I caught a bit of the Ellen interview today, but I had to turn it off when they brought up "bad acting" again.  Why was this such a focal point of the movie's direction?  Yes, there was bad acting on DS, but it wasn't all that often. 
 

Haha, Magnus.  It has been a while since I have seen 1795, but I am getting there quickly in my viewing.  So I will come back with more thoughts after seeing him again.  All I know is that I didn't have an immense dislike for him like I did when he played Burke.  And I usually really like DS actors in particular roles or hate them, which is why George's Jeremiah is an interesting case I will have to review again. 

I like Anthony George as Jeremiah; he's much more believable.  Perhaps I take issue with his take on Burke and the way the character is written because the pre-Barnabas storyline (the whole thing) is one of my absolute favorites.  I dislike where they took the Devlin character after the vampire's arrival.  He was made to be almost completely different (and in such a short time!).  Burke as portrayed by Ryan was one of my favorite characters on the series.  I cheered for him almost as much I cheered for Joan.  He was a terrific anti-hero and very well played.  The new identity they gave Burke, the softer side he adopted, his attitude and outlook...  it wasn't Burke Devlin as I had originally seen him.  And that is why I'd rather he had just gone away.   

It's interesting to note that I can hear Ryan delivering a lot of George's lines immediately following his being re-cast.  But, as the series progresses, I don't hear Ryan delivering many of the lines written for the new Burke.  I've always wondered how the famous "duel'' scene would've played out with Ryan.  I'm not sure it could have happened. 

Anthony George did not get "star billing."  The only actors who received special billing on DS were Moltke and Joan Bennett.  In the final few months Jonathan Frid finally got the special billing he had deserved since 1967.  Everyone else on the series was just billed as name and role.

But Anthony George was billed first when Joan Bennett was not in a show and second when she was (just as Frid was after his departure.)  I consider that, in terms of the DS universe, "star billing," because that's just how the cookie crumbled in the credits.  The biggest "star" in any given show was listed first. 

Well, I understand that, but the move was unnecessary.  As tragic bat points out, Mitch Ryan's Burke would probably never have been able to settle down and live a normal life.  It's like the character did a 360, and I would have rather had a new character or Frank Garner fill the role of Vicki's love interest.  The decision to keep the character after his purpose was fulfilled, after the show had moved into a new direction, and after the first actor departed was a poor one.  The fact that we are left wit these uncomfortable scenes is evidence of that.   

Yeah, I too was suprised there was no mention of "Academy Award nominee" Grayson Hall or "Emmy winner" John Karlen, Kate Jackson (nominee), etc.  Maybe it will pop up on the bacK?  And while we're at it, how about "film legend" before Joan Bennett's name?   

I never imagined a more anti-climactic fallout from this new movie.

Tell me about it.   

I sincerely hope that the cover doesn't have that mistake, jimbo.   

It's interesting whose names went on each cover.  For HoDS, it's Jonathan and Joan, something I love very much, despite the fact that I don't think Joan has a large enough role in this film to warrant it.  But I am not complaining.     (The VHS only listed Frid.)

For NoDS, however, I don't know why David Selby's is the only name.  The old VHS gave Kate Jackson the top billing followed by David.  I guess her name isn't that recognizable anymore? 

Well, this is all I know.  We were supposed to get the unrestored releases on DVD years ago.  They were delayed because of the new Dark Shadows.  The thinking is they would be released around the same time, but then they were pushed back so as to separate the titles. 

Then Depp Shadows is being promoted and something caused Home Entertainment to change the date of the release again. 

Now, the packaging plays up the original series as opposed to Depp Shadows.  Like you said, MB, there could be something on the back or, like I said, there could be some marketing tie-in.  But I find it strange that all of this went down and now the TV Show is being used as the promotional tool as opposed to Depp Shadows.  What does that lead us to believe?  I have no idea, but I think it's clear that Depp Shadows played a part. 

Why wait to release the movies until Depp Shadows came out, then opt to separate the release dates, then reverse that decision, release them closer to the debut of Depp Shadows, and then fail to mention Depp Shadows on the front covers?   

As for the art, I don't dislike it.  It's actually what I was expecting.