Tim Burton is bringing The Addams Family back to television

The inventive filmmaker is bringing his talents to the small screen.

The Everett Collection

Read to Me

The most recent adaptations of the mysterious and spooky Addams Family have been on the big screen. Three live-action movies were made in the 1990s and a 2019 film showcased the all-together-ooky clan in animated form.

Now, according to Deadline, famed fantasy director Tim Burton is bringing The Addams Family back to television. The series is being developed by MGM TV, which owns the rights to the property.

Burton will reportedly executive produce and possibly direct every episode of the new live-action show. Writers Alfred Gough and Miles Millar, known for the Superman show Smallville, are set as head writers, showrunners and executive producers alongside Burton.

While it is not currently affiliated with any network or streaming platform, Deadline does hint that Netflix "is at the top of the list of landing the project."

The story will be set in today's world as seen through the eyes of daughter Wednesday Addams. The development is in such early stages that no cast members or release dates have been announced yet.

Burton, known for Beetlejuice, Edward Scissorhands and the two Michael Keaton Batman films, is no stranger to reboots. He directed a live-action version of Alice in Wonderland, remade Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and turned the 1960s fantasy soap opera Dark Shadows into a movie starring Johnny Depp and Michelle Pfeiffer.

The world of The Addams Family, with all its spooky quirks and gothic themes, seems tailor-made for the Burton aesthetic.

Are you sure you want to delete this comment?


Post a comment
MandyBaxter16 22 days ago
Tim is the perfect person to reboot The Addams family. I hope Johnny Depp and Hellen Boham Carter will be in it 😁
OldTVfanatic 29 days ago
Just what we don’t need. Tim Burton hasn’t been superb since Batman.
That's an overstatement. He's been hit and miss since Batman, sure, but he's had several good movies.

Ed Wood
Mars Attacks!
Sleepy Hollow
Planet of the Apes
Sweeney Todd
WordsmithWorks 1 month ago
Tim Burton is perfect for this. With Danny Elfman scoring, of course.
lynngdance 1 month ago
On the subject of the 2005 Tim Burton Movie “Charlie and The Chocolate Factory” I just think I should point out that it is HORRIBLE!!!! It is an insult to both the 1971 Movie AND the Ronald Dahl Book! And you might say “but it’s like the book!” WRONG! It is not like the book! I have read the book and let me tell you that Tim Burton screwed it up like crazy! How, you say?

1: In the book and the 1971 movie, Willy Wonka is intelligent, worldly, deceivingly charming, mysterious, and yes sinister. He speaks in different languages ( “meine Damen und herren, der inventing room). He quotes famous literature (“A thing of beauty is joy forever”, “All I ask is a tall ship, and a star to sail her by”, “Parting is such sweet sorrow”)

But in Tim Burtons Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Willy Wonka is an absolute joke! He sounds like a cross between Goldie Hawn and somebody doing a bad impression of Shirley Temple! The first thing he says in the movie is “Good morning star shine” which is so ridiculous an random that it doesn’t make any sense at all. And when he speaks he sometimes has to pull cue cards out of his pocket to know what to say (I’m not kidding, he SERIOUSLY does that in the movie) Crazy right? And when he does speak he has the vocabulary of a 4 year-old.

2: The 1971 Willy Wonka And the Chocolate Factory didn’t add anything unnecessary simply to modernize it for the modern day (well, the modern day for 1971)

While Tim Burton’s movie has a lot of changes that were not in the book. Mike Teavee played video games instead of watching television ( which is TOTALLY unnecessary) Mr. Wonka does not walk out of the door of his factory on to a red carpet, but instead a show of animatronics that look like rejects from the “Its a Small World” ride sing a really lame song and then catch fire and melt ( they probably did this because they wanted to make the movie creepier. They pulled the “creepy dolls” card. I say if they want to make it creepier, don’t just add creepy dolls and special effects, do like the 1971 movie did and leave it a mystery as to what happened to Veruca, Augustus, Mike, and Violet. Even though Mr Wonka *said* they would be fine, you never really knew. And keep in mind that on an occasion ( I don’t when, i just read this as a quote) that Gene Wilder chose time do the somersault at the beginning so you would never know if Willy Wonka was telling the truth.

3: The book describes Mr Wonka as this “He had a black top hat on his head. He wore a tail coat made of a beautiful plum colored velvet. His trousers were bottle green. His gloves were pearly gray. And in one hand he carried a fine gold-tipped walking cane. Covering his chin, there was a small neat pointed black beard-a goatee. And his eyes- his eyes were the most marvelously bright. They seemed to be sparkling and twinkling at you all the time. The whole face, in fact was alight with fun and laughter. And oh, how clever he looked! How quick and sharp and full of life!” Does that even sound like Tim Burton’s Willy Wonka? Willy Wonka in that Tim Burton’s Movie, who is supposed to look “full of life” looks more like death warmed over!

4:The Book and 1971 movie ended with Mr Wonka giving Charlie the factory and LETTING HIS FAMILY MOVE IN TOO.

In the Tim Burton movie, Willy Wonka tried to convince Charlie to move into his factory without his family! He does this because in his backstory he had issues with his father and now has a thing against parents. In the end though he finally sees the error of his ways and makes up with his father and doesn’t make Charlie abandon his family. Although strangely at the end, though Charlie does own the factory, it shows Charlie and the rest still living in the pitiful little house they lived before. (All of the stuff I mentioned here is NOT in the book, or the 1971 movie. It’s just out of Tim Burton’s warped little mind.

Oh and if that’s not enough to show how disgusting The Tim Burton Version is, here is a quote from Gene Wilder on the subject “it’s all about money. It’s just some people sitting around thinking, ‘how can we make some more money?’ Why else would you remake Willy Wonka”

So there. Gene Wilder Doesn’t like it. Nuff said.

*My message to Tim Burton* YOU LOSE! YOU GET NOTHING! GOOD DAY SIR!
I'm sure that a majority of the fans of the 1971 classic film (me, included) agree with you. But, most of Roald Dahl's books were dark and not even close to being children's lit. I believe that was Burton's vision with Willy Wonks and the Chocolate Factory. Unfortunately, Johnny Depp's take on Wonka was abominable. Plus the backstory of his father/dentist didn't work for me.

It's Ironic that "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory" focused mainly on Charlie, where "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" focused mainly on Willie Wonka.
I always thought Willy Wonka was more like Doctor Who (especially the Fourth and Seventh Doctors).
AgingDisgracefully 1 month ago
Give Gomez credit for reminding us, "Poe DOES have a way with whimsy."
idkwut2use 1 month ago
My all-time favorite actress/person Carice van Houten (who played Melisandre in Game of Thrones) would make an amazing Morticia, but I’m sure she wouldn’t be able to commit to a series. She’s busy as heck. Maybe a film.
UTZAAKE idkwut2use 1 month ago
Love Carice van Houten, too!
I have absolutely no idea who/what you are talking about. What is Game of Thrones? A game that is played while sitting on your bathroom throne, and this woman did the voice of one of the characters? A game that can be found on one's smartphone, {one of which I don't own,} that this woman lent her voice talents?
Not to diminish anyone's else's viewing passion, Game of Thrones is a (critically acclaimed) specialty production aimed at the Fantasy/Serial Drama/Tragedy enthusiasts. This type of (deeply embedded) fantasy storytelling (genre) is the latest to hit television airwaves (via streaming only services) appealing to a very wide audience! And much Binge Watching! It is today, what serialized (made-for-TV) one hour drama installments used to be during the traditional TV of the 70's, 80's. But with all the advantages of upgraded special effects, and grand scale action sequences!

Thanks for the translation...er...explanation Pacificsun. It sounds really boring and a time waster. But, then again, what one considers brilliant and captivating viewing and a BIG investment of one's time, others wouldn't. To each his/her own.
SharonStevens 1 month ago
Let's hope Tim Burton doesn't ruin this show the way he ruined Dark Shadows! I'm surprised people even want to see his dark quirky stuff anymore considering how he ruined Dumbo too!
justjeff 1 month ago
Most often re-boots lack the spice and zing of the originals... [to me] John Astin "owns" Gomez Addams, Ted Cassidy "was" Lurch, Carolyn Jones was a cool and exotic Morticia and Jackie Coogan as Uncle Fester was a great bit of casting.

Did you know that for all of the close shots of "Thing", that's Ted Cassidy's hand? For scenes when Lurch was in the same shot with Thing, the producer's hand was the "hand-in"...
hermanstein2015 1 month ago
This is very exciting, he always picks the perfect actors/actresses!
stephaniestavropoulos 1 month ago
I know they split in 2014, but I'm wondering if TB has considered his ex Helena Bonham Carter to play Morticia. Also if he can woo him back to tv, [one of ] his favorite leading men, Johnny Depp, to play Gomez.
I think Johnny Depp would make a good Gomez!
cperrynaples Pacificsun 1 month ago
Well, Carter was BORN to be Morticia! I can see her cutting off rose tops and saving the stems! BTW Stephanie when I said Question 2 on my earlier post, I meant MY Green Hornet comment! Of course I know Carolyn Jones! Fun Fact: On Burke's Law she played 4 sisters, one a victim and another a killer! Look it up on YouTube!
Thanks for the clarification, cperrynaples!
Stoney 1 month ago
They'll probably mess it up
MrsPhilHarris Stoney 1 month ago
I hate to say it but I agree.
cperrynaples 1 month ago
Love Tim Burton's tribute to the original cover of "Yesterday...And Today"...LOL! If you're my age, you get THAT one!
Lol I guess I am not your age.
justjeff MrsPhilHarris 1 month ago
It's a reference to the original cover photo on that Beatles album. The Beatles are all wearing stained butcher smocks, and are surrounded by meat pieces and dissected plastic dolls. Deemed too gory and distasteful, the cover was changed to a more neutral one with the Liverpool Lads around a steamer trunk on a white background.

A few of the original covers actually made it onto the market while Capitol was busily pasting the new cover on top of the previous one to salvage those albums already pressed up.

If you are lucky enough to own either LP cover [a friend of mine had the paste-over], it's worth a nice chunk of change from hard-core Beatles collectors...
cperrynaples justjeff 1 month ago
Yep, I believe John was taking a swipe at Capital for chopping up the British albums to make more money! The CDs restore the British sequence so no Y&T! BTW, isn't that the trunk in which they "buried" Paul...LOL! Another old joke!
MrsPhilHarris justjeff 1 month ago
Lol I get it now. Thanks.
justjeff cperrynaples 1 month ago
I don't think John was taking a swipe at Capitol at all. Even if the albums were different in the US, each album paid *royalties* to the Beatles, both as a performing act and for songwriting. Generally (at least in those days), producers and label executives decided the content of an LP.

It's only in the past few decades when artists exerted more or total control over the content. An odd little case in point - some years back I worked for Vision Records in North Miami, Florida (co-owned by former singer and past co-owner of TK Records, Steve Alaimo and his partners Ron & Howard Albert - former Chief Engineers at Miami's Criteria Studios).

They'd issued a CD by Dion DiMucci ("The Wanderer", "Teenager in Love") called "Dream on Fire". The CD contained a great a capella doo-wop version of Bruce Springsteen's "If I Should Fall Behind".

The thing is... the title song "Dream on Fire" was not on the CD... it was left in the can!
cperrynaples justjeff 1 month ago
Thanks Jeff, and of course my last comment was refering to "Paul is dead", the original fake news! I recommend all fans seek out Paul McCartney Really Is Dead, a "mockumentary" narrated by "George Harrison"!
Are you sure you want to delete this comment?