NBC Will Not Return to Mockingbird Lane
News
by Ryan Turek
December 27, 2012
Share this story
Consider October's "Halloween special" Mockingbird Lane a one-off. It has been decided by NBC execs that Bryan Fuller's reboot of The Munsters will not return to the small screen. Fuller broke the news today via Twitter.
The showrunner said: "I tweet with a heavy heart. NBC not moving forward with #MockingbirdLane. From producers and cast, thank you all for enthusiasm and support."
Mockingbird Lane's future was shaking when it was rumored NBC was going to pass on the pilot until the network decided to air it as a Halloween special in late October. It received fairly good reviews (read our thoughts here) and ratings (5.4 million viewers). Still, that does not appear to be enough to sustain the network's interest.
Too bad. It turned out to be fairly entertaining.
No love-lost here. >:D
In a few years they will probably try again. This time taking a darker approach to it.
Unfortunately.....that show was all over the map. Was the character of Lily Munster written to be a clone of
Morticia Addams? I didn't see anything remotely resembling the Munsters' personalities. Okay......maybe Marilyn's?
WHAT?? A moment of SANITY on network TV?? :o
so glad that It was cancelled, It was awful, I'd rather watch, The Munsters
Quote from: marsattacks666 on December 28, 2012, 04:06:21 PMUnfortunately.....that show was all over the map. Was the character of Lily Munster written to be a clone of
Morticia Addams? I didn't see anything remotely resembling the Munsters' personalities. Okay......maybe Marilyn's?
Marilyn was kinda pointless, since this version of the Munster family was attempting to blend in to normal society. Herman, Lily, and Eddie were just kinda bland. Grandpa was very funny and creepy, while Marilyn was just a clone from the original series. Had it gone to series, I'd think the rest of the family would've become more developed.
Was it the classic "The Munsters"? No, not hardly. But, that's been tried unsuccessfully a couple of times over the past 20 years. Attempting something new was risky, but at least "Mockingbird Lane" wasn't another failed imitation of the original. That'll probably be next.
Quote from: Scatter on December 28, 2012, 04:57:48 PM
WHAT?? A moment of SANITY on network TV?? :o
Hardly!! Just more bad decision making I would say....the kind that has led to more reality shows! The pilot....and remember folks it was just a pilot, so there could have been lots of tweaking....had pretty good ratings and was actually being well recieved!
Honestly, the show could have been cool? Just not as the Munsters. I'm also guessing Mockingbird Ln. was a dark comedy? Rhetoric, sorry. But.....that being said. I didn't laugh once. Although, I do feel that the Grandpa
character stole the show. He definitely conveyed a true modern vampire. I really like to know what demographic
NBC was going for, and with ratings?
Quote from: marsattacks666 on December 28, 2012, 08:11:52 PM
I really like to know what demographic NBC was going for.......
.
I'm not sure that Bryan Fuller shows have a specific demographic...well besides his Star Trek stuff!?
This article not only bashes Mockingbird Lane, but also The Munsters! :o
http://tv.yahoo.com/news/tv-s-biggest-misfires-in-2012-230359305.html (http://tv.yahoo.com/news/tv-s-biggest-misfires-in-2012-230359305.html)
Well, not everyone's a fan of the original. At least they did refer to it as "beloved."
............forgetting that the original wasn't very good.....
Wow! The Munsters was and still is a good show. I think critics forget how popular the Munsters really was, to fans and people alike. The Munsters t.v. show is a fun, simple and entertaining program for all ages. Unlike most sitcoms today.
With most sitcoms today, the entire Family can't watch shows together.
Quote from: zombiehorror on December 28, 2012, 07:59:08 PM
Hardly!! Just more bad decision making I would say....the kind that has led to more reality shows! The pilot....and remember folks it was just a pilot, so there could have been lots of tweaking....had pretty good ratings and was actually being well recieved!
Hard to draw a direct correlation between a pointless evisceration of a classic show and the proliferation of reality TV...........but then again, I've seen folks link the assassination of JFK and a supposedly faked moonwalk in '69. So there ya go.
Hey, here's a thought.......how about instead of gutting a classic show so there's nothing left but a bastardized title, writers actually write something ORIGINAL? Or will that directly correlate to a rise in childhood diabetes?
The correlation need not be made between those two, just between tv execs bad decisions, the worlds stupidity and reality tv!
Originality in tv/movies has gone the way of the Dodo, much like it has in literature; There used to be original novels, original movies (along with books reimagined into movies), there used to be original shows (along with books reimagined as shows, movies reimagined as shows.....hell even radio programs [most of those taken from literature] reimagined as shows so it is/was only inevitable that movies would also become a source for this....Oh wait it happened long ago, Bram Stoker's Dracula, Nosferatu (1922), Dracula (1931), Dracula (1958), etc. It's hard not to see a writer's inspiration (or thievery if you prefer) in a particular work nowadays whether they call it original, remake or reboot!
Mockingbird Lane was far enough removed from its source material but would it have made it any worse or better had they stayed away from using the Munster names? Not in my opinion, it just would have been another in a long line of "original" ideas that don't acknowledge their pedigree!
Mockingbird was SO damn removed from its SUPPOSED source material that the only common thread were the names used. Period. So the IIC (idiots in charge) never had to drag the original show through this to begin with.
Originality is gone because, frankly, too many viewers will accept "re-imagined" (ie mangled) retreads and reality TV as viable viewing choices. The problem isn't a talent drain on TV, it's a brain drain on the couches.
There was no reason to refer to the Munsters, since the idea of monsters being a family might have originated with the Charles Addams New Yorker cartoons. Hannah Barbera had had there own monster family (The J. Evil Scientist characters) and Bob Clampet had tried to get his own monster family off the ground. I think show was good enough to have stood on it's own, and they could have easily called it the "Frankenstein Family". To be honest, if it hadn't been for the 1960's series, the name "Munsters' could have been applied to a family of cheese makers. The only horror there, however, would be the aftermath of some of the members of the family digesting their own product.
Quote from: Haunted hearse on December 30, 2012, 03:01:06 PM
There was no reason to refer to the Munsters, since the idea of monsters being a family might have originated with the Charles Addams New Yorker cartoons. Hannah Barbera had had there own monster family (The J. Evil Scientist characters) and Bob Clampet had tried to get his own monster family off the ground. I think show was good enough to have stood on it's own, and they could have easily called it the "Frankenstein Family". To be honest, if it hadn't been for the 1960's series, the name "Munsters' could have been applied to a family of cheese makers. The only horror there, however, would be the aftermath of some of the members of the family digesting their own product.
He said it better than I.
Quote from: Scatter on December 30, 2012, 03:46:39 PM
He said it better than I.
Wait! What? Are you admitting that Mockinbird Lane was good!?
For what it's worth, my opinion on Mockingbird Lane:
I thought it was okay, better than most of what is on TV today. I didn't like a lot of the humor... (What else is new?) And I felt most of it had very little place being tied back to the original series. They were Munsters in name only. At Comic Con, the producers and creators flaunted this as a return of the Universal Monsters. Yet, the show only seemed to reference new Monster movies. For example, Grandpa was based solely on Gary Oldman in Bram Stoker's Dracula. There was no Lugosi in this at all - not even in the costuming. Same goes for Herman. He lacked almost any connection to Boris Karloff. How can this be a return to the Universal Monsters when you don't even feature said characters? (That rant is done.) I liked Marilyn. I liked Eddie. I loved the music. Had it gone to series and had it lacked the sex jokes and the other silly things, I would have watched it. It was not The Munsters. The family was not comprised of the Universal Monsters. But it had a heart of its own. And, other than the script, it was well done. It certainly doesn't deserve the bashing it's been getting by many in the entertainment media, but I can understand how a lot of Monster and Munsters fans would be upset with it. It was more coherent than Burton's Dark Shadows, but it suffered many of the same problems. All in all, this was not the year of '60s TV revivals.
Quote from: aura of foreboding on December 31, 2012, 02:44:38 AMAll in all, this was not the year of '60s TV revivals.
I'm not holding out much hope for "Bates Motel," either.
How about the new "reality" series, Master Bates Motel?
Quote from: Unknown Primate on December 31, 2012, 01:59:18 PM
How about the new "reality" series, Master Bates Motel?
Starring Paul Rubens? I don't know if I'd care to see how he'd handle that.
Quote from: zombiehorror on December 30, 2012, 07:43:17 PM
Wait! What? Are you admitting that Mockinbird Lane was good!?
No, that it had zero to do with the original series, and that it should have stood or fallen without dragging the Munsters into that mess.
Quote from: Unknown Primate on December 31, 2012, 01:59:18 PM
How about the new "reality" series, Master Bates Motel?
Hey-yo!!!!
Quote from: Haunted hearse on December 31, 2012, 02:47:34 PM
Starring Paul Rubens? I don't know if I'd care to see how he'd handle that.
Ba dum tssshhh (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcYppAs6ZdI#)
Quote from: Scatter on January 01, 2013, 01:15:33 PM
Ba dum tssshhh (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcYppAs6ZdI#)
Hey! That drum kit suspiciously looks like mine. Lol
Quote from: Haunted hearse on December 31, 2012, 02:47:34 PM
Starring Paul Rubens? I don't know if I'd care to see how he'd handle that.
Huh, huh... you said "handle"... ;D
No Fred Gwynne, Al Lewis, Butch Patrick, Yvonne DeCarlo......................NO POINT!!!
JP
Quote from: Wolfman on January 01, 2013, 06:35:44 PM
No Fred Gwynne, Al Lewis, Butch Patrick, Yvonne DeCarlo......................NO POINT!!!
JP
;)
Quote from: Wolfman on January 01, 2013, 06:35:44 PM
No Fred Gwynne, Al Lewis, Butch Patrick, Yvonne DeCarlo......................NO POINT!!!
JP
If we're talking a concept like The Munsters Today, then I completely agree.....then again Fred, Al and Yvonne were all in The Munsters Revenge and that one is pretty terrible (and adding Butch wouldn't have helped out any), it's only watchable thru the lens of nostalgia!
Fair, but that would have more to do with the writing than the actors themselves. I don't see the need to rehash what is (to most people) a classic tv show. I am perfectly content to watch the original episodes of The Munsters over & over again.
JP
Quote from: Wolfman on January 03, 2013, 02:19:58 PM
Fair, but that would have more to do with the writing than the actors themselves. I don't see the need to rehash what is (to most people) a classic tv show. I am perfectly content to watch the original episodes of The Munsters over & over again.
JP
And as always any remake/reboot argument can be summed up as such!! We will always have the original, no matter how they re-imagine them! No remake/reboot is ever really needed but sometimes they can surprise an audience in the end if given a chance and yet they'll always have both their fans and their detractors; Which is true for even the original film! I love to bitch about Rob Zombie's horrible, horrible take on Halloween and probably will never stop but some people like them! Conversely I love the TCM remakes (The 2003 remake and it's prequel, The Beginning, not that travesty TCM Next The Generation!) and I see people bitching about those all the time!
I love The Munsters, I'll always love them and watch them but I would have gladly stuck around to see where Mockingbird Lane went and it wouldn't have hurt any true Munster fan to either watch or ignore it! One of the smarter ideas, besides just having it's own identity, was calling it Mockingbird Lane; True Munster fans could always talk about that show separate from Mockingbird Lane and vice versa; Unlike most remakes/reboots where you have to say, "the original", "the one from 19_ _", "the remake", "the one with.......", etc. Unless of course you mention individual characters, personally I'd want to slap someone if you mentioned the name Herman Munster and they said something in reference to Jerry O'Connell....He is not Herman Munster!!! Never will be! Same with Lilly, Grandpa, Eddie and even Marilyn; We all know there are only 2 real Marilyns...... :P!
I watched the pilot on Youtube the other day. I liked the opening scene of werewolf Eddie attacking the annoying boy scouts, but after that I didn't care for it. I found Grandpa very annoying and Marilyn trying to be creepy didn't work, just like the rest of the characters.
Quote from: zombiehorror on January 03, 2013, 02:41:12 PM
We all know there are only 2 real Marilyns...... :P!
Unless you count Debbie Watson, and whomever was in "Munsters Revenge".
Quote from: Haunted hearse on January 04, 2013, 03:19:10 PM
Unless you count Debbie Watson, and whomever was in "Munsters Revenge".
Exactly....There are only 2 real Marilyns!! LOL! :P
mmmmmmmmmm Beverly Owen!!!!!! >:D