There isn't much new (or anything that will make skeptics happy, at any rate) in the new article. But that pic is huge, and the first good look I've gotten of the Barnabas portrait.

On the topic of "horror", I'm on episode 875 (deep into the 1897 storyline), and I'm having trouble recounting the last time I've seen anything on the show I'd even classify as "horror"...

I think we agree with each other, MS - without the new creative bood, this would be the same old junk with no indigenous spark. Like it or not, this will be the first true re-interpretation to hit screens.

Now, I am NOT in the least suggesting the original series is worthy of being compared to Shakespeare, but Macbeth is one of my favorites, and I love Polanski's film, Kurosawa's Throne of Blood, and Scotland, PA, all appealing to me for their differences as much as their similarities.

I'm a little bummed that Stokes/Petofi isn't in this one. Patton Oswalt or Jack Black could have nailed a tongue-in-cheek version of either character.

Anyone notice how comparatively toned down Depp's makeup is in the original ensemble photo?

I also like the various portraits of Angelique hanging in her conference room.

But in all seriousness, why must Curtis' "vision" be strictly adhered to in the first place? The Dark Shadows we know and love exists only because Curtis threw a Hail Mary pass on a show he was sure was going to be canceled. I don't need every version of Dark Shadows to open with "a girl on a train" just because that was in a dream Dan Curtis had. And if there wasn't a large faction of fans who loved the silliness and the mishaps, there wouldn't be a collection of bloopers on DVD, or ACTUAL drag shows lampooning the series AT FAN CONVENTIONS.

There's no one way to engage a piece of entertainment. Your way isn't automatically the "correct" way. I met several women at DS fests who told me they, well, engaged themselves while watching the show as teens. And there they were attending a fest 40 years later. Is their passion for the show any less valid than anyone else's? I think Burton and Depp are playing dress up and celebrating the things they loved about the property, and maybe adding a little bit along the way. In any event, robotically recreating the events of the original series with a straight face has been done at least twice before, and the 2004 pilot was also too attached to the source in my opinion. I'm looking forward to something weird and different.

I don't mean any offense, and I respect your passion. But there's an old Faulkner (I think?) quote, where he was asked if he was upset by what the films had done to his books. His response: "They haven't done anything to my books. They're all right there, on the shelf."

As I understand it, making the DS movie wasn't any Warner Bros. execs' idea, it was Johnny Depp's.  Johnny Depp was the one who wanted to make the movie, and ended up at Warner Bros.  It was Johnny, not Warner, that wanted Tim aboard, wasn't it?

Correct. Depp owned the rights and could have taken it to whatever studio he wished. And his producing partner Graham King is 52.

Sorry, MB - I think we have a different take on what constitutes spoilers, and as a spoilerphobe myself I had not checked the spoiler thread. Apologies for the duplicate info.