Gulliver McGrath as David Collins:

http://www.deadline.com/2011/03/gulliver-mcgrath-to-play-dark-shadows-kid-role-will-michael-sheen-play-his-dad/

Quote from: Mysterious Benefactor on March 25, 2011, 04:07:00 AM

tracking-board.com is listing an article entitled "MICHAEL SHEEN Sets His Sights on the DARK SHADOWS of Johnny Depp, Eva Green and Helena Bonham Carter!"

It seems like there really may be something to it: (URL)

Another class act. If I were guessing, he's either playing Jeremiah (if we're getting a flashback/origin) or he's playing Roger...or both! I can see Burton having a lot with the dual roles aspect of the story.

The writer of that article is a she, not a he, and her memories of the show (Frid's sideburns?) are fuzzy.  One thing you have to remember is the 20 and 30-something "movie geek" community are pretty burned out on Burton at the moment, and the last two Burton/Depp collaborations especially; that's this movie's real uphill battle.

Pfeiffer's a nice surprise! They aren't playing around with this cast.

Eva Green was great in Casino Royale and I think she'll make a great Angelique!

Fun fact: Casino Royale now has TWO Angeliques in its cast! Who'd a thunk it!

It wasn't meant as a flattery piece, but certainly I'm a fan of Mr. Frid. Again, I am simply taking him at his word when he talks of his early difficulties, but I'm not suggesting the show would have been anything but canceled without the man. And he kept viewers entranced for four years, so I think his contribution speaks for itself. But to me his journey isn't as compelling without the tenuous nature of its beginnings. A good story is a good story, "print the legend" and all that. And in the "making of" movie in my head, the story about Josette (which he tells Vicki and Caroline during the storm) is a moment of triumph for the actor, conquering his live-to-tape demons and knocking it out of the park.

And while I think the gay subtext is there, I feel it's being focused on a little too much, to the exclusion of all the other compelling anecdotes about the show's production. And really, that's where my own passion lies - in the PRODUCTION of the original show.  In its cast, its crew, in the circumstances in which it was created, and in which it became such a phenomenon.  I know the 1991 series has its fans, and I know we all enjoy the movies to varying degrees (I watched NODS again two nights ago), but to me the phenomenon- that intangible connection between the entertainment and the audience - is for whatever reason restricted to the original series. And the article was really just a thinking out loud of why that might be, and whether an exploration of that magic might not be more interesting than retelling the story again. I happen to think it would.

You can argue that exposing the creative process kills an illusion, but years of the stars telling these stories at conventions, in books, on DVD extras, would suggest otherwise. And you'd have to have your head in the sand to think that the "illusion" created in Dark Shadows wasn't in constant danger of being destroyed, simply due to the limitations of the production. And yet - and yet! - the show endured, and endures today. That's what fascinates me, and that's what I was exploring.

I don't think anyone should feel threatened by exploring these ideas, and as a borderline OCD fan of certain properties, I've always come at my beloved obsessions from all angles, including and especially the "making of" aspect.  And I embrace them not cynically or with ill intention, but clear-eyed and inclusive of everything.

If Sam said it in the 80s that sounds more verifiable to me

The one thing that makes me believe Curtis' version over Hall's is that Hall responds to "what would the plot have been for a HODS2?" with the reason they didn't do it, but never actually answers the question in that exchange.