MovieChat Forums > Charlie's Angels (2011) Discussion > I'm old enough to remember the original,...

I'm old enough to remember the original, and it was just as bad

posted 13 years ago by Mccadoo
23 replies | jump to latest

Over the years the original Charlie's Angels has gotten a kind of cult rep, probably mostly because of Farrah Fawcett. It seems most people don't remember how bad it really was; the acting was horrible, the plots were simplistic, the dialogue was sometimes really funny, unfortunetly this was at times when they weren't going for laughs...

It was just plain bad.

But it aired at a time when there really weren't any cable channels to speak of and other than Playboy and a few other mags teenagers had little or no access to porn so one or more of the stars in a skimpy bikini was a big deal. Times have changed, there are more than four network channels to choose from now. I won't even go into the porn side of it. People have lots more options now, and a cheesy retread of an uber cheesy 70's show isn't a good one.

This show was doomed from the start. If I was an actor/actress I would have run from it when I got the offer.

And I know, Battlestar Galactica was a cheesy 70's show as well and the remake kicked butt, but the original was a good kind of cheesy, at the time they began production on the remake the original show still had over 150 web sites dedicated to it. There was a solid fan base there that wanted a remake, even with a female Starbuck. The original material was dated and corny yes, but it was also a solid story, had good characters and, at times, was really well done. The original Charlie's Angels could never say that

[–] MariMcCabe 13 years ago

Interesting. Because most of the posters bashing this show are praising the original. Nostalgia perhaps.

[–] Mccadoo 13 years ago

It must be, or they just don't remember it all that well because it was so bad.

I was in college at the time and we used to watch it just to make fun of it. Some of the dialogue had us rolling on the floor. I will never forget Kate Jackson pointing a gun at some bad guy and yelling;

"Freeze, or you're part of the wall!"

You can't make that stuff up.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] RoyalAllure 13 years ago

The orginal show was so much better and I'm only 22 years old.

[–] puredieselbc 13 years ago

The original CA was a creature of it's time...the 70's. It was just ABC's response to NBC's Police Woman.

It was mindless entertainment about T&A and nothing else. For the most part it was formulaic but most of Spelling's shows were back then. The real miracle was that it lasted for more than one season.

At least the original had sex appeal. This updated version doesn't even have that.

"Evil spelled backwards is live": Mok

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Diamond97 13 years ago

Yes, it's not just nostalgia.

The original CA was no Mensa-required viewing, it's true. But it had an innocent, breezy quality a la the late-'70s, and the lead trio -- Kate, Jaclyn and Farrah, though not necessarily Kate Hepburn in their delivery, nonetheless had a certain ... ummm ... star quality which made it work.

I didn't watch the first season of the original CA. I started watching the second season (in 1977) and Cheryl Ladd, Kate Jackson, and Jaclyn Smith definitely had that certain star quality that made the show work.

[–] SimplemindedSociety 13 years ago

I disagree. It was not about the lame term: T & A.
The original didn't have bikini-clad Angels in every episode;that is a misconception. They wore sweaters more than bikins-- Farrah Fawcett and Kate Jackson never wore one. And it wasn't a big hit because there were no cable channels

I feel the opposite: the orignal got a bad rap because it was snotty to tear it apart. The writing was not that bad nor the diretion. Porn existed by 1972,so people didn't have to warch this show to get their rocks off because they wore a halter-top now and then. I was there then.

[–] Mccadoo 13 years ago

So was I, and it was all about T&A, a sweaty 17 year old didn't have access to porn the way they do today, why do you think Farrah's famous poster sold so well? And when you had three or four main channels to choose from you bet your a@3ss it makes a difference.

I was in college at the time and pretty much obsessed with good looking women, as were my friends so we didn't tear the show apart because it was "snotty" to do so, we tore it apart because it was god awful.

The one good thing I will say about it is that at least the actresses on it where likable and fun to watch. This show totally missed the boat on that score;
Minka Kelly just comes across as a bitch and Rachel Taylor seems like the kind of girl you'd catch something nasty from. And neither one of them can act their way out of a room. I forget the third angels name but she was a little better but not all that much.

[–] SimplemindedSociety 13 years ago

'So was I, and it was all about T&A, a sweaty 17 year old didn't have access to porn the way they do today, why do you think Farrah's famous poster sold so'
-------------------------------------
That's not true.
T & A was just a buzzword for any show with sexy women. Women have body parts that move when they walk, it can't be helped. So every show with sexy women is T & A? I hate that line. Why didn't they call films from the 50's with sexy women T & A? Why did straight women watch the show then, for "T & A "?
Bottom line: because you watched the show to masturbate to, doesn't mean we all did

Btw, I was getting into porn films when I was 17,they didn't check my I.D.)

[–] gerard-21 13 years ago

I agree. In the late 1970s early 1980s it was quite easy to slip into the porno thearter as a teenager. Plus, they were plenty of soft core porn films, like Emanuale, shown on the pay movie channels(Cinemax was called Skinemax) that accompanied my parent's subscription to HBO. Didn't need to watch the original Charlies Angels for that. Watched it because it was light, engaging and funny and you could relate to the characters.

[–] Mccadoo 13 years ago

You could relate to three beautiful ex-cops who worked as PI's for a mystery man they never saw and globe hopped solving cases with a fat guy named Bosley???

Why didn't you call me, I would have loved to have hung out with you!

[–] Mccadoo 13 years ago

You're living up to the first two words in your name,

Bottom Line; what I did and when is really not your business and if you had an IQ over 80 it would never have come into this conversation at all.

If you're incapable of making your point intelligently and without throwing personal barbs at someone for no reason then don't even try. I can see now why Charlie's Angels was high art to you.

Loser

[–] gerard-21 13 years ago

It's called escapism and the original did it well; it was mindlessly enjoyable. To say it was every bit as bad as this incipid, inane action remake is misleading at best. A TV show doesn't have to be Shakespeare, it just has to entertain, and the original CA accomplished that, whether you like the way it went about it or not. If you can't understand that I can't help you.

But, more importantly, you shouldn't cling to the misguided notion that this was the only source of sex (or a source at all) back in the 1970s when sex was so prevelant during that time period. Again, any family with HBO had Cinemax which showed soft core porn films like Emanualle all the time. Porn theaters at the time, like the video stores you could rent porn films from, didn't card anybody.

I just think you are being disingenuous if you claim to have lived back then yet say the only reason Charlies Angels was only successful was for T&A. Anyone who actually lived through the 1970s except nerds of epic proportions knew sex then was everywhere, even more so than the post-Aids world we live in today.

Your comments just wreak of someone going back and imagining something they think happened rather than having actually lived through it. It's like you read about the original on Wikipedia where it was referred to as "jiggle TV" and thought you had a theory all figured out. If you were really in college at the time as you say, you would be too busy getting laid every other day by different women, as sex without thought of consequence was the order of the day, to bother watching CA.

[–] SimplemindedSociety 13 years ago

well said,gerard-21
I like when people tell me how it was or what I did,when they don't know me or were not there. (or otherwise misinterpret what my comments)
For all we know,the other user had no other outlet for his raging hormones except for Charlies Angels, but not everybody lived like him

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] SyKosis 13 years ago

The OP is right, I remember the original. It was a vehicle for Farah Fawcett who was already the fantasy gal for all us teenage boys, based on some shampoo commercials she had done, and being married to Lee Majors (the six million dollar man). The show was bad but we watched to see Farrah, Jacqueline Smith and Kate Jackson. The biggest difference is that decades after that show a lot of people still know who Farrah Fawcett, Jacqueline Smith and Kate Jackson are, no one will remember Minka Kelly in 6 months.

"That's not a baby, that's a Mister Potato Head."

[–] Diamond97 13 years ago

The show was bad but we watched to see Farrah, Jacqueline Smith and Kate Jackson. The biggest difference is that decades after that show a lot of people still know who Farrah Fawcett, Jacqueline Smith and Kate Jackson are, no one will remember Minka Kelly in 6 months.

Don't forget Cheryl Ladd, who was on the show for 4 years. Many of us watched for Cheryl as well. She was gorgeous and on the show longer than Farrah. In fact, the ratings went up when she joined.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] PopularNerd 13 years ago

It might have been just as bad, but you/we are measuring it up to television shows that have 20 more years of experience and improvements then back when Charlie's Angels started ( the old one ) for back then how the TV series was it was prime for its time. One of the most watched show of its time.

[–] gerard-21 13 years ago

"It might have been just as bad, but you/we are measuring it up to television shows that have 20 more years of experience and improvements then back when Charlie's Angels started ( the old one ) for back then how the TV series was it was prime for its time. One of the most watched show of its time."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Good post. The original was very entertaining in its time. That's why I have my doubts as to whether the OP was really old enough to remember the original when it first aired. Hardly anyone at the time was saying how bad it was because most people enjoyed watching it! That's why it ran for 5 years! It didn't matter to people that it wasn't Masterpiece Theater, it was good mindless fun; it was enjoyable for a wide demographic. The new CA wasn't and that's why it couldn't gain an audience. By virtue of that simple fact makes it impossible to conclude that the original was just as bad as this one.

[–] Mccadoo 13 years ago

Um, I was born in 1957, I graduated high school in 1975, I graduated college in 1979, which would make me now, ah, lets see; 54 years old!!!

I don't agree with you're opinion so I'm a liar??? And many many people at the time DID make fun of of CA's, if they had an IQ over 80 that is. That included all of the guys in my dorm.

Truth is, if you're anywhere around my age and you actually liked Charlies's Angels back then then YOU are the geek who never got laid, because other than sweaty hard up middle aged men, you would have been the only one watching it, you and your geek friends. Be honest Gerard, you got stuffed in your locker a lot in school didn't you? Were you and your friends all listening to ABBA and disco and Gloria Gaynor while my friends and I were listening to Jethro Tull and Pink Floyd and Mountain? That's really it isn't it? because if you had any cool at all back then you were definetly NOT watching Charlie's Angels unless it was to make fun of it. Sorry, I really WAS there and that really IS the way it was.

Actually I think you're the one who is talking out of their ass here; your view of the 70's reeks of stereotypes and misinformation. Yes, I went to high school and college in the 70's, and yes, it was before aids and herpes and all that fun stuff, but contrary to your very suspect comments, we did not all spend our college careers running around getting laid all the time, we actualy had girlfriends and we studied and did other things too. Go figure! The image of the 70's as one big sex party is a stereotype that, if you actually lived through it, you'd know is way overplayed. Yes, sex was freer back then, and yes we had a term known as sport f#@cking, but it wasn't anything like you imagine it in your sweaty little fantasies. And I was popular and played football in school and all that good stuff so I'm pretty sure I was getting it as much as anyone else.

So, your comments on the 70's lead me to believe one of two things, you were a sweaty palmed little geek watching Charlies Angels and imagining all the sex that OTHER people were having out there, or you simply weren't there and base your memories of the 70's on what you've seen in dirty movies and social satires of the era like The Groove Tube and Kentucky Fried Movie. And don't even try to tell me that you just screwed your way through the entire decade because I'll fall off my chair laughing.

My comment was right on the money by the way. Yes, there was cable TV back then and yes, if you had Starcase or Home Box Office or Cinemax you could watch soft porn into the wee hours. But most people didn't have cable TV back then, the first time I saw HBO was in a hotel in my junior year of collge (1978 btw), my family couldn't afford it or didn't think it was worth getting. So most people were still watching network TV. And yes, there were porn movies running in certain theatres but how many decent people actually went to them? Not many people that I knew. And there were all kinds of porn magazines available, but not in your local Rexall Drug Store, you had to seek them out, and a lot of kids either didn't or couldn't.

So let's sum up shall we? The 70's were not the enourmous sex romp that you seem to "remember", and while porn was available, it wasn't for the average teenager, not all that much anyway. THAT is the reality that I lived, and I didn't grow up in Kansas either by the way. So, regarding your theory that I'm a liar and just made up my 70's existance;
If you were half as clever as you seem to think you are you'd still be an idiot, and that is ageless.

Charlie's Angels was a cheesy TV show, end of story, and the fact that you're defending it so vigourously is sad, pathetic, and was kind of amusing, right up until you called me a liar. So take the DVD's of the complete original series that I'm sure you own and drool over regularly and shove them.

Oh, and as truly dizzying as I find your intellect, and you're little theories, and your bull#*@t, my quotient of stupdity is full up for this month so, you're on ignore. Try to grow a brain before you post again.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]