Post by EGBFan on Aug 11, 2007 5:24:05 GMT -4
I have so many things to say about these wonderful (creepy, kooky, mysterious, spooky and altogether ooky) characters, I only hope somebody else contributes to this thread - otherwise it’ll just be me prattling on about the Addams family by myself. But with that said, I should be fairly safe; these characters have had so many screen incarnations, somebody here is bound to have watched and enjoyed at least one of them.
Just to remind you, the Addams family consists of:
Gomez (husband/father)
Morticia (wife/mother)
Pugsley (son)
Wednesday (daughter)
Uncle Fester (miscellaneous older generation Addams, Morticia’s mother’s brother or the older brother of Gomez)
Grandmamma (originally Granny Frump, mother of Gomez or, sometimes, Morticia)
Lurch (butler)
What I’m going to do is run through those incarnations I mentioned one by one, latterly in reverse order of how much I actually like them; but first, I’ll relate what I know about the ones I haven’t actually seen. These are:
The Addams Family cartoon series, 1973-75
Never seen it, but I suspect that it’s very good. This cartoon was based directly on Charles Addams’s original drawings, and it’s just so rare to be able to improve on the original of something (I’m not saying it can never be done - we all know how I feel about EGB). In it Jackie Coogan, the original Uncle Fester, reprised his role from the 1960s TV show, as apparently did Ken Weatherwax as Pugsley - although the Internet Movie Database informs me that the character was also voiced for a time by Jodie Foster (of all people!). Maybe because they realised Kenny was a man, not a boy? I can but speculate. Wikipedia reckons John Astin played Gomez before handing the role over to Lennie Weinrib, but the IMDB only credits Weinrib, and I trust that one more.
Halloween with the New Addams Family TV movie, 1977
I’d be very interested one day to see this reunion of the original 1960s cast, all except Blossom Rock (Grandmamma), whom sources can’t quite seem to agree whether she was dead at this point or just very old. Stephen Cox, author of The Addams Family Chronicles, reckons “it’s not the best TV movie”. This doesn’t surprise me, but I’d like to see it all the same.
Addams Family Reunion TV movie, 1998
Again, not seen. I’ll be very interested to watch it when next it comes on TV (apparently I missed it the first few times), but I’m not going to go out of my way. It has had poor reviews, in spite of Tim Curry having the role of Gomez. I’m sure he did his best with the material he was given - but not knowing what that was, I really can’t comment.
The New Addams Family TV series, 1998-1999
Short-lived, it seems - and from the one clip I’ve seen on Youtube, it looks like it went on for far too long as it is. The least said about this travesty, the better.
And now, onto the ones I’ve seen, in - as I said - reverse order of personal appeal to me:
The Addams Family cartoon series, 1992-1995
My memories of this are hazy, but from what I do remember, it was very interesting. John Astin reprising the role of Gomez (this is for definite - I’d know that voice anywhere) certainly worked in its favour. I know it took some influences from the original 1960s TV show, but I can’t seem to remember any off the top of my head. Some of the designs were very close to the Charles Addams originals, most noticeably Pugsley and Morticia - but perhaps unsurprisingly, this series seemed to be most heavily influenced by the two Hollywood movies (which I shall come onto soon).
Lurch is clearly copied from the movies (mute and blue), as are the family relationships between characters i.e. Fester as Gomez’s brother and Grandmamma as Morticia’s mother. This actually rather bothers me; I have read that every incarnation of these characters after 1991 has ignored Charles Addams’s original intentions and copied the movies. I like the movies, as you will see if you’re prepared to keep reading - but it grates on me that the big Hollywood spectacle seems to have displaced these characters’ roots.
Anyway, apart from what I’ve said, I don’t remember a great deal about this cartoon (in spite of being as old as seven in its first year) - but I do seem to remember that it was very Pugsley and Wednesday-heavy. And why not? Cartoons very often have child protagonists, and the focus on Pugsley and Wednesday made it kind of a Doug (I’m remembering some school scenes) with a strong gothic element. What seems to stick out most in my memory is an episode in which Wednesday is giving Pugsley advice about wooing a particular girl, which is a classic formula for a fun, un-intellectual cartoon.
The Addams Family movie, 1991 and Addams Family Values, 1993
Gosh, was I really only six when the first movie happened? At that time, I must have discovered the TV show only recently. I can remember being so excited that those characters I loved were going to hit the big screen, and I wasn’t disappointed.
As I’ve already mentioned the changes to the original dynamics, I’ll start with that. You just have to not mind that they messed with it. Grandmamma is no longer Gomez’s mother and the ex-mistress of the house, and Fester is now the children’s uncle (and true owner of the Addams estate, as the older brother, except he was missing for twenty-five years so Gomez has it) rather than Morticia’s. I never used to like Lurch being mute in these movies; Ted Cassidy’s Lurch (original series, coming up next) talks sparingly, and it’s actually very funny. But I recently learnt that Charles Addams’s original character sketch for Lurch had him mute, so I guess that’s ok after all.
The movies do nod back to the original TV series: Wednesday’s headless doll, the whole “Tish, that’s French!” thing, Morticia cutting the heads off her roses, Uncle Fester lighting up bulbs by sticking them in his mouth… all very nice. But as Lisa Loring (the original Wednesday) says on her commentary for the series DVDs, it’s impossible to recreate the brilliance of the original - but in doing something almost completely different with these characters, Hollywood actually produced something very good. She describes the movies as “much more macabre”, and utilising “black humour” rather than the wit of the original. And she’s so right.
Good casting helps these movies out a lot. Anjelica Huston is an excellent Morticia, considering she could never be as good as the original Carolyn Jones - she just plays it differently, and well. Raul Julia as Gomez - also excellent. Christopher Lloyd is always a pleasure to watch, his Fester is particularly hilarious in Addams Family Values; and Christina Ricci as Wednesday really is very good indeed. She was eleven and then thirteen making these movies - rather older than little Lisa Loring’s six to eight. All of the characters are different to how they are in the series - and yet, seeing them both again, I can believe that Lisa’s Wednesday might one day grow into Christina’s.
In some ways, I think Addams Family Values is the better movie, largely because of the difference in Christopher Lloyd’s role - the second movie allowed him to be very much funnier, as Fester didn’t have amnesia that time. He and a new character, Debbie the serial killer phoney nanny, have the main plot - and the subplot involves the children at summer camp. Like the cartoon, it’s Pugsley and Wednesday-heavy, but particularly Wednesday-heavy - very likely because Christina Ricci is so good in the role. But also it’s a family film, and I guess the kids want to see characters they can relate to. As a child watching the show, I always felt somehow close to Wednesday; we were both small daughters, and little sisters to one brother.
There’s one thing, however, that I really don’t like about these films, and that’s Thing not being in a box - or rather, in boxes. I haven’t mentioned Thing yet - I don’t even remember him being in the cartoon I watched, but of course he must have been. But anyway, this is an example of special effects technology not necessarily being a good thing. I firmly believe that if the effect of Thing walking around freely could have been achieved in the 1960s, they still wouldn’t have done it. After all, Charles Addams drew Thing as an arm popping out of a piece of furniture. On this matter, Lisa Loring makes another excellent point: “Where’s the mystery? Where is this Thing coming from?”
The Addams Family TV series, 1964-1966
But of course, we must save the best for last. This black-and-white family sitcom has just never been topped. The DVD release has been the most right and just thing to happen in the whole world, ever. I’m finding it very hard to articulate what was so wonderful about this show. It’s striking in so many ways. It incorporates so many different kinds of humour - there are episodes that involve a lot of talking, that as a child I didn’t enjoy so much as episodes with more action, but watching them now as a sort of grown-up I really appreciate the very clever humour.
As I said, these characters are very different to how they are portrayed in the films. They’re eccentric, and they like everything on the dark side, but there isn’t an ounce of malice in them. They’re polite, kind, friendly and even altruistic people - and there’s so much love in that family, it’s touching. Honestly, there are a lot of things I could say about this show - so maybe I’ll just save them. I’ve gone on long enough for now.
Just to remind you, the Addams family consists of:
Gomez (husband/father)
Morticia (wife/mother)
Pugsley (son)
Wednesday (daughter)
Uncle Fester (miscellaneous older generation Addams, Morticia’s mother’s brother or the older brother of Gomez)
Grandmamma (originally Granny Frump, mother of Gomez or, sometimes, Morticia)
Lurch (butler)
What I’m going to do is run through those incarnations I mentioned one by one, latterly in reverse order of how much I actually like them; but first, I’ll relate what I know about the ones I haven’t actually seen. These are:
The Addams Family cartoon series, 1973-75
Never seen it, but I suspect that it’s very good. This cartoon was based directly on Charles Addams’s original drawings, and it’s just so rare to be able to improve on the original of something (I’m not saying it can never be done - we all know how I feel about EGB). In it Jackie Coogan, the original Uncle Fester, reprised his role from the 1960s TV show, as apparently did Ken Weatherwax as Pugsley - although the Internet Movie Database informs me that the character was also voiced for a time by Jodie Foster (of all people!). Maybe because they realised Kenny was a man, not a boy? I can but speculate. Wikipedia reckons John Astin played Gomez before handing the role over to Lennie Weinrib, but the IMDB only credits Weinrib, and I trust that one more.
Halloween with the New Addams Family TV movie, 1977
I’d be very interested one day to see this reunion of the original 1960s cast, all except Blossom Rock (Grandmamma), whom sources can’t quite seem to agree whether she was dead at this point or just very old. Stephen Cox, author of The Addams Family Chronicles, reckons “it’s not the best TV movie”. This doesn’t surprise me, but I’d like to see it all the same.
Addams Family Reunion TV movie, 1998
Again, not seen. I’ll be very interested to watch it when next it comes on TV (apparently I missed it the first few times), but I’m not going to go out of my way. It has had poor reviews, in spite of Tim Curry having the role of Gomez. I’m sure he did his best with the material he was given - but not knowing what that was, I really can’t comment.
The New Addams Family TV series, 1998-1999
Short-lived, it seems - and from the one clip I’ve seen on Youtube, it looks like it went on for far too long as it is. The least said about this travesty, the better.
And now, onto the ones I’ve seen, in - as I said - reverse order of personal appeal to me:
The Addams Family cartoon series, 1992-1995
My memories of this are hazy, but from what I do remember, it was very interesting. John Astin reprising the role of Gomez (this is for definite - I’d know that voice anywhere) certainly worked in its favour. I know it took some influences from the original 1960s TV show, but I can’t seem to remember any off the top of my head. Some of the designs were very close to the Charles Addams originals, most noticeably Pugsley and Morticia - but perhaps unsurprisingly, this series seemed to be most heavily influenced by the two Hollywood movies (which I shall come onto soon).
Lurch is clearly copied from the movies (mute and blue), as are the family relationships between characters i.e. Fester as Gomez’s brother and Grandmamma as Morticia’s mother. This actually rather bothers me; I have read that every incarnation of these characters after 1991 has ignored Charles Addams’s original intentions and copied the movies. I like the movies, as you will see if you’re prepared to keep reading - but it grates on me that the big Hollywood spectacle seems to have displaced these characters’ roots.
Anyway, apart from what I’ve said, I don’t remember a great deal about this cartoon (in spite of being as old as seven in its first year) - but I do seem to remember that it was very Pugsley and Wednesday-heavy. And why not? Cartoons very often have child protagonists, and the focus on Pugsley and Wednesday made it kind of a Doug (I’m remembering some school scenes) with a strong gothic element. What seems to stick out most in my memory is an episode in which Wednesday is giving Pugsley advice about wooing a particular girl, which is a classic formula for a fun, un-intellectual cartoon.
The Addams Family movie, 1991 and Addams Family Values, 1993
Gosh, was I really only six when the first movie happened? At that time, I must have discovered the TV show only recently. I can remember being so excited that those characters I loved were going to hit the big screen, and I wasn’t disappointed.
As I’ve already mentioned the changes to the original dynamics, I’ll start with that. You just have to not mind that they messed with it. Grandmamma is no longer Gomez’s mother and the ex-mistress of the house, and Fester is now the children’s uncle (and true owner of the Addams estate, as the older brother, except he was missing for twenty-five years so Gomez has it) rather than Morticia’s. I never used to like Lurch being mute in these movies; Ted Cassidy’s Lurch (original series, coming up next) talks sparingly, and it’s actually very funny. But I recently learnt that Charles Addams’s original character sketch for Lurch had him mute, so I guess that’s ok after all.
The movies do nod back to the original TV series: Wednesday’s headless doll, the whole “Tish, that’s French!” thing, Morticia cutting the heads off her roses, Uncle Fester lighting up bulbs by sticking them in his mouth… all very nice. But as Lisa Loring (the original Wednesday) says on her commentary for the series DVDs, it’s impossible to recreate the brilliance of the original - but in doing something almost completely different with these characters, Hollywood actually produced something very good. She describes the movies as “much more macabre”, and utilising “black humour” rather than the wit of the original. And she’s so right.
Good casting helps these movies out a lot. Anjelica Huston is an excellent Morticia, considering she could never be as good as the original Carolyn Jones - she just plays it differently, and well. Raul Julia as Gomez - also excellent. Christopher Lloyd is always a pleasure to watch, his Fester is particularly hilarious in Addams Family Values; and Christina Ricci as Wednesday really is very good indeed. She was eleven and then thirteen making these movies - rather older than little Lisa Loring’s six to eight. All of the characters are different to how they are in the series - and yet, seeing them both again, I can believe that Lisa’s Wednesday might one day grow into Christina’s.
In some ways, I think Addams Family Values is the better movie, largely because of the difference in Christopher Lloyd’s role - the second movie allowed him to be very much funnier, as Fester didn’t have amnesia that time. He and a new character, Debbie the serial killer phoney nanny, have the main plot - and the subplot involves the children at summer camp. Like the cartoon, it’s Pugsley and Wednesday-heavy, but particularly Wednesday-heavy - very likely because Christina Ricci is so good in the role. But also it’s a family film, and I guess the kids want to see characters they can relate to. As a child watching the show, I always felt somehow close to Wednesday; we were both small daughters, and little sisters to one brother.
There’s one thing, however, that I really don’t like about these films, and that’s Thing not being in a box - or rather, in boxes. I haven’t mentioned Thing yet - I don’t even remember him being in the cartoon I watched, but of course he must have been. But anyway, this is an example of special effects technology not necessarily being a good thing. I firmly believe that if the effect of Thing walking around freely could have been achieved in the 1960s, they still wouldn’t have done it. After all, Charles Addams drew Thing as an arm popping out of a piece of furniture. On this matter, Lisa Loring makes another excellent point: “Where’s the mystery? Where is this Thing coming from?”
The Addams Family TV series, 1964-1966
But of course, we must save the best for last. This black-and-white family sitcom has just never been topped. The DVD release has been the most right and just thing to happen in the whole world, ever. I’m finding it very hard to articulate what was so wonderful about this show. It’s striking in so many ways. It incorporates so many different kinds of humour - there are episodes that involve a lot of talking, that as a child I didn’t enjoy so much as episodes with more action, but watching them now as a sort of grown-up I really appreciate the very clever humour.
As I said, these characters are very different to how they are portrayed in the films. They’re eccentric, and they like everything on the dark side, but there isn’t an ounce of malice in them. They’re polite, kind, friendly and even altruistic people - and there’s so much love in that family, it’s touching. Honestly, there are a lot of things I could say about this show - so maybe I’ll just save them. I’ve gone on long enough for now.