Should We Protest this Movie: The Upcoming "Charlie's Angels 2

[TMC]

Seriously!?
http://groups.google.com/groups?dq=&...ing.google.com

Keep in mind that the original grossed roughly around $125 million and
was arguably marketed mostly towards the youth crowd (e.g. MTV &
Nickelodeon) and/or the 18-34 demographic (the stars hyping it up
while presenting on-stage at the Oscars is one good example):
http://www.familyeducation.com/whatw...057-34,00.html

SMOKING
The Thin Man smokes more than 5 times, Knox smokes a few times, Dylan
does so once in a flashback to her rebellious years, some
miscellaneous/background characters smoke (one uses a cigar), and we
see a still smoking cigar in an ashtray (that belongs to Charlie).

http://www.time.com/time/asia/magazi.../c.angels.html
The first few days were difficult. Barrymore was distracted by
personal affairs. Liu, who speaks Mandarin and served as an
interpreter, wasn't there for the first month. Diaz was just plain
"wooden," says Yuen. "I thought Cameron was going to be the most
difficult of the bunch, the slowest learner, though they were all a
little scared of me. I didn't think they'd make it through the first
month, never mind four." As it was, the Angels buckled down, bending
their bodies places God never intended them to go.

Diaz was skeptical, too. "The first day was a nightmare," she recalls.

"I'd just quit smoking. Drew and I show up at the production office.

I'm wearing a very short skirt, which might have worried the Master
[their pet name for Yuen] a bit, and he makes us run up and down a
basketball court a couple of hundred times and make kicks. It was
insane." But Yuen persevered, putting his team through their moves
from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. each day. After spending a month focusing on
basic kung fu skills they zeroed in on specific sequences for the
movie. Remarkably none of the cast members was injured more seriously
than, as Diaz puts it: "going to bed every night sore from head-to-toe."

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=sto...es_eo/10368&e=1
By Joal Ryan

Ready for more Demi Moore?

The smoky-voiced Brat Packer who became Hollywood's highest-
paid
actress in the mid 1990s, only to dig in with the potatoes in Idaho in
the late 1990s, is set to return to the big screen in her first major
flick in five years.
Moore, who turns 40 in November, will appear as an evil "fallen angel"
in the Charlie's Angels sequel, Charlie's Angels 2: Halo, according to
Thursday's trade papers.

Moore's part is described as small, but there's nothing small about
Halo, which reunites Drew Barrymore, Cameron Diaz and Lucy Liu in the
would-be blockbuster follow-up to 2000's $125 million grosser.

Production, with director McG returning to the helm, began in June.

Halo is tentatively set to be released June 27, 2003.

Besides the fact that the movie was ridiculously over-hyped, the
utterly slapdash, heavy-handed, boarder-line degrading mentality
towards the script (which tends to suffer from an extreme case of too
much of the "cutes" for its own good) and action sequences, the
reported on set battles/turmoil (which is supposedly one of the main
reasons why Bill Murray chose not to be in the sequel), the completely
disgusting Green/Barrymore angle, etc. To make matters worse, leading
to the release of the first movie (right around the election no less)
the stars apparently got a little bit too comfortable w/ suddeningly
shooting off their rather annoyingly far left views. Watch and learn:
http://www.teenpeople.com/teenpeopl...y/0,8102,58836, 00.html

Unlike their TV counterparts, these Angels didn't have to take target
practice at the police academy to earn their wings: In the movie, the
good guys -- or women, we should say -- don't pack heat. "Guns are
cowardly," says Drew. "With the flick of one finger, you can kill
somebody. I always think about what the world would be like if people
didn't have that ability."

I feel like I'm the only one who can still strongly recall Drew
shilling hard for the "importance of voting" (I bet her publists had
had some part in this sudden front) on such places as MTV,
Entertainment Tonight, and Rosie O'Donnell's show in the mist of doing
publicity for Charlie's Angels.

Here's a rather pretentious statement from Diaz concerning the 2000 Election:
http://www.omnileonardo.com/boards-elec00.html

This election is the most important election that has come upon our
nation in recent history and will effect not only our current
economics but the planet we live on. I'm talking about the actual soil
from which we take our food, the water that gives every organism its
gift of life, the air that we...well, I am sure I don't have to tell
everyone how important oxygen is to our existence. But wouldn't it be
nice to have someone who actually cares about the quality of our one
intangible lifesource. We need someone who will not be swayed by big
business into compromising our environmental integrity. We cannot
ignore this issue. Nor can we ignore the fact that we are dangerously
close to losing the basis of our nation's greatness. The right to
choose. The right to have a choice. Having a choice is something we
cannot take for granted. This country was built on the fundamental
idea that all humans should have a right to choose. Our history shows
that it has been a great struggle to make that statement true.

Why do
we want to move backwards? If we take away a woman's right to have
safe abortion, we are doing every American a disservice. If that right
can be taken away, what other rights are we endangering? We must trust
that the decision not to have a child is not a thoughtless one.

That
the women and men who are faced with the decision will make the right
choice. It is our right inherently, the government protects that right
and I think it is insulting, degrading and violating for anyone to
tell a woman what she can do with her body. If there is any one reason
why a woman should vote, it should be to protect her body.

And for the future of our children, the only way to ensure that not
only our country, but our planet will be able to sustain their lives
and the lives of their children, is to educate. Why not strive to be
not just the strongest country, but the smartest? We must give every
child an education that they can use. One that equips them not only
academically, but gives them the ability to function as productive
members of society. Taking the federal government out of education
leaves education up to local means. Meaning the wealthy can take care
of the wealthy and the poor are still left without resources. It is
important that no child is left to fend for him or herself just
because they are not privileged enough to live in an affluent area. We
can not make the quality of education an issue of class.

It is very difficult to state every concern in such a minimal amount
of space and time, but as election day is literally upon us, it is
clear that something must be done. I can only hope that by stating
these few concerns, I will reach others who care about these issues
and help them realize the importance of their vote. You absolutely
make a difference. You must find a way to go out and vote on Tuesday.

No matter what it takes. Vice President Al Gore has been an integral
part of the success of our nation for the past eight years. He has
proven himself on these issues. The environment has always been a
priority, he vows to defend the rights of women, and his concerns for
a valuable education are shown in his persistence to build and to
nurture our public schools. We need an experienced leader. We must
vote for the most qualified candidate, not for the guy you want to
have a beer with.

http://www.beatboxbetty.com/celebet...rliesangels.htm

Betty: Cameron, can you tell us what you'll be thinking about when you
go into the voting booth to pick our next President?
Cameron: Yes. I will be thinking about our rights as women and our
environment. We want everyone to vote.
Lucy: We're not saying you have to vote for... All: GORE!!!
Lucy: But you should just go out and vote.
Cameron: But voting for Gore is the best choice you can make at this
time. People don't think that their choice makes a difference.
Drew: They also think they'll always be protected and that's not true.
Lucy: God, we could possibly be really screwed if we don't pay
attention and wake up.
Cameron: But the issue is that there is a man out there [BUSH] that's
going to take the rights away from women and tap into our natural resources.
Drew: But there are people out there that think "What do you crazy
Hollywood girls know?" We just have to vote at this election!
Betty: Okay! I'm going! I'm going!

"I Won't Vote for a Son of a Bush!" shirts on "TRL":
www.freerepublic.com/fourm/a39f71604096b.htm
http://www.muthafukka.com/100200-103...husted1026.htm
www.post-gazette.com/magazine/20001029tv7.asp

----------------------------------------------------------------
http://forums.comicbookresources.com...5&pagenumber=2
http://www.conservativex.com/cgi-bin...oard=Hollywood
http://groups.google.com/groups?dq=&...59-1%26hl%3Den

[Kitt]

Okay, so some of that is goofy or whatnot but why exactly do you ask if we should protest it? Political disagreements? Refusal to watch ditzy actresses? Kung fu is bad? Cameron Diaz talks funny? Drew smiles too much and doesn't like guns? Smoking, unfortunately and shamefully, is at issue in pratically every dang movie so you'd be left out in the cold if you protested or boycotted movies for that reason. Do you intend to protest or boycott the movie, and if so, what are your reasons? I won't be seeing it but that's only because I'm not interested in it's, I'll say, based on the portions and adds I saw from the first one, lack of mental stimulation.

[TJL]

If I protested every movie I thought was going to suck, I'd never see anything!

[TMC]

First and foremost, whenever you hear about somebody crying about how dangerous firearms are to our society and how we desperately need strong gun control laws, I would suggest to tell them that guns don't have minds of their own. A gun is an inanimate object that can't do any harm as long as it isn't in the hands of anybody. It takes the conscious of a man or woman to decide whether or not they're going to pick up a gun, load it, aim, and pull the trigger.

It's extremely hypocritical for those people to front like they're doing all of us a great service by boasting about how they toned down the level of gun-play in an action movie. Liu packed heat in "Payback", Diaz was seen holding a gun (it's even on the poster) in "A Life Less Oridnary", and the ringleader in the form of Barrymore not only made a movie called *Guncrazy* but was (if I remember correctly) carrying around those pesky guns in "Bad Girls" and "Mad Love" (going back to the smoking isssue, I tuned into this dreck a few weeks ago on WGN and she's, a supposed one time drug abuser turned strict vegetarian, smoking up a storm). I remember watching the trio on Rosie O'Donnell's (another person who will hit us over the head w/ her "I don't like guns" stance any chance that she can get) show when the first Charlie's Angels movie came out.

It seemed as if Drew, who produced movie, was putting some spin in response. So she was talking about how it was intended to give the characters an added sense of "power" while referencing Indiana Jones and Superman. Hey Drew, Indiana Jones did pack heat in the now famous scene in "Raiders of the Lost Ark" in which Harrison Ford causally blows away a show-boating swordsman. As for Superman, he's the "Man of Steel" for a reason! Heck, I'm willing to bet that she served to be a big time influence on "enhanced speical effects" for the 20th anniversery re-release of "ET" in which Steven Speilberg & company decided to digitally change the guns that the feds who were chasing Elliott, ET, and their bike riding posse to walkie-talkies.

[DarleneIllyria]

Originally posted by TJL
If I protested every movie I thought was going to suck, I'd never see anything!

LOL- Gotta agree with you there TJL.

[Kitt]

Pointing out hypocricy in actresses promoting their movies is as easy as shooting fish in a barrel. They're paid to hype in the interest of the bottom line. They're lives are public, and they play many different roles in their careers. If Harrison Ford decides to express his opinon on gun control, and it doesn't happen to agree with yours or that of the NRA, I suppose you could ridicule him also. But, don't forget to differentiate the difference between movies and reality. Drew played the best buddie to an alien once. Does that mean that she shoud be expected to be an expert on aliens or even believe in them?

[TMC]

Originally posted by kittflynn
Pointing out hypocricy in actresses promoting their movies is as easy as shooting fish in a barrel. They're paid to hype in the interest of the bottom line. They're lives are public, and they play many different roles in their careers. If Harrison Ford decides to express his opinon on gun control, and it doesn't happen to agree with yours or that of the NRA, I suppose you could ridicule him also. But, don't forget to differentiate the difference between movies and reality. Drew played the best buddie to an alien once. Does that mean that she shoud be expected to be an expert on aliens or even believe in them?

Does marrying Tom Green count as a case of coming into contact w/ alien lifeforms!?

[TMC]

http://www.gunsandammomag.com/dynami...=210&intArticl eID=2443
"People just sit behind their [expletive] weapon and they can kill somebody and it's just so cowardly."


Drew Barrymore
Petition signer Barrymore could no doubt lecture us all on courage; after all, she foreswore guns for karate in her remake of "Charlie's Angels." And she looked way cool, almost like she would know what to do in a real mortal combat situation.

http://www.conservativex.com/cgi-bin...num=1027228478

[Kitt]

Originally posted by TMC


Does marrying Tom Green count as a case of coming into contact w/ alien lifeforms!?

Absolutely, without a doubt!

[TMC]

Personally, I almost want to get a little bit offended when I see people like Drew & "Miss Environment" Cameron Diaz rant about various social issues that you've read about in the opening as if they're much worldly than all of us since they're in the public eye. Frankly, it's almost asinine for Drew to force her political beliefs or what not and/or the importance of certain issues upon all of us when she herself can't be the most righteous person in the around! Lets put it this way, she maybe a big movie star and have more money than I can ever dream of. But I might as well surpass her in the I have a bigger conscious. Lets put it this way, while Drew wants to be self-righteous about guns and the importance of voting, unlike her, I never did drugs (especially before I hit the age of 13), I never had two failed marriages before I hit the age of 30, I never dropped out of grade school, and I ever had to get a legal separation from my parents. Even if she did change her act for the better, that still doesn't mean that I at the very least can trust her. What seriously bothers me was that there was a period of time in which Drew acted as if she was trying to pander and show examples of responsilibity young people as if to reach a greater audience (particularly pre-teens). So she shows up on Nickelodeon's Kids' Choice Awards shows (Drew even won the award for Favorite Actress for "Charlie's Angels"), she makes the family friendly "Olive, the Other Raindeer" TV special, when she hosts "SNL" she talks about the variety of dumb things that she did since the first time that she hosted 15 or so years before during the monologue etc., etc., etc.

But then comes the following year as we get towards the main subject of the conversation (which was a movie that Drew *produced*). Lets look at the stats for Drew's character shall we:
http://www.familyeducation.com/whatw...057-34,00.html
*We see brief flashback footage of Dylan as a recruit and she punches her "drill sergeant" instructor in the face (after tiring of him badgering her).

*Knox turns out to be a bad guy who tries to kill Dylan (and

*We see Dylan at a younger age and she gives "the finger" to the camera. thinks he's succeeded), and Vivian turns out to be his criminal accomplice who fights the Angels. Meanwhile, the mute Thin Man works for them and fights/tries to harm/kill the Angels.

*We see part of Dylan's bare hip (as well as lipstick smeared across her face) as she sleeps in Chad's bed (suggesting they slept together). When she gets up, he states that they can have breakfast and then maybe "a little Chad."

*Dylan shows a great deal of cleavage while dressed in an auto racing jump suit that's zipped down quite a ways in the front (she isn't wearing a shirt). She then tries to distract a limo driver by stating that it's "hot" and then suggestively licking his steering wheel

*We see Dylan get out of Knox's bed with just a sheet wrapped around her, suggesting that they had sex. When Vivian later spots her that way and comments on working undercover, Dylan snidely remarks that hers is a "full service job." Later, Knox states that Dylan was (what sounded like) "a tomcat in the sack."
*Moments later, Dylan hangs from that sheet and then falls to the ground below and rolls down a hill completely nude (seen from a distance and without any detail, but you can tell she's nude). She then picks up an inflatable, donut shaped pool tool that she holds up to her body (thus covering her breasts and crotch, but we see her bare belly and the sides of her bare hips from a frontal view) while knocking on a sliding glass door to ask two boys for help.

*Dylan does so once in a flashback to her rebellious years

*Drew Barrymore's character sleeping with two different men over the course of the film.

http://familyeducation.com/article/0...-20030,00.html

Oh, and how about the time between Drew and that little publicity hounding, talentless degenerate from Canada named Tom Green...never mind!!!

And if you're not convinced that this movie as marketed very hard to a swarm of young crowds then think again (as the sequel is likely to also) as this article below would like to suggest:
http://www.ew.com/ew/daily/0,2514,39...elsscored.html

Teen 'Angels'
How ''Charlie's Angels'' scored with young ticket buyers -- Columbia's savvy marketing focused on comedy, sex appeal, and the MTV audience


GIRL POWER ''Charlie's Angels'' courted teens at the box office
by Lori Reese

''Charlie's Angels'' soared last week to a record breaking $40.1 million debut, with help from ticket buyers way too young to have known the feathered, hairsprayed 'dos of the original TV series. Thus far, teens have comprised about 35 percent of ''Charlie's Angels'' audience, says a spokesperson for the film's distributor, Columbia. But according to industry watchers, the kids will have to keep coming back if the $92 million budgeted film is going earn its keep.

Selling a movie based on a '70s show appealing to the Clearasil set is no easy task, says Robert Bucksbaum of the box office tracking firm Reel Source. Take MGM- UA's woeful 1999 feature adaptation of ''The Mod Squad.'' Despite prerelease hype, it grossed only $13.3 million. ''It's so hard, because a lot of people want to forget the '70s. I mean, platform shoes and polyester, who wants to remember that?'' says Bucksbaum. ''Kids don't want to see because they have nothing to identify with.''

Moreover, the teen market has been especially fickle this year. ''Two years ago, anything you released to that crowd would be a hit,'' says Bucksbaum. ''But now, it's very hard to target and find out what they're interested in seeing.'' That may be why Columbia Pictures, in particular, has been hit hard this year. The studio's would be summer smash, ''The Patriot'' -- featuring hunky newcomer Heath Ledger and hunk emeritus Mel Gibson -- earned a respectable $113 million in the U.S. But ''The Patriot's" reported budget was nearly that much -- and the movie's R rating (for its stirring but savage action sequences) may have kept away younger audiences. Meanwhile, the studio's $20 million budgeted ''Loser'' seemed to have everything in its favor: a PG-13 rating, a hip director (Amy Heckerling of ''Clueless''), and two hot young actors, ''American Pie's" Jason Biggs and ''American Beauty's" Mena Suvari. But it too fell short of expectations with a $15 million domestic gross.

This trail of bombs has helped put Sony (Columbia's parent) in last place for market share among major Hollywood studios. But, says Bucksbaum, that could all change with a successful run for ''Angels.'' Despite competition this weekend in the younger market from movies like Adam Sandler's ''Little Nicky'' and the sci fi action movie ''Red Planet,'' Bucksbaum predicts that teens will continue going to see ''Angels.'' ''It will definitely do $100 million plus,'' he says. ''It'll have enough legs -- legs, that's a good word for it -- to sustain itself.''

So what makes ''Angels'' so appealing to the 'N Sync crowd? Here's what Columbia Pictures has done right:

UPDATING Kids might have been turned off if they thought the new ''Angels'' was a period film, says Bucksbaum. The hiring of an MTV trained director -- McG -- ensured that the babe flick would get a millennial look. The movie is not only fast paced, it's buzzing with contemporary gadgetry -- cell phones and inflight TV sets -- that would have made the original Bosley's head spin.

THE BIG TEASE TV commercials and theatrical trailers made it clear that the movie is geared toward younger crowds instead of their baby boomer parents. ''They had those built in teasers in the trailer, the 'Matrix' martial arts, Cameron Diaz dancing in her underwear,'' says Bucksbaum. ''Almost every big teen movie of the last 20 years has featured a star dancing in their underwear. It's always a good selling point.''

COMIC RELIEF The self parodying feature not only spoofs its inspiration but other spy/ action movies, including ''Mission: Impossible'' and James Bond flicks.

THE MTV FACTOR Destiny's Child, the red hot girl group that performs the lead song for the film's soundtrack, did press for the movie alongside stars Diaz, Lucy Liu, and Drew Barrymore. Ads for the movie also highlighted blurbs from shows like ''Total Request Live'' instead of the usual Roger Ebert quotes. Hey, who says Carson Daly can't be an influential film critic?

[TMC]

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3924c8b56ca5.htm

Drew Barrymore's Mom Busted

Some moms never stop embarrassing their daughters.

Take Drew Barrymore's for instance.

The actress' estranged mom, Jaid, has already posed nude in Playboy and tried unsuccessfully to sell Drew's baby clothes and other keepsakes on an Internet auction.

And now this: The elder Barrymore was busted over the weekend in New York on illegal gun charges.

New York's finest nabbed Jaid Barrymore after discovering her putting up promo posters for a rock band on a Manhattan street corner at 2 a.m. Saturday. The cops decided to search her and discovered a loaded, unlicensed .357 Magnum in her purse.

She was booked for weapon possession, criminal mischief and illegal postering and released on bail.

Her lawyer issued the following statement:

"This is an unfortunate situation, the circumstances of which will be fully presented to the court and the hopefully resolved to the satisfaction of all parties."

Barrymore, who has said in the past that she hasn't spoken to her daughter in "a couple of years" and that they are "a bit estranged," is due back in court July 26.

Daughter Drew, meanwhile, is busy finishing up the Charlie's Angels film, and has not made any comment on the matter.



So what exactly are Drew's motives towards were opinions concerning guns and the "cowards" that use them. Is she sincerely trying to help keep are neighborhoods safe or is she simply trying to get back at her mother for embrassing her!?

[Swimfan85]

I dont know..but I am still planning on Seeing Charlies Angels 2!

[Kitt]

I get your drift, TMC, but still...Cameron Diaz...Drew Barrymoore? Why geit on them for expressing their views? If you doubt someones motives, look to George: Attack Iraq? Woah Man, hold your horses!

[Janice]

TMC--You've been ripping Drew Barrymoore ad nauseum here and on at least another board I've read. Did this woman do something personal to you? You make her out to be the pariah of Hollywood.
As for her personal life, it's true she had a substance abuse problem at a very young age. With a whackjob for a mother and an absentee drugged-out father, she was a product of her environment. I give her credit for overcoming her addictions. Alcoholism runs deep in her family's history, and it's a difficult and vicious cycle to break. She had a few failed marriages--big deal. She's most likely working through some abandonment issues. Divorce and Hollywood--not exactly a newsflash here.
I don't give a rat's ass about her views or any other actors' views for that matter. My views on Scientology won't keep my away from a John Travolta film. I think Drew is a talented actress who's hitting her stride as she matures and takes on more challenging roles. Riding in Cars With Boys showcased her talents. Personally, I've always thought there was something very sweet and vulnerable about Drew. I enjoy her performances.
You can cite all those movie watchdog groups who count every cigarette that's lit, who's not putting their seatbelt on, every profane word, every act of violence, etc, but what's the point?
There's a movie rating system in place. If you can't handle anything more the a G-Rated movie, that's your choice.
Parents have to be responsible for their children's viewing habits.

[TMC]

Lets put it this way, if Drew wants to be a veggie or Cameron wants to drive electric powered cars and be a devoted environmentlist and what not then so be (more power time). The main concern that I have is when celebrities seriously feel the need to impose their beliefs upon all of us. It's almost as if they're on the verge of risking alienation towards half of their fan base and the paying public. A perfect example of this is when Lucy, Drew, and Cameron went on MTV's "TRL" and tried to hype up the importance of voting. No big deal right!? Well they were doing it while wearing matching t-shirts that read "I Won't Vote for a Son of a Bush!" Frankly, that act was purely hypocritical, selfish, and maybe even a bit childish. I would've had far more respect for them if they simply said "I believe that Al Gore or vice-versa is the right man for the job!" and left it like that rather than make such a pretentious show (while likely abusing their powers as de-facto role models) about what we should do during the election.