On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 7:17 PM, PGage <[email protected]> wrote: > Sadly, I did watch Charlie's Angels. It hardly seems fair to dump on a show > for which nothing in its pedigree suggests it has any of the ingredients > that lead to quality television. The original was camp, and the Barymore > films were hack. I guess it was just nostalgia that brought me back (and the > hope that finally getting to enjoy Minka Kelly without the guilt of lusting > after a high school student might be worth the IQ drain). But here low > expectations did not help. This is one really, really, bad show. This is > probably the worst hour of television I have watched since I got the > mini-dish about 15 years ago. If possible, the dialogue was actually worse > than the original - to be fair, the story was probably only just as thin. > Charlie sounds more like the voice over on a really bad cartoon than a > disembodied suave playboy. Back in the 70s we watched Charlie's Angeles > because there were fewer easy ways for sweaty adolescents to see jiggling > boobs and tight asses. With the internet, even the sweatiest adolescent can > see all of that and more on demand - so a show like this has to try to have > a little quality of some kind to justify its existence. >
http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2011/10/04/abc-is-body-of-proof-this-years-eli-stone/105938/ *"Charlie's Angels <http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/charlies-angels-abc/>*...is a dead show airing. Enjoy it while you can. You may see all 13 episodes that were ordered, or you may not.All the rest of ABC's scripted shows got off to a pretty good (or better) start." -- TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TV or Not TV" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
