Breaking: Charlie's Angels Canceled By ABC

Sorry, Charlie, but this week’s tiny uptick in ratings simply wasn’t enough to keep your Angels aloft.

ABC has shut down production on its reboot of Charlie’s Angels effective immediately, in the wake of a full month of meager ratings. The detective drama become this fall’s fifth casualty after NBC’s The Playboy Club and Free Agents, CBS” How to Be a Gentleman (which ceased production after being shuttled to Saturdays), and The CW’s H8R.

Already-produced Angels episodes will continue to air in the Thursdays-at-8 slot, at least up to and perhaps beyond scheduled end-of-month holiday preemptions (such as when another Charlie, Brown, fills the slot).

In its Sept. 23 debut, Angels attracted 8.7 million viewers while scoring a 2.1 rating in the coveted adults 18-49 demo. At last tally, the show drew 5.9 mil and a 1.3, down 32 and 38 percent, respectively.

Comments are monitored, so don’t go off topic, don’t frakkin’ curse and don’t bore us with how much your coworker’s sister-in-law makes per hour. Talk smart about TV!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

  1. Jenny says:

    Aww, man! I liked the show! :( lol

    • Snapy says:

      Too bad they never explained whether this was a sequel to the original series and movies or a total remake.

    • Mika says:

      To me the real issue is directly related to the producers over glamorizing the Angels concept. In the original, the three angels were more like everyday, girl next door women who worked for a detective agency. In the new version, the three women with shady pasts are suddenly strutting around in desinger clothes with attitude? It made no sense and it was simply not appealing.

      • Megalion says:

        Agreed. It was all too smooth. That worked for the movie version but there was genuine feeling among the actresses which helped the characters. Plus it was intentionally a little over the top & campy at times because as Drew said in some interview, she wanted it to be about three friends having a good time as well as doing their jobs.

        I only watched the pilot but all the camaraderie was very forced and there was no sense of “not taking ourselves too seriously because we’re just here to have fun and look good while kicking butt”.

        I wanted to like this because I thought Drew & Nancy did have some hand in it (they’re in the credits) but more than anything, I think the biggest crime was the script. It was very cut & paste and BORING which added to the “fake” feeling.

      • Kelly says:

        When I heard the concept of them all having shady pasts it sounded like a total knockoff of She Spies from the early 2000s. They were girls with bad pasts paroled from prison to work for the government I think. I think they should have stuck with the original concept.

    • bunnie says:

      I like the show it was full of energy and excitement they always take the wrong shows off dang

      • Naz says:

        Same! I liked the show, and i dont watch that much Tv and this caught my eye

        • Joan says:

          Agree, my family couldn’t wait to see it. Was very disappointed when it was discontinued. I hope they give it another try. I also, liked all three characters. I don’t watch much TV either. But, I sat to watch this one. I liked the first Charlies Angels also. Oh well. I guess I’ll go back to reading and the Internet.

    • Laura Dronet says:

      I really liked this show too!!! First “The Playboy Club” was cancelled then Chynna Phillips was voted off “Dancing with the Stars” and now “Charlies Angels” is cancelled!!! So far this season is not going well!

    • Slim says:

      minka is hott & thats about it

    • Becky says:

      i loved this show so much,
      i don’t understand why they would cancel this show me and my whole family love watching this show….

      this sicks :(


      • Sarah says:

        I liked this show a lot too! I thought it was worlds better than the original which, let’s face it, was awfully hokey. Four episodes is not long enough to build an audience for any series.

        • Jasmine says:

          I agree, I liked Charlie’s Angels. Sad they took it off air! If they continued to shoot more episodes they would’ve had more viewers, they should’ve gave it a chance!

    • Harold says:

      IMHO, OMG from the outset of the debut I found it hard to believe that ABC had failed to do a further remake of this remake. Really bad TV. Leave Giggle TV for the 70’s and try to be original and creative in the future.

  2. melanie says:

    so i guess the 6 scripts order for #hgappy endings was kind of good news huh?

    Sign Petition for Season Pickup #HappyEndings Dear @abc_series, #HappyEndings is one of the best Sitcom in your wednesday comedy block, time for the full Season 2 pickup annoucement is now!

  3. Bob Genghis Khan says:

    On the plus side that means Rachael Taylor can stage a come back to Grey’s Anatomy…

  4. M says:

    I’m surprised it lasted this long. It’s a pity when networks try to reboot well-beloved series with terrible scripts, or really try to sneak ANY terrible scripts past us. When are they going to learn that the audience isn’t compromised of zombies who don’t care about the quality of what they’re watching?

    • Um says:

      Probably when 20 million people stop tuning in for 2.5 men. On that day Network tv will realize that people want smart shows./

    • ggny says:

      tell this to all of the brilliant shows that have been cancel the last few years and shows like Chuck and Fringe that hang on be a thread but are considered to be great quality show

      • Tarc says:

        That’s because Chuck and Fringe are *actually* brilliant shows. You’re confused.

        • Tarc says:

          Sorry, misread that post. Agreed – a lot of quiality shows get cancelled. The real problem is that too many people settle for too little. The Repugs have done a great job at dumbing down Americans, now to the point where someone would actually watch heinous drivel like 2.5 Men or insipid, sexist crap like 2 Broke Girls.

          • Jon says:

            Yeah, it’s all the Republicans fault, lol. You sound like the one who has been dumbed down here. Take your idiotic political views to the appropriate forum.

    • Sarah says:

      Yeah, like there are a whole host of other shows out there that are really worth watching? I don’t think so. The new “Charlie’s Angels” may not have been the best show ever made by any stretch of imagination (Brooklyn Bridge was that) but it is still a whole lot better than 99% of what’s available on TV today.

  5. MrMank says:

    Well, honestly…who’s surprised?

  6. Spike says:

    this show was the WORST show i seen in years. the story was stupid to begin with and the weird one liners embarrassing to watch. they also didnt have any chemistry at all

  7. Mike says:



  8. TigerNightmare says:

    Oh no, they were just starting to develop the characters. Heh.

  9. jmartcougar says:

    yes! this show was so fake

  10. Mick says:

    I feel bad for Drew Barrymore. She seems nice. Hopefully Rachael Taylor can return to Grey’s Anatomy now…! :)

  11. Jmichaeln says:

    Good riddance. Terrible casting–no one as hot as Farrah or Jacqueline–and stupendously not fun with poor writing. So Drew Barrymore ruined Charlie’s Angels again. Too bad didn’t follow model of Hawaii 5-0

    • Snapy says:

      Actually, the CA movies were amazing and are the only reason I’m interested in this silly franchise. I would’ve tuned into this series if Drew had appeared.

  12. Susan says:

    What I want to know is who greenlights these projects in the first place?No show will ever rival the original Charlies Angels series,so why do producers waste a ton of money and time by starting these programs in the first place?The original was original, very well done for its time.Please stop trying to reinvent the wheel,Hollywood.

  13. John says:

    I’m shocked!

    Okay, no, I’m not. – John

  14. Samantha says:

    What a shocker!…not.

  15. Gabriela says:

    Can I have my Samantha Masters Spin off now ABC?

  16. Rock Golf says:

    Charlie Brown’s Angels?

    Don’t give ABC ideas!

  17. sara says:

    Does this mean Minka Kelly can come back to Parenthood?!

  18. miri says:

    Rache Taylor can’t go back to Greys Anatomy. Her character should stay in Africa she hurt Alex too much… Stay away

  19. Care says:

    Let me get my jaw off the ground. Lol- is anybody surprised this or r u like me and knew it was a matter of when not if this show was going to be canceled.

  20. Katie says:

    This show could of been good if they had better casting, and better writers. At least their going to continue to show the already filmed episodes instead of yanking the show altogether.

  21. DJ Doena says:

    At least I got to see the one episode I was only interested anyway. The one with Erica Durance.

    Now this show can die peacefully.

  22. JJ says:

    I completely agree about the casting. Even if you remove the lightning in the bottle pop culture phenom that was Farrah Fawcett the overall casting in comparison was just bland. Minka Kelly is very attractive but she didn’t even garner Shelly Hack level interest from her time on Friday Nights Lights.

    The kind of casting needed for this show isn’t good enough to take someone from Grey’s, someone from NBC and someone from an NBC soap. They needed to find some complete unknown with that special something or at least give these ladies some amazing style and haircuts since the scripts weren’t letting them shine.

    The concept is paint by numbers simplicity but the didn’t put in the casting effort or give it the right time slot.

  23. Jenny says:

    I actually really loved this show. I never saw the first one though. But I feel like that if it hadn’t been a reboot of the original and been similar with maybe a slightly different take it would’ve done much better. Because it was a reboot it drew much more criticism from the fans of the original show.

    • Eli says:

      Actually most of the criticism comes from people who don’t give a flying you-know-what about the original show. It comes from people who recognise something that stinks, period.
      I really don’t get why people keep holding to this ridiculous notion that it only failed cause its a reboot. It failed cause the writing, the plots, the acting and the casting sucked. I have seen many bad shows in the last 10 years, but usually even those shows had at least 1 or 2 good qualities about them. Hell, even Two and a Half Men had Jane frickin Lynch as a regular guest star for a while.
      Charlie’s Angels 2.0 has nothing redeeming about it, I’m sorry.

      • tarc says:

        I agreed for the most part. Fron the concept, to the scripts, to the direction, to the casting and acting, the reboot failed (from modestly to heinously). Of the lot, the idea to change Bosley to a hot young guy was great (though a Cuban looking fellow doesn’t look like a Bosley to me), and I thought Minka Kelly had the star wattage to be a breakout star. The rest was killed by (literally) stupid plots, wooden dialog, leaden direction, the casting of anorexic models to (laughably) scrap with 250 pound muscle men, and an outdated and simply awful style. Why on Earth would the angels stay in Miami if you weren’t going to keep it light? And if you went heavier (like they partially did) wouldn’t a change of venue be better? A lot of the choices seemed to contradict. If you wanted bad-assed angels, then hire actors that can act like it, look like it, and can actually kick some booty. And would someone please give Rachel Taylor a sandwich before she implodes?

        • Joan says:

          I guess everyone sees things differently according to their experiences. I thought the show was well written. The characters in Charlies Angels are fictitious. They are not true to life. The show is for entertainment. I enjoyed watching the all four characters. The reboot could stand on its own. They should have allowed it stay on longer and give it a chance. I guess everyone have their opinion. Some like it and some do not.

  24. Tania says:

    Networks need to stop rebooting old shows. The idea alone for bringing back Charlie’s Angels should have been squashed. Hawaii Five-0 is also a mess. The only reason that it is doing well is because of the following that Alex O’Loughlin has. I’m a fan of AOL and he’s being wasted in this rebooted nonsense. Btw, nothing can beat the original Hawaii Five-0. Just sayin’.

    Oh, one more thing. Dallas reboot? Really?

  25. Alicia L. says:

    Not surprised, I wonder if Shonda will give Rachael the option of coming back to Grey’s? I hope she does because Alex needs someone and now that Mer is on gynnie squad she needs a mentor!

  26. sasha says:

    I don’t want Rachael Taylor come back to Grey’s Anatomy… because I don’t want her character with Alex! Alex belongs with Izzie! Plus Kati on twitter said she wants to return bc she miss GA & Justin!

  27. Snapy says:

    I would’ve tuned in if Drew had cameoed as Dylan.

  28. Alex says:

    I think most lay TV viewers were able to predict this as soon as plans for the show were announced.
    I wish producers had more sense about how to spend their money.

    • Simone says:

      I completely agree. Literally, the second the concept for the show was announced, I said “Well, that’s gonna get cancelled.” Do TV executives have absolutely no sense of self awareness? Why do they keep green lighting this dreck?

      • Tarc says:

        Because the original was iconic and profiable, and the redeus could have also been. Unfortunately, it was was gravely boggled in execution.

  29. Bill says:

    What do you expect two of thr guys behind this show were behind smallville.

  30. Alex says:

    One of the worst reviewed shows of the season, followed by terrible ratings, so not surprising.

  31. Dragen says:

    I decided to completely drop this show and hate it with a passion when they couldn’t spell “then” in last night’s episode.

  32. Lisa says:

    This is why I DVR everything at the start of the season and don’t fall in love too quickly.

  33. Bobert says:

    Surprised it took this long, honestly.

  34. neetika singh says:

    this show wasn’t that bad people making out to be….the negativity had been followed since last year when the first look came by…people were so adamant on hating this show i was wondering what made the original one a hit….i agree this wasn’t that good but atleast it was fun to watch. This show has been remade in so many countries and it has a huge international fan base for any american tv show. So i really respect ti what ever it is….i will certainly miss the ‘Angels’.

    • You’re kidding, right? This show was bad on its own merit. The mix of plausibility and implausibility was toxic to suspension of disbelief. The tone was scatter-brained. The directing was shoddy, the action was stagey, and the acting was … not the best. It was like V.I.P. with a bigger budget.

      And bear in mind: I wanted this show to SUCCEED because I’m always pulling for Drew to do well. Sorry, the show as just as bad as the critics and audiences said regardless of preconceived notions.

      • Eli says:

        This, so much this!

      • Tarc says:

        I wanted the show to succeed as well, but the plots were pretty bad, the dialog was just awful, and the direction was dull and uninspired. Add in the miscasting of 2 of 3 angels (Minka Kelly was the only one with any star quality at all), cancellation was foregone. (I like the other two actresses, but this was not the right show).

    • Gigli says:

      All I can say about this is that I had no idea that CA’s been remade in other countries, specially so many.

  35. KMg says:

    I was looking forward to this show, but it was just insipid. Sure, the original was cheesy, but the difference was that everyone on the show KNEW it was, and they kind of did it on purpose. It *might* have worked if they had tried to make a more serious action adventure show, a la Alias or Burn Notice, or an action series with lots of humor, a la Chuck. Instead, this reboot tried to be both silly/cheesy and serious, and it didn’t have good enough writing or acting to do either one well.

  36. Kris says:

    Aw shucks…..actually liked the show…it wasn`t THAT bad :(

  37. luis says:

    oh man…the blond girl was hot..too bad u.u

  38. Mikaylah says:

    I’m kinda bummed about this. I really like the Bosley character, and was interested in exploring more of his history with Charlie and Charlie’s daughter. Also, it seemed as though they were building something between his character and Minka Kelly’s angel. Ah well…

  39. kevin says:

    It was the saddest TV news of the year and ABC feels the pain. But the CHARLIE’S ANGELS franchise will definitely live on forever. I hope Minka Kelly will have another project sometime next year but not if she returns to PARENTHOOD this season ’cause her character has been writing off the show as well as Rachael Taylor, Annie Ilonzeh and Ramon Rodriguez. Hope this reboot will be the greatest reboot ABC has ever made. :( :( :(

    • Gigli says:

      When you say “Minka Kelly in another project”, I hope you mean a magazine cover, because her acting is atrocious. She might be good enough for a guest role with a couple of episodes here and there, but all this attention she gets is pretty pathetic considering how bad her acting is.

      • Tarc says:

        I didn’t know Kelly from her previous work (three minutes on Parenthood doesn’t count), but I though she fared the best of the three in acting, and was the only one with star quality.

    • JJ says:

      I’m not sure you understand the word “franchise” because it doesn’t apply to Charlie’s Angels. There has never been a spin-off and the movie is never getting a second sequel. Where’s there a franchise? CSI is a franchise. Law & Order is a franchise. Charlie’s Angels is not.

      • Kathy says:

        Charlie’s Angels movie DID have a sequel. Full Throttle, maybe? I hope it stays a pleasant memory for those who liked it in the 70’s and give it a rest. I think it is ironic that the original show garnered the name T&A television. The poor stars ended up with two with “T” cancer and the other with “A” cancer. Sad, but they really didn’t cast overly sexed gals like Baywatch. Never cared for the premise of a man in charge, should have reinvented it with a woman in charge.

  40. mandy says:

    I hope this means that Annie IIonzeh isnt going to return to General Hospital…But if Minka went back to Parenthood I would be so happy!

  41. XaR says:

    First, I would say i feel sorry for Charlie’s Angel .. but yeah I tried really hard to like the show but it didnt have that Must-See-TV kinda charm..

    Second, If and Only if , Katherine Heigl is not coming back as Izzie (even if there’s a 0.000001% chance of it!), the I would definitely like to see Rachael Taylor back on GA… And come on! She was being an ass to Alex cuz Alex was being all macho about the relationship.. you snooze you lose! (besides Bailey getting her Ex back on GA proves that they can brack track a character!) .. She was actually refreshing on GA! Alex needs someone feisty!

    Too much abt GA! .. Again, Charlie’s Angel : R.I.P.

  42. cj says:

    this show had all the right elements to make it work, but the characters just lack chemistry and the scripts are rather blasé. i also, unfortunately, compare all female spy/cop shows to Alias, so thats kind of setting them up for a fail already.

  43. Michael says:

    IMHO the show failed because of the casting. (Recreating the magic of Kate Jackson, Farrah Fawcett-Majors and Jaclyn Smith AND David Doyle wasn’t going to be easy.)

    But there was nothing special or unique about these girls. Also, going with a remake was a mistake. They could have lined up Jaclyn and Cheryl, hopefully Kate and even Shelley Hack and Tonya Roberts for guest gigs.

    Dallas has been smart enough to tap into original cast members to help launch the new show. CA should have done that, too.

  44. Marie says:

    Does this mean Minca will come back to Parenthood? :)

  45. Jason says:

    Guess that’ll teach ya not to cast two complete unknowns and a 3rd actress that people don’t care about. Oh yeah…in a show that wasn’t “all that” the first time around.

    Sheesh, I called this from Day 1 of the announcement.

    • fernando says:

      Um not to be rude but the first charlie’s angels was a hit until Kate Jackson left, it went down a little but still was on tv top show of the 70’s, if you like you can look it up, before kate left I believe it was number one in ratings.

    • Travis says:

      They should have cast Jamie Chung

    • Tarc says:

      The original Charlie’s Angels was successful, profitable, and quickly became iconic. It was one of the jewels in the Spelling crown. And there isn’t any reason at all that a good redeux couldn’t be quite successful again. They just seriously botched it.

  46. Anna says:

    OH no, please do not bring Lucy back to Grey’s Anatomy. Bring back Izzie! Katherine Heigl wants to return and Alex and Izzie were wonderful.

  47. fernando says:

    to be honest I am hoping there could be a spin off with Minka Kelly as Eve I really was only falling in love with her.

  48. Travis says:

    Whether the show was good or not, I and many others don’t know. Why? because in this day and age with internet and reviewers getting early views of shows and then write about them, people back away form them if they have bad reviews and dont waste their time giving a show a shot.

    People need to give shows a chance based solely on their own. For sometime, I bought into the “Glee Sucks” mentality without ever watching. Then last week I watched (Mainly because I heard the sexy Harry Shum Jr had a solo) and I actually liked the episode, so I will be giving the show a chance now to see if I like it, if I do, I will be going back to watch the previous seasons.

    As for Angels. I never watched and while part of that might be based on the reasoning that I have read soo many bad reviews, the main reason is the concept just doesn’t interest me. I saw the movies in the past, but that was only because my boyfriend at the time loved them.

    It’s too late not for Angels, but in the future, give a show a chance, dont just buy into what others are saying… and a perfect place to start is with NBCs Prime Suspect.

  49. Wesley says:

    Alex and Izzie Forever!!!!

    • comment post: inthinks you can not understand this tv searies this show is best on the three woman who became an dectetives but first they where a bad street girls who become and angels we do know the original in charlies angels is so famouse like charly ladd and even farrah fawcett and katesjackson even jacyln smitts and julia roberts those famouse angels became a popular and even in the movies like cameron diaz and drew barrymore plus lucy liu where those new one even in the tv searies on 2011 i thinks if we watch this films from the original to the movies we can understand those styles even there new interactives technology kicks with a special guns i likes this 2011 remake classics but we stil not to judge this show even in the past hits support charlies angels and bring them back:)