good job

@ bruce

I agree with your 'diet' with True Blood topping my list. Apparently one to look out for is 'Flash Forward'

They only need one thing to make it amazing, to reprise Crispin Hellion Glover's role as the Creepy Thin Man.

Good luck to them. Personally I'll stay with a diet of quality original programming that includes Californication, Dexter, Madmen, Breaking Bad and True Blood. Don't need more recycled ideas from yesteryear.

Oh No....the original was pretty bad (old enough to have watched it) The movies were stupid and just dumb (yep saw them with my daughters), a new tv series will just be dumber and more stupid.

No please this is such a waste of time..out of control and really just a joke..cant they think of something else to do with all that money...

The Charlie's Angels movie franchise partly relied on big budget effects to be successful. But for the TV series to work for female viewers, it should stick closely to the original formula. The key is to have each Angel sharply differentiated, so that each of the three actors projects qualities which women either possess, or wish they did. Sabrina (Kate Jackson) was smart and serious; Kelly (Jaclyn Smith) was demure and classy; and Jill (Farrah Fawcett) was sexy and athletic. In the same way that the Sex and the Ciy girls represented all components of womanhood, Charlie's Angels needs to do the same. The most important character in the original show was actually Kate's (despite the frenzy over Farrah), because if you don't have a cerebral character unofficially leading the trio, it's just another piece of fluff catering to male fantasies and female viewers will turn off.

are they running out of ideas in Hollywood? mind you, some remakes have done, and are doing rather well; for example, Battlestar Gallactica and the new 'V' series.