i'm not sure if this has already been posted elsewhere but there is the typically "misinformed" article and interview with KLS in today's LA Times(which of course KLS could correct if she wanted to).

in it she states that her cameo in the new depp/burton project is the film's "ah ha" moment. i'm sorry but i find it very hard to believe that the film's most pivotal or important or climactic moments revolve around her or any of the other original star's cameos. it's called a "cameo" for a reason.

sounds like her usual maneuvering to keep herself at the center of this thing at all times(don't forget she's got a new book to promote).

this conversation really got me thinking about what the viewers expectations are for who-looks-like-who...

after the second or third storyline they start to get the drift. for the 1795 storyline the writers decided it was important that everyone vicki met in the past looked like someone she knew in the present. after this storyline it became both more random and also more selective as the actors began to take on a repertoire of characters.

as said above viewers began to know instinctively that ALL of KLS's characters resembled josette dupres even before they were specifically told. in a similar vein they know all lara parker and david selby characters are some variation on angelique and quentin respectively. but joan bennett, louis edmonds and nancy barrett can be a new and completely unrelated character each time.

we'll never know how the writers decided when it mattered when one character looked like another and when it didn't but it's interesting what the viewers came to accept.

alexandra would have had, what, a one year old at that time?

so while she likely would not have come back onto the series full time she might have signed on for a thirteen week storyline. especially if given the opportunity to play a "dark" version of the character as she still says she would have liked to.

but again, alas.

there is the unfortunate tendency to confuse anything that is highly dated as being "campy".

the reality of this situation is that for most the general public the entire DS experience is a classic piece of high camp.

i no longer think it's worth getting defensive or upset about. i've just come to accept it.

for some reason i find it highly entertaining that the fish cannery...of all obscure things...appears to be factoring somewhat largely in this film. burton is not a realist. how a fish cannery will be depicted and why is getting curiouser and curiouser.

doesn't the "spoiler thread" say that [spoiler]a major character will die in the film? how about death at the hands of fish canning equipment.[/spoiler]

i forget did the 1991 version even mention the cannery? i don't recall it factoring into the story at all.

(edited by admin)

i almost shudder to think of the fervor and intensity of the questions about the new film that will leveled at scott, parker, selby and frid at this year's fest. it's almost too much to consider.

since those four actors were on set...however briefly...the curiosity about what's happening with the film will be stratospheric. "comic con" at least had a diverse group of attendees with varied interests...the fest is ALL DS fans. it's really going to be quite intense.

as an aside i've noticed in alot of the recent coverage that the film "stars johnny depp and helena bohnam carter". depp obviously but in some of the early reportage didn't carter herself say that she's playing a "small part" in the film? how did that evolve into a "starring" role? do you think that writers are basing that assessment on julia hoffan's prominence in the original series more than what's happening with the movie?

again the intensity of the curiosity at this year's fest could get kind of SCARY. especially given all the chatter and fear out there that burton and depp will "ruin" DS.

true devlin has a vendetta against the collins family and a chip on his shoulder the size of texas...

but one thing he despises about the collins family is what he perceives to be their dishonesty and hypocrisy. he's written i think as a basically decent human being who was greatly wronged by a particular group of people(the collins')and out for revenge against them but not the kind of person who engages in sweatshop labor or other behaviors harmful to people in general.

sweat shops, child labor, drug peddling, prostitution and the like are just not in the nature of the character. remember in this storyline ROGER is supposed to be the creep and burke the person wronged by a powerful family.

"brewsters" was the name of the oft-mentioned and oft-shopped at department store of the leviathan episodes.

they even created a box and i think a shopping bag for it in a nice bit of prop-styling.

speaking of burgers in one of these early episodes mrs.johnson is seen at a STOVE in the collinwood kitchen for it's one and only appearance. i think she's flipping a burger.

forget dunkin' donuts i'm going to walk into starbucks and order a grande-half-caff-misto CONTAINER of coffee. if the "barrista" looks at me strange i'll tell him it's for constable carter...who b.t.w. HATES mustard on a sandwich. but who eats butter on a sandwich?

yes and of course the infamous "room twenty four"...home to weary collinsport bachelors across the centuries...begins it's life here as burke's trio of rooms(a.k.a. "the presidential suite"). i love how carolyn and vicki compromise their small town "reps" waltzing in and out an unmarried man's hotel room unescorted. shocking!