MovieChat Forums > Mockingbird Lane (2012) Discussion > A terrible terrible re-imagining of the ...

A terrible terrible re-imagining of the classic TV series.

posted 11 years ago by blacklatexfan
54 replies | jump to latest

Jerry O'Connenll once again proves that he does NOT know what a "good TV series" is. Not since he became one of the producers on Sliders (when Fox cancelled the series and then Sci-Fi channel largely rebooted the series as part of their initial formation) has O'Connell been a part of a series that does NOT know how to explore a core idea well. Just look at Defenders. Nuff said.

The complete gutting of the original's base storyline of the "immigrant to America and fitting into the new social order" storyline into this complete opposite idea of "the serial killers hiding in plain sight" just fits with O'Connell's production and acting selections.

The original premise of the original 1960s and later 1980s reboot with John Shuck as patriach Herman was the fulfillment of the American ideal -- no matter what you looked like, no matter where you came from, no matter what your condition as long as you were willing to conform to the social ideals of America acceptance you will be accepted.

Al Lewis' Grandpa character was the very basis of that original idea of conforming and adapting to the new social order and norms of the American culture. Despite still being a blood-sucker he limits himself to usually only a few close people and mostly is denied by such mostly by his own daughter Lily (Yvonne de Carlo) who pulls her arms away before Leis can sink his fangs into her and disapprovingly scowls him to remember he is now in America and needs to conform to the new ideals. We on occasion see Lewis' Grandpa drinking out of the blood bank bottle refills (done in the then still plausible idea of bottled milk delivery)

In this incarnation that ideal is dead and completely reversed. Here the clan is a group of serial killers who hide out in plain sight where many normal people in neighborhood go missing and end up dead. And guess where the body parts go? Into Herman who needs new replacements, into Grandpa who needs blood on a constant basis and Lily's dinners. Even little Eddie who initially is repulsed by his werewolf nature and pledges to be vegetarian is consoled by his father Herman "that you will only eat meat -- i.e., HUMANS -- at that time of the month...." Give me a break. Even Marilyn is acceptant of the idea of Grandpa eating the scout leader and using his left over parts for her Uncle Herman. I guess her attempt at the end to get him out of the house was supposed to be her attempt at being the normal one of this thuggish murdering clan. It does not work as too many have gone missing in this reality for anyone to give this ghoulish clan any idea of redemption.

I know that many on high end cable consumer base love Dexter (which ends next season), True Blood and Homeland where the high end analysis of complex social interactions are explored. Here there is no complex idea to be explored. This show is the Texas chainsaw massacre done without the good over-the-top indulgence of the idea of normalcy of the killer clan.

If you and your family need to kill to continue existing and most importantly ACCEPT that you WILL KILL others in order to survive -- think parasite -- very few people viewing this series are going to be open to the idea of letting the killers survive.

If that was the idea -- does protecting the family trumps fitting into the social order of a society -- that they wanted to explore, the writer and O'Connell should have either made up their own characters for this exploration or gone to something closer like leatherface. O'Connell's Herman's statement to Eddie on accepting that he is a KILLER werewolf of "We are Munsters, NOT MON-sters" was so flat and simply not true. Mockingbird Lane inhabitants ARE MONSTERS who only LOOK like normal humans. They lack the true measure of humanity as they have little regard for their fellow neighbors except when it is convenient.

This Grandpa sums up this version of the series very well at the end of the episode looking at the revived Herman who now has the Scoutmaster heart beating in Herman's chest "Don't you feel better now, Herman? I know I do" as he stands draining all the blood of the Scoutmaster's corpse......

I sincerely hope that this series gets the Frankenstein Monster mob treatment and is quickly put out of its misery

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] blacklatexfan 11 years ago

Fuller says it IS more than likely being picked up as a continuing series.

http://screenrant.com/nbc-not-passing-on-bryan-fullers-mockingbird-lane

I hope NBC passes. And FAST. This should never have been giving a pilot. It butchers the base idea of the series and its characters.

Let 'em make their own series and characters.

[–] ElectricWarlock 11 years ago

I think the fact that people are so enchanted with the classic TV series made them biased and hate this show the minute it's existence was announced. Even if they did enjoy the show (which I happened to very much), they still would never admit they did because they don't want to admit they actually enjoy a remake. I hope NBC does make this into a continuing series because I thought the pilot was amazing. And if they do, you could always simply just not watch it rather than complaining about it on a message board...

Come, fly the teeth of the wind. Share my wings.

[–] blacklatexfan 11 years ago

It is not just having memories of the original series and its succesive 1980s series. Very simply the whole attitude this series and its characters have not only against the source materials but against normalcy in their open disregard to the living humans as evident with Herman and Lily so disconcerned about murdering people as in their conversation at the dinner table over the fate of the scoutmaster.

"Well I wasn't going to kill him at the table during dinner". as that was supposed to be mercy according to their norm.

If these writers had rebooted the characters into the say the macarbe of say "the Addamms Family" where these character are completely separate from accepted normalcy without being openly evil such a setting would have been better appreciated. Even in Raul Julia movie series, the Addams Family reboot does not change the essence of the story or characters.

In this reboot of the Munsters the essential story basis is completely changed. This is not merely a reboot but a complete gutting of the base story. In this story of Mockingbird Lane, these characters ARE evil. ALL of them including Marilyn. These beings ARE monsters and are NOT because of their appearance or circumstance. And for that reason I think NBC should pass on this

Or if they do decide to continue -- which Fuller says NBC are seriously considering -- then to offer their own completely separate story and characters rather than shoehorning this established set of characters into a very different basis.

[–] Neoblackdragon 11 years ago

Basically you are upset that a vampire needs to drink human blood. You are upset that a werewolf is an uncontrollable beast. You are upset that these characters are okay with their nature but they try to control themselves.

No the show doesn't advocate killing. Most of the characters don't advocate it. But sugarcoating things doesn't work much in modern day. Worked in the 60's but not today. Could the show not be about fighting the nature to consume humans to survive?

I hope this series gets picked up because I found it charming and all the characters likable.

[–] grp032363 11 years ago

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

There are valid arguments to both sides, and I stand on the side that the show shouldn't show the killings. The show could make its point if it only hint for grandpa to drink blood, or Herman to steal the heart but something interferes that prevents them from doing so.

If NBC wants a darker show of the munsters than let them come up with a whole new series with its own set of characters.

[–] tchele 11 years ago

^^^Exactly. Don't call it a reboot, come up with new characters and make it a new show. Don't hang on the coattails of a show of the past.

"Here's your cat, and here's your $20." Sheldon Cooper

[–] Uvtha 11 years ago

On one hand, I whole heartily agree, on the other hand this show is ok. I for one don't really care if it doesn't follow the original core ethos (which it doesn't really seem to, the OP is right on that) but it DOES embrace the other aspect of the original show that was greatly ignored, that they were indeed a family of monsters.

Its a C rating show, C+ at best, but I would probably watch it if it gets picked up when it shows up on hulu.

[–] blacklatexfan 11 years ago

>Basically you are upset that a vampire needs to drink human blood.
>You are upset that a werewolf is an uncontrollable beast.

No, I am upset that NBC has greenlit a project that simply guts the base storyline -- forget the characters and structure of the story -- for this project. If you want to make something so different from the source material then make a whole new story.

>You are upset that these characters are okay with their nature
>but they try to control themselves.

Sigh. Again the WHOLE story of the Munsters is SPECIFICALLY about fitting into a new society no matter how different you are initially from that new society. NOT about accepting the fact that you are an outsiders and being comfortable with your difference in that new society.

To your idea, the werewolf gets chained up during the full moon or finds some way to prevent the transformaation, the vampire goes to the blood bank, the re-animated creature gets spare parts from already dead cadavars or body part donations. Again the idea is to fit into society not this which is clearly NOT fitting into society but killers hiding out in plain sight who see nothing wrong with what they do. Here the story is clan survival above all else and how that clan survives despite all the forces working to pull it apart namely that society they are hiding out in.

If NBC wants to do a lighter tone version of Dexter and True Blood let em. But just don't gut another series to do it.

[–] ElectricWarlock 11 years ago

Then you should simply look at this as a standalone TV series rather than a spinoff/reboot of The Munsters. Just look at it as a completely unrelated show with just the names of the characters being the only similarity. I'm sure you'll like it if you do.

Come, fly the teeth of the wind. Share my wings.

[–] pv61 11 years ago

I didn't like the idea of Eddie being sent to camp on a full moon night specially when they know what he is (he ignores it), then move to another address and send him again to the Scouts, and probably send him to camp again on another full moon night. That doesn't make any sense to me.
Then we have Izzard, who likes to wear women clothes in his personal life. Why does grandpa, have to look more like grandma, wearing those looooong red gowns and black lace umbrellas and moving his black nail polished hands like butterflies? Could he be more feminine?
Other than that, I agree with pretending this is nothing to do with the original Munsters, and that was just a nightmare or a Halloween trick!

[–] fitzysbuna 11 years ago

this was a great show! you people who hate it go view the worst thing I ever saw which was Munsters Today! that was dreadful!

[–] grp032363 11 years ago

I searched and found Munsters Today on Hulu. I didn't know that it was even made, and I'll see what's it like.

[–] grp032363 11 years ago

I watched the first episode of Munsters Today on Hulu, and comparing it to Mockingbird Lane, Momckingbird Lane is the better show between the two. For one reason, Munsters Today had attempted to force laughes though ridiculous dialougue and over acting.

[–] banterspiral 11 years ago

I would hardly label the 1980s version as "succesive". It was as empty as the original. In concept, even the original was a campy cash-in on the success of The Addams Family, at best. It's humor is reflective of everything forgettable about the 50s and 60s sit-coms, with the exception of rare classics--I Love Lucy, for example.

We already had the lame 80s reboot (re: copy) of the original. Let's make it contemporary and see what happens. And, hey, if you want to watch the original so badly, then do it. The new version isn't mortally wounding you, using your spare body parts, or draining your blood.

[–] nunnehickc 11 years ago

If you mean The Addams Family comic strip, sure. If you mean trying to capitalize off of the TV show, they started at the exact same time, and The Munsters was more successful on TV. The Munsters was also created by the same people who did Leave It To Beaver.

My feeling is you haven't seen The Munsters in a long long time, and don't realize that it is better than what you are remembering, a lot better. Most of the people that say that are just making stuff up based on long ago memories.

http://chriscolleytvblog.blogspot.com

[–] joe_538 8 years ago

If The Munsters were cashing in on anything, it was the renewed popularity of the Universal Monsters. The Addams Family only premiered six days before The Munsters.

[–] DaytonaBob 11 years ago

WOW so you can read people's minds and tell why they are against this horrible remake?

Got next weeks lottery numbers while you are at it?

They who give up liberty to
obtain a temporary safety deserve
neither liberty or safety

[–] rixrex 11 years ago

Don't be obtuse. The OP has a right to point out the weaknesses in this program. None of what was stated is anywhere near whining, except your comment.

This program is a tepid warmover of the Munsters and lacks even a modicum of humor. So let's say the makers were going for black humor rather than the corny humor of the original. They didn't do it. Very little of anything was humorous at all. In fact, it was pretty boring little that could not be foreseen.

It could all work even as imagined with more humor, and less boredom.
-----
The Eyes of the City are Mine! Mother Pressman / Anguish (1987)

[–] DaytonaBob 11 years ago

Who decided YOU can call people names just because they give a good concise idea of what is wrong with the show. Your idiotic use of the word baby reflects badly on you.

The only child here who is whining is you. Grow up.

They who give up liberty to
obtain a temporary safety deserve
neither liberty or safety

[–] sneezewhiz 11 years ago

This was a failed pilot that was intended as a comedy but was so lacking in laughs they re-labeled it as a "dark drama."
Eddie Izzard as Grandpa stole the show and turned it into a failure by acting like something from a "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" episode.
Portia DiRossi was a nonentity as Lily. She didn't look like Lily, she didn't look like herself and she didn't act like anything.
Jerry O'Connell played Jerry O'Connell with neck make-up. If he had played Herman in traditional Frankenstein's Monster makeup like Fred Gwynne did, he might have figured out what he was doing.
Charity Wakefield and Mason Cook as Marilyn and Eddie were the only bright spots in the show.
What I want to know is where was Brian Singer? He was supposed to be a good director, but he seems to have checked out about 17 years ago.
The show did not even look like it had a director.

[–] ucanc 11 years ago

Okay, I remember hearing about Jerry O'Connell playing this role, I guess about a year ago, or so, and thought, really the Munsters are untouchable. Then by chance I went to Hulu this morning, and saw the show, and watched it. I was blown away. I loved it.

There's no way to redo the original, as that was already attempted, and it was horrible. This was just a total twist, and it was great.

I love the original series, and know every episode. This seems like something totally diffent, yet I know the charactors. The one's complaining are no way 18, 21, or even 25 years old, and that's where rating depend.

I'm 37, and love it, and have an open mind. The '60's Munsters will never be replaced, but I already love the storyline for the 21st Century Munsters, and would love to see more episodes. NBC please make this a Series!

[–] Beatngu674 11 years ago

People who like this show are just the worst.

================================================================
One girl, I drove through three states wearing her head as a hat.

[–] Clobberella 11 years ago

I treat remakes/reboots in the same way I treat book-to-screen things. The original is one thing, the remake/boot is another. Separate. Who cares if they've changed things, as long as it's enjoyable and interesting or whatever else it is you look for in a tv show.

combat baby, come back, baby

[–] nunnehickc 11 years ago

LOL, that is a weird philosophy. Steve Martin as Inspector Clouseau was brilliant, am I right? When you take something light and make it super dark, that's problematic. Here's an example of doing light to dark well (original Batman series to Chris Nolan Batman Series). It's because the original was a farce. The Munsters was a traditional family sitcom with weird characters who think they are completely normal. This a weird drama with weird characters doing bad things, and flaunting their weirdness. If EVERYONE in this show played it completely straight, it would have had that proper light to dark tone. The Munsters approach was very unique for its day. This wasn't unique, at all.

As long as the tone is right, you can get away with it, but this one had The Addams Family tone, and The Munsters was a polar opposite to that show that began at literally the same time as The Munsters.

http://chriscolleytvblog.blogspot.com

[–] Clobberella 11 years ago

Uh.... Why is it weird? Because it's not yours and open minds are bad?

..... Or you're just not getting it cause you're still comparing :/ treat it as its own show maybe.

Or not, who cares?

Your opinion is your opinion - just trying to point out why some people do like it!

[–] ssimpson-10 11 years ago

OP, wow, how much spare time do you have?!? This is a message board, and you're writing novels. Ain't nobody got time for that.

[–] rockethulsey 11 years ago

boo hoo

[–] justin-tomlinson 11 years ago

Ok, so watched "Mockingbird Lane". First of all, let me preface by saying i appreciate anyone who has the creativity to put their own spin on something. I know that people are getting tired of remakes and "reimaginings" (i am myself) but coming from a theatre background, i understand everyone has their own interpretation. Now, i will say, i loved the visual and design. Acting... ok, i think Portia de Rossi did amazing and was the best in the show. She and Jerry i think captured the heart (pardon the pun) of the characters while still bringing them up to date. Eddie Izzard, i know i'm going to tick people off with this, but most of his stuff is hit or miss for me. i loved him in "The Riches" and other films, i don't care for his stand up, and in this he was too... malevolent. I realize they wanted to go for the old school Dracula with him, and i actually think that was a mistake. The Munsters were not The Addams Family. They actually tried to fit in. And they certainly were not "Dexter". Really, i can enjoy a dark comedy, but this felt too dark considering the scource material. But, i'm a sucker for camp. I felt the way they handled Marilyn was also too caustic. In the old version, her "condition" was something they pitied, but still treated her like family, in this, they all seem to detest her presence. But kudos to the actress for doing her best. Honestly, i'm sure it comes as no surprise, but i much prefer the original series (and the specials FOX did in the 90s) to this new version. But, i love camp and am much more into sitcoms than thrillers and horror. But, i may try to watch the next episode or two if it continues. So, if you enjoy it, good for you. I'll enjoy the reruns on Netflix. What did you think?

Though i did like how they wrote in Fluffy.

[–] nunnehickc 11 years ago

I see what you wrote about The Munsters is somewhat of a common misconception. The Munsters didn't try to fit in, they THOUGHT they fit in, as in they thought they were completely normal. That was what made it great. It's like Maxwell Smart actually thought he was a good secret agent, and not a bumbling idiot (same with Inspector Clouseau in the Pink Panther movies). The family was played completely straight, and that's what made it so funny AND campy.

I watched the first episode of the original on Netflix yesterday, and there was a great "joke" that certainly was ahead of its time on TV back then.

In the show, Marilyn has a boyfriend who is desperately trying to get in her pants (skirt?). The family of the boyfriend is going to throw a masquerade party, and only wants to invite Marilyn, and not the rest of the family. The boyfriend talks his dad into inviting them over, to help him out "If you know what I mean". The dad says, "No, I haven't known what you mean for a long time." That might not be the exact lines, but that was the intent. That was risque for that time, and it was a good laugh with the line delivered so perfectly.

Re-imagining a sitcom as a drama is always problematic. It would be like taking 2 Broke Girls, and turning it into a drama featuring the daughter of a Madoff type, who became broke and hates the world because of it. There are certain tweaks they could have done to update The Munsters and make Mockingbird Lane better, but, to me, it really just comes off as a drama reboot of The Addams Family, something that a lot of fans of both of those original shows have pointed out from what I've seen (I liked both of those shows for completely different reasons).

http://chriscolleytvblog.blogspot.com

[–] ItsEddieHaskellBeyotch 11 years ago

I saw it and I have to agree if they're going to go this route be wholly original and create new characters from scratch and leave Herman Munster and his family out of it.

I guess nothing really is sacred anymore. I now know what Star Wars fans mean when they say George Lucas raped their childhood. They should go ahead and make a feature length movie comedy adaptation of the original series thats been languishing forever.

"Fair is fair!"~ Billie Jean Davy

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ssimpson-10 11 years ago

Munsters, a classic?!? Classic piece of $hit! On the level of Dora the Explorer by today's standards, unwatchable unless you're under 10 or over 60.

[–] nunnehickc 11 years ago

False.

http://chriscolleytvblog.blogspot.com

[–] cha_mor39 11 years ago

The problem with "leaving Herman and his family out" and creating new characters (kinda hard to do since it boils down to a vampire, a patchwork man, a bride and a werewolf) and giving them different names, everyone would say "oh it's just the Munsters all over again" so why bother.

The original was ok, not a classic by any strech, and my 10 year old is enjoying it on Hulu, but I really did like this one, I liked how everyone but Grandpa was trying to go against their nature to be better if only for Eddie, it rwally was a darker take on tje original, Grandpa wasn't exactally a saint in those original ones, he was as bad as the censors would allow. You can argue about originality all you want but lets face it, there is hardly any originality in tinseltown, almost everything is just a retelling of someone elses idea, only the names have been changed to protect the profits.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] cha_mor39 11 years ago

Considering it gave NBC its best ratings on the night and Grimm its best ratings since the show started I think it accomplished its profits goal, they can strut those numbers out for potential advertisors which is where the money is. Have you not realized by now that it doesn't matter if a show is good or not just how much they can get in ad revenues, otherwise how do you explain Whitney getting a season renewal.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ItsEddieHaskellBeyotch 11 years ago

"The problem with "leaving Herman and his family out" and creating new characters (kinda hard to do since it boils down to a vampire, a patchwork man, a bride and a werewolf) and giving them different names, everyone would say "oh it's just the Munsters all over again" so why bother."

The point I'm trying to make is, if the writers are so great then they can come up with different characters altogether. If they're monsters(living in suburbia) in the first place its going to be considered derivative of the Munsters or Addams Family reguardless.

"Fair is fair!"~ Billie Jean Davy

[–] ahhclem2 11 years ago

For crying out loud, lighten up cry baby. It is just a TV sitcom. It's only purpose is to grab your attention for 30/60 minutes and toss in an occasional laugh, witch it did. If you need social interaction and some sort of moral leadership, turn on the Discovery channel or the 700 club. But stop your bitching.