The original didn't have good acting either.
Except for Kate Jackson, and Ladd was adequate.
But why did they make them ex-criminals? If they going to remake a show, it's has to be a REMAKE
[deleted]
MovieChat Forums > Charlie's Angels (2011) Discussion > The original didn't have good acting eit...
[deleted]
"they cast the three most boring, bland, generic actresses that were available"
-----------------
And Jacyln Smith was not generic and bland? The difference is that Smith had a chance to grow on you as the series went on. Smith even admits she gave a bad audition and won the part based on a referral from Robert Wagner.
"even before the orignal Charlie's Angels aired everyone knew who Farrah Fawcett and Kate Jackson were and Farrah in particular was already a sensation at the time."
-------------------
Well, I was there at the time, and FF became a sensation due to the show. Did you say she was already a sensation? She had only done bit roles in a few tv-movies, and the bomb Myra Breckinridge.
The current Angels don't have a particularly good actress like Kate or a charismatic one like Farrah or Cheryl imo. A show about three women can handle one bland actress but not three.
shareThe orginal show was SO MUCH BETTER than this crap.
shareSmith even admits she gave a bad audition and won the part based on a referral from Robert Wagner.
Really? I didn't know that. Anyways kudos to Bob Wagner for spotting a stinker and bailing out just in time.
"Evil spelled backwards is live": Mok share
[deleted]
[deleted]
'Could be a regional thing though, I was living in Florida at the time and remember all kids at school being Farrah crazy before Angels ever premiered.'
--------------------------
I don't think one's region would be a factor; maybe you were just more aware of Farrah than I was pre-Angels. I didn't watch the Partridge Family that much,nor did I see Logan's Run,etc.
Your point about Jacyln Smith is taken.
Farrah didn't appear on The Sonny and Cher Show until 1977 after Angels premiered. I'm not saying that she wasn't at all famous since she did do a lot of commercials and was a Breck girl before Angels but she wasn't really a star until Angels came along and Farrah mania didn't go into full effect until Angels came on.
share[deleted]
'Not true. At all. Farrah became a HUGE sensation from the first second people saw her on the "Take it off... Take'
----------------------------------------------------
I remember that commercial, you sure that was FF? Didn't that actress have an accent of some kind?
And I said before, it depends on who actually noticed her on the Partridge Family or Flight 501(or whatever it was),etc. It's not a argumentative case; it depends on the person. Why do feel you so passionate about this? Does it take away from FF's legacy or something?
Even though people saw the Ultra-Brite commercial,they didn't go in the other room and make a note to find out who she was.
[deleted]
I was 22 when the original show premiered in 1976, and I don't know where you people are getting the idea Farrah Fawcett was well known before that. I knew Kate Jackson from 'The Rookies,' a popular police drama that ran for several years, but I had never heard of Farrah Fawcett and don't think anyone else had either. Charlie's Angels made Fawcett a star, and it is really the only reason she is remembered today. Nonetheless, the show was a joke. It was terrible -- simplistic, silly, and totally unbelievable. Some could argue that it helped pave the way for women as action figures, but the action was so lame and unrealistic compared to shows like Policewoman (1974) that I even have a hard time with that one. As for Jacklyn Smith, I agree that she was very pretty, but she wasn't at all "sexy." She reminded me of a porcelain doll, someone I could hardly visualize having sex (and I did a LOT of visualizing at that point). In fact, the whole show just seemed totally sexless. Every few episodes one of the girls would have a little chaste flirtation with some guy, but it seemed as though they were all 26 year-old virgins. Farrah never did much for me. It wasn't that she was skinny or had small teats because I have always liked the "hardbody" look that she epitomized, but she seemed so artificial with her big frosted hair and 1000 teeth (obviously I was in the minority there). Even though Cheryl Ladd with her more classic hourglass figure is not my usual type, I actually think she is one of the most attractive actresses I've ever seen, one who stayed hot longer than most anyone I can think of (she was hot in her fifties on 'Las Vegas'). Kate Jackson seemed kind of attractive playing a young housewife on 'The Rookies,' but on 'Charlie's Angels' she was a complete downer, playing a judgemental, schoolmarmish character. Evidently, she was sort of like that on the set too. Most reports suggest she thought she was a far better actress than her co-stars and too good for the show. What a joke.
share'Nonetheless, the show was a joke. It was terrible -- simplistic, silly, and totally unbelievable. Some could argue that it helped pave the way for women as action figures, but the action was so lame and unrealistic compared to shows like Policewoman'
---------------------------------
I agree with much of what you said in your post, but wanted to address the above.
Do you think there is was a sense of subliminal judgment occuring with CA being regarded as a joke? Why did CA get criticized for the same things that Police Woman did not? Angie also wore tight fitting clothes and her breasts moved when she walked also. Because it was from the 'prestigious' NBC producers of Police Story? And Pepper Anderson was a realistic cop with the men always saving her at the end of he day? Nobody ever speaks about the most of the CA episodes when the women wore sweaters and non-sexual clothing-- yet if they did, they were probably criticised for not being sexy enough. If you are working undercover at a cocktail party or the beach, how could they not wear certain types of clothing? Don't real-life cops do that? Tom Selleck did not get criticised for wearing only his swim-trunks in Magnum P.I.
'Jaclyn was a great actor especially in movies and Farrah had some really good performances in the 80s that won her awards. Kate Jackson was always really good as I think she was the best acting wise when she was on the show and Cheryl Ladd was pretty good too.
Shelley Hack was good but the writing for her character was awful'.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
I guess you thought everybody was good; you're a nice audience.
Smith was adequate at best,but got better after Angels. She talks about her poor audition,and that Robert Wagner, one of the show's creators, persuaded the producers to cast her. Farrah was nominated,but never won an award(except for a golden globe,I think)
Hack was mostly unbelievable; a good actor can rise above the script. It's not the words,but what the actor does with them
Except for Kate Jackson, and Ladd was adequate.
But why did they make them ex-criminals? If they going to remake a show, it's has to be a REMAKE
Remakes are not frame per frame copies, otherwise what would be the point of watching if its exactly the same? share
Exactly.
Here's one reason: $$. That's why sequels and remakes are made, to exploit the title.
[deleted]
[deleted]