Charlie's Angels (inc. 2019 reboot) | Page 2 | The Popjustice Forum

Charlie's Angels (inc. 2019 reboot)

Discussion in 'TV + Film' started by Mr. Mr., Oct 3, 2011.

  1. duckface

    duckface Guest

    Mischa Barton? Please God no.

    But I agree, there's nothing particularly unique or exciting about the show. They get thrown in potentially fun/campy situations but aside from the over-the-top winking from Abby there is no fun to be had. It's all so somber.
    I'd commend them for going down the serious route, but unfortunately there just isn't much there. The storyline with Kate in episode 2 ended with a lot of potential, but then in episode 3 they just kept repeating the tiny sliver of drama they had.

    "Are you sure you're okay working on this?"
    "Yes, I'm sure"
    "But she ruined your life!"
    "No. I ruined my life."
    *Ten minutes later*
    "How are you feeling? Are you sure you can handle this?"
    "Yes, I'm fine."
    "Even though she ruined your life?"
    "Yes. Because she didn't ruin my life. I did."

    Just pointless.
  2. Someboy

    Someboy Staff Member

    The cast really is a letdown. Imagine a tabloid friendly Katie Holmes, the male-skewing Tricia Helfer, and, oh I don't know, Michelle Rodriguez? Gabrielle Union?

    Set a twelve episode limited-run for the fall, and if it works it comes back next season.
  3. They chose a very cheesy/tacky looking image to base it off of. If they would have chose a better visual feel for the show, I'm sure it'd be much better. It reminds me of a live totally spies. Hopefully it pans out better towards the end of the series.
  4. I guess if they had gone for more well known leads (I.E washed up, needing a career boost) it may of worked out better, but I also think they needed to keep it more in line with the recent films, because this show seems to fall flat not only on the cast, but also the direction it has taken.
  5. passionoia

    passionoia Moderator

    I agree about the direction of the show somewhat.

    But what direction do you take a Charlie's Angels tv series in 2011?

    Like I said the original series hardly goes down in history as 'quality' tv, it's 'legacy' is down to the fact that it was girls doing all the tv action man conventions and cliches of the time. This was an era where this was new and exciting... where Angie Dickinson had only just proved that a woman can lead an hour long drama show.

    The movie repeated this formula, sort of having Drew, Cameron and Lucy kick ass Matrix-stylee, taking on the conventions of the male-led Hollywood action films of the time. This worked because the movie world is still very male dominated (moreso than yester-year in fact), leading action ladies are rare and still generally don't manage the box-office success of their male counterparts.

    However tv in 2011 doesn't really suffer the same problem. There are lots of female detectives, lots of female action babes, lots of female leading ladies carrying shows. So where does that leave Charlie's Angel and it's original USP?

    Really I think the only 'direction' they can take is by good storytelling and letting the show find it's own direction as it progresses. Which it may well do... given the chance. Though who's gonna give it a chance? I don't think people go into the show in the hope that they've found the new "The Wire"... that the spark of interest in the show isn't about good storytelling, like I said it's about three famous birds kicking ass. Three female stars!! If they don't deliver on that at the begining then people will switch off before they've found out if it is actually quality tv they think might be worth sticking with.
  6. duckface

    duckface Guest


    Not surprising, really, although I expected ABC to give it a little more time, given that it's a name brand and all.

    I wish it was better than it ended up being...
  7. Cancelled already? wow that was fast.
  8. Apparently the number of viewers went up a bit last night as well. Oh well. At least they're airing the rest of the one's that have already been shot so we'll get some more episodes. It's definitely a shame they shut it down already. There's always a possibility production will restart if the viewer figures increase again.
  9. It was still the 2nd lowest rated show that night though so...
  10. What do we think??

    I'm surprised as I assumed they were going for a more 'grittier' version but this looks almost identical to the other movies. Even the font is the same for the logo... I wonder if this ties into those in any way?
    Last edited: Jun 27, 2019
    Conan and -tastic like this.
  11. Looks pretty bad to be honest. Kristen Stewart can only play like one emotion. The wardrobe looks cheap and tacky. Especially those wigs! The script sounds cheesy, and i'm tired of seeing that Noah guy's face in everything.

    If it was an original concept maybe I would give it a chance but as a remake it feels unnecessary.
    Vixen, bonnieetclyde and Sideout like this.
  12. It would be cool if it does tie into the original franchise. It's a soft reboot either way.

    Would be pretty iconic if we got cameos from Cameron, Drew and Lucy. Demi I wouldn't really care for.
    bonnieetclyde likes this.
  13. They should have just done Cameron Drew and Lucy again. Genuinely they could still do it.
    Vixen, Lander, Alenko and 8 others like this.
  14. It looks pretty lame and lacking the humor and campiness of the early 2000s.
    Vixen, Lander, Lapras and 4 others like this.
  15. B-O-R-I-N-G
    slaybellz likes this.
  16. Tribal Spaceman

    Tribal Spaceman Staff Member

    It looks dull.

    Bring back Lucy Liu with my girl, Drew, Cameron D. and Destiny.
    crash9081, Remorque, Alenko and 4 others like this.
  17. Someboy

    Someboy Staff Member

    Since Cameron really doesn't want to act anymore, they should have done a Cameron, Drew, and Lucy take two new Angels (Kristen, Ella) under their wing, etc.

    Also, it looks so generic, just the style is so faux-high gloss. I suppose that has more to do with everything looking cheap now, but still.
    -tastic and Tribal Spaceman like this.
  18. BTG


    If you told me that was a trailer for a reasonably well budgeted series pilot, I’d believe you.

    It’s so bland and sterile. It’s annoying too because the more female-led, female-directed movies the better, but this ain’t it.

    It’s a shame they didn’t cast older too.
  19. I actually liked the trailer and the cast. Kristen looks alive and having fun, for a change. Oh well, I'll watch this either way, so...
    -tastic likes this.
  20. The casting seems so bland and void of fun. Just imagine if we got Emma Stone (Dylan), Constance WU (Alex) and Blake Lively (Natalie).

    stuaw, diamondliam, Remorque and 7 others like this.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.