Thanks for the info about the fb page, Nancy- I might check that out.  I belong to one of the larger ones but rarely check it out anymore because there is so much whining.

I don't mind people criticizing HBC or other aspects of the film.  Many opinions are very interesting to hear even if I don't always agree.  But there is a difference between criticism and hate, and some folks seem to be getting so bent out of shape without realizing that the original series isn't going anywhere, and it will never be negated by the film, no matter what.

As for HBC, maybe because I've seen some of her other interviews, it didn't bother me that much.  I'm kind of used to the sarcastic spin she tends to put on everything.  I actually did think she made a mistake in saying some of the things she did on camera, and not too surprised that folks would criticize that, but I am surprised that people reacted as strongly as they did.  Glad Michelle has weighed in to show a more cheerful perspective, and that KLS is out there making a pitch for the film and for her book 

Interesting remarks, thanks jimbo.  I think that HBC has a bit of a sarcastic, dry-witted manner of talking, so this may just be her way or her style of explaining things.  I'm still not worried.  I hope that a trailer, which I hope we will see soon, will give us a better taste of the tone.

I don't know many folks here watch American Horror Story, though I think there is a thread about it here somewhere.  But if that is anything like the type of humor that we might expect to see with DS, then count me in!  The show is very humorous, but very dark and scary, as well.  I saw a recent description of Jessica Lange in a forum about that show, that admired how she could go from campy to cruel to heartbroken and vulnerable, sometimes in the same scene.  If Depp or Green or some of the others can do that, I'll be a happy camper!

Cathy

I'm also surprised at the $60 M figure.  Very cool if they can keep close to that.  The film budget does not typically include marketing- this is a question that often comes up on movie/award sites, and it seems that the consensus is pretty strong on that.  But I think that it is supposed to cover post-production, at least for what is estimated. I think I've read articles where some film projects end up ballooning way beyond what was estimated, so of course it seems that it's possible for post-production to add much more, but I think they at least try to account for that.

I think that in general, the budgets for Tim's films are rather modest compared with someone like say Jerry Bruckheimer    Those Pirates films really got out of control, and I'm sure that some folks here have read about the problems getting Johnny's Lone Ranger underway (and that is also a Disney/Bruckheimer film directed by Gore Verbinski, who is also a big spender).  In these cases, they cited locations as getting very expensive, especially when there are so many locations-- some of the Lone Ranger budget was cut when they simply streamlined the filming schedule so as not to have to go back and forth so much and keep a lot of crew on hand waiting in one location (to which I'd say, duh, you'd think that'd be obvious!)  All to say, even though DS had a few locations, so much of it was filmed in the studio that that might actually save money, even if they have to build a lot of elaborate sets.

I seemed to recall the Sweeney Todd budget being surprisingly low, and since I have a whole section of my music-related Depp website devoted to Sweeney, I referred to it and found this Playbill article that cites a $50 M figure:

http://www.playbill.com/news/article/108819-Filming-of-Tim-Burtons-Sweeney-Todd-Complete

That's pretty unbelievable!  (And possibly a bit of a low-ball).  But it makes the $60 M for DS sound a little more believable.  I'm guessing that as a producer, Johnny was willing to take most of his pay on the back end (that is, any profits after release) and the same might be true of Tim.  

Here is a new YouTube interview with Alice Cooper (at least it's dated today, and I hope it's not a repost but I haven't seen it before)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwGZJDDQHXI

Poor Alice- I have no doubt that he did watch the show back in the day, but he clearly has a poor memory of DS     Actually, I think that there are probably a lot of folks out there of a certain age who are the same- who if you asked them about it, they'd remember running home from school, but if you actually asked for details they might be rather vague about what they remember.  I think this is going to be a perfect audience for the film, because they'll be receptive and maybe it'll help bring back a new love for the show.

I don't think that smoking is an automatic R, though it might contribute to the rating.  (Didn't someone here tell me recently that even marijuana use isn't automatically an R?)  Earlier this year, Rango was rated PG, and even though it was animated, there was a huge uproar from parents' groups about the amount of smoking depicted in the film (they didn't like the language, either).  Maybe a live-action film would be different... I'm trying to think of other movies I've seen recently, but I believe that The Tourist was rated PG-13, and while Johnny's character was smoking electronic cigarettes through most of the movie, he did switch to real ones toward the end. 

Okay, I tried Googling this and all I could find is this 2007 article from msnbc- I don't know if it's up to date
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/18601051/ns/today-entertainment/t/mpaa-makes-smoking-bigger-factor-ratings/#.Tsj8l3Frfst

Oh, and Wikipedia says that Disney won't allow smoking in its new films.  And it mentions the Rango issue.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_Picture_Association_of_America_film_rating_system

Hey Taeylor, adding my best wishes and positive thoughts your way for your mom and grandmother, and for yourself as well!  I always enjoy reading your posts that are so full of enthusiasm and joy for all things DS, and I am glad you'll soon be able to spend more time here.

Cathy

I think Entertainmentwise is among the group of tabloid sources that Contact Music, New Kerala and others belong to.  Once one of them reports some gossip, the same gossip usually makes the rounds of all of them, and then sometimes a few months later they recycle them again just for good measure.  None of these are worth worrying about    In this case, I think they have confused Christian and Johnny with their Public Enemies characters, Melvin Purvis and John Dillinger    Totally silly, especially with all the parallel reports in the news right now about how little Johnny cares that The Rum Diary isn't doing great at the box office.  From what I could see, Christian and Johnny had only positive things to say about each other during Public Enemies; Johnny almost never says anything bad about anyone anyway.  I do seem to recall some of the other actors or crew members remarking that since Christian is more of a method actor that he would sometimes be "in character" and didn't really interact that much with the rest of the cast, whereas Johnny would chat and joke more between takes, but even that isn't really a diss of Christian so much as it's just an observation that they have different approaches.

To be honest, I would expect The Dark Knight Rises to make at least 2-3 times more than Dark Shadows.  It is in an established franchise that has done amazingly well and shows no sign of slowing down at the box office. It's really not fair to make a direct comparison between the two, anyway.

Thanks for the article, MB.  It's an interesting theory (that Johnny isn't successful in a traditional leading man role), and it's true that I've seen reviews for The Rum Diary that sound disappointed that there aren't "more pirates" (which is weird, because reviews for Pirates 4 complained about Johnny being a pirate again... you can't win!)  But I'm not sure I completely agree, because Public Enemies was pretty successful (nearly $100 million) and as has been mentioned recently, even The Tourist did better than the entertainment news seemed to suggest.  I think that The Rum Diary is a bit of a hard sell because Hunter S. Thompson is a bit of a hard sell.  I'm not surprised that it appeals mostly to people who are 50+, and I would add that it probably appeals more to people who were more affected by Watergate and the protests of the 60's.  Johnny tried hard to promote this film among college students by going to screenings at several colleges, so I think that the hope was that at least younger literature majors and such would be interested in the film, but I don't know how well that strategy has worked so far    I, myself, enjoyed the film but it wasn't one of my favorite Depp films- it's a good story but just doesn't really bowl me over.  But even though I'm in the right age group, I'm not particularly a fan of Thompson.

Anyway, "leading man" role or "quirky" role, it is simply not true that a Johnny Depp film guarantees box office success.  Even a recent film like Sweeney Todd barely broke $50M.  I hope (and expect) DS to do a bit better than Sweeney if only because I think the musical aspect turned off a lot of folks who would normally like a horror film like that, whereas DS doesn't have that drawback.  But I don't really expect DS to be a huge blockbuster.

See Johnny's box office tallies on this box office mojo page:
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/people/chart/?id=johnnydepp.htm

ETA- thanks for the Cooper article, jimbo.