EW has fresh details about ABC’s Charlie’s Angels reboot: Unlike the original 1970s series, where the team of private investigators were disgruntled graduates of the police academy, the update currently has the crime-fighters as a trio of not-so-angelic criminals. In the pilot, Charlie brings them together and offers an opportunity to redeem themselves — by working for him, of course.
One major character is still being tweaked, however, and keep in mind pilots tend to undergo plenty of changes before they air. One of the trio has been previously reported as a con artist, while another is an ex-Marine and weapons expert.
Though the recent feature films were light-hearted (and, like the new series, executive produced by Drew Barrymore), sources say the new show will be a “fairly serious, non-campy” take on the concept.
But ABC’s Angels will match the original series in at least a couple key respects… Angels will consist of self-contained episodes — a new adventure each week, rather than having a serialized storyline. (There are some serialized elements, of course, like with all shows, but it’s mainly episodic).
Also, Charlie will remain a voice in a box — no video at least, when talking to the Angels – and the story will explain why, in the age of iChat and Skype, he’s still using such low-tech communication. (81-year-old Hart to Hart star Robert Wagner is near a deal to play Charlie.)
The pilot begins shooting in March, which gives stars Minka Kelly, Rachael Taylor and Annie Ilonzeh time for some specialized training for the physical demands of the show.
The script is being polished by executive producers Al Gough and Miles Millar, and then, like all pilots, could get tweaked more in the coming months. ABC will decide in late
April or early May whether to pick it up to series for fall.
Here’s the original opening for the series, with Charlie explaining in concise (if somewhat condescending) fashion the backstory for the show….
i expect this to be as good as She Spies..hahaha
I loved She Spies.
Well, the first season.
It boggles the mind – first they try and remake something old, and then they change it anyway.
They’re inspired by an original concept and are trying to make it their own. Charlie’s Angels would never work in modern-day as-is. Even the movie series was modernized. Besides, the only reason the show is being made is because Drew couldn’t get a third movie green-lit.
Giving the ladies serious skills and taking a much more serious approach is the only way this reboot could be successful. I’m hoping they leave the camp totally out, and look at what’s working for Nikita. I’d love to see more of a modern Mission Impossible (though not like the deadful MI movies).
Wow, a whole month to train to be the world’s most deadly trio of women. This is gonna be really convincing har har. ESpecially the one who is a weapons expert on ALL FORMS OF WEAPON lmao.
There have been countless dermas in my life that never came true but this very one DID, to have a caring wonderful sister like you honey who always reaches out to others for support and love.I feel so blessed to have you Io. ♥✿Thank you so much.✿♥
Some how I think the team over at Leverage is fuming that they are ripping off the premise of their show. Seriously, if they’re going to reboot a mediocre show could they, at the very least, not steal major components of another mediocre show?!!
Sounds like they are using elements of Nikita
Just please, don’t make Bosley a young kid. He is supposed to be a mentor figure.
And add classic Angel appearances. Keep the show fun and it’ll be fine but be real, nobody wants to watch CSI Angels. It can be serious but needs to have some fun like the original.
Charlie’s Angels is suppose to be a light-hearted, bad-a** show. I just feel like this show is not going to be good. Why can’t we have a Charlie’s angels 3 movie?
The only reason a show is being made is because no one wants to make a Charlie’s Angels 3.
Original opening?
That’s Cheryl Ladd, not Farah Faucett. You really should know better if you’re going to write an article like this one.
Faucet? You plumber, 2 mistakes in 1 word?
Her name was Fawcett
And her first name was Farrah, not Farah.
She has a dream, a song to sing. Fairy tails and Angels. Bright eyes and true Loving. A wonderful video. A Lovely dream. Great Idea. Fun to watch and so Prettty. Than you
..and you should learn how to spell Farrah Fawcett…
Three gorgeus ladies! How can you be sexy in just a lil over a minute?
If cheryl Ladd is featured (as she is in the still before you click on the link,) then it isn’t the original opening. Cheryl Ladd was Farrah’s replacement.
Also, I think it’s sad that TPTB couldn’t leave the Angels as positive role models, instead making them criminals. It’s a disgusting commentary on today’s “entertainment” that nobody is allowed to be a true Good Guy.
So I guess you don’t care much for a little thing called redemption?
Well then, I’ve got a great little show for you called “The Cape.” The good guy has always been a good guy, and honestly – I know lots of people trash it, and there’s definitely a degree of absurdity to the show – but I still really enjoy it.
Ex criminals as i gotta bad wrap or guilty as charged? Just curious.
Uh, Nikita rip-off.
Not really?
Charlie’s Angels came out first genius and the shows couldn’t be more different. Nikita is awesome but come on!
Just like when they promised that the new Bionic Woman was going have an “edge”.
It did have an edge – but only Katee Sackoff had it.
Just what i looked for! This is the right blog for annoye who wants to find out about this topic. You realize so much its almost hard to argue with you (not that I actually would want…HaHa). You definitely put a new spin on a topic thats been written about for years. Great st
Leverage rip-off.
Are you seriously saying a re-boot of a show that came out decades before Leverage is ripping IT off? You must be kidding.
Conisdering that; 1) no, and 2) Leverage isa rip-off of about two dozen shows that came before it, I think you need to clue-up.
Personally, I’m glad it’s not going to be campy – that gets old fast.