I concur, Nell.  It seems to me that the DS-91 Dave Woodard was a combination of the DS-OS Woodard and the HoDS Eliot Stokes (who died the same way 91 Dave did).  I'm surmising that the complete character of Professor Timothy Eliot Stokes would've been introduced later in the 91.  A fun thing to ponder is who could've played the part?  Actually, I'm picturing Carroll O'Connor.

Gerard

On another board, there was a suggestion that Professor Woodard/Stokes would not be needed again on the '91 series, because Maggie had been established as an expert on the paranormal, and that she would fill the role of Professor Stokes from TOS.   I suppose that's possible.  But Maggie, in 1991 -- despite her psychic abilities and apparent knowledge of the occult, had no academic training.  So wouldn't any assistance she attempted to provide in future storylines simply be "guesses", rather than knowledge Barnabas and Julia could count on???   

And by the way,  happy 30th anniversary to the 1991 version of Dark Shadows! 

Brandon, you may have over-looked my post -- because, I neither loved it nor found it a bore. 

I (unexpectedly) liked it.  But, I didn't love it.  It certainly wasn't a bore. 

Just saw the film, and I enjoyed it a lot more than I expected to.  The serious moments were marvelous and reminded me of TOS.  Of course, there was far too much humor, but it seemed to me we had already seen every one of the jokes in the various commercials and trailers.  So, I just sort of tuned-out when I noticed a joke coming up. So, I did enjoy the film -- just wish I could have enjoyed it more.

The weak-link, acting-wise was Eva Green, in my opinion.  She didn't seem to have the essense of Angelique, she was just playing a blonde bitch.  I also think the [spoiler]Carolyn/werewolf[/spoiler] thing was silly, out-of-the-blue, and a big mistake.  That was the only part of the movie that truly offended (if that is the correct word) me, as a fan of TOS. Afterall, a possible sequel would likely have been about a [spoiler]werewolf.[/spoiler] That story now seems unlikely, with the Carolyn development.  And, why burn-down Collinwood?  How can there be a sequel without Collinwood?  But, how could it ever be re-built?  It seemed to be pretty-much destroyed.

What did I like?  I loved the Vicki/Maggie connection.  A real nod to the original.  I also enjoyed Julia's new motivation (eternal youth).  However, I think that angle needed a bit more development.  It did seem a bit shocking, in that one scene. More build-up would have been nice.  Also, there was no real need to kill-off Julia.  Why not just scare her away from Collinwood?  Or scare her into hiding?  She would have been an important utilitarian character in any sequels -- as she was in TOS.  Big mistake, killing her.

Regarding Laura -- they did imply that she was a phoenix.  What was the term they used?  As someone mentioned earlier, they said something about periodic reappearances, but I forget the exact term.  Also, she did first appear during the fire.  At first, I though David was going to summon her out of the fire.  I have a feeling there was more discussion of Laura in the cut-footage.

All-in-all, the movie wasn't the train-wreck I was expecting.  I don't believe it was a parody, and I don't believe anyone was making-fun of TOS.  I wish it had been a straight horror film, but I am not in the demographic that matters to film-makers.

I now believe Burton's comment about not having plans for a sequel.  Too much of the structure of the story had been destroyed by the end of this film -- not unlike House of Dark Shadows.  Of course, they can create a sequel out of anything, but it does seem unlikely, at least to me.

I listened to Kathryn Leigh Scott's interview last night (this morning) on Coast to Coast A.M.  It was very lengthy -- 2 hours long.  She really didn't say anything I hadn't heard before, but was very graceful and seemed genuine.  Did anyone else listen?

Wow, with all the tv spots and previews, and now these scenes on YouTube -- I think the entire movie is gonna be released in bits and pieces before the premiere.  LOL.   Seriously, haven't some other films been critisized for this type of promotion? Where most of the good stuff is released, sorta making the film anti-climactic? 

Wow!  Thanks again for the new screen caps. 

Does anyone agree with me that the interior of the mansion, specifically the staircase, looks a bit artificial?  Like a painting or CGI?  For example, in the screen cap with Elizabeth coming down the stairs -- if you look behind her you can see the stairs, a vase, some large carvings, etc.  For some reason, all of that (other than Michelle Phiffer) looks fake, CGI-ish.  Anyone else feel the same way? 

If they really built the set on a sound-stage, I wonder why the staircase looks like CGI.

Michael, I don't expect a sequal.  If the film is largely based on the comedy of fish-out-of-water, that will get old really fast.  One movie, maybe.  But, I can't imagine a second film based on that.  However, without that humor, wouldn't the second film be a serious horror movie?  And, we know they certainly wouldn't be interested in that. 

Another question -- Are we all assuming the mausoleum is not a part of this film?  That seems to be the case, but just wondering what others are thinking.

As always -- Thank you, Mysterious.  The screen captures are great.

Cousin Barnabas, since I am not one to shy-away from spoilers, I looked closely at the photo you warned us about on page 44 of Fangoria.  Of course I won't disclose information about the photo here, but I personally would not consider that much of a spoiler.  A predictable plot-point, maybe -- but not an important spoiler.  I can't imagine anyone looking at that photo and being shocked.  Most importantly, as you mentioned -- we don't even know the context of that photo.  Whether is occurs near the beginning, middle, or end of the movie.  We don't even know what in which time period it occurs -- 1700s or 1970.  At least, I could not tell. 

I'm not trying to get a discussion of the spoiler content of the photo started here, because I know that belongs in another thread.  I just wanted to comment that I sorta disagree with you, that the photo reveals a huge or surprising spoiler.  You're not wrong.  But, it's all a matter of perception, I suppose.