'Why did it fail?' asks E.W. - Charlie's Angels (2011) Discussion

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] stbarabas 13 years ago

It failed because of bad acting and worse writing. As far as societies spiraling decay, that is just laughable. Just off the top of my head the rockford files ran around the same time as the original charlies angels and he was an ex-con with lots of ex con buddies.

reply

[–] rp69 13 years ago

Jim Rockford was wrongfully convicted, then exhonorated. If he was a criminal he wouldn't be able to get a PI license. His past was never really explained in any detail.

Besides Rockford Files was a well written, well acted show. Jim Garner was awesome in the role, It even had a great tune by Post/Carpenter. Charlie's Angels 2011 had none of the above.

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] rp69 13 years ago

I didn't pre judge it, I was actually looking forward to it. I watched the first half hour, and couldn't take anymore. It was unwatchable, and I'm not a very descerning viewer. I'll sit through pretty much anything. It was terrible. It reminded me of an old syndicated show that used to air on Sunday afternoons in the 1990's called Cleopatra 2525. That was bad also, but it was a cheap syndicated show.

reply

[–] crooked_spoons 13 years ago

All of that is bullsh!t it came down to it being a remake of a series that was already campy but successful and its as simple as that

I'll give you that. It was always campy but it was for its time. The real issue us the fact that people don't seem to understand that. There are plenty of shows/films that rely on pop culture refs and camp that won't do well a decade+ from now.

Just look at True Blood, just about the campiest show on television with a lead actress who is often hammy at best, at worst, a wonder that she ever won an Oscar. . . and it's a huge success. However if it was ever to be remade, I have no doubt it would crash and burn like the Hindenburg.

Buuuutttt, I don't think you can call bull on the people giving valid reasons for why it was cancelled. It was poorly acted, written, directed and produced. Surely you must admit that played a role in it? A show with an iffy premise can do further than one might expect with the right formula and some good acting/direction. A lot of shows have seemingly terrible concepts (Burn Notice comes to mind) but do well because of a good combination of key factors.

__________
Panem et Circenses.

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] lambiepie-2 13 years ago

It was cancelled because it did not have the campiness of the 70's series or the action of the two feature films. It fell flat on all sides: acting, writing, casting..et cetera..et..cetera..et cetera.

Would a series have worked? You betcha. Should they do one? Wait a few years for intelligence to catch up with technology again. The programmers on many of the networks better not buy a house for their lives are very short lived. It is obvious that people want action, good looking people and intelligence or action, male or female bimbos and comedy.

This was a travesty, BUT I know there is a Charley's Angels reboot for television on the horizon. This wasn't it.

And a PS: Pan Am better start looking over their shoulder as well.

República Federativa do Brasil

reply

[–] rumipoet24 13 years ago

Sure could have alot of fun with the OP's premise as he sees this reboot getting the boot as loss of moral compass . That there's the top crimes of a collective loss of the National IQ , would be more accurate with the dumbing down of America . (thank God for HBO etc)

The reboot is about 3 CRIMINALS including a DIRTY COP And YES this is a reflection on our society's loss of its moral compass. And please don't try to argue otherwise.... The evidence is all around us.

And don't try to argue otherwise ?!

Just love it & please have it your way sir ... would you like small ,medium or large fries with your happy meal ! ;o)

Agree with the above that there was a definite element of campiness to the original that had to be preserved or fail here and more than tall pretty bodies one would imagine better meeting at Sachs 5th Ave's runways or down at Rodeo Ave. One thinks "Angels" in the title some morality play was going to be served up , there is plenty of acting going on every sunday with the tele~evangelist's weekly soaps , if thats what you wish for .

There is an ongoing crime in American Tele entertainment which shows a definite loss of "something" with so much pandering to the adolescent or "teen-somethings" has played everything out and dumbed down to a Transformer level . But these Angels were definitely not believable as 'Mission Impossible Femme Fatales' with wings .

(That reminds me , though it wasn't what you'd call camp did any of you see "Femme Fatale" with Rebecca Romijn, Antonio Banderas ?
That was a good treat..)

When you put three young women together like this and aim for the "too serious" its just not going to work without the good running thread of Camp . Plus actresses that could pull off somewhat believably they had some real true grit connections to their supposed pasts . A female McGyver would be good & someone who gets to play the bad ass and pull a Milla Jovovich (not wussy Mila Kunas) when she needs to .

Charlies Angels 2011 ? The whole idea was laughable but really sure the entire Arab World & Russians would just love it if they brought back bikinis and Bay Watch !

reply

[–] nikkiten1979 13 years ago

Never watched this new show, but how can you call it a failure when the ratings were going up? is it a failure because it sucks? I just find it strange they would cancel this after the ratings started to go up...

(•_•)

can't outrun your own shadow

reply

[–] rp69 13 years ago

The ratings went up a fraction of one percent. Statistically meaningless, not even considering a margin of error. Even if the ratings continue to stay level, they're still not nearly as high as they needed to be.

Overwhelmingly terrible viewer reception, terrible professional critic reviews, nosediving ratings. It's pretty unanimous. It was a bad show that needed to be axed.

reply

[–] nikkiten1979 13 years ago

I think that all shows that are put in the air need to have at least one season - whether the writing is bad or not. even if the ratings went up a fraction of nothing at least it went up and not "nosedive". I think the TV industry is too desperate to make quick bucks real quick nowadays and as soon as they don't see "immediate" results they can it - WHY even air it at all if they knew it was going to suck? why can't they screen it among them first, then decide whether the show might work or not instead of giving it a few episodes and removed. I feel the same way about the Playboy Club - that show didn't even have a chance. they got rid of it after one episodes. There are so many shows I didn't like at first and now I like them a lot - like the Mentalist, Grey's Anatomy, Sex and the City, Firefly, etc. I'm not saying I like this new Charlie's Angels - I never saw it and don't plan on... I liked the original though - it had that nice 70s cheesiness.

(•_•)

can't outrun your own shadow

reply

[–] crooked_spoons 13 years ago

I think the TV industry is too desperate to make quick bucks real quick nowadays...

That's because they are a business. Sorry, but networks don't exactly have the patience for a lame horse program. They send it to the glue factory and put something better on the track.

If people aren't watching, advertisers aren't paying and nobody wins, not even the viewer. Yes shows grow on some people, but a lot of networks don't have the time, budge or the patience to let the audience adapt. Even with its somewhat steady and slightly increasing ratings, the show was a critical failure. As far as why air something you know is going to suck? ABC aired it because they knew it could go either way but in the end the reception was abysmal. ABC cancelled it because frankly that's all they had, they had a formula for the show and it failed, they didn't have anything else to do. They were going to rely on the premise and that premise simply failed.

__________
Panem et Circenses.

reply

[–] ItsEddieHaskellBeyotch 13 years ago

I think it got cancelled mainly to the bad writing and acting but also, since the original became such a pop culture hit, in the years that followed there were many similar knockoffs and even two really BAD big screen films based on the series.

People know the concept too well and this version didnt bring anything new or fresh to offer. Thats kind of the same for any of the remakes released these days.

Anyone remember Pamela Anderson's wretched series "V.I.P." or the even lamer "She Spies"?

"You win some, you lose some. But you live, you live to fight another day."

reply

[–] crooked_spoons 13 years ago

The reboot is about 3 CRIMINALS including a DIRTY COP. People don't want to see that, its in disturbingly bad taste.

Oh, well that explains why Breaking Bad is so popular?

People don't mind watching criminals, as I said before just look at Breaking Bad or even Sons of Anarchy. One show is about a pair of meth cooks, one of the cooks is a selfish, murdering addict, the other cook an aggressive and incresigly greedy chemist. Sons of Anarchy is about an outlaw biker gang who deals weapons to the IRA and gangs and now drugs for the cartel and people are eating that stuff up. Why? Because it's done right. Both shows have superior acting, plot and excellent production values.

Charlie's Angels had none of those.

People don't mind watching criminals just so long as they're entertaining and done right. They always have. Look at how many Shakespearean villains were crowd favorites. Why was Sweeney Todd so popular? And Chicago? This is nothing new.

And YES this is a reflection on our society's loss of its moral compass. And please don't try to argue otherwise. The evidence is all around us

So you state an opinion as fact then tell people not to argue with you? Hmm, no I think I will. For you to say anything as trivial as a frilly TV show is a reflection on our loss of moral compass shows your lack of judgment.

Also, you can't state that people don't want to watch criminals and then turn around and say people watching criminals is a reflection of a loss of morals and values. That's a contradiction my friend. Either everybody is without morals and watch all this or we have too many morals to watch. Make up your mind.

__________
Panem et Circenses.

reply

[–] denny004 13 years ago

it failed because we can see T and A on the internet 24/7 so we won't overlook the bad acting, bad writing and sorry rehashed premise like we did in the '70's

I'm your daddy and what do I do?

reply

[–] rumipoet24 13 years ago

Someone wants to do a remake with three interesting female leads, my vote would go to remake of The Witches of Eastwick but that theme over done as a series . Just to see if there's any out there up to filling shoes of a Susan Sarandon , Cher or Michelle Pfeiffer . Be nice to see some really new outstanding talent hit the scene that can carry their weight in both charm , ability & talent .

Anne Hathaway , Katherine Heigl def have the chops & Zoey Deschanel too, there's got to be more out there that have got it down & paid their dues. Good writing, casting and new themes are hard to come by , light comedy is hard sell these days unless its dumb & dumber or all geeked out or the "too serious" crime drama that owns center stage again .

reply

[–] touser2004 13 years ago

If the writing is bad - no actor stands a chance.When the writing is good - the actors often get too much credit.

It failed because the writing was unimaginative and cliched.I know the actors involved are all loaded but I actually feel sorry for them - how could they know the writing would be so bad.

reply