Pin It
TV shows on DVD
   

Charlie’s Angels: ABC Prez on the Cancelled TV Series

canceled Charlies Angels Though the new Charlie’s Angels series came into this season with an already known title and concept, it flopped. In addition to lots of bad reviews, many viewers didn’t like the idea of another revival even before they had a chance to see the pilot.

When the series did debut, it garnered a weak 2.1 rating in the 18-49 demographic and 8.76 million viewers. The ratings went down from there, losing 29% in week two and then another 20% in week three. ABC cancelled the series after eight episodes had been filmed.

Last week, in the usual Charlie’s Angels timeslot, ABC reran It’s the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown. Despite the fact that the animated special is readily available on DVD, Great Pumpkin nearly doubled the demo rating of the previous week’s Charlie’s Angels episode.

For those who liked the show, ABC supposedly plans to broadcast all eight installments. Episode six airs tonight and episode seven is slated for next Thursday. No word on the last episode just yet.

In a recent interview with ABC Entertainment Group’s Paul Lee, THR asked the president why the now-cancelled series didn’t work. He said, “It’s always so difficult to tell. I think we just didn’t breathe life into that idea. We didn’t catch the audience or get the momentum we wanted from the show.”

What do you think? Why didn’t the show work? Was it the casting, acting, the scripts, or has the time passed for this concept? Could a new Charlie’s Angels really work today?

 

Newer and/or Related Articles

{ 19 comments… read them below or add one }

Kat November 5, 2011 at 12:49 pm

“Despite the fact that the animated special is readily available on DVD, Great Pumpkin nearly doubled the demo rating of the previous week’s Charlie’s Angels episode.” Hahaha, priceless.

Reply

Joanne November 5, 2011 at 12:44 am

I think it failed because no likes it when Hollywood does remakes. I hate it too. Why can’t you guys come up with original ideas.

Reply

Ellen November 4, 2011 at 1:28 pm

Very bad acting and writing. In the original, the angels were not given career opportunities because of the times. Here their previous criminal acts were presented as character flaws and that made them unlikeable.
I stopped watching about 15 minutes into the second episode and didn’t tune in again.

Reply

michael milton November 4, 2011 at 1:25 am

I think the main reason why it failed was because we were not given a cast that was more recognizable and that had better chemistry. the two movies were successful because of the chemistry that the actresses had. same goes for the original tv series. the other problem that this show faced is that ABC made a poor decision in pairing it up on Thursday nights with two medical shows.
I would rather see it on during the time of year that you have Rookie Blue also being shown. Putting these two shows together would have been a better match up. It is okay for the show to have some action and fun in it, but i also would have liked to have seen a little more edge to the show. I do like the back story to people trying to figure out who charles townsend is, but i guess with the show being canceled that is not going to happen.

Reply

Dan November 4, 2011 at 12:13 am

I think the problem is that people weren’t willing to give the show a chance in the first place. I actually really liked the new show. I’ll admit that the pilot episode was very cheesy, but the episodes following on from that were quite good. It did have the potential to be a hit but, like I said, people weren’t willing to let it grow. ABC wanted to have an instant hit on their hands, and after all the bad publicity the pilot received from critics (who normally do nothing but complain anyway), it put people off. ABC are just as much at fault as the fickle U.S. viewing audience. They’re famous for pulling the trigger on TV shows that could potentially grow an audience.

Reply

daniel bieze November 4, 2011 at 12:05 am

Well I loved it and wish it was still on’ WAY TO GO ANGELS 2011

Reply

angela November 3, 2011 at 9:26 pm

I’m sad that the show is ending watching it on scene now and I love the cast however I never saw the original so maybe I .really like it cuz I’m not comparing it.

Reply

Drusilla1v November 3, 2011 at 8:46 pm

I really liked this new one. Sure it’s a bit campy but they felt like mini Bond movies where the good guys always win. Plus new Bosley is hot, smart and tough. Maybe USA should pick it up. Ya know, Characters Welcome!

Reply

Larry Wilson November 3, 2011 at 7:59 pm

I think a big part of the problem was that audiences were expecting something like the McG-powered reboot, but got something closer to the original series, and in this day and age, that was just a non-starter. I know it turned me off.

Another issue I had was that they decided to give them all baggage. The original Angels didn’t have that, and neither did the big-screen Angels, so why did they think it was necessary to do it here?

IMHO, I think it sounded like a good idea to ABC, but it was really a mediocre idea that was hobbled even further by its execution.

Reply

Marilyn November 3, 2011 at 4:52 pm

For what it’s worth, as a fan of Charlie’s Angels (ole school), I loved, loved, loved this new version and hate it had to end. I pray that all the actors,actresses do well in whatever they have upcoming in the future.

Reply

Craig November 3, 2011 at 3:42 pm

I didn’t watch because of the casting. The angels are all very pretty, but none of them had the look that makes viewers interested in their story. The previous angels had that look. Long after the original series was over, people were still interested in what was going on with several of the angels lives. Farrah, Kate Jackson, Jaclyn Smith, and Cheryl Ladd were women you wanted to watch. Even Shelly Hack and Tanya Roberts generated a lot of buzz. Tanya Roberts was even one of the big hits in That 70′s Show when she was in her late 40′s. It wasn’t even just the angels. Bosley played by David Doyle was so much more interesting to watch than the new Bosley.

Reply

steven bell November 3, 2011 at 3:03 pm

I really wanted the new series to be a hit. I hope the Angels 2011 series did not kill the franchise. There were too many problems with the new series.
1 new opening theme was not fun and catchy like the original series.
2 the cool cut to jingle leading to commercial was not included which was always fun to see not included.
3 terrible writing which made the actors look like amateurs.
4 the new Bosely was way too serious and not loveable like previous actors.
5 the voice of Charlie was a joke and insult to John Forsythe.
I think 3 strong female characters kicking ass which began with Charlies Angels should still have another chance. Praying for a miracle.

Reply

Tha Critic November 3, 2011 at 2:09 pm

I mean look at failed attempts like “Night Rider”, “Bionic Woman”, and “Wonder Woman” (that remake didn’t even air because test audiences weren’t impressed). I know those were NBC’s blunders but the same principles apply to every network. The show “Firefly” that aired on FOX was cancelled but it is now a cult phenomenon of sorts. People loved that show. It was an original creation, not a remake or reboot. Get it together or people are gonna keep surrendering to dumb reality programming. Real Talk.

Reply

Why November 3, 2011 at 2:05 pm

Easy. Dull, idiotic and an insult to intelligence.

Reply

Tha Critic November 3, 2011 at 1:59 pm

I think it failed largely due to the fact that people are tired of networks and studios firing out rehashings of old shows and movies. We want something creative and new that can make the same lasting impressions that shows like the original Hawaii Five-O made (even though I’m a big fan of the new H50) and maybe the original “Angels” show as well. People recognize these shows for a reason and they don’t want those properties tampered with, especially if they aren’t executed well.

Reply

Leave a Comment