Here's my take on a storyline approach. I think Perry would probably be striking a line between not being inaccessible because of too much backstory, while introducing new characters, keeping old characters, and putting in easter eggs to thrill the original's audience.

There is a couple who runs the local historical society, who have a precarious relationship with the Collins family. Their goal is to ensure the towns history is accurate. One used to be a PI and the other a professor. Despite their best attempts, they have been stonewalled by the Collins family at every turn. But they don't give up quite so easily. It is through their eyes that we uncover much information, and they are the window into this modern day Collinsport.

I was very excited to hear this news the other day. I know a lot of fans are die-hard for the original and are very skeptical when it comes to any sort of reboot/remake/continuation. And they should be. But I'm hopeful. At a bare minimum, even if this doesn't work out, the fact that DS can still pop in in mainstream pop culture after 50 years and potentially generate new interest just speaks to the power of this brand (and those working behind it).

I'm also encouraged by Perry's comments regarding the original and his love for it. I think he hit the nail on the head when quoting Julia Hoffman's comment about the family history not being particularly accurate. This is a great approach to take that could allow for them to rewrite some of the history, the bumps in the road, and mine some further story out of this franchise. It also could lend itself to the inclusion of some of the original actors as their original characters when done correctly.

I also think that the CW is looking for somewhere to drive fans of Supernatural, a long running and successful show for them, because that is ending with this newest season. So if things work out correctly, perhaps DS could slide in and absorb some of their fanbase.

I watched "The Babadook" because it was on a list for the top ten horror films on Netflix. I thought it was set in England, but it could've been Austrailia as ProfStokes said. It was definitely more psychological than anything else, which I enjoyed because good psychological horror is difficult to do and often is a let down. I thought the ending was a bit strange because of the overall story, but that's yet another reason why I like foreign horror films--they rarely end things as American films might. I wouldn't necessarily watch it again since I've already seen it, but it definitely is worth a watch.

Thanks for the tips about the Focus Points and the Maximum Movie Mode! I saw both of those on there but I haven't actually watched anything contained in those yet. I'll have to set about doing that tonight. I regularly buy Blurays now and I still haven't gotten used to having to "find" certain extras through several menus. It's definitely more of an adventure than having a DVD where they are usually listed neatly for you!

I think the stock definition of canon should be what Gothick described above--only that which appears in the original broadcast show, for any television series. But when you look at each fandom, the definition of canon can certainly change.

Personally, I only take the original series from 66-71 as being canon, and as others have said everything outside of that is a representation of events happening in a parallel dimension of the universe as a whole.

However, for those who are in the Buffy fandom, there was the original shows of Buffy and Angel, and then the "official" comic continuations of both series, written and plotted by the creator himself. In this case, I feel, those continuations belong to the original canon of the primary universe and the stock definition of what canon is has to be altered. Of course I'm sure there are still those who refuse to accept or acknowledge this continuation, as there are with any continuation of any series.

Not sure if it's already been mentioned or not, but when I logged on to Xbox Live today the DS movie is already available for purchase and download through the Zune store, and there is a free 10 minute preview which is the first 10 minutes of the film. I'm half tempted to buy it early just so I can watch it, even though I want the physical copy. If only I had expendable income.

Angelique is probably my most favorite character from the series for the simple fact that she is so fun to analyze psychologically. For this topic, I agree with much of what Gothick has said thus far.

I think the common thread through all of the Angelique's we have seen (Parker's in the original series, Anthony's in 91, and now Green's in 2012) is that she is most simply a woman who is disgusted with her original station in life and seems determined to somehow move up through society. It just so happens that she decides to latch on to Barnabas in hopes that he will pull her out of the bowels of society enough to make a name for herself.

Certainly in the original series she was jealous of Baranbas' love for Josette, and I suspect, of Josette's life in general. She wanted to live the life of a wealthy woman and have all that life would bring to her. Much of her machinations during 1795 revolved around securing a man for herself that would allow her to live a better life. Wanting to conquer Barnabas was her primary goal and it seems easy for me, as a man (albeit a gay one) to say that Angelique thought she needed a man to better herself simply because I have gender bias and it is my perspective. But I don't think she necessarily was going after any rich man in town. She wanted Baranbas because she was enamored with him and if it helped our her overall life status that seemed as if it were a two for one deal.

We see this time and again throughout the series how Angelique is always going after Barnabas by way of Roger, Quentin, Julia, and anyone else she could manipulate in order to get to Barnabas. Much is made of, in all of DS' incarnations, Angelique's hell bent nature to make the Collins family pay for all that they have done to her. But no matter her actions, she isn't simply on a revenge kick against the family for no reason. It's highlighted in the OS more times than I can count that Angelique tries to blackmail Barnabas into loving her or being with her by threatening his family. It just never works out in her favor.

Despite the plot holes and numerous twists and turns, Parker's Angelique steadfastly remains as the best of the three incarnations of the witch simply because the show had the time to explore her character and really make her one of the most well rounded and full circle characters of the series as a whole. The 91 revival and the 2012 film simply did not have the time to devote to doing this and as a result Angelique seemed to turn out to be a caricature of herself and to seem utterly insane and without sound motivation for her actions. We see the common thread I spoke about above, especially in the 2012 movie with Angelique rising to power after turning the town against Barnabas in the 1790s. She becomes the wealthiest person in Collinsport and everyone and everything seemingly revolves around her in some way (which this Angelique seems to like because she seems very self centered and selfish. I don't think Parker's Angelique was quite as self-centered.)

I remember that one of my biggest qualms with the new film was that I kept getting the feeling that Angelique was happy with being the biggest fish in Collinsport because she had acquired fortune and was still close enough to the Collins family to keep an eye on them. However, I always imagined Angelique as being someone who had an insatiable appetite for power and always wanted to grow and be better than she was previously, which meant that she wouldn't have just been satisfied with conquering Collinsport, but would have wanted to expand beyond that realm throughout the rest of the world. Perhaps this is just my own imagination taking liberties with what we were shown. Nonetheless, I never got that feeling from watching the Angelique in the original series, but now that I think about it maybe that was because she never really gained complete and true control of the town Collinsport and because of that she always had something to go after and aim for--she never had time to rest on her laurels and count her dough.

Movie tickets are like everything else these days--it's all going up. This trend isn't going to change any time soon, either. As long as corporate greed continues to rule the economy the prices of everything will continue to be jacked up in favor of making more profit. The difference between movie ticket prices rising and most everything else going up is that going to see a movie is a luxury and not necessary to live life. As a result, theater owners and Hollywood at large will continue to see a drop in audience members attending.

It's also interesting to note that within the last number of years, we've seen more films that have a laundry list of A-list actors in them (look at the Oceans movies, holiday themed movies like Valentine's Day etc). Why does this happen? Most likely it's because these actors surrender some of their normal salary in order to be part of a film after lots of studio convincing. The more actors there are, the more likely it is that people will go and see your film because one of your favorite actors is in it.

I remember a couple of years ago there was a big stink because Hollywood business was looking in to direct-to-home opportunities for new release movies, like On Demand and other services, to alleviate the time and planning it supposedly takes for someone to go to a theater and sit through a film. The idea was to make movies available to the audience in their home on premiere night, or at least within the first week, in order to generate more revenue. I could be wrong, but I also recall that the prices were going to be more than your normal On Demand for films (2 to 4 bucks) and be close to that of an actual movie ticket--all in the name of convenience. But this did not really get off the ground because theater owners cried fowl, claiming that Hollywood was giving up on them after years of driving revenue, and basically accused Hollywood studios of abandoning them and dooming their business if this occurred.

While this business model certainly would have cut into the profits of theater owners, I don't think it would have completely put them out of business immediately. Personally, it does sound convenient to be able to watch DS 2012 at home even now, having seen it twice. But movie purists like me enjoy going to the cinemas and watching it all play out on the big screen, with the sweeping sound systems. There is nothing like this anywhere else, unless you're one of those Hollywood corporate bigwigs who can afford to have a theater in his or her own home. Eventually the audience would dwindle down to nothing but these purists, and we might see the demise of cinema houses everywhere, but I don't think it would've happened for a long while.

The lack of an audience is also why there are more 3D films and "IMAX Experiences" being promoted, because those tickets cost significantly more than a $5 matinee during the middle of the day. It's been proven in business time and again that the model of convincing someone that they're paying for an "experience" means that you can eek out just a little more money from their wallet in exchange for promises that may or may not be fulfilled. I've seen several movies on IMAX screens, but I can say that there is a major difference between seeing a film that is shot on regular stock in IMAX and seeing a film that was shot in IMAX on an IMAX screen. For example, the IMAX sequences of The Dark Knight were much more clear and engrossing that those that were shot with regular film, and I plan on seeing The Dark Knight Rises in IMAX the first time I see it, as opposed to waiting for the second (or potentially third) viewing.

In relation, the lack of an audience is also why indie films are catching the eyes of corporate Hollywood more and more--because they are produced cheaply, have messages that resonate, and are very profitable when they connect with people.

As far as the box office success of DS 2012, I think it will make back it's budget if it hasn't already. We can't really know given the various reports of what the budget actually was. I am still shocked that the budget could have been as high as $150 million, because I simply cannot see where all of that money went. The only thing I can figure is that having to build all of those intricate sets, and a whole town really, drove the budget sky high. Truthfully, there have been movies that are just as visually stunning that have cost a lot less.