MovieChat Forums > Charlie's Angels (1976) Discussion > What do the movies most get wrong when c...

What do the movies most get wrong when compared to the classic TV series

posted 4 years ago by TMC-4 (19393)
19 replies | jump to latest

Is one of the main issues with the movies (the two McG ones and the newest one by Elizabeth Banks) they have to make what was a show about a team of private investigators, into about literally saving the world. Basically, the movies changed the public perception that Charlie's Angels was about globetrotting Mission Impossible-like super spies. Before, they were meter maids, office drones, and/or crossing guards in the LAPD/SFPD who leave those jobs because of the way they’re treated. My point is that do you feel that the movies rose the stakes higher than they really needed to be given the source material?

[–] Redsfan001 (6004) 4 years ago

Changing times/Changing story...in the 1970s, sex appeal was really the a big part of the show, along with beautiful women having brains. The glass ceiling for women was a issue.

Now sex appeal is considered by some sexist, the glass ceiling is not as much of one... so action oriented stories (strong women themes) are in.

[–] kuku (3510) 4 years ago

Sex appeal being sexist is not different from the old puritan view that considered sex was bad. And the glass ceiling about action heroes is non-sense. Women are physically weaker. That's no 'glass ceiling', that's fucking biology.

70s was about a more open sexuality and women solving problems with their brain. Nowadays it's about a puritan view of sexuality and women solving with a biologically unreal strength.

We're gone backwards.

[–] Redsfan001 (6004) 4 years ago

Glass ceiling...I meant policewomen becoming detectives, which was almost non-existent in the 70's. Nobody would bat a eye today.

[–] TMC-4 (19393) 4 years ago

Lindsay Ellis pointed out when reviewing the 2000 movie that the Angels on the original series weren't blindly loyal to Charlie and openly questioned his motives.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVoDwD_zqOk

Go to the 14:18 mark, where the video cuts to a scene of Jaclyn Smith calling Charlie "that mythical boss" of Bosley's.

[–] pioneergrrrl (2388) 4 years ago

The 70's show was yes supposed to be jiggle tv but they never took anything off. The women in the movies can do more yes--but they are not nearly as smart. Oh and they look anorexic btw

[–] Artisan (3464) 4 years ago

I thought the women in the Banks film look incapable of toting machine guns etc. For the 70's TV show, the women look more like real women and look capable of being detectives at least.

[–] pioneergrrrl (2388) 4 years ago

I mean in terms of the women in the movies living in a time when they do have more options/rights. Yes the women on the TV show look more 'real' in terms of body size weight.

[–] TMC-4 (19393) 3 years ago

Did Drew Barrymore have too much creative control/influence on the 2000 movie maybe to its overall detriment? I thought about this a little after seeing her interview Bruce Lee's daughter Shannon on her talk show. She said that she created a reel that she showed to the hire ups at Sony Pictures, when they were planning on making a Charlie's Angels movie. Among them was Enter the Dragon, starring Bruce Lee, as well as Used Cars, Foul Play, and The Great Escape.

[–] TMC-4 (19393) 3 years ago

Drew Barrymore's argument that the Angels shouldn't use firearms in her films is in itself, extremely daft and naïve. The whole point of the show to begin with was that Sabrina/Jill/Kelly/Kris were ex-cops turned private investigators. So being adept with firearms comes from hand-in-hand with their past line of work. They aren't exactly MacGyver. Plus, I don't know where Drew got the idea that the Angels should be "Crouching Tiger"-like kung-fu masters.

https://www.quora.com/Are-people-who-use-guns-cowards-as-Drew-Barrymore-stated-during-the-making-of-the-first-Charlies-Angels-movie-from-2000?q=guns%20cowardly%20drew%20

https://www.quora.com/How-much-more-efficient-would-hand-to-hand-combat-be-when-compared-to-using-firearms

[–] TMC-4 (19393) 3 years ago

The Charlie's Angels movies of the 2000s seems like what we would get if somebody took the basic, fundamental concept of the original series. That being that a mysterious and enigmatic billionaire employs three attractive women as private investigators.

But they attempted to make it out to be some sort of self-referential postmodern parody of the TV series, a la the Brady Bunch movies from the '90s or the subsequent Starsky & Hutch, 21 Jump Street, Baywatch, and CHiPs movies.

But because The Matrix was a hugely popular movie of recent times, the movies had to ape that too by emphasizing "bullet-time" and "wire-fu" effects.

Basically, what we get is if somebody like I said, took the basic concept of Charlie's Angels, placed the Angels in James Bond or Mission: Impossible-like scenarios, used the goofy tone and feel of Spice World, the action sensibilities of Hong Kong cinema, and the male gaze and hyper kinetic, glossy, music video editing and filming style of a Michael Bay movie.

[–] pioneergrrrl (2388) 3 years ago

Charlie's angel's itself was a parody though. that's what they got wrong. Writing tickets, being a school crossing guard was not 'dangerous' work

[–] TMC-4 (19393) 2 years ago

That isn't exactly my point. The 2000s movies seemed to like I said, be part of a trend of making deconstructive, pseudo-postmodern, different takes on the source material instead of an actual and straight-forward adaptation. In this case, they wanted to make fun of how cheesy the original Charlie's Angels series was while at the same time, be reverent towards what it was. So in effect, we arguably got something that was made for everybody and nobody at the same time.

Also, I never thought of the original series as an out and out parody. The whole point of them writing tickets, being school crossing guards, was meant to illustrate that their value as police officers was being neglected simply because of their gender and the politics from within the police culture at the time.

You can actually argue that Charlie's Angels was actually pretty progressive and pro-feminist for its time. Even though they still worked for a man and took orders from him, Charlie Townsend, nonetheless, believed in them. And he placed the women in a scenario where unlike on the police force, they're allowed to do actual "dirty work".

[–] Artisan (3464) 4 years ago

I think that is a problem with a lot of modern films. They feel they have to appeal to such a wide demographic that in the end it doesn't appeal to anyone because it is boring. Atleast McG's films were fun, the Banks one tries to make the women into Rambo-ettes.

Overall though, is the idea of 3 female detectives really amazing anymore like it was back in the 70's?

[–] Kowalski (57365) 3 years ago

GOOD SHOW...FOR THE TIME...THAT TIME IS OVER THOUGH...THE CONCEPT AND THE THINGS THAT MADE THE SHOW WORK IN THE 70S ARE WAY PAST THEIR EXPIRATION DATE.

[–] moviechatterer (13226) 3 years ago

so... reading all the replies , the main difference seems to be:

The women in the or 70s used their brains and the modern ones dont?

[–] millsey72 (9530) 2 years ago

Thats not true. What about The Dukes of Hazzard movie? The Dukes weren't globetrotting super spies. They were the same racist family as depicted in the TV series

[–] ATG6 (3000) 10 months ago

They weren't racist at all, except for their car. Which people got more offended about 150 years after the Civil War than they did 110 years after it.

[–] DoctorThirteen (10151) 8 months ago

👍

[–] ATG6 (3000) 10 months ago

The movies aren't nearly as sexy.