MovieChat Forums > The Addams Family (1964) Discussion > Possible reason why it was canceled afte...

Possible reason why it was canceled after 2 seasons

posted 16 years ago by night_is_silent
48 replies | jump to latest

Volume 2 of the Addams Family DVD set has a special feature that details the history of the show. In it, it is mentioned that both the Addams Family and the Munsters had decent, although not spectacular, ratings in their second seasons. Despite that, they were both canceled with no explanation from their respective networks as to why.

The second and final season for both shows was the 1965-66 season. It was the next season, 1966-67, when all network shows that were still shot in black & white switched to color. Could these two shows have been canceled because of the expense involved in transitioning them to color? Sets, wardrobe and makeup would have had to be altered, which likely would have been very expensive. Maybe their ratings weren't high enough to justify the cost of the transition, so the networks just canceled them instead.

[–] toking65000 16 years ago

I DID see a pic of the Addams' Family livingroom set in COLOR, it looked pretty WILD, it wouldn't neeb much if any work.

The living room was actually RED, not grey or dark like most people assume!

Most people see things that are and ask "why?", I dream things that never were and ask, "why not?"

[–] DolyMadson 10 years ago

It was actually pink......ign.com/3021327/asides/the-addams-familys-living-room-was-pink

[–] toycoon-too 16 years ago

The Munsters and The Addams Family were probably incredibly expensive shows to film anyway so I think when the ratings slipped on both shows, networks assumed the 'monster craze' of the mid 60's was over and seized the opportunity to dump both shows. It's a damn shame because not only are they two of my all time favorites but they are tremendously funny shows on their own merit. Oh well, that's show biz!

"Seriousness is the only refuge of the shallow." - Oscar Wilde

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] scottedgell 16 years ago

I think tycoon is right. These shows were expensive to film and they cost too much.

[–] bkstosell 16 years ago

Economics, possibly, but not the ones you are thinking. At least in the case of the Munsters, the original pilot was shot in color, so all the elements of a color production were in place. Problem is, leasing color cameras in those days was an expensive proposition, not to mention the color film itself and the processing, both of which were much more expensive than their B/W analogs. It would have cost an additional 75,000 + per episode to shoot them in color. I have never specifically heard that economics was the cause for either shows' demise, but it could very well be. Many shows however, did make the transition which were roughly as popular as they. (Wild, Wild West comes to mind. They made the color switch in the middle of the 1966 season. By the way, they did have set problems with the changeover. The entire train car they had used in the B/W episodes was completely unsuitable for color, so they went out and got another one.)

Sorry for being long-winded,

Rob
(TV Freak from Way Back)

[–] EvilRegal815 16 years ago

I like it better black and white...its so nice and gloomy...=/

Peace & Love

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] MarcDom7 16 years ago

Next time, spend a few minutes thinking about what the earlier posters have said and don't be so horribly insulting for no good reason.

Your understanding of TV studios and money is on a third-grade level. Money is everything, and if a show's ratings don't equal giving it a bigger budget to grow into a color show (which IS more expensive than black-and-white) then it has everything to do with money.

Do you have any idea how budgets and studios work?

[–] midflamagic 14 years ago

I realize this is an old post - but for those who might read it (I did)...

I doubt the color transition would have been a problem for these shows. Some shows were being filmed in color with absolutely no reason (no color tv sets available yet) in the 50's - except the farsightedness of the producers. They knew they would be syndicated eventually.

I know this was true of the Adventures of Superman in either the 3rd. or 4th season. That show was made on a "thin" shoestring budget and if the cost to switch to color was very much more - they would never have considered it. A major factor was also the shows popularity... they knew they had a huge following.

[–] phantom2-2 13 years ago

the cisco kid was filmed entirely in color for all six seasons beginning in 1950. why they did that, who knows? only .05% of televisions were color back in those days.

(the ignore list: intracoastalcruiser, jsstyger, uglytheclown)

[–] darkness_surroundz 10 years ago

its why LOST IN SPACE was BW the first season

[–] Greatornot 16 years ago

Could it be because the show sucked.

[–] jgs1935 16 years ago

No, that wasn't it. Did it give you a lift in your loafers to try to tear down one of the most inventive and funny series of the '60s?

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] tiff_lisatony7 16 years ago

so true! it's a great show! :)

[–] s-riegelawesomeman 16 years ago

The addams family was a great show you moron! You probably like MTV crap.

[–] Harried Howie 15 years ago

"The Addams Family" and "The Munsters" each quickly developed its own set of loyal followers who refused, on principle, to watch the other program. This held the audience levels for both down to mediocre levels. It's also possible that sponsors thought that some of the plot lines of Addams Family might be too "edgy" for mainstream audiences. In the case of the less-controversial Munsters, it may have been the writers and producers who wanted to cancel the show. They had painted themselves into a corner with the Marilyn Munster role (Both actresses were far too old to be believable as Marilyn, and the concept of th beautiful Marilyn may have been a mistake in the first place.) and didn't know what to do short of literally killing her off, which in a 1960's comedy would have been a no-no.

Had The Addams Family not premiered until about 1971, it would have run for a decade or more. Had The Munsters producers written Marilyn out of the script when Beverley Owen quit (they could have easily sent her off to college) it could have lasted another 5 years or so.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] trollomatic 10 years ago

<<<and didn't know what to do short of literally killing her off, which in a 1960's comedy would have been a no-no

"Make Room for Daddy"

"The Real McCoys"

[–] prfrmr 14 years ago

Some of you are on right on target.

Ratings was the primary factor; which hinges (relates) from budgeting. When the other studios were changing from B/W to Technicolor, etc., outside the extreme makeup and set design costs, add in colorama and you now have a blown budget. (you get the idea)

During its time, AF actually gained more popularity than The Munsters; in spite of former film star, Yvonne DeCarlo, portraying 'Lily'.

Also, there were behind scenes issues with Cassidy, a lead producer, and Astin. At start, 'Lurch' allegedly was the shows' focal point, the action moving around HIM. When Astin was cast as 'Gomez', the focus then changed to his character's zany, over-the-top comical antics and his love/lust spousal relationship. Cassidy was apparently unhappy before the first season wrapped, requesting (perhaps demanding?) more comical lovableness to his character. Whether or not it was resolved.

-----------------------------------

'Now you know what we are...Now you know what you are...'
'You'll never grow old, and you'll never die, Michael...'
'But you must FEED!!!'

[–] coastaleddy 10 years ago

The issues with Cassidy are difficult to understand. He was unknown at the time and Astin already had had success with I'm Dickens, He's Fenster and a long string of cameos. Why would Cassidy expect a starring role? Especially if Lurch was supposed to speak in the terse, stilted manner we know so well; it would be very hard to make him the main character.

[–] Zingbot_9000 10 years ago

Some crazy ideas above. the Munsters was not cancelled because of Maryln aging. The show was only on 2 years with two different Marylns so she did not age that much. LOL.

To me, I don't think the cost from going from B&W to Color was the problem. I think that the shows would not have worked in Color and I think the network people were thinking B&W is past tense....people want color. So they cancelled them. Plus the rating went down a little so the combination. I however think that they should have game them a chance in color, maybe it would have spiked the ratings.

Amazing however that people associated with the shows never really talked about what happened.

...............ZING!

[–] coastaleddy 10 years ago

It's really unlikely they were cancelled because of the shift to color. All shows were going to have to change and they wouldn't have to do anything different for either of these shows than any of the others. It's not like the sets were black and white. Some people seem to think the world was b&w before color tv.

I don't see why the shows wouldn't have worked in color. I think they cancelled them because they thought the monster craze was dying down, and they may have been right. The thing is, the shows weren't just a gimmick; they were fun in their own right.

[–] LittleBrother55 10 years ago

So many sitcoms go on and on, and typically producers and writers resort to tactics like changing the cast (dropping unpopular characters, adding new ones), or what I refer to as "cannibalizing" characters-- plus modifying the basic situation with location shooting, expanded roles for minor characters, etc.

"Cannibalizing" sounds just right for the Addamses, but I mean the common practice of exaggerating the characters' popular traits, and especially their flaws, until they become caricatures of themselves-- and for some reason, mean-spirited and nasty versions.

Successful sitcoms, especially with "iconic" stars (think Lucille Ball), shamelessly repeat and recycle standard plots because the adoring fan base doesn't mind.

With so many sitcoms competing, the "Addams Family" was never the kind of runaway success that makes network executives and sponsors keep the green light on first, and ask questions later.

All this to say that I wonder how much the problem of diminishing returns factored into the cancellation.

I love the Addams family ensemble, both characters and actors, but the jokes and plots are fairly repetitious. Again, this is a circular problem related to the show's budget; if it had been more successful, maybe its producers/writers would've figured out ways to expand the action-- with, for example, location shooting, pricier guest stars, etc. (Speaking of "pricier", it really is too bad that Vincent Price never guest-starred.)

Instead, they were pretty much stuck in a format reminiscent of a play. By the second season, the novelty of the house furnishings and the various Addamses daily routines was wearing off. And how many times can some nondescript guest star, or Vito Scotti with his now-dated "comical foreigner" shtick, get flummoxed by the Addamses' weird ways and eventually flee in a panic?

Danny Arnold produced the much more successful sitcom, "Barney Miller", and reportedly chose to end the series because he felt that the premise had reached a point of diminishing returns. Like "The Addams Family", the episodes were like a play insofar as they typically presented one fixed location in which characters did pretty much the same "job" every week. Both shows got a lot of mileage out of this premise, and both relied on "zaniness" in both regular cast and guest star characters to break up the monotony.

All of this ties into the "trend" factor; even though they're so wrong, so often, network executives prematurely kill shows if they think the genre is losing steam. One way or the other, they pulled the plug because someone in authority didn't see much future in more of the same.

[–] Jpebony123 15 years ago

Hi, I heard on a TV documentary that "The Munsters" and "The Addams Family" were canceled because of the expense involved in transferring them to color. As other posters said, the ratings were not high enough to risk the monetary investment.

I like the black and white versions of those two shows better anyway. However,it's odd since I like the color versions of "Bewitched," "Gilligan's Island" and a few others better!

[–] tybarius57 15 years ago

Probably for the same reason The Munsters was cancelled which according to the documentary on disc three of season two (DVD) says that, Batman which aired twice a week and was in color doomed that show, that same documentary also quoted $10,000 as the additional cost per episode to film in color. It seems a waste that those execs didn’t have the vision to stick with both of those shows.

[–] toking65000 15 years ago

I almost would NOT want the Munsters nor the Addams Family in color, the b&w adds to the eeriness I think.

I saw the Addams' Family living room in color once and contrary to the way you'd think, it IS actually pretty colorful. The decore is more RED than anything, rather than being dark and grey as the impression you get from the b&w.

The past doesn't exist and the future is only an illusion.

[–] rockmail 12 years ago

There's probably some economic issues involved, there always are. But you are wrong as far as the primary issue.

Consider why this show and the Munsters were even produced in the first place. In the 50s, Universal studios had syndicated a few hundred monster movies to television stations as the "nightmare theater" package. Since the stations got hundreds of hours of programming relatively cheaply, the movies were shown over and over again.

Along with serial comedies and westerns, the monster movies got massive exposure to the American public, therefore the genre gained popularity. Television producers (as well as music producers) were looking for trends to exploit and pushed out a bunch of monster themed projects.

This worked for a short time period, but in the 60's the producers were a bit blindsided by a new swarm of independent movies with more focus on sex, violence, bikers, free love, independence, etc. Monsters became fantasy horror and mysticism.

So show with funky old monster stereotypes were immediately given a very short shelf life. Boom. End of Munsters and Addams Family.

[–] blueman_0101 15 years ago

I grew up watching both shows in syndication in the late 1960s or early 1970s. I enjoyed them both. There was a Saturday Morning cartoon called "The Addams Family" on tv from 1973 to 1975 (here is the link http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0069554/). It was disappointing. Then there was the 1977 Halloween special called "Halloween with the New Addams Family", it was in color, it starred most of the original cast, but it was disappointing too (here is the link to it http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0126771/).

I saw an interview of Fred Gwynne (Herman Munster) and Al Lewis (Grandpa) and they said their show ("The Munsters") ended after 2 years because the creative well ran dry.

I just read today on Yahoo that Butch Patrick (Eddie Munster) is getting married to his biggest fan, former Philadelphia Eagles Football Cheerleader Donna McCall. He is 57 and she is 55, a retired pharmacist. She looked him up on the internet and they met. They were pen pals when he was doing the show in the 1960s (here is the link http://tv.yahoo.com/blog/butch-patrick-of-the-munsters-set-to-marry-bi g-fan--1435).

blueman_0101