DARK SHADOWS FORUMS
General Discussions => Current Talk Archive => Current Talk '24 I => Current Talk '09 I => Topic started by: dom on February 24, 2009, 07:33:34 PM
-
In light of the current discussion going on in
It's official: Dark Shadows returns as a film with Johnny Depp
I'll throw this out there. I am wondering what DS fans think about possible sequels to the depp film (should it take place present day) using the same present day cast for flashback storylines vs a different cast for flashback storylines?
-
Is there a lead balloon icon in the house? lol
I wonder if today's audience would have a problem with present day characters playing their ancestors? Because it's not necessary I would tend to think that it would come across as preposterous.
I don't particularly like the idea of the ancestors being carbon copies of the present day characters be it in a flashback or sequel. But as opposed to a totally different actor, I was wondering how the audience might react to a 'Nicole Kidman as Virginia Woolf' type of makeup for the ancestors? You know- altered facial features, different heights, etc. Maybe if only even for the Josette character if they decide to even have a Josette (portrait or flesh).
Was also thinking about younger actors playing the older characters in makeup present day and then shedding the old person makeup to become the younger versions of themselves or their ancestors.
Got to give the computer back to it's owner - the nerve! [snow_embarrassed]
-
I've been thinking about your question ever since you posted it, and the reason I haven't responded is that I can't seem to make a decision because nothing is known about the film's script. IF this upcoming film is set entirely in one time period and any potential sequels set in another, I can see the possibility of using other actors to play the different roles. But at the same time, IF they go the Vicki travels into the past route, whether it be in this film (which would seem unlikely because it may prove too confusing) or a potential sequel, a big part of the story has been Vicki confusing the people in the past with the people they resemble in the present and believing (at least initially) that what she's experiencing in the past might only be a dream.
I suppose it all depends on what shape this film's script takes...
-
You both raise some interesting points, and I agree that the question is open depending on the form of the first script.
Personally, I liked the dual roles in different time periods; it felt like repertoir theater to me. But i was wondering, is today's audience familiar enough with theater for this to be even workable? I hate to think it, but the stage and stage conventions such as this, sadly enough, may not be familiar to younger moviegoers, and may need explaination.
Jeannie
-
People seemed to accept it back when they made the mini-series. Hell, I was 10 when that aired and got it, and I know most everyone here who watched the show back in the day was around that age and got it, so why would it be different now? I agree that it all hinges on the script.
-
I'm basing my speculation that it may not translate on comments I've seen from younger fans. I'd love to be wrong, but it seems references we took for granted when we saw the show are not understood by more than a few of the younger fans, even those of college age. Could be for lots of reasons, but since theater and going to plays is not emphasized the way it used to be in schools.....
Jeannie
-
My hope is that they make at least 3 films. The first would be the release of Barnabas. The second would tell the story of how he became a vampire. The third would be about the cure. I would have some actors play different parts in different times while other would not.
If more than three movies are made maybe Barnabas could be human in some and a vampire in others. They could do three werewolf movies. They could do all of the original stories and new stories.
-
My own preference is for an entirely different scenario.
No sequels.
But let the movie be so successful that somebody decides to make a new television series! [ghost_cool]
-
If it were up to me, the first film would take place entirely in 1795 (or whatever year the powers that be decide to set it in). It's a self-contained story with a classic romantic triangle and a conclusion (Barnabas being chained in his coffin) that serves as a perfect jumping off spot for a sequel. The sequel could be set in present day and follow Barnabas as he is released and learns to deal with existing in a new millennium. Because Barnabas would have been established as the protagonist in the first film, the second film could explore what it is like for him to emerge from his coffin in an alien world and learn how to survive. I think it would be fascinating to see just what sorts of experiences Barnabas went through from the time he was released to the time he first showed up at Collinwood, as it was only hinted at in the previous DS incarnations. Plus, it would allow for a deeper exploration of the Barnabas-Willie relationship.
-
I like that sort of plot scenario, Claude. Who's knows if that's the way TPTB are thinking? But I agree it makes a lot of sense. And I'm almost dying of suspense to know what shape the script has taken. But who knows how long it's going to be before we actually find out. I had originally hoped for some hints at this year's Fest - but the schedule of events didn't seem to look that way. [ghost_sad]
-
I like your idea a lot, too, Claude. If Barnabas was released in 2009, we'd maybe still have an adult David as the master of Collinwood but the other family characters would be new, like Star Trek TNG. Maybe Quentin would be around because of the portrait. If he destroyed it, maybe David Selby could play the aged Quentin, LOL.
-
The problem with Claude's scenario is that it is ideal for those who are already fans of DS, but would probably be off-putting for people unfamiliar with the story and characters.
Imagine for a moment if the first Pirates of the Caribbean had ended with Captain Jack Sparrow magically frozen for some reason. Then the second movie has him waking up in 2005, in a world he doesn't understand, with the rest of the cast of the original in new roles. How would film-goers have responded? Most likely, with loud complaints and by avoiding the box office.
-
Being that the main reason they created 1795 characters for the already established cast of the original DS was to preserve their jobs over the many months it took to tell the 1795 story, I would prefer to see different actors playing the ancestors in the new film (if they start the film in present day and then travel back to the past, per Dom's initial question). Having new actors for the characters in the past wouldn't put any of the modern day actors out of a job (although it does suggest the need for a bigger budget to accommodate twice the number of cast members).
My reasons are: I got annoyed with Vicki (both in the original and 1991 versions) mistaking an ancestor for a modern day member of the family every time she met someone for the first time in 1795/90. "You look like someone I once knew." We, as an established audience, already love our show and can easily forgive this. But if you think about it, how believable is it for 20 or more people in a family separated by nearly 200 years to look exactly alike?
Also, the zinger was supposed to be Barnabas' resemblance to his "ancestor's" portrait (and also Maggie's to Josette's). If Elizabeth looked just like Naomi, Roger like Joshua, David to Jamison, etc... to me that greatly lessens the importance of Barnabas standing by his portrait and saying "Oh, Madam. You may tell her that it's Barnabas Collins."
And although I loved the 1991 version I found it hard to set aside my disbelief for Vicki looking exactly like Josette and even harder to believe the 1790 characters could accept it so easily. And after Josette dies and the hatred of her Aunt Natalie (and others) is directed at (the wrongly accused) Vicki, to me that hatred for someone who looks exactly like your recently deceased beloved niece just doesn't ring true. (Perhaps it would have been easier for me if the writers had Natalie, Andre and others say to Vicki something like "You have used your witchcraft to mask your own face with the face of my innocent Josette!")
And lastly, on the original show (and to a lesser extent, the 1991 version) it was never explained why a non-family member in the past looked like a family member (or other character) in modern day. (Natalie looks like Julia; Forbes looks like Joe Haskell, Noah looks like Harry Johnson, etc..) While we fans have had more than 40 years of fun trying to figure out this contorted family tree, why bother bringing up these questions if the budget allows for a different actor for each part?
SDP
-
I had not considered this about the new movie, but I agree with you. Your reasons are excellent, IMO. [ghost_smiley]
Nancy
-
And lastly, on the original show (and to a lesser extent, the 1991 version) it was never explained why a non-family member in the past looked like a family member (or other character) in modern day. (Natalie looks like Julia; Forbes looks like Joe Haskell, Noah looks like Harry Johnson, etc..) While we fans have had more than 40 years of fun trying to figure out this contorted family tree, why bother bringing up these questions if the budget allows for a different actor for each part?
karmically they are inter-related souls caught up in a trauma they are trying to work out of though maybe on earth they are not family. I thought in the '91 series Maggie does say something along those lines.
-
Good heavens. Karmically inter-related souls caught up in a trauma. Does this sort of thing happen a lot in Maine?
Aside from that, I think the actors playing the characters in the present should also play the characters in the past, because that would, to me, be an essential part of preserving the tone or spirit of Dark Shadows, which apparently Depp and Burton want to do.
-
As far as explanations go, I like that one. Something similar was mentioned in an episode or two of The X-Files, as I recall.
-
Well, if the synopsis released by Warner Bros. yesterday told us anything with any degree of certainty, it's that a sequel, if we're lucky enough to get one (or more), most probably won't be an origin story of how Barnabas came to be cursed as a vampire because the first film is going to deal with that. And it's unlikely to deal with much of anything else in 1772 but that. We'll probably see Barnabas' womanizing, his relationship with Angelique, his relationship with a Josette type character if not Josette herself, his betrayal of Angelique (at least in her eyes) in favor of the Josette type character, and his cursing and burial. And it will probably be dealt with fairly quickly so as to get to 1972 where the main story will take place. So, there will probably be very little need of many if any of the other characters we're familiar with from Victoria's trip to the past. Victoria will probably never even make a trip into the past because there won't be any need of it. And thus any discussion of whether the 1972 actors should play characters in the past as well is pretty much moot with the exception of Joshua, Naomi and the Josette type character.
As I mentioned yesterday in the "Depp/Burton DARK SHADOWS Is In Production!!" topic, I really wouldn't mind seeing Michelle Pfeiffer and Jonny Lee Miller play Naomi and Joshua. Though I have to admit that it would probably be unnecessary unless, unlike the original DS and the '91 Series, they're going to play up the fact that Barnabas sees the resemblance between his parents and Elizabeth and Roger and it affects him in some way. The only one who might actually play two roles in the film might be Bella Heathcote as both Victoria and the Josette type character.
What do others think...
-
I've said it before and will no doubt say it again--I hope Victoria does not look like Josette nor end up being Josette's reincarnation. That was a cliche the original series avoided, much to its credit. How much more interesting to see Barnabas attracted to Vicki for herself rather than for who she once was or her accidental resemblance to someone else entirely!
With this addendum...if Vicki is the reincarnation of someone who was supposed to hook up with Barnabas way back when, but never did (not like in the series where they were engaged and he later bit her, almost turning her into a vampire)--that would be cool. Maybe if she looks like his first victim, for instance?
-
I'm too lazy to go back to look up her exact wording because it's something that she said over two months ago, but KLS said that she was lead to believe Bella Heathcote will play both Victoria Winters and Barnabas' lost love (who is presumably Josette). Although, KLS has no direct connection to the film so far as we know, so who knows how reliable her info is? I would presume she got the info from Jim Pierson, who is a consulting producer on the film. But who knows...
-
Does Tim Burton even do sequels? I can't think of a single follow-up to an iconic Burton film. Well, with the exception of projects that were picked up by other directors... one unfortunate example being Big Top Pee-Wee. We definitely do NOT want a Big Top Barnabas.
-
Big Top Barnabas."
[cheers]
-
Well, Burton did do a second Batman movie so another DS film wouldn't be completely out of the question.
-
And no one says that Burton has to direct any sequels. In fact, it's quite often the case that sequels are handled by different directors...
-
as for the film. as much as i can't wait to see it. weather the film is a hit or not, we really can't be 100% that "Tim Burton" would even do another one. cause he RARELY does sequels at all. regardless if the 1st film is a hit. the only time he's really done that is with "Batman" & he had to be talked into making that one i believe.
-
Assuming the film does contain mostly comedic elements like those we have seen in the trailer, I have a question about sequels. Does anyone agree with me that the elements of the story we have seen, make the possibility of sequels less likely? Perhaps I am wrong, but with all that comedy, AND the speculation that [spoiler]the family is aware that Barnabas is a vampire,[/spoiler] AND that he becomes their protector, makes possible storylines for sequels seem fairly trivial. For example, how could the family ever be terrorized by a ghost (ala Quentin or Gerard), when they have a vampire living with them? Or, how could a werewolf storyline be taken seriously in a future film, when it is surrounded by all that comedy (as established in the original)?
Of course I am not as creative as a screen-writer, but it does seem to me they have written sort of a dead-end storyline here. And, I do realize I haven't seen the film yet, so I may be speaking a bit prematurly. Does anyone else have thoughts about this?
-
Michelle Pfeiffer predicts 3 sequels... or at least hopes for 3 sequels. [snow_cheesy]
Check out the articled linked to in this post: MICHELLE PFEIFFER Takes Us Behind The Scenes Of “Dark Shadows”
-
Of course I am not as creative as a screen-writer, but it does seem to me they have written sort of a dead-end storyline here.
I do agree that it may appear that way given what we have seen in the trailer, but as everyone knows, no matter how much a movie should be a stand alone feature and not have sequels, where money is concerned there is always a way.
My bet is that while some of the family members may know that Barnabas is a vampire, not all of them will. And those who do (if this is indeed a true plot point) may meet a bitter end by the finale of the film thus preserving his secret in future movies.
Either way, there is always a natural next step for any story. The problem lies in unearthing it and handling it properly when the time comes.
-
sequels might prove difficult given what we've heard and seen hinted at in the trailer...
[spoiler]mainly it looks like collinwood burns to the ground. as well as the family business. i'd also guess that several important characters die as well. [/spoiler]
so if there is some sort of prequel/sequel perhaps something set in a different time period or focusing on a different set of characters.
-
Although there have been reports that [spoiler]Collinwood will be burned and that characters may die[/spoiler] I don't think that necessarily precludes any options for a sequel in the future. Depending upon the [spoiler]characters who die....let's say Roger for instance, perhaps the sequel could focus on Laura coming back to claim her son and what she believes to be her part of the estate after Rogers death. Maybe this is how Quentin is introduced as well--she could bring him back with her, or she could summon his ghost to push David towards her. From there they could explore her past with him in 1897....[/spoiler]
That is just one option that I thought up on the fly. And you know that Angelique is always up to no good so including her in a sequel would not only be pretty much a sure thing, but they could further the story between her and Barnabas.
-
We don't really know how extensive[spoiler]the fire at Collinwood will be because we've seen photos of the outdoor set afterward and it was still standing. Many, though not all of the windows did have burn marks around them, but those windows seemed to be limited to the main entrance and the ones immediately surrounding it. Though that doesn't tell us what the damage inside the house will be like.[/spoiler]
-
Interesting article by John Mitchell at mtv.com on this very question:
www.mtv.com/news/articles/1681704/dark-shadows-franchise.jhtml (http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1681704/dark-shadows-franchise.jhtml)
-
At this point I think it might be a bit too soon to even answer his question because we haven't seen the film yet. Though what is interesting is that apparently Warner Brothers is hoping for a franchise, and there's no doubt that they read the script before they made those comments, so perhaps they're know something that we and John Mitchell don't...
-
well i hope the film is better than what the trailer well the TV spots suggest it as. which is a comedy. but than i am trying to be open minded as well. either way even if it's not as good as i hope my expecations i'm sorry are high. i can't wait to see it. & i hope it does become a franchise. because i'm hoping i'll love it.
i'm who am i kidding praying i'll love it.& if "Tim Burton" doesn't do the next one i dunno, i can't really answer that one since the film isn't out yet. & if "Johnny Depp" does do it, it prolly won't be for another couple of years anyways since he has a crapload of films in the pipeline anyways. i mean look at his filmography. but it's NOT nearly as many as say "Will Smith" he's got like 30 or 35 films in the pipeline. some of them i think he only produces. but most of them are i'm sure for him to star in. either way i don't get why these actors sign on so many roles like say "Will Smith" if they aren't going to make a film for 3 or 4 years. but
at least with "Johnny Depp" he does get to them eventually. since he doesn't rest much acting wise.
sorry for going off topic a bit here.
+ Attachments and other options
shortcuts: hit shift+alt+s to submit/post or shift+alt+p to preview
-
Anyone have an opinion one way or the other of the next storyline that would best suit a second film? And would you be agreeable to the 2012 cast reprising their corresponding roles as did the cast in the original series? Director? Studio? New actor suggestions for new roles like Jeb, Quentin, Adam? Totally new premise? A werewolf story?
My mind automatically goes to 1897 but I imagine a new present day or even next generation storyline would make total sense to a writer wanting to create his own storyline. And do you think a new Barnabas or no Barnabas would fly in the wake of a new film? Do we really need another vampire themed DS?
-
i dunno, if they want to keep Johnny Depp or pick someone else i'm ok with that.
but leave out the comedy. and keep the darkness, the gothic that should have been the film. Barnabas doesn't have to go around killing loads of people. he didn't in the series. and if he did it was only like 1 or 2 people at a time. if they keep it with the same cast i'd like to be a new story maybe take place a year or two later ? i can't think of a plot sorry that's all i got.
-
unless they could find a way to really zoom in on one element of it...most likely Quentin's storyline...I would think 1897 is too colossal and unwieldy with dozens of characters to ever be effectively encapsulated in a two hour film.
and even that's a stretch.
-
it's been three years since the film's release (can you believe it???) and after some early chatter that it could lead to some sort of "franchise" we never heard another word again about sequels or any further expansion of the property.
I think it's safe to assume burton/depp's association with the brand has expired.
where does that leave things in terms of rights and ownership??? can anyone else develop the property or is it still tied up in whatever sort of deal burton had the dc's heirs???
-
After I first saw it, I knew J. Depp's character/Barnabas wouldn't be around if there were any additional film(s). Although, if there were 2-3 more movies, I suspect Barn and Victoria would have cameos.
I think someone (Stokes) might actually reveal the true nature of Laura's existence & 'death'. With all the 'supernatural' stuff in Collinsport, someone could have put a phony ending for Laura (perhaps per her request).
And, I think we need some 'shops' in town....I do think some Collins would return, rebuild the cannery, and since it's 2015, would diversify.
It would be nice that while busy building a new Collinwood (don't know if she'd name it that), Liz could meet and slowly date Schyler Rumson (NOT a Levi!!).
So, David would be a rebellious teen, he'd get to learn about his mother....and while searching through debris of old Collinwood, he'd find an old fashion phone....
Some of the men who would be building the new Collinwood might have names such as Joe, Chris, and young 20ish Sammy.
Patti
-
Can we please just get a new TV series on AMC or HBO or something? Please!
-
Can we please just get a new TV series on AMC or HBO or something? Please!
Exactly, I would prefer it as a tv show.
-
given the perceived "failures" of the 1991, 2004 and 2012 version of the story I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for another take on it...
and the "rights" to the property might still be tied up with the deep/burton deal even though it's obvious by now they have no intention of any further expansion of the franchise.
-
I don't know if anyone would consider 2004 a failure. It was simply a network decision not to give it a chance. One thing is for certain, Warner Bros. has to not be involved.
-
How nice to see you posting again, JWGucciEnvy. Welcome back! [ghost_smiley] [ghost_smiley]
-
Thanks, it took 3 years to finally sit down and watch the new movie. I did not care for it.
-
It has been one of the most polarizing things ever to hit fandom. People either adored it or hated it. No middle ground.
-
Nonsense! I basically liked it, but I do have some reservations about it. I haven't really fully made up my mind, so I'm definitely in the middle!
-
Likewise, JWGucciEnvy. And nice to meet you!
-
I agree with the statement that Depp Shadows has been quite polarizing. I for one detested it, both as a version of Shadows and in and of itself. It underlined for me why I don't bother with very many current movies.
On an OT note, for those who enjoy romantic historic drama, I thought the new version of FAR FROM THE MADDING CROWD was wonderful. Charming script, beautiful performances, stunning scenery--on every level, a delight.
G.
-
And it probably shouldn't go without mention that it wasn't just fans who were sometimes polarized by the film - critics often were as well. Some critics loved it, while others really disliked it. Though unlike what would seem to be the case if one simply judges by what's been posted by online fandom, there actually was a lot of middle ground in the reviews because many critics liked parts of the film but disliked other parts. But then that's pretty much the case when it comes to the reviews of most films...
-
Even though I loved the film, believing it to a great tribute to the OS-DS, I didn't find it perfect. Hardly. I thought the sex scenes were gratuitous. I thought that the one between Barnabas and Angelique was too way-over-the-top; I think it would've worked better if it would've cut out all the shenanigans as they "made love" and just cut to the two of them sitting there in the wrecked office. Leave what happened up to the imagination of the viewer. Likewise, the one between Barnabas and Julia was just, well, downright icky.
At the end of the film, it just went overboard with throwing in everything from the entire series except the kitchen sink, all in a few minutes. Yes, we got Laura Collins; yes, we got a werewolf, but it just all really didn't fit. To me, it was just a way to set things up for sequels. They should've stayed with subtlety, as when it turns out that the reincarnation of Josette is Maggie Evans, not Victoria. That's a solid tribute to DS orthodoxy, not the '91 or '04 versions that committed, shall we say, "blasphemy."
I think, over time, the '12 DS will grow on its detractors. After all, when the '91 aired, for all its glitz and glamor, I absolutely disliked it. To me, it lacked all subtlety, was just a re-hashed version of HoDS, was (save for a few characters) totally miscast, poorly written, directed and acted. And don't forget those - gulp - palm trees!!! I didn't miss a single episode, but I didn't like it. When it left the air, I thought "no big loss." It could've been done so much better. But over time, watching it in reruns on Sci-Fi ("SyFy") as well as on Hulu, and its recounting here, it grew on me. I began to appreciate certain things about it and found out, despite its many faults, it wasn't that bad and, with work if it had continued, it could've become something rather good if not great. Time heals all wounds.
Gerard
-
Nonsense! I basically liked it, but I do have some reservations about it. I haven't really fully made up my mind, so I'm definitely in the middle!
Here Here!!
I basically like it too; the main things I don't like are characters/arcs that had no options except to either be 'smushed' together, or dropped.
Patti
-
My favorite character from DS-12 was - are you ready for this? - Mrs. Johnson. She was totally re-written from being a busy-body to a sweet, dementia-suffering "maid" whom the family keeps on because they obviously care for her. There's not much she can do, but what she tries to do she does at her best. She's quite oblivious to everything going on around her, unlike the other incarnations.
I would've like to know more about DS-12's Carolyn. I wasn't excited about turning her from a semi-independent, bar-hopping rebellious almost-twenty to a self-focused, cigarette-smoking (from one of the deleted scenes with "Magtoria" where she smokes, too) rebellious almost-sixteener. But it pretty much worked and I understood the reason why; having two ingenues almost the same age in a film that encompassed a shorter plot in less than two hours wouldn't've worked. But I had some questions: how was she being educated, for example? Maggie/Vicki arrived to deal with David and his education, but what about Carolyn? Did she go to school? It was never indicated (unless it's in one of the deleted scenes) that "Magvic" was also her teacher.
The film encompassed so many things from DS-OS but left them unanswered, such as what happened to Paul Stoddard. It was referenced, when Carolyn sang her stinging song with Alice Cooper to take a shot at her mother for example, but I figure that all such things were left for possible sequels. Fans would understand all the references (and both Depp and Burton are fans, so they incorporated them), but newbies would be left wondering more of the background.
Again, maybe sequels would've fleshed it out more. Did Elizabeth accidently (or purposely) murder Paul and had him stuffed into one of those secret rooms, or maybe she thought she did and he returns? Now that Julia is a vampire, and obviously PO'ed, what havoc would she bring? And what about Maggie Evans now also being a vampire and the fully reincarnated Josette together with Barnabas? Does Angelique come back? How would all that wonderful Dynasty-like battles between Maggie/Vicki/Josette, Julia and Angelique work out? Would they have a bitch-slap fest in a pool of holy water? Would all three realize that they have become the things they are because of Barnabas and confront him in an intervention? I don't think they had interventions in 1972. Don't forget Barnabas and Elizabeth rebuilding Collinwood to its glory and Carolyn now being a spokesgirl for the ASPCA. And where's Roger? Maybe he'll find the reincarnation of Laura while out spending the loot given to him by Barnabas.
You know, it's all great fodder for fan-fiction.
Gerard
-
I appreciate your bringing the thread back to topic, Gerard.
One thing I really liked about the film was its taking care of the 1795 storyline in the intro. I thought that was brilliant.
I wouldn't mind a '60s prequel perhaps spotlighting the Burke/Roger/Laura triangle and accident and Burke's return and the Phoenix. Along with Liz and Paul and Ned Calder and Bill Malloy and Mathew Morgan. And perhaps introducing Carolyn's story in there somewhere. Sounds like the project would never get off the ground, lol - boring - no Barnabas, Julia or Quentin - but we'd have the pen! lol. I think they could get away with using all new actors with the action taking place 10 to 18 years earlier.
1897 makes the most sense - no need for repeat actors - thought I suppose Pfeiffer & McGrath could do well to kick it off as a '70s haunting. An 1897 without Barnabas is an interesting prospect. Quentin could be the hero and the haunting would be unnecessary. Maybe the threat could be Gerard from 1840 - I wonder if the fans would go for a reworking of 1897? Or even a '60s prequel of 2012?
-
One thing that puzzled me at the time was how the initial comic book story (with a return of Angelique theme) in 2010-2011 had a finale that was very close to the ending of the 2012 movie. The comic came out as the movie was being prepared and then filmed, so I did wonder if there had been a script leak. I don't recall this ever being mentioned subsequently, but then, I haven't exactly done due diligence to keep up with press around the 2012 film.
G.
-
over on some of the boards there's been some loose (and very unsubstantiated) "chatter" about a potential sequel in the pipeline...
I haven't heard a peep. and it really does seem like depp and burton have lost all interest in expanding the "franchise". anyone here heard any whispers???
seems highly unlikely. it's been over three years. and even if a new film went into production now it wouldn't hit the screens until 2017.