NBC Revamping an Edgier and Slightly Darker Munsters

Source Name:

The Hollywood Reporter

Source Url:


Post Thumb:


Will Hollywood execs ever realize that while some properties can be given a dark and edgy makeover, other concepts born in gleeful goofiness should forever remain that way? Not at NBC and not anytime soon so here come the dark and edgy “Munsters”.

“The Munsters” already were a little edgy back in the day; the show was viewed by many as offering subtle commentary on the state of racism in America. As for darker, the original child actor hired for the “Eddie Munster” role was replaced after the pilot because the network thought his take on the character was too dark and disturbing.

Just a week after CBS announced plans to bring back “Bewitched” (no word if the words “darker” or “edgier” will be the plan of action), NBC has followed suit with its intent to bring back another beloved 1960’s supernatural sitcom. Just don’t expect Herman, Lily, Eddie, Marilyn, or Grandpa Munster to be quite the same as you remember them.

Per The Hollywood Reporter:
Fuller’s new look is said to be an edgier and slightly darker hour-long take exploring origins of Herman and Lily Munster (Fred Gwynne and Yvonne De Carlo) and how they arrived at the famed 1313 Mockingbird Lane address.

The Fuller being referenced there is Bryan Fuller, creator of “Pushing Daisies”, and his involvement is about the only thing preventing me from fully dismissing this entire concept outright as doomed to failure.

On the other hand, this is also the same NBC that in recent years trotted out darker, edgier versions of “The Bionic Woman” and “Knight Rider”, and we know how well those worked out.

What’s next? A darker, edgier “ALF”?

NBC Revamping an Edgier and Slighter Darker Munsters

Got news? Click here to submit it!
Be edgy and dark in the comments section below!

Image Type 1:



  1. If edgy/gritty horror series based on name properties is the in-thing you would think somebody would eventually figure out Nightbreed is the way to go.

  2. What’s next?

    A darker, edgier live action Dudley Do-Right. Or maybe Peabody & Sherman, except this time Sherman is an emo kid who fights monsters while Peabody battles a crippling drug addiction!

  3. Well, darker and edgier worked with MTV’s “Teen Wolf” reboot — although definitely we’re talking about two very different properties. I was always more an Addams Family fan anyway so they can do what they will with the Munsters as far as I’m concerned. Should be very interesting with Fuller involved though.

      • Spoken by someone who obviously hasn’t watched the show through to the end. And what’s with you anyway? This is hardly the first time you’ve used “gay” as a slam. Do you just call everything you don’t like gay? And what’s wrong with it anyway? Are you really that insecure about your own sexuality that anything even slightly homoerotic makes you run for the hills? There’s quite a few of us who enjoy that sort of thing you know.

        • And out comes the typical politically correct response.

          However you’re right, as a regular participant on this site I should expand upon why I dislike something.

          For a long time (before the nineties) science fiction, fantasy and horror was created and consumed by men. There were some exceptions but this was largely the case.

          During this time science fiction was about ideas and plots, fantasy could be harsh and have edge and horror was not about pretty boy vampires or sexual abuse.

          We now live in a time when women have discovered these genres and have caused them to be softened, dumbed down and focussed more on relationships and romance than actual plot or story.

          Could Robert E. Howard have written ‘Red Nails’ in this decade? Not a chance.

          So what I don’t like is when the genres I love suffer from an effeminate approach. Of late the hugely libreal media has been using the horror and SF genres to push gay agendas (i.e. True Blood). Again, I personally find this distasteful.

          I do not like homosexuality. When someone says this fingers are pointed and the word ‘homophobic’ is trotted out. Not liking something, especially when it is shoved in my face, does not mean you are scared of it. If you don’t like bondage would I be right in questioning how secure you feel about your sexuality? Obviously not, that’s just ridiculous.

          Take pleasure in being part of the catered to majority. Some of us aren’t and we like to be heard too.

          • “when women have discovered these genres and have caused them to be softened, dumbed down”

            Wow. This is easily the most sexist thing ever posted here.

          • Just because a statement is sexist doesn’t make it false.

          • Nah, they should respect freedom of speech and continue to let you post anyway.


          • “If you don’t like bondage would I be right in questioning how secure you feel about your sexuality?”

            Actually, I would say yes, you should question me if I just flat-out “don’t like” something I apparently know nothing about and sit in judgement of everyone who participates in it. I feel we’re obligated as human beings to help enlighten those around us who are closed-minded and/or ignorant when they cross our paths. Or at least make an effort.

            You live in a very, very small world (tiny even) if you think women just discovered science fiction and fantasy in the Nineties. Just from my own experiences alone, I and many of my friends were reading the likes of Heinlein, Orwell, Shelley, Stoker, Adams, Clarke, Herbert, etc., etc., long before that time. Maybe you should step out of your obviously limited experience, keep things in perspective, and look at the world before just the past couple of decades. There have always been romance novels and crap like Twilight around – in books, movies, music, etc. – and blaming it on “women” as a whole just shows your bias and inexperience with what the world is really like.

          • Well said. I have also been reading these genres as long as I can remember. One thing I hate is actually finding an author that becomes a ‘sellout’ by what I like to call ‘whoring up’ a good book or series. I never thought that when one is faced with a supernatural situation the immediate response is getting horny.

            Money is the culprit for the change in horror. As we all know sex sells, and it’s not just women who are buying. Purchasers of these series in question are for the majority, teens-male and female. Next women will be blamed for shoddy construction on buildings because we’ve entered that market and softened IT up.

          • First off being politically correct does not make you enlightened. If your ideas and view points were a direct result of well researched science and logic that would be a different story.

            Your PC assumptions that everyone who doesn’t see the world the way you do isn’t enlightement, it’s a religion. You’re simply quoting chapter and verse from the accepted modern cliches. Just like a Christian missionary you believe you’re enlightened and fighting ignorance but all you are really doing is bathing in self righteous bullshit while you disperse the ‘common understanding’.

            Like all PC people if someone else says they don’t like homosexuality (a hot buton topic) you start by claiming they are fearful then you move on to ignorant. This is an attack and a dismisal without even considering the basis for another’s views. Often this is followed by censorship. In every case you will try to argue the person as opposed to the actual subject.

            So in my defense I’ll tell you that I have over 300 books about sex. Like horror it is a passion of mine. I regularly surf the net to read the latest studies and views. I take an interest in all apspects of this subject from the biological to the fringe fetishes and the psychology of such.

            I have my reasons why I don’t like homosexuality. Expanding on those in this forum would move us far away from the original argument.

            According to your last message:

            “There have always been romance novels and crap like Twilight around – in books, movies, music, etc. – and blaming it on “women” as a whole just shows your bias and inexperience with what the world is really like.”

            Always? When I was a kid the The National Lampooon featured an article called “How Not To Get Laid.” The list they included ended with the advice “go to a Star Trek convention.”

            Back then that was true; now not so much. Women have discovered the genre. Yes there have always been a few like yourself that were there all along, but they used to make up a tiny minority. All you have to do is write up a list of horror writers from each decade on and you will find the female contingent grows. Walk into a bookstore and look at the shelves now v.s. say the 70’s. If you think it was ALWAYS this way then your sense of history is very, very short.

            You can argue a larger fan base is good for the genre and I can’t dispute that. I can, however be frustrated by some of the changes that have followed the broadening of that base. If you’ll hearken back to my original message that is the source of my complaint.

            P.S. Even today I sincerely doubt DC’s readership is a 50/50 gender split.

          • If you have 300 books about sex. Does that mean you get laid a lot? I mean since you’re obviously done your research and all.

          • Nah the only action he probably gets is his right hand

          • Hi, shit for brains. What ass crack did you come squirting out of? I don’t notice you posting on any other story (ever) but you’re willing to pop in here to take a cheap shot.

            If you’re too retarded to actually comment intelligently on the subject you can take your opinion and fuck yourself with it.

          • Now that’s a fine example of intelligent commentary if there ever was one.

          • The intelligent commentary was posted above that message. That one was aimed at a level the target could understand.

Leave a Reply