The show's music and sound effects were played onto the soundtrack live in the studio gallery, but the actors were not able to hear this.

They are from two different re-issues that MPI did in the 1990s.  Both are facsimiles, but for the second wave the box art was updated.  The earlier version is the one with the House of Dark Shadows photo, which was issued around 1998.

Very sad news - I've just posted some obituary material on my site.

I've just published an article on my site, detailing the history of the comics - check it out at http://www.collinwood.net

http://www.collinwood.net | Dark Shadows Journal Online

New on the site:

* Illustrated Episode Guide

Now with 45 new summaries from 1968 and over 80 new screen captures


Cheers

Stuart

I don't really get the whole debate about canon, to be honest.  As far as I'm concerned, be it novel, comic, book, CD or whatever, they're all stories with their own merits.  For what it's worth, a sequel with the original actors, produced by Dan Curtis Productions is as about as official as you're likely to get.  But, does it really matter if it's "canon"?

All that canon really means is "I like this story less than this story" -- ultimately, it just doesn't matter.  If someone likes something enough, they'll make it fit, regardless of how contradictory or illogical it might be. Note how many fans dismiss the Leviathan and Vicki developments off the bat.

I know the original DS episodes from back to front, and much as I enjoy them, there's a finite amount of mileage to be had from them.  I'll happily embrace any new stories or ideas, becasue I'd prefer to look forward rather than back.  With audios and novels there's a potential for Dark Shadows to feel alive and vibrant, rather than trapped in the past tense.  I think it's a great pity if fans really do dismiss new productions out of principle for such a flimsy reason.

I completely disagree that Michael Roberts' Sheriff Patterson was in any way racist in any way shape or form.

Agreed...  It's no more valid than saying Roger is a racist reflection on the white community.  I liked the pilot's take on the role a great deal - he projects unquestionable decency and intregrity, but is clearly massively out of his depth.  Patterson in the 1991 show was a total cypher and a thankless role.  You don't get any sense of who he is, whether he has family, friends - anything!?!  The 2004 Patterson gives the audience so much more - I get a real sense of a wife-and-kids guy driven by rugged values, who's never had to question any of his outlooks or beliefs...  until now.