So, now that the re-boot of Charlie's Angels has been cancelled, do you think anything could have made this show succeed, or do you think this classic series should have just been left alone, and not been remade??

Well, considering it was one of the biggest flops of the last 5 years, no, I don't think much could've been done.

Perhaps if they didn't try to totally remake the concept and just made it like a continuation from the original series, then MAYBE it would have done better.

It did bad, but it was no where near one of the biggest flops of the last 5 years. There were many series that did much worse, like My Generation, Lone Star, Whole Truth, Playboy Club, Free Agents. Those are just SOME. Charlie's Angels did better than all of those.

It did bad, but it was no where near one of the biggest flops of the last 5 years. There were many series that did much worse, like My Generation, Lone Star, Whole Truth, Playboy Club, Free Agents. Those are just SOME. Charlie's Angels did better than all of those.


Pav, nice spin, but you are so wrong. The money on advertising alone and getting canned after just 4 episodes makes it one of the biggest flops of the last 5 years. Granted, it was no Emily Reasons for why Not, but still a colossal failure.

Didn't The Vampire Diaries on the CW beat it last week in the demo? I think that's why ABC canceled it when they did.

Pav, nice spin, but you are so wrong. The money on advertising alone and getting canned after just 4 episodes makes it one of the biggest flops of the last 5 years. Granted, it was no Emily Reasons for why Not, but still a colossal failure.

It's no spin. I just listed a few ABC shows that did worse. It had the same amount of promo time and money spent than last year's My Generation, which was a bigger failure. ABC spent more money on Pan Am and Revenge on promo time this year (and NBC promoted Playboy Club much more than ABC did with Charlie's Angels). That is a fact. Charlie's Angels may be canceled, but ABC is still airing it this week (and three after that are still scheduled in November, as of now). Those other shows I mentioned were much lower and pulled faster than anything.

And Emily's Reasons Why Not didn't do that bad in the ratings. It was pulled because the show had no direction and ABC didn't like what they saw post-pilot. Its premiere ratings weren't good, but it was pulled for more than the ratings. Go look up the ratings, it did OK (not colossally bad).

So, now that the re-boot of Charlie's Angels has been cancelled, do you think anything could have made this show succeed, or do you think this classic series should have just been left alone, and not been remade??


Better (looking) actresses and a better network. ;)

It's no spin. I just listed a few ABC shows that did worse. It had the same amount of promo time and money spent than last year's My Generation, which was a bigger failure. ABC spent more money on Pan Am and Revenge on promo time this year (and NBC promoted Playboy Club much more than ABC did with Charlie's Angels). That is a fact. Charlie's Angels may be canceled, but ABC is still airing it this week (and three after that are still scheduled in November, as of now). Those other shows I mentioned were much lower and pulled faster than anything.

And Emily's Reasons Why Not didn't do that bad in the ratings. It was pulled because the show had no direction and ABC didn't like what they saw post-pilot. Its premiere ratings weren't good, but it was pulled for more than the ratings. Go look up the ratings, it did OK (not colossally bad).
i don't know anything about how much promo time or money it had, but Charlie's Angels had a lot more pre-season hype and higher expectations than any of those other shows

whether it was a bigger flop, who knows?

i would've liked a new Charlie's Angels to succeed; surely there could've been some combination of components that would've worked, but it would've had to have been something pretty special to do it.

It's no spin. I just listed a few ABC shows that did worse. It had the same amount of promo time and money spent than last year's My Generation, which was a bigger failure. ABC spent more money on Pan Am and Revenge on promo time this year (and NBC promoted Playboy Club much more than ABC did with Charlie's Angels). That is a fact. Charlie's Angels may be canceled, but ABC is still airing it this week (and three after that are still scheduled in November, as of now). Those other shows I mentioned were much lower and pulled faster than anything.

And Emily's Reasons Why Not didn't do that bad in the ratings. It was pulled because the show had no direction and ABC didn't like what they saw post-pilot. Its premiere ratings weren't good, but it was pulled for more than the ratings. Go look up the ratings, it did OK (not colossally bad).

Pav, I really don't want to argue with you because no matter what I say, you'll find a way to spin it and yes you are spinning it. Charlie's Angels had a brand name and a ton of advertising and couldn't make it out of a 4th episode. That is pretty bad. I didn't say it was the biggest flop in 5 years, but it certainly can join the discussion.

You wanna know the truth... why the remake tanked? Because years ago, men didn't have the internet to look at beautiful women, and now they do!

Not to mention, not one of the leads was a household name. It was doomed before it aired just based on its timeslot as well. The 'brand' wasn't gonna save it!

You wanna know the truth... why the remake tanked? Because years ago, men didn't have the internet to look at beautiful women, and now they do!

Not to mention, not one of the leads was a household name. It was doomed before it aired just based on its timeslot as well. The 'brand' wasn't gonna save it!


That's a good point Ryan, I do feel that if the show added a Former "Angel" like say Jaclyn Smith Or Cheryl Ladd and made them an integral part of the show, then maybe, just maybe it would have garnered more interest.

That's a good point Ryan, I do feel that if the show added a Former "Angel" like say Jaclyn Smith Or Cheryl Ladd and made them an integral part of the show, then maybe, just maybe it would have garnered more interest.
I agree about him having a good point about beautiful women being readily available to look at thru the internet. And besides, that, lets face it. Television shows that feature watered down T&A are waaaay past their heyday. These days c-teasers aren't worth tuning in to watch...what with the internet delievering images that go all the way with the click of a mouse.

I happened to see the "woman in chains episode" on the original show 35 years ago and when I saw the remake done just last week, I just couldn't follow it. The show just dragged on. It must to awful for Drew Barrymore to put a name on this and have it flop.

Watching the Rowdy Reviewer's video on Charlie's Angels (2011), I suspect that it failed in part because it strayed too far from the basic premise. Simply put, it was like She Spies played deadly serious and straight or The Dirty Dozen if it were about hot lady private investigators.

Instead of a show about disenfranchised female cops given a chance by Charlie Townsend to "prove themselves" (something that they weren't getting while on the police force) like on the original series, here it goes with the "bad girls given a chance to redeem themselves" angle. It's now that I think about it, kind of like Drew Barrymore's character in the movies. Rowdy C pointed out that the reboot seemed to imply that taking the Angels out of the aforementioned police setting, seems to suggest that something like that isn't relevant anymore.

It took an admittedly cheesy-campy show (for its time at least) and tried to remake it in the image of "darker and edgier" modern action shows like 24 and Burn Notice.

Charlie's Angels premiered in the fall of 2011. Another ABC (Disney) TV series had ended it's run in January of that same year. If they had thrown enough $$$ at the star of that series to star in CA, they would have had a hit, at least at the beginning. Miley Cyrus was perhaps the most popular star in the world at that time, and even though she was just 19, she had enough chops that she could have headlined the series and brought in a huge audience.

Charlie's Angels premiered in the fall of 2011. Another ABC (Disney) TV series had ended it's run in January of that same year. If they had thrown enough $$$ at the star of that series to star in CA, they would have had a hit, at least at the beginning. Miley Cyrus was perhaps the most popular star in the world at that time, and even though she was just 19, she had enough chops that she could have headlined the series and brought in a huge audience.

I don't think that not having a "name" actress would've solved the problem. You could make the case that not having enough proven box office draws is what sunk Elizabeth Banks' 2019 movie reboot. Minka Kelly here, was essentially, the biggest star among the 2011 cast. My point is that, we're obviously dealing with different mediums and expectations with weekly, episodic television vs. feature films. Like I said, I think that the 2011 series failed because it acted like it was utterly ashamed that it was related to something called Charlie's Angels.

Charlie's Angels premiered in the fall of 2011. Another ABC (Disney) TV series had ended it's run in January of that same year. If they had thrown enough $$$ at the star of that series to star in CA, they would have had a hit, at least at the beginning. Miley Cyrus was perhaps the most popular star in the world at that time, and even though she was just 19, she had enough chops that she could have headlined the series and brought in a huge audience.

In my headspace, I recently imaged a Charlie's Angels adaptation with Christina Applegate, Jennie Garth, and Tiffani-Amber Thiessen: Kelly Bundy, Kelly Taylor, and Kelly Kapowski, arguably the three biggest young "it girls" on prime-time TV back in the early '90s.