MovieChat Forums > Charlie's Angels (2011) Discussion > Where they went wrong, three simple reas...

Where they went wrong, three simple reasons.




1. Bosley - The character is Bosley was ALL WRONG in this show. He was better looking than all three angels, he was too sexy and it just didnt work. Bosley is the funny, frumpy sidekick, not the underdog stealing the show.

2. The angels - No chemistry between the three women like in the orginal series. Kinda crucial.

3. Stunts - Way too many silly fighting scenes. Cheesy. The orginal angels only used fighting every now and then, the rest was guns and brains.

reply

[deleted]

RoyalAllure, you totally hit the nail on the head with your points. I absolutely agree on the casting for Bosley. Totally wrong, as you said the character is really meant to be a kind of semi comical, bumbling middle aged guy. David Doyle played it perfectly in the orginal series in the 70s.
The actor cast in this show is too young and way too good looking. I blame the writers and producers who were clearly trying to be so hip in revamping the Bosley character from the original show. It doesn't work.
I agree on points 2 and 3 as well.
I'm just curious RoyalAllure, what did you think of the actor doing the voice of Charlie? I didn't think that worked either. No character or emotion in the voice at all.

reply

"You forgot to mention the horrible casting choice of Victor Garber as Charlie! (YAWN!)"


"I'm just curious RoyalAllure, what did you think of the actor doing the voice of Charlie? I didn't think that worked either. No character or emotion in the voice at all."

That would have been by 4th or 5th point, however I dont think it was THAT huge of a deal for this show because they dont use the Charlie character as often as they did in the orginal series. In the orginal show he would be in the start of an episode, the end of the episode but also in between scenes with the angels informing him or vise versa.

It's a shame they didnt try harder on this show and stick to the orginal formula. 'Back to basics' ALWAYS works.

reply

Also way too many split screens, too much going on in the scenes to focus on the story.
What's wrong with simple storytelling and character development, why all this Hi tech nonsense that is not impressive or needed, simplicity is underrated!

reply

Even though Victor Garber is a great actor and did an excellent job on Alias but for some reason he just doesn't fit as Charlie since his version is more monotone whereas the old Charlie was more enthusatic and made more personality. I think the lack of chemistry between the 3 ladies is probably what killed the show for sure.

reply

[deleted]

you also forget that in the original they would show the back of Charlie's head with some girl. In addition, not one of the three have mentioned that they are curious about what Charlie looks like. That was always a common thread throughout the original series.

reply

My one criticism is that the girls' characters aren't distinct enough like Kate, Farrah and Jaclyn. Even though these girls look different, their personalities seem interchangeable. I don't think the fight scenes are cheesy at all. The original series had cheesy fights. Cheryl Ladd wrestling an alligator? Plus you could ALWAYS tell it was a stunt double. These new girls are doing most of the fight scenes.

reply

and boy this show moved so slow for it to be an "action" show. Plus bad, sluggish acting and directing, it was a total bore.

reply

Yes, I think you nailed it on all three points.

The minute they introduced the new Bosley I knew this show was destined to fail. They totally missed the point of the originally Bosley being middle-aged father figure for the angels. He was supposed to be a contemporary of Charlie, not the Angels, and that's why Charlie used him as the go-between.

These angels acted like cardboard cut-out co-workers compared to the originals. The original angels had some great banter between them and played off each other splendedly.

There were more explosions, machine gun fire, hand to hand combat and way-out stunts in the pilot episode of the new series than in the entire 5 year run of the original.

reply

You forgot about episodes with plotlines no one wanted to watch. This reason was why it was canceled and nothing else was a factor in its cancelation.

You're clearly an idiot, don't get mad because I tell you the truth.

reply

Honestly, I think the problem with this whole show is that they were trying to copy the formula of the movie with Drew, Cameron & Lucy (to a degree) into the new tv series. First of all, I agree with RoyalAllure in that there was truly no chemistry among the leading ladies & that is what Drew, Cameron & Lucy at least had!

They tried to make Minka Kelly into the star of the show & looking at her, we're supposed to believe she was in jail & tough?? OMG!!

Bosley wasn't too believable in his role at all! Somehow between him & Minka, nothing they did came across as believable.

The sad part is I was really looking forward to seeing this show...I thought maybe they could recapture what made the original series so popular & maybe even what made the movie versions work. But the characters just weren't credible. About the only one I truly liked was the blonde one. I like Victor Garber as an actor...as Charles Townsend's voice...OH HELL NO!!

Hubby decided to dvr a couple of episodes & good gawd...talk about BAD EVERYTHING!! Acting sucked, storyline was unbelievable & atrocious!! They were supposed to be in Cuba, up against a man who was powerful & rich and obviously selling American woman to other rich clients. They have a party & this guy has 1...yeah ONE armed guard outside & a few inside??? SERIOUSLY?? A guy who supposed to be successfully avoiding being caught by the CIA?? WTH?? Bosley takes the 1 guard down outside, then waltzes into the party...what a bunch of BS!! After the "standoff", if you could call it that, Minka Kelly is the hostage who the bad guy supposedly beats to get info and the guy tells Bosley "she's a tough one"...a little blood smeared on her face & a scratch but that's it...after the guy who beat her made a big production of taking off his jacket??? In NCIS when Ziva was being held hostage & beaten, her damn eye was swollen shut, her lip was swollen & split...& people are supposed to believe that Minka was beaten because she's gasping for air into a phone?? Put her damn arm in a sling or something...but no, the same night they make it back to America, the 3 of them look like models heading out to celebrate...& the audience is supposed to buy that Minka was a hostage & beaten?? LMAO

The next episode was so bad, I had to walk away. Pirates have hostages on a ship they raided...the family is being held hostage. The other 2 angels take a speedboat out to the ship that's holding the hostages...& Minka and Bosley are scuba diving out to the same ship apparently from shore!! Geez...seriously?? Bosley & Minka's character apparently were able to scuba dive as fast & as far out as the speed boat since they arrived like minutes after the other 2 angels. That speedboat went for miles across open water. Hey writers/producers...could you make it at least A LITTLE BELIEVABLE?? I had to walk away...couldn't watch anymore stupidity!! Freaken pirates hijack a ship & somehow Minka is able to climb aboard the boat & go straight to the room the family is tied up in without encountering 1 pirate & there is no one posted outside the door of the room that the hostages are being held in!! WTH!!!

This show is so bad, I'm surprised they're continuing to show what little episodes they had left because I read that it's been totally cancelled (no surprise there!) I tried watching 3 episodes & that was 2 too many for me! ABSOLUTELY AWFUL...SERIOUSLY!!!

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

Here is where they Really Went wrong:

1. ABC decided to remake CHARLIES ANGELS
2. Writers and producers created the show
3. Actors and the crew showed up on the set
4. They put film in the cameras
5. Someone took what they filmed and aired it on ABC.

reply