And would you bring back Crispin Glover as the Thin Man again?
Juvonen: Isn't he the best, Crispin? I'm with you, so I feel like I'm going to think about it.
He should hook up with Drew's Angel, because that's where it was going at the end of the last one.
Juvonen: Remember that? I know. That was so fun. But then he fell off and he had killed Seamus O'Grady, Justin Theroux.
Well, McG has gone on record saying he's not dead, so that's cool.
Juvonen: The Thin Man almost could never die. Is he alive in the first place? I'm not even sure. It's going to be hard to say how the sword went through him and then pierced Seamus O'Grady.
Oh, it missed all the vitals.
Juvonen: Look at you. We should take off right from there. I think we could get away with anything, but I feel like you know what you love, but I think you also have to make some turns there. I think there's a great challenge in "Do you want to take over the universe or ruin the world?" It's sort of not practical so much. Bond goes into remote countries. 24's in a remote country. It's sort of: What's the next great foil? I think that with Drew's character, she fell in love with the villain. If you think about, "Oh, you could do that," we've kind of like done, done, done [everything]. We did a lot in the first one and gazillions in the second one.
By Zaphod at 1:17 PM ON 01/25/09
And this article should be on Sci-fi Wire... why?
By Tom Black at 1:24 PM ON 01/25/09
Is this really noteworthy? A guy is mulling his options for an as-yet nonexistent project? Answers like "I feel like I'm going to think about it" really make the reader take notice. Slow news day?
By bamberluvr at 1:25 PM ON 01/25/09
Good God, it was as if I was reading the ramblings of a 16-year-old girl. She makes millions of dollars while most of America struggles to scrape two dimes together. Something is definitely %#$&'ed up with America
By Anon at 2:23 PM ON 01/25/09
The horror! The horror!
By TearEmUp at 2:41 PM ON 01/25/09
Yeah I have to agree with the "And this article should be on Sci-fi Wire... why?" comment. I feel like I just watched Entertainment Tonight....and I HATE Entertainment Tonight!....
By darthbono at 2:46 PM ON 01/25/09
you have got to be kidding!!!!! I would rather see uwe boll do a scifi remake of an old little house on the prairie episode NO !!! WAIT DISREGAURD THAT LAST STATEMENT I DON'T WANT TO GIVE THAT MANIAC ANY MORE IDEAL'S HE'S BAD ENOUGH AS IT IS.
By Mandy at 2:47 PM ON 01/25/09
This is not science fiction. This is not fantasy. This is not anime / Manga. This is not related to comic books. And this is not supernatural based horror. It fits in none of the categories or sub-categories of Scifi.
Charlies Angels is action / semi-comedy.
Please, Scifi Wire, don't start making the same mistakes as the Scifi channel, itself. Don't start tossing things around that have nothing to do with Scifi. This is like seeing the Scifi Channel air Braveheart (which has happened).
By psaltseller at 3:31 PM ON 01/25/09
"Please, Scifi Wire, don't start making the same mistakes as the Scifi channel, itself. Don't start tossing things around that have nothing to do with Scifi. This is like seeing the Scifi Channel air Braveheart (which has happened)."
Given the way that film played fast and loose with history, I thought they had finally admitted it belonged in the fantasy genre.
But Charlie's Angels? The only way you can get that into the SF umbrella is to stretch the "fantasies of 1980's adolescent dweebs" concept.
By scifi-ED at 3:33 PM ON 01/25/09
Or wrestling. What the hell?
I so much miss the old format. I feel like this has turned into one of those cheap celebrity gossip sites.
If there is no real news, how about posting a sign, like when you take off for the holidays. Don't try and feed us useless info, especially when it does not appeal to the fan base.
By darfnoogie at 4:13 PM ON 01/25/09
Let's not forget the Law & Order marathon they had on scifi one year!
By darfnoogie at 4:15 PM ON 01/25/09
Let's not forget the Law & Order marathon they had on Scifi a couple years back! :)
By Mandy at 4:39 PM ON 01/25/09
darfnoogie, I was just thinking of that Law and Order Marathon. I was like "What the Hell?"
The Scifi Channel really needs to get back to it's roots
Science fiction
Fantasy
Anime
Comic books
Gothic (supernatural based) horror
Forget articles like this, forget un-reality reality TV and forget wrestling.
Charlies Angels is not science fiction.
By rayhigh at 5:27 PM ON 01/25/09
Hey Fred Topel the smoker's toothpaste, Charlie's Angels isn't science fiction, you wanker! Get a clue!
By David K. M. Klaus at 7:01 PM ON 01/25/09
CHARLIE'S ANGELS is the shambling, Lovecraftian movie horror which will not die! Once again, the foetid hulk rises from the grave!
(That's what qualifies it as science fiction or fantasy, right?)
By Mandy at 7:51 PM ON 01/25/09
You're right.
By Son of a Maui Portagee at 11:24 PM ON 01/25/09
I don't know. In some circles the fantastical gadgets of the Bond films gets Sir James a pass into SF. So one would suppose that the improbable gadgets the Angels films use might allow them to crash through SF's glass ceiling?
By Mandy at 11:55 PM ON 01/25/09
Actually a lot of the James Bond gadgets are based on actual devices created for the CIA and KGB. The History Channel did a show about James Bond Tech.
It's kind of grasping to call this Scifi...
By JeffConn at 12:12 AM ON 01/26/09
No reason AT ALL for this story to be on scifiwire. Who the frack cares? Bring back SciFiWeekly!
By Mandy at 2:05 AM ON 01/26/09
I miss Scifi weekly too. For some reason it seemed more substantial to get your comments published in their letters to the editor than it does to see them in these blog-like comments. And no, this article does not believe on Scifi Wire. It's not Science fiction.
By Son of a Maui Portagee at 1:54 PM ON 01/26/09
Mandy, the fact that a lot of the gadgets (hero's and villain's) in Bond films were based on "real" ones isn't saying much. The fact is that some of them in each movie had future tech features that did not exist at the time of the script's inception or the film's release.
Perhaps an exaggerated example would help to illuminate this better? A lot of the things in STAR TREK are based on real functioning things: boots, pants, shirts, wall intercoms, walkie-talkies, spaceships, uniforms, etc. Surely, you wouldn't try to argue that ST doesn't belong in SF because of this?
I think the real sore being exposed in this and other threads like it is that some fans believe SF is all good and no bad. Now I in no way believe CHARLIE'S ANGELS to be stellar SF. In fact, I think it is rather weak. Even so, it is still SF enough to justify being discussed as such on SCI-FI WIRE. Even more so if SF is stretched to include fantasy as the site's owner seems wont to do.
I think the sub-genre in SF of secretive mysterious agents using fantastic technology to achieve objectives is as old as Verne.
Visit mobile.syfy.com/wire on your mobile device.
Son of a Maui Portagee:
Mandy, the fact that a lot of the gadgets (hero's and villain's) in Bond films were based on "real" ones isn't sayi...More »