Pin It
TV shows on DVD
   

Charlie’s Angels: Premiere Ratings

Charlies Angels ratingsThe original Charlie’s Angels was a smash hit 35 years ago and ABC was surely hoping that lightning would strike twice. It didn’t. The new TV show received lots of negative reviews and last night, had a pretty disappointing debut.

The first episode of the new Charlie’s Angels garnered a disappointing 2.1 rating in the 18-49 demographic and 8.74 million viewers, per the fast affiliate numbers. It was a distant third in its timeslot in the all-important demographic.

On the plus side, it significantly improved on last season’s My Generation debut but that’s not really saying much. That show was cancelled and pulled after a few episodes episodes.

Things don’t look very good for Charlie’s Angels right now and the show’s prospects may look worse once we see how many viewers turned the channel midway through the show. New shows typically lose 15% in their second week and Charlie’s Angels doesn’t have much to lose in the all-important demo.

NOTE: Updated season ratings are now available.

What do you think? Did you watch Charlie’s Angels last night? Will you be back? Should the series continue or should it be cancelled instead?

 

Newer and/or Related Articles

{ 16 comments… read them below or add one }

Martin October 7, 2011 at 10:27 am

I am a huge fan of the original Charlie’s Angels and therefore I was really looking forward to seeing this remake of the series. What’s funny to me is that a lot of people are saying the show is awful, and a few are saying the show is great, and in my opinion the truth lies somewhere in the middle. I have both positive and negative things to say about the show, so first we will start with the good: 1.) The show has a lot more action than the original and the girls fight hardcore. 2.) The new angels are attractive. Okay, here’s the negative: 1.) Although the angels are attractive, the blonde needs to have long hair and the African American actress needs a different hairstyle completely- (The hair on these two is a mess) 2.) The acting is not consistently good, especially in the scenes that are supposed to be emotional, the acting is not believable. I have heard that the African American actress is from the Soap Operas and although she is pretty, her acting needs a lot of work. 3.) One huge item missing from the show is natural chemistry. The original trio had obvious chemistry and well developed personalities. Kate jackson was the “smart” one, Farrah was fun and sexy, and Jacklyn Smith had a perfect balance of the two. With the new angels, I still don’t know what there personalities are really like. It talks about their backgrounds, but does’nt show enough of their personalites to make the audience identify with them. 4.) Another item missing is humor. While I do think that the producers took the best approach in not making the show just down-right silly, they should still add a little humor to keep the show was being so uptight. While the actresses chosen for the show are, in my opinion more attractive than the Charlie’s angels that were in the movies, the angels in the movie did have natural chemistry and seemed to have fun together, much like the original series. 5.) Last but not least, I think that if the producers were going for a “modern” approach, they should have made Bosley’s character Gay. Yes, I said it! The approach of making Bosley a hot, ladies man is boring, and typical. If Bosley were Gay, it could create more interesting and comical dialogue between him and the angels, and attract a wider audience to the show.
Well, needless to say I have more negative feelings about the show than positive, which is sad because the show is not “horrible” and it had great potential, but it is a like a puzzle that has a lot of missing peices.

Reply

bruce September 25, 2011 at 11:44 am

Well, it was sort of lame, like the original one. BUT there is more action, the girls are hot, they wear itty bitty outfits, they fight, and talk in foreign languages, so of course I’ll be watching.

P.S. Minka Kelly is GORGEOUS Maggie, you’re crazy.

Reply

Miranda September 25, 2011 at 7:20 am

well….I actually liked it! but im trying to not get too atached to it just in case it does get cancelled!
the cast was good! umm there were a few surprises! I think people should give it a chance! and the network should let it go on for at least a while longer to see if things will change for them! overall it was good and it was different!

Reply

tedolan September 24, 2011 at 12:30 pm

Watched this for the first 30 min. – that’s 30 min of my life that I will never get back! this show was dreadful! Charlie’s voice is terrible, the guy who plays Bosley is the worst actor – oh wait – no the blonde was probably worse – it’s a toss up. I am amazed that with all the actors/actresses out there this is the cast they picked! How did it even get this far? Don’t bother wasting time watching this one,

Reply

Sharon September 24, 2011 at 12:00 am

looked forward to it. huge disappointment! no chemistry, charisma, horrible acting, terrible casting. even charlie’s voice was awful. won’t watch again.

Reply

Greg September 23, 2011 at 10:15 pm

I thought the show was pretty good. We will keep watching! My son and I both agreed that Charlie’s voice was painful to listen too. It sounded like a monotone, computerized voice.

Reply

David September 23, 2011 at 5:54 pm

Awesome!! Alot of fun, great scenery, cool cars what more could you ask for?

Reply

Anna September 23, 2011 at 3:35 pm

Minka Kelly is a low rent actress that tries to sleep her way to stardom. How’s that working for you? The actress that they killed off in the beginning should have been an angel instead of Kelly. This show won’t last long, thank heavens.

Reply

Watcher September 23, 2011 at 3:25 pm

Not even fun bad. Just bad. Though Bosley’s nice to look at.

Reply

TJ September 23, 2011 at 3:16 pm

So Sad! It was mediocre at best and only the girl who plays Kate has some sort of spark to her. The other two girls were awful. Maybe they should have waited another 35 years to try this.

Reply

Maggie September 23, 2011 at 2:06 pm

Minka is mildly attractive, she is not gorgeous. And she needs to strike the word “actress” from her resume. She is dreadfully. dull.

Reply

Sue September 23, 2011 at 12:29 pm

Very disappointing. Minka is not an actress. Even though she is gorgeous, she cannot act. It was quite entertaining – she came across as a phony.

Reply

Tha Critic September 23, 2011 at 12:16 pm

Didn’t bother. Won’t bother. And besides I hear it’s terrible.

Reply

Tom September 23, 2011 at 10:51 am

I watched it. Thought it was ok… Will give it a few more weeks if it is still on………..

Reply

Craig September 23, 2011 at 10:48 am

This show has two things going against it. 1) It is on ABC. 2) It doesn’t have Farrah. The new angels are attractive, but there isn’t much charisma.

Reply

Leave a Comment