Discover Top Posts Tagged with #television sitcom

Jack Davis promotional illustration for Get Smart - 1966.

#television sitcom #nbcs tv #1960s #1965 #the 60s #the 1960s #sitcoms #60s television #classic television series #classic tv series #classic television #classic tv #60s sitcoms #vintage illustration #jack davis #get smart #buck henry #mel brooks #barbara feldon #agent 99 #agent 86 #maxwell smart #edward platt #the chief #kaos #control #1966

September 18, 1964 - The Addams Family premieres on ABC.

The television sitcom ran for two seasons (64 episodes) with the final episode airing on April 8, 1966. It’s based on Charles Addams’ cartoons that appeared in The New Yorker. It starred Carolyn Jones, John Astin, Jackie Coogan, Ted Cassidy, Blossom Rock, Ken Weatherwax, Lisa Loring and Felix Silla.

Fun fact: Pugsley Addams’ name was originally going to be Pubert, but the name was rejected because it sounded too sexual, so Pugsley was chosen instead. Pubert made a comeback in the 1993 film Addams Family Values when it’s the name Morticia and Gomez chose for their third child.

#the addams family #1964 #1960s #60s #tv sitcom #tv sitcoms #television sitcom #television sitcoms #abc #tv history #television history #this day in television history #today in television history #this day in tv history #today in tv history #september 18 #ftvhistory

(via The Best of the Bad Welcome to Marwen Movie Reviews)

my favorite of the very bad reviews:

‘Welcome to Marwen’ Review: Playing With Toys and Putting Away Childish Things [New York Times]

It’s as if a Wes Anderson movie got stuck inside a Tim Burton movie that the cast has been told is a television sitcom.

#Welcome to Marwen #film #bad reviews #Wes Anderson movie got stuck inside a Tim Burton movie #television sitcom

Editorial illustration for The Beverly Hillbillies - 1962.

A l f

#alf #television sitcom #alien life form

Cosby In Perspective

Bill Cosby's problems continue to mount. As a recent online item has reported, yet another female has come forth openly and publicly accusing him of harassing her sexually. This time it was the model-turned-actress Helen Gumpel, who guested on an episode of Cosby's classic 1980s television sitcom. According to Gumpel, Cosby invited her to the set of said show after her aforementioned appearance and she went, fully expecting to be further auditioned. Instead, so claimed Gumpel, Cosby was inside her dressing room, wherein he gave her a drink. Afterward, so said our lady, Cosby forced her to be seated upon a couch and then stood with his crotch very, very close to her face. She wound up her j'accuse by asserting: "I never thought of myself as a victim, because I refused [Cosby's] advances. But my career was a victim." Thus Helen Gumpel is the latest of a list of 15 women who have charged that Cosby sexually abused them. And his troubles by no means stop there (Nick At Nite has entirely stopped running reruns of his legendary 1980s TV comedy series; demonstrators and picketers have relentlessly followed him; one attorney/victims' advocate has flatly accused him of having "a tin soul"; one of Cosby's brother black stand-up comedians, during a set, called him "an asshole," etc., etc., etc.). Really and truly, this man has been the recipient of abandonment and attacks right, left, and center. What the hell has gone wrong with us? Why the hell have we lost just about all sense of proportion? In the first place, we are apparently willing to ignore the blunt truth that all of these women's allegations concerning Cosby are precisely that--allegations. These women's charges have not been proven to be true in any sense. Why have we obviously dismissed the long-long-long-held tradition that in America, when a person is charged with a crime, that person is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty? Why are we, it seems, perfectly willing to throw aside the reality--and it is a reality--that the place to try Cosby is in a court of law, not in the court of public opinion? Why are we penalizing this man without knowing all of the facts? Whatever happened to our tradition of fair play? Secondly: Need we be reminded (we apparently do) of all the laughter and all the joy this man has provided us with for over a half-century? For over five decades Bill Cosby has been directly--directly--responsible for some of the heartiest laughs and some of the warmest moments we've ever, ever had. Also: It should be remembered that this fellow, throughout his career, has made very significant contributions to comedy, to television, to education (And: He willfully mentored my girl Robin Givens at the beginning of her career). Do we want to completely shove under the rug these highly substantial achievements, these genuinely meaningful doings? If Cosby did indeed sexually molest these women--and, again, as of now we have no solid proof that he did--yes, his punishment should be swift and definite. But let us not forget the undeniable truth that this man has richly earned a firm place in our cultural history and in our hearts. It was the veteran stand-up comic Chris Rock who, last December, told New York magazine: "It's a weird year for comedy. We lost Robin [Williams], we lost Joan [Rivers] and we kind of lost Cosby." In point of fact, we have not in any real and true sense lost Cosby. He lives on in the many explosively funny comedy albums he made, in the many explosively funny TV stand-up appearances he made, and in his explosively funny (for the first two years, anyway) 1980s sitcom. And it is that Bill Cosby whom we should remember and cherish. Indeed, what can be said of him is what the iconic television host/interviewer Dick Cavett said of the latter's (and Cosby's) longtime idol Groucho Marx: "He's too great to be called a comedian and too funny to be called an American institution."