MovieChat Forums > Charlie's Angels (2011) Discussion > They should have started a conspiracy fr...

They should have started a conspiracy from the begining


In the first episode we loss an angel. I think she should have implied that
Charlie arranged it. At the end of the episode having the Angel appear with
Charlie in the back of a limo some where. She still can't see him but make
it look like Charlie has plans of his own.

reply

[deleted]

I agree. I can't believe that this story arc is being introduced just when the show had gotten canceled. Ah well.I can see how it happened this way though, because:1) They had to establish the Angels' competence in the first couple of episodes, reveal their specialties, skill sets, and so forth2) They had to make them appear as a unified unit (with Bosley too, of course)So it needed a few episodes to establish harmony between the characters, and THEN drop the Charlie storyline for a pronounced effect.Unfortunately, it got cancelled, so we'll never really envision what the plans were. The show's actually gotten better too, with each successive episode. The last two have been the best ones._____~ I close my eyes lost in a memoryJust like a candle in the wind ~

reply

I totally agree with this thread. The hint that Charlie and Bosley keep info from the Angels (I assume they don't know the woman Bosley was in love with was Charlie's daughter) certainly engaged my interest. And then Abby's father letting her know that Charlie may not be a knight in shining armor makes it even more intriguing. It makes me wonder what direction the show was going to go in. Is there a way to get ABC to uncancel the cancellation? With the last two episodes, this show has potential.




"My girlfriend sucked 37 d*cks!"
"In a row?"

reply

IT GOT CANCELED???

I finally watched last night's episode, and here I am actually full of intrigue and all ready to discuss and speculate on Abby's father's final and cryptic words and it got axed... ugh...

http://jpdeviantartist.deviantart.com/gallery/#_featured

reply

[deleted]