Question: Okay, no cracks ...
Question: Okay, no cracks about me being a baby, but I have to admit the first time I saw Charlie's Angels it was a movie because I'm too young to remember the show. But I wanted your opinion. How faithful was it to the TV version? Better? Worse? Thanks. — Still wet behind the ears Televisionary: Oh, come now, Wet. If I don't mock people for being old, why would I mock them for being young — especially when I'd much rather go on a long-overdue rant? You see, I've heard and read opinions from people I might otherwise respect arguing over whether or not Charlie's Angels, the film, remains "true" to the original show. Now, color me reactionary, but such discussions suggest a collective madness. I don't mean to insult you, but asking such a question is like wondering if powdered sugar is as sweet as granulated. What's the difference when there's no substance to speak of? As the saying goes, there's no there there. Charlie's Angels
Question: Okay, no cracks about me being a baby, but I have to admit the first time I saw Charlie's Angels it was a movie because I'm too young to remember the show. But I wanted your opinion. How faithful was it to the TV version? Better? Worse? Thanks. — Still wet behind the ears
Televisionary: Oh, come now, Wet. If I don't mock people for being old, why would I mock them for being young — especially when I'd much rather go on a long-overdue rant?
You see, I've heard and read opinions from people I might otherwise respect arguing over whether or not Charlie's Angels, the film, remains "true" to the original show. Now, color me reactionary, but such discussions suggest a collective madness. I don't mean to insult you, but asking such a question is like wondering if powdered sugar is as sweet as granulated. What's the difference when there's no substance to speak of? As the saying goes, there's no there there.
Charlie's Angels was a mindless trifle that from the start promised one thing: eye candy. The angels — Sabrina (Kate Jackson), Jill (Farrah Fawcett-Majors) and Kelly (Jaclyn Smith) existed only to fill out what little clothing they wore with jiggling flesh, flashing eyes and blinding teeth. They did that just fine in a show that, shortly after its ABC premiere in the fall of 1976, drew big, big ratings.
No one ever pretended it was about acting, storytelling or anything more than what goes into your average toothpaste ad. The women were pretty much interchangable — Kris (Cheryl Ladd), Tiffany (Shelley Hack) and Julie (Tanya Roberts) rotated through as Angels before the show left the air in 1981 — and I'm not sure why people think there's anything more than a 10-second discussion to be found in a comparison between two versions of an ensemble with all the depth of Josie and the Pussycats. (Oh, wait — they're making a movie version of that, too).
The show was empty. The movie was empty. 'Nuff said.
And America is buying into the bogus female-empowerment angle of three bimbos taking their marching orders from a man to the tune of more than $115 million in ticket sales at the time of this writing. So maybe I am just a cranky columnist who's out of step. Or maybe I'm just in a mood.
Sorry for the long-winded non-answer. Here's the short version: In the movie, the chicks' names are Dylan, Natalie and Alex and they're played by different actresses. Beyond that, there's nothing to get wrong.
Oops, one more thing. To the guy who called me "the seer at the edge of the known universe who has a brain full of the most trivial yet important facts" and said he couldn't find a picture of John Forsythe (Charlie's voice) anywhere on the Internet, your wish is my command.