I liked Mockingbird Lane. I have no attachment to the original series though. I'd watch that show no problem if by some miracle they order more scripts.

I thought Mockingbird Lane was f***ing atrocious, and was an embarrassment to the original series, which was very lighthearted.

They basically just made it be bad people doing bad things, but trying to control it (except Grandpa), as opposed to it being about monsters that don't feel like they're different than anyone else, just having a normal life. If I had been the exec that had to make a decision about that Pilot, the tape likely would have ended up thrown against a wall.

It's basically like Bryan Fuller and Bryan Singer never watched an episode of The Munsters. It wasn't a horror show, it was a family sitcom with monsters. It has about as much relation to the original The Munsters TV show as the second Mission: Impossible movie had to do with the Mission: Impossible TV show, or even Mission: Impossible in general.

That's about as much of a complete miss as you could possibly have, in my opinion. Name it something else, and it might have been okay, but to have it be based on the original series (which is a cult show today), and take a total crap on it was a terrible decision. NBC was smart to bury this, in my opinion. It would probably only get worse from where it was.

Fuller has an interesting voice so I hope they order more episodes but it did look pretty expensive. The buzz about his Hannibal show has been pretty positive and I think that's getting at least 10 episodes.

I agree that Fuller has an interesting voice, but I really didn't see any of it on display here. I'm more interested in Hannibal, than this, and I don't think a 1.5 on a Friday, for a premiere, is enough to get it done. I was the target audience for the show, and I hated it, and I think a lot of people who were hoping for at least an interesting reboot would be very disappointed. If you had no awareness of the original show, it's probably fine as kind of a creepy serial killer show, but you have to be really careful of treading on a campy comedic cult classic. There was literally no camp in this version.

It's why none of The Twilight Zone reboots, other than really the first one (where the guy literally set out to do it like Rod Serling), never really had any success. The best reboot of a show I've ever seen was the 80s version of Alfred Hitchcock Presents, which started on HBO, and ended up on USA. They went in a re-did a bunch of the original stories, while modernizing them, and it was truly amazing. It seems to be completely unavailable today.

I just think Mockingbird Lane alienates the original fans, and ruins the brand they created over the last nearly 50 years. It's a smart no go, in my opinion, just because of brand dilution. As I said, before I saw it, I thought it had more in common with The Addams Family than The Munsters. Maybe they were confused...lol.

wow

http://insidetv.ew.com/2012/10/29/nbc-up-all-night/

Holy freaking what?

Wow.

Someone on that show must be giving out sexual favors to the senior execs at NBC, it's the only explanation.

Hahaha, you go, Lorne Michaels. That guy must know where all the bodies are buried. I told you to watch out for that SNL connection, it's like the mafia. Guys with Kids is definitely gonna get renewed.

Up All Night, based on L+3 is actually right above or on the bubble, so I don't see this as a terrible move, but if it comes back lower, I can't imagine it will get more episodes. Going multi-cam should actually make that show a lot cheaper, too. This might be the most tinkered with sitcom in TV history. Maybe next they'll actually fire all of the cast, and put new people on it. We're actually watching a show go through the development process on air...lol.

so they're going to laugh track? has that ever happened?

They're going to live audience, which will surely be sweetened.

The only other show I can think of going from single cam (still think it was multi-cam) feel to multi-cam live audience (actually done live to air!) was Roc. I liked Roc much better when it wasn't live, because I liked the feel it had visually before the live shows. That is a good question, though, and I don't know how to research single cam shows that have moved to multi-cam shows. I would gather that is a very very short list, if anything outside of Roc is there.

One other thing to note is that NBC has the best looking multi-cam sitcoms on TV. I think Up All Night would have been much better multi-cam, and I'm betting it will be similar in style to Guys with Kids, which is a pretty good looking multi-cam sitcom.

From Twitter it looks like ABC almost did it with Scrubs and NBC did it with Watching Ellie in 02-03.

I almost forgot to mention that this is a fantastic publicity stunt. I'm definitely going to check the reboot out.

Happy Days also did this but the single cam version also had a laugh track.

Was it popular before it switched?

no idea

Even in single camera, all those shows had multi-cam feel (large frequently used sets). I honestly don't remember seeing a switch like that in The Odd Couple (I've seen this show recently), and I don't remember it happening in Newhart (haven't seen this since original airing) either, so it was probably a pretty seamless transition. The Odd Couple was always very theatrical.

This is easily the weirdest season since I started following ratings.

No doubt about it. TV by the Numbers, I think, is going to make a bunch of major analysis mistakes, this season. I have my own suppositions about things, but I'm going to try avoid putting something together about it until things progress a bit further, or if I happen to get more L+3 ratings.

Yeah, what they do works well enough when things go, well, I was going to say normally but I suppose I should say predictably but they're not good when it comes to... mitigating factors... Naturally when there's a lot of stuff going on behind the numbers that we don't see (or at least more than usual) it makes it harder to predict but they're not good at even accepting mitigating factors, let alone making good predictions from them, until they're proven wrong.

Yeah, I've been seeing a lot of their stuff lately that I think just doesn't factor in the right things. Like Nikita, which is their current whipping post. When we talked earlier in the thread about the CW (which I hadn't done any analysis of prior to that discussion), I came up with two factors that TV by the Numbers ignored. The first was that it was a WB property, singularly owned. The second was that it is an excellent syndication property. When going off the stated model of the CW factoring in things like online viewing, it's really easy to see why it can and will be renewed.

Shows that are produced by the networks' owners almost always have a longer ratings leash than ones that are produced by someone else. Examples of this are the Universal sitcoms on NBC given long leashes, or the FOX owned Awake, which had no leash. Interestingly, Criminal Minds is produced by ABC, and airs on CBS. Alcatraz was WB, so it makes more sense why it had such a short leash.

Things that increasingly should be noted when factoring in low rated shows getting renewals are whether the parent is the producer, and what kinds of political factors are involved (current shows, past history, or future shows). The L+3 numbers are momentous, in my opinion, and I think they will certainly play some factor, this season. How much they will play can be debated all day with no answer.

To be fair they are actually saying they think Nikita will be renewed. They're learning, slowly.

I hadn't actually looked at their news about it, but they currently have several headlines lamenting the fact that Nikita will, and seemingly thinking that the powers that be have lost their minds. They just don't understand why.

The Good Wife isn't even low rated for Sunday nights. CBS is just going to keep it around until they get a buyer for syndication, which is evidently hard to come by for it. I'm guessing they want too much for it. Lifetime seems like a perfect partner for it, and even A&E would make sense, but I'm guessing CBS just wants too much for it. The more episodes it gets the better it is for syndication. Once it's bought, if something new can be put there, they'd do it. My guess is that if The Good Wife sold to syndication, this season, there's at least some chance you could see Vegas and Blue Bloods move to Sunday nights, and The Good Wife would probably move to Fridays, which would probably help that show a lot. I'm pretty sure The Mentalist would get moved back to some kind of Mon-Thurs. slot in that scenario.

TV by the Numbers even having Hawaii Five-O in a conversation about low rated shows is just super LOL. That's guaranteed to get bought in syndication, and CBS knew that before it even began airing. Their slogan should be, "CBS: Syndication Matters".

that's the point of their comment, H5O and Blue Bloods are examples of shows that are "guaranteed" to get renewed because they are 1 season away from syndication.

Except H50 has been guaranteed to be renewed since season 1, and its ratings aren't nearly as bad as TV by the Numbers is acting like they are. Nearly every show is down across the board, and I have said numerous times that H50 is down because of Revolution. In the L+3 numbers I received, here's what H50 did (1.9 to 2.5 October 8, and 2.1 to 2.8 October 15). There are three heavily watched shows in that time slot (one of the best performing time slots on television this season), and H50 and Revolution's audiences crossover a ton. There is absolutely no situation where H50 has ever been in even a remote shred of danger due to ratings.

Blue Bloods had identical ratings in its first season, and nearly identical ratings in the second season, so past history tells us it's going to get renewed, and the syndication season coming up just cements it. For them to say syndication is what does it, doesn't make any sense, because how do they explain the renewals of season 1 and season 2 despite the lack of any awards notice (something that has been there for The Good Wife)? The plain and simple fact is that the show does well in that particular extremely challenging slot (also for October 12 in L+3 it went from 1.4 to 2.0, and October 19 it went from 1.3 to 1.7). Even CBS is pragmatic with Friday ratings and wouldn't think of getting rid of it with what is likely an effective 1.6, especially with its overall high viewership.

Just to give you the final example of Monday night at 10pm, using L+3, here you go:

October 8:

H50-1.9 to 2.5
Revolution-3.0 to 4.5
Castle-2.2 to 3.0

October 15:

H50-2.1 to 2.8
Revolution-3.3 to 4.7
Castle-2.0 to 2.8

That slot is nothing short of amazing, and every show in the slot would and should get renewed, regardless of how close it is to syndication. If anything, H50 would benefit from a move, and Revolution would benefit from H50's move, as well. There really is not much L+SD cross from Castle to Revolution, but there clearly is from H50 to Revolution. I feel like TV by the Numbers is engaging in a lot of sky is falling type stuff, and they are likely to lose some of their credibility by the end of the season, if they don't start looking at larger scope factors than what they currently are. I don't go to them for their predictions, I go to them for their reporting on the ratings, so I really don't care about their predictions. Things are definitely changing, and they need to start beginning to figure out why.

I just watched it and I have to say I liked Mockingbird Lane. Obviously, its relationship to the original series was completely nonexistent in everything but name, it's an entirely different show that would probably be better off if they just dropped anything relating to the 'Munsters' entirely but I liked it. I'm not sure if it could sustain my interest long term but after watching it I can say I'm disappointed (but not surprised) that it didn't get picked up.