Charlie's Angels Forums

ABC (ended 2011)

ratings are in..

  • Avatar of jack756

    jack756

    [1]Sep 24, 2011
    • member since: 02/10/08
    • level: 14
    • rank: Autobot
    • posts: 1,509

    first off,


    the action was okay i do think it could be done better


    the acting was decent.ppl need to understand bad acting.bad actingis when the actor or actress u can tell they are just saying lines.i never felt like the stars of chariles angels were just saying lines.everything they said was beieveable.back in the 40s and 50s when actors were acting in the 50s that kind of acting was considered good now of days anyone who watches soething from the 40s or 50s always say the acting was terrible.but the acting was decent in this show.


    the story wasnt confusing like some have said.have anyone seen alias. now i love that show but i could never understand what was happening if it was for the characters realtionship with one another i wouldnt like that show.


    the plot was good,the action can be better with the camera,and the acting was deent.


    i just think some dont want to like the show b/c its a remake so most fans are from the original,then u got critics who feed ppl stuff and evryone listen,the ppl that criticing the show most not like action and they must be girls b/c as a guy i think this is a cool show like nikita.


    now to the ratings.sorry bout my rant


    the show did very well almost getting 9 million viewers.thats really good.i dont know how long the show will last b/c the same thing happened to wonderwoman it was getting complain about so nbc got rid of it and i dont even want to mention the cape.i think the show will make it.

    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of jack756

    jack756

    [2]Sep 24, 2011
    • member since: 02/10/08
    • level: 14
    • rank: Autobot
    • posts: 1,509
    jack756 wrote:

    first off,


    the action was okay i do think it could be done better


    the acting was decent.ppl need to understand bad acting.bad actingis when the actor or actress u can tell they are just saying lines.i never felt like the stars of chariles angels were just saying lines.everything they said was beieveable.back in the 40s and 50s when actors were acting in the 50s that kind of acting was considered good now of days anyone who watches soething from the 40s or 50s always say the acting was terrible.but the acting was decent in this show.


    the story wasnt confusing like some have said.have anyone seen alias. now i love that show but i could never understand what was happening if it was for the characters realtionship with one another i wouldnt like that show.


    the plot was good,the action can be better with the camera,and the acting was deent.


    i just think some dont want to like the show b/c its a remake so most fans are from the original,then u got critics who feed ppl stuff and evryone listen,the ppl that criticing the show most not like action and they must be girls b/c as a guy i think this is a cool show like nikita.


    now to the ratings.sorry bout my rant


    the show did very well almost getting 9 million viewers.thats really good.i dont know how long the show will last b/c the same thing happened to wonderwoman it was getting complain about so nbc got rid of it and i dont even want to mention the cape.i think the show will make it.



    http://insidetv.ew.com/2011/09/23/charlies-angels-ratings/
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of NinjaTurtleFan

    NinjaTurtleFan

    [3]Sep 26, 2011
    • member since: 10/29/06
    • level: 5
    • rank: Caveman Lawyer
    • posts: 146

    From what I see, it's the worst watched show on ABC besides 20/20 on Friday. It got 8.74 million people, and the next closest one to it on ABC is The Middle with 9.64 million people. This is NOT to say that it's not beating other network shows, but I'm just comparing it to the other ABC shows. ABC is a strong network.


    The way I look at it, people don't know what they are getting themselves into the first week of a show. They give a show a chance based on trailers, or reading the description of the plot. If they thought it stinks, they are going to fallout after week 1, or they might bail by week 2 or 3. By week 3, you can tell if people think a show is really bad. Unless the ratings are really, really, really bad for a new show, it's kind of pointless to worry about ratings this early. I'm still watching it week 2, but I don't even know if I really like this new Charlie's Angels. And to me, I hate pilots the most! Shows usually get better after pilots!

    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of therockstop

    therockstop

    [4]Sep 26, 2011
    • member since: 06/17/04
    • level: 14
    • rank: Autobot
    • posts: 297
    I really wanted to like this show but I thought it was flat out terrible. I don't see any way this show makes it. I would expect a steep decline this week but that is just a prediction. I know I will not donate anymore time to it and I love Minka Kelly.
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of jack756

    jack756

    [5]Sep 30, 2011
    • member since: 02/10/08
    • level: 14
    • rank: Autobot
    • posts: 1,509
    so 1x01 8.76 i think millions viewers
    1x02 7.11 i think million viewers.

    i may be alittle off on the numbers after the period.but charie angels numbers drop not to much.im sure abc new this and abc bnot gone cancel this show anytime soon b/c they put to much promos into it so theyll give it time to finds its audiecne but i get the feeling charies angel ratings will be more like 6 mill. every ep.so i think we got 1 more mill to go before the show to stay steady.

    the ratings are pretty decent.i think the show may go 1 full season.
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of hell693

    hell693

    [6]Oct 7, 2011
    • member since: 09/23/11
    • level: 11
    • rank: Red Shirted Lt.
    • posts: 323
    jack756 wrote:
    so 1x01 8.76 i think millions viewers
    1x02 7.11 i think million viewers.

    i may be alittle off on the numbers after the period.but charie angels numbers drop not to much.im sure abc new this and abc bnot gone cancel this show anytime soon b/c they put to much promos into it so theyll give it time to finds its audiecne but i get the feeling charies angel ratings will be more like 6 mill. every ep.so i think we got 1 more mill to go before the show to stay steady.

    the ratings are pretty decent.i think the show may go 1 full season.


    The ratings are not that good but i hope you are right about a full season cuz after last night's episode i think they should give this show a chance.
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of jack756

    jack756

    [7]Oct 7, 2011
    • member since: 02/10/08
    • level: 14
    • rank: Autobot
    • posts: 1,509
    jack756 wrote:
    so 1x01 8.76 i think millions viewers
    1x02 7.11 i think million viewers.

    i may be alittle off on the numbers after the period.but charie angels numbers drop not to much.im sure abc new this and abc bnot gone cancel this show anytime soon b/c they put to much promos into it so theyll give it time to finds its audiecne but i get the feeling charies angel ratings will be more like 6 mill. every ep.so i think we got 1 more mill to go before the show to stay steady.

    the ratings are pretty decent.i think the show may go 1 full season.
    the 3rd ep.

    1x03 5.99 million viewers.

    i knew the show was gone drop to around 5 or 6 i didnt think it would happen so soon.

    now im thinking the show has its audience.i think its in the 5 million range.its hard to say if thats good or not.no ordinary family ratings were lower than this and they got ex but at the same time abc have had some shows that had 5 to 6 million viewers and they keep the show around.

    it all comes to abc now if they want to keep the show going or ex it.

    the ratings are between good and bad b/c 5 million is the odd number but since the show as 5.99 its close to 6 million.

    its up to abc now.i pray this show at least get 1 full season(trust me i need it after they cancel my eastwick and no ordinary family.i need a show to survive on this channel)
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of kaospilotX

    kaospilotX

    [8]Oct 7, 2011
    • member since: 04/11/04
    • level: 8
    • rank: Super-Friend
    • posts: 82
    Horrible show, bad acting and overall very boring. I couldn't get through the first episode cause it was so dull. May it rest in peace.
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of puppybunny1

    puppybunny1

    [9]Oct 7, 2011
    • member since: 11/15/08
    • level: 13
    • rank: Regal Beagle
    • posts: 564

    ABC should give this show a chance. I grew up with the original, but I think that this show has great potentials.

    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of jack756

    jack756

    [10]Oct 7, 2011
    • member since: 02/10/08
    • level: 14
    • rank: Autobot
    • posts: 1,509
    kaospilotX wrote:
    Horrible show, bad acting and overall very boring. I couldn't get through the first episode cause it was so dull. May it rest in peace.
    if u feel this way why comment on a show that u havent even seen passed ep 1.if u dont like it let us who do like it enjoy it in peace.
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of jack756

    jack756

    [11]Oct 7, 2011
    • member since: 02/10/08
    • level: 14
    • rank: Autobot
    • posts: 1,509
    puppybunny1 wrote:

    ABC should give this show a chance. I grew up with the original, but I think that this show has great potentials.

    im 20 so i didnt know about this until the movies.i think the show has great potential it gets better with every ep.my aunt is like 50 something she watched the original and thinks this version has too much atcion,. it must be a woman thing but im a guy i love the actionthe show as great potential like u said.
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of NinjaTurtleFan

    NinjaTurtleFan

    [12]Oct 8, 2011
    • member since: 10/29/06
    • level: 5
    • rank: Caveman Lawyer
    • posts: 146

    With how the ratings are for this show, I don't think it's going to make it. A 5 /6 million audience for ABC is pathetic, and I think that the Grey's Anatomy went down in ratings because Charlie's Angels is a lead in, and it's not getting that high numbers either, but it's a LOT better than Charlie's Angels. Sure, for CW or NBC right now, this show would be a miracle, but not for ABC in what I believe. I think it will be cancelled before October ends.

    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of djboy77

    djboy77

    [14]Oct 8, 2011
    • member since: 06/26/10
    • level: 7
    • rank: Talk Show Host
    • posts: 289

    It's completely wooden. There's a slickness to it, but it's like the fresh coat of varnish on the lifeless mannequins. There's just a glazed stare with nothing behind it. That's what they get for casting models instead of actual actresses.

    Canceled in 5, 4, 3.....


    jack756 wrote:
    kaospilotX wrote:
    Horrible show, bad acting and overall very boring. I couldn't get through the first episode cause it was so dull. May it rest in peace.
    if u feel this way why comment on a show that u havent even seen passed ep 1.if u dont like it let us who do like it enjoy it in peace.


    Excuse me? How about because they couldn't get through it?! When you walk out of a movie, are you expected to just hold your tongue and say nothing, or give it an average score? No. You say "I walked out of this movie because..." Where do you draw the line? They're not allowed to comment on it unless they've seen all the episodes? At least 50% of the episodes? If you eat at a terrible restaurant, do you have to consume all the meal courses before you can say it was bad? Having an opinion without watching any of it is is no opinion at all. But trying and just not being able to stomach getting all the way through it is a perfectly valid response.

    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of jack756

    jack756

    [15]Oct 8, 2011
    • member since: 02/10/08
    • level: 14
    • rank: Autobot
    • posts: 1,509
    djboy77 wrote:

    It's completely wooden. There's a slickness to it, but it's like the fresh coat of varnish on the lifeless mannequins. There's just a glazed stare with nothing behind it. That's what they get for casting models instead of actual actresses.

    Canceled in 5, 4, 3.....


    jack756 wrote:
    kaospilotX wrote:
    Horrible show, bad acting and overall very boring. I couldn't get through the first episode cause it was so dull. May it rest in peace.
    if u feel this way why comment on a show that u havent even seen passed ep 1.if u dont like it let us who do like it enjoy it in peace.


    Excuse me? How about because they couldn't get through it?! When you walk out of a movie, are you expected to just hold your tongue and say nothing, or give it an average score? No. You say "I walked out of this movie because..." Where do you draw the line? They're not allowed to comment on it unless they've seen all the episodes? At least 50% of the episodes? If you eat at a terrible restaurant, do you have to consume all the meal courses before you can say it was bad? Having an opinion without watching any of it is is no opinion at all. But trying and just not being able to stomach getting all the way through it is a perfectly valid response.



    if u cant get through something u cant comment on something b/c u have no ideal what happened.that like saying ''well i saw the news today and a boy got killed,he must been robbing somebody''u cant say that b/c u have no ideal why the boy got killed.far all u know he could have rape somebody daughter and the father was angry about it.

    the point im making u cant review something especially a show that u havent seen passed ep 1 b/c we all know shows take time to get started and find its audience and pace.

    btw food and tv are different things.when u eat food u cant tell right away if its good or bad food.a show on the other hand u cant tell if its a good show after 1 ep.u have to watch at least 4 eps before u can say its a good show or not.and the person only seen 1 ep so how would they know anything.and food there is no chance of food getting good if it taste bad but a show can make proggress and improve.
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of bkyle2429

    bkyle2429

    [16]Oct 8, 2011
    • member since: 06/12/05
    • level: 15
    • rank: Ginsu Knife
    • posts: 704

    I know that the ratings are dropping on Charlies Angels, But this show is awesome I have no problem with the acting or Dialogue great show the best new show of the fall season IMO followed by Revenge

    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of jack756

    jack756

    [17]Oct 8, 2011
    • member since: 02/10/08
    • level: 14
    • rank: Autobot
    • posts: 1,509
    bkyle2429 wrote:

    I know that the ratings are dropping on Charlies Angels, But this show is awesome I have no problem with the acting or Dialogue great show the best new show of the fall season IMO followed by Revenge

    i have to agree.i dont know why ppl are trashing this show so much for
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of anile84

    anile84

    [18]Oct 14, 2011
    • member since: 02/08/08
    • level: 9
    • rank: Door Number 2
    • posts: 72
    jack756 wrote:
    bkyle2429 wrote:

    I know that the ratings are dropping on Charlies Angels, But this show is awesome I have no problem with the acting or Dialogue great show the best new show of the fall season IMO followed by Revenge

    i have to agree.i dont know why ppl are trashing this show so much for


    I think it's because of the first episode. It was kind of cheesy and fast paced and maybe the judged it to soon and gave up but after the second it got really good. Maybe if more people have seen the second the ratings would have been better. But i think they gave up after the fisrt
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of djboy77

    djboy77

    [20]Oct 14, 2011
    • member since: 06/26/10
    • level: 7
    • rank: Talk Show Host
    • posts: 289

    jack756 wrote:
    if u cant get through something u cant comment on something b/c u have no ideal what happened.that like saying ''well i saw the news today and a boy got killed,he must been robbing somebody''u cant say that b/c u have no ideal why the boy got killed.far all u know he could have rape somebody daughter and the father was angry about it. the point im making u cant review something especially a show that u havent seen passed ep 1 b/c we all know shows take time to get started and find its audience and pace. btw food and tv are different things.when u eat food u cant tell right away if its good or bad food.a show on the other hand u cant tell if its a good show after 1 ep.u have to watch at least 4 eps before u can say its a good show or not.and the person only seen 1 ep so how would they know anything.and food there is no chance of food getting good if it taste bad but a show can make progress and improve.


    Of course you can comment on it. It's outright absurd to say that you can't.

    I stopped watching Lost after season 1. It bored the crap out of me and annoyed me. I'm entitled to say that, even though I didn't watch the whole thing through. Of course I am.

    Your analogy is flawed. There's a difference between judging the in-universe or in-narrative events, and the narrative or universe itself. Of course you can't make judgements about events you did not see - you shouldn't comment on it if you never watched it. However you can absolutely make judgements about your own interest in those events. Because you have that reaction regardless of whether you watched it all the way through. That is the correct comparison. The correct analogy is "I saw the news today and a boy got killed. The story bored me so I turned it off."

    I have no idea what happened after season 1 on Lost. Nor do I care. I don't make assessments about what the characters did or did not do, whether it was wise or unwise, clever, funny, smart, surprising or anything else, because I did not see it. But I do make assessments about the series as a whole. I didn't like it, and I stopped watching it.

    That is how it works.


    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.