MovieChat Forums > Charlie's Angels (1976) Discussion > Would a show like Charlie's Angels not w...

Would a show like Charlie's Angels not worked had it debuted a few years later?


To give you a better perspective:

http://whatculture.com/film/why-charlie-s-angels-just-bombed-so-hard

Charlie's Angels might be one of the most recognisable pop culture staples of the late 1970s - at least in TV terms - but it, like The Dukes Of Hazzard - was very, very rooted in a cultural moment that is as far removed from now as you could possibly imagine. It may have starred powerful female characters but it was marketed on sex appeal in a way that was wildly at odds with its supposed feminist agenda. Whisper it, but it also wasn't very good.

It was - however - popular, at least initially. The first two seasons broke into the top ten of Nielsen Ratings, despite ABC calling it one of the worst TV ideas they'd ever heard of and refusing to accept the huge ratings of the pilot to the extent that they screened it a second time to check. Talk about faith in your own product. But for those first two seasons, the show pulled in great figures, despite critics calling it no more than "Jiggle TV" marketed on the sex appeal of the leads.

It might have become a classic thanks to syndication and largely off the back of those first two seasons, but the third, fourth and fifth seasons faired markedly more badly, dropping in ratings to the point that the network relied on gimmicks like a talent hunt to find a new Angel for the fifth season. It didn't work and the show ended up being cancelled in 1981 at its lowest and with the original concept of a detective show increasingly pushed aside for light plots, a cop show of the week approach and more overt focus on "glamour".


Pitch a movie like THAT in 2015 - or even at the turn of the Millennium - and it wouldn't get off the ground. Ideas of feminism were grossly different back then and it's clear why there's been several attempts to reframe Charlie's Angels from what it once was. Unfortunately, though, those who actually LIKED the original show liked it for the things that revisionists would always be likely to change about it.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAZlfRh2opo

To follow this up, Todd in the Shadows (who is a YouTube music critic) said that shows like Charlie's Angels (and also, The Mary Tyler Moore Show, Police Woman, The Bionic Woman, and Wonder Woman with Lynda Carter) came off the heels of the women's lib moment of the early '70s. According to Todd, Charlie's Angels always sat weirdly and awkwardly in the wake of second wave feminism.

https://web.archive.org/web/20140330100109/http://forums.televisionwithoutpity.com/topic/3113627-charlies-angels-brought-to-you-by-farrahs-hair/?view=getnewpost

What he means is that on paper, Charlie's Angels was extremely progressive. Even though the Angels still worked for a man, Charlie nonetheless, believed in them. Before, they weren't taken seriously on the police force due to sexism so they went where there talents were actually valued. On the same token however, Charlie's Angels is primarily remembered really for showcasing hot girls in skimpy outfits. So it's sometimes hard to tell if Charlie's Angels is actually supposed to be an empowering fantasy for women or degrading "jiggle TV". The movies from the 2000s with Cameron Diaz, Drew Barrymore, and Lucy Liu seemed to according to Todd, absolutely want to live down the show's bad rep.

https://collider.com/does-charlies-angels-hold-up/

https://www.refinery29.com/en-gb/2019/10/8511326/charlies-angels-2000-movie-sexist-or-empowering

https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2019/11/the-complicated-legacy-of-the-2000-charlies-angels

reply

I loved the original series and watched it all 5 seasons when it originally ran on ABC. And I enjoy it as an adult for it's campy fun value.
BTW, the show was still very popular in season 3, ranking #12.
Season four ranked #17.
The massive ratings drop happened season 5 when the show was moved to Sunday nights.

reply

A show about 3 hot chicks? Yeah that would have done well.

reply

I don't think it would have 'stood out' look @ Cagney and Lacey....they are working as police officers throughout the 1980's--but it commands no where near the draw of this series. The network worried that Cagney wasn't feminine enough? How many male buddy cop shows (seriously) do the networks really worry about the masculinity of the characters?

The women in Charlies Angels (for most of the series anyways) trained as police officers who ended up having to work as Private Investigators bc the police force just wasn't ready for them. Lots of hair flipping bikinis and squealing. I was suprised when my brother did not like this since it's the grandmother to Baywatch.

reply

"squealing"

Though it was certainly a cheesecake show, it tried to take itself seriously. Tried. They never went for the bubbly dumb chick thing. They were smart and capable girls. The show was entertaining for the era. The beauty of the leads is absolutely why it trended so high but it captured viewers from both genders. It had much more character respect than Baywatch.

Most of its troubles were standard foolishness present in most shows at the time. "Secretly" watching someone from a car that is maybe 20 feet away, telling someone to "freeze" because they have a gun pointed at them ... from 50 feet away ... on a boat ... in choppy waves, etc.

The market is not balanced and that it just reality. They want to make money so they cater to the viewer's desires. That is why Cagney and Lacey did not do as well. Fewer people wanted the less than dazzling leads (I always thought they were attractive but whatever). Modern television is less like that. They can make money showing you what they want you to like instead of what you like.

reply