The thrust of the other IMDb reviews is that this show was "ahead of its time" and was unfairly thrust into the garbage can of history because of its overt sexuality.
All I can say is ... maybe.
One reviewer went so far as to mention it was a Spelling production and therefore, logically, it should have had an edge as to quality.
That's completely wrong.
It was BECAUSE it was a Spelling production, and BECAUSE it was green-lighted on the basis that it had the potential to be another Charlie's Angels .... that problems arose. That the buzz went sour. And expectations backfired.
Remember that during the peak of the Charlie's Angel phenomenon, a reporter asked one of the leads why, in her view, the series was so successful...? And without blinking an eye she responded that it was "a mystery" to her too, until she realized "we weren't wearing any bras." So, in one sense, the battle was over before it even began. It was the wrong time and the wrong place to try to make lightening strike again.
And, as for the argument that the show was ahead of its time, "no" there too.
As I have written in hundreds of other reviews for the IMDb (over 600 so far) current TV is on an entirely different level of magnitude than what came before -- the change happened in the mid 2000s and it was HUGE.
Casting, directing, writing, scoring, management of story arcs, even the way titles are rolled -- so much has changed.
Yes, there are copies of this series floating around Youtube. Out of curiosity, I watched one or two.
We already know the series did not survive when matched against its contemporaries. Does it fare any better when allowed to age like fine wine? Does it stand the test of TIME? No, frankly, it does not.
All I can say is ... maybe.
One reviewer went so far as to mention it was a Spelling production and therefore, logically, it should have had an edge as to quality.
That's completely wrong.
It was BECAUSE it was a Spelling production, and BECAUSE it was green-lighted on the basis that it had the potential to be another Charlie's Angels .... that problems arose. That the buzz went sour. And expectations backfired.
Remember that during the peak of the Charlie's Angel phenomenon, a reporter asked one of the leads why, in her view, the series was so successful...? And without blinking an eye she responded that it was "a mystery" to her too, until she realized "we weren't wearing any bras." So, in one sense, the battle was over before it even began. It was the wrong time and the wrong place to try to make lightening strike again.
And, as for the argument that the show was ahead of its time, "no" there too.
As I have written in hundreds of other reviews for the IMDb (over 600 so far) current TV is on an entirely different level of magnitude than what came before -- the change happened in the mid 2000s and it was HUGE.
Casting, directing, writing, scoring, management of story arcs, even the way titles are rolled -- so much has changed.
Yes, there are copies of this series floating around Youtube. Out of curiosity, I watched one or two.
We already know the series did not survive when matched against its contemporaries. Does it fare any better when allowed to age like fine wine? Does it stand the test of TIME? No, frankly, it does not.