NBC and Bryan Fuller remaking The Munsters

I'm looking forward to this.

 

The title of the series was a pun on the word "monsters." There's a world of simpicity and obviousness and jokiness implied by this.

 

I'll give it a shot, but I'm sure as hell not optimistic.

 

I remember that!

Still, I prefer to lock-in my judgement without anything more than rumors, innuendo, and incomplete notes to go on. (Prosecutors love me when I sit on a jury!) I say it's ...

MINO!

 

Fuller demonstrated he can do visual imagination, humor and heart beautifully in Pushing Daisies. But what that show didn't have was bite. I'm still convinced that's what did it in. People can't stand eating nothing but dessert.

The Munsters obviously won't have that problem. If it also has visual imagination, humor and heart - and why wouldn't it, since those are Fuller's trademarks? - it could be the hit NBC desperately is searching for.

Hey, I never thought Once Upon a Time could work either. But look at it now. There's a market out there for frothy, wild fantasy.

But keep in mind, TV skews heavily female now. Most people in this thread are male. Keep in mind that you might not be the target market for The Munsters. I can see this show skewing significantly female, regardless of the gore and crazieness. American Horror Story is made by sick fucks, and the audience skews female for that show, too.

 

^^ I think Pushing Daisies was damaged by a strike, wasn't it? In any case, it's lack of "bite" (of the kind currently fashionable) was one of the things I liked about it.

Sure, but this is no remake. It's a completely new concept that simply recycles names from The Munsters. It would make just as much-- or little-- sense to call it The Addams Family or All In The Family for all the connection there is to the original.

 

HEHE, Archie Bunker and Edith as Flesh Eaters, "Shut your Pie Edith"

Yea, I'll check it out, but, it certainly doesn't seem, at this point, that it should be carrying The Munsters name

 

^^ Hmm. Come to think of it, it would give new meaning to the term "Meathead."

That's it, bandwagon time-- I'm writing a proposal!

 

The kid's a werewolf, Grandpa's hundreds of years old...there's not a lot of detail here, and most of what's there is fairly consistent with the original. Is it going to be less sitcom-sunshiny? Well, yeah - duh. Welcome to the world.

 

The writers' strike gets blamed a lot, but it didn't cause every show on TV to get cancelled, so I really dunno about that excuse.

It's not a matter of fashion, it's the need of any story to have a strong what's-at-stake to motivate people to keep watching. I loved seeing the beautiful production design, but not everyone values that so highly. Generally people stick to a story because of some kind of unresolved dramatic tension that captures their interest. When it's not there, they declare the show "boring" and tune out.

They could do the same thing with The Addams Family and just change characters' names and some details. All In The Family would be a confusing name choice, so I wouldn't recommend they do that.

 

Well, I don't really remember that clearly now, but it seems like it was very popular the first season and then was forgotten after the strike.

It was all about unresolved tension. The two main characters couldn't touch. There doesn't have to be-- or shouldn't-- the fate of the human race at stake. It was a drama, not Star Wars. There was other dramatic tension as well: The detective's daughter, the pie maker's guilt, the father coming back to life. There was a lot of stuff going on.

Well, if you're going to confuse people, you should really confuse them.

 

The tension about Ned and wasserface not being able to touch was cute but not quite at the same level of oomph that keeps an audience from dozing off. The first season of them not touching, yeah, okay. Then it gets a bit dull.

The other stuff had potential. I remember thinking they could do more with Ned's somewhat amoral focus on his lady love, to the exclusion of caring about who he might kill accidentally. The fact that he had the ability to decide who lives and who dies was interesting and Fuller could have done more with that.

There was tons of potential, but it doesn't count unless it's actually used in the story. Fuller just didn't turn up the dramatic heat quickly enough.

 

There was nothing wrong with the show. It simply wasn't popular.

 

Except of course Pushing Daisies had excellent ratings in its debut season. The second season was delayed by the writers' strike and the ratings were never the same again. They didn't drop slowly, they just plain dropped. It wasn't as striking as the case of the Sandy Duncan show, which was in the top ten in its early days. The star got sick, but when the show returned the ratings were low, like Pushing Daisies, and the show was canceled.

There is no reason to think that there was any particular change in the show. Which means speculation as to the nature of the dramatic stakes that brings people back to a show is absurd. Lots of people liked the same show one season, coming back repeatedly, then many fewer came back when it finally came returned. Did lots of people suddenly dislike it? Asking the question shows how absurd the idea is.

 

The first season ranked fifty-second out of all programs. Not what I'd call 'excellent.'

 

Well, it worked for me. I thought it was a breath of fresh air.

 

The lack of a "change" is the problem. People will watch a show for novelty's sake, to see if they like it. When the novelty starts to wear off, then then drop it, unless there's something that has grabbed their interest in lieu of novelty. So there was always something "wrong" with a show that was destined to fall off a cliff. It was never delivering what the audience wanted, long-term. It was just sailing through a honeymoon phase.

The writers strike just sped up this process, but it happens all the time to many shows. The audience checks out the show, then the ratings start to tail off as they get bored and leave.

And saying a show is okay, just "not popular" is completely missing the point. The problem is that it's not popular. That's the only problem that any show ever has, the problem of low ratings that gets the show axed. There are reasons why one show gets good ratings and the next doesn't, which has to do with something inherent in the show itself (and also the network it's on, or the timeslot, and sometimes the marketing/advertising is wrong or insufficient). What else could it be? It's not just the random interaction of atoms or phases of the moon.

 

Ooooh, "Phases of the Moon", I like that one.

I'm using it the next time a show I like that sucks in the ratings (V, Caprica for recent examples) gets cancelled

 

Even though you chose two examples where the moon was the least of their problems?

I'm sure there are some shows where it's an utter mystery why they don't get better ratings, but weirdly enough I can't think of any right now. I can think of plenty of examples of shows sinking in the ratings for obvious and understandable reasons. I know that's not what the fans want to hear.

 

Precisely because of that, so I don't have to admit I like something "no one" else does

Blaming the Network is just becoming so passe, gotta come up with some new excuse