Debunking the 'NEW Dark Shadows movie' TV Guide comment

[Darren Gross]

Hi folks!

The comment in that TV guide piece mentioning 'Dan Curtis is planning a new movie' has gotten many fans- myself included-very excited about the possibility of a new DS movie.

While I don't want to burst anyone's bubble, but I believe it's mostly just PR.

Dan Curtis has been hoping to get a DS movie off the ground since the 91 series. The plan, I believe was to do a two-movie version of the 91 series; one film covering the intro of Barnabas, Vicki etc.; the second covering 1795. I'm not sure if this ever went to script stage or just outline stage.

There is NO new script and if a studio was interested it would have to commission one. Even then, it would probably be yet another retelling of HODS (yawn) with a new cast.

Dan Curtis is always 'planning' another DS show, DS movie, and a NIGHT STALKER movie (which have been pitched, rewritten and rejected numerous times).  There are several DC projects in development,  but the dramatic TV movies (I can't be more specific than that) are the most likely to get the go-ahead.
Over the last 5 or so years, projects keep getting stalled in development. The studios just don't seem to take the bait.

I wouldn't advise anyone to hold their breath.

While it'd be a treat to have a DC horror feature out in theaters again- it's been 26 years since his last horror feature, BURNT OFFERINGS- (and I'd relish the opportunity to watch him direct the material), I think the DS story material is too dated and the backstory and amount of characters is crippling and unwieldy for screen condensation.  

Forced into a two hour time slot, with a beginning, middle and end, you end up with a rampaging vampire movie, which is certainly fun, but extremely stale.

If DC did get the go-ahead on a new horror picture, I'm sure he'd direct the hell out of it, and at least it would be a few notches above all-CGI junk like THE HAUNTING remake. Honestly, though, I don't believe DC has seen many modern horror films (it's never been his interest)- the last one I think was SLEEPY HOLLOW- and I wonder if a modern 18-25 year old audience would respond to his style.

Of course, in this town, projects get greenlighted fast if the right people are interested. Heck, maybe the TV guide article successfully netted Dan a bunch of pitch meetings next week.

You never know.

Remember though, in the film business, it's always wise to have some kind of production rumors going around. Whether they're true or not, you want people in the industry to know you're name and to be talking about you.  It helps get pitch meetings and deals made when the 20 something, no-nothing executive knows your name...

[Stuart]

BTW, Darren don't hate me for this, but I've long thought that it Dan Curtis should remake anything, "Night of Dark Shadows" would be a prime candidate -- it needn't even be done under the "Dark Shadows" banner, and might even do better in its own right for not been tagged with it all...

The problem with DC and "Dark Shadows" is that he seems to assume that "House of DS" was the distillation of all that worked on the show, when in fact it was the product of people who probably hadn't really worked out what was needed to transfer the format to a new medium...

Sigh...  

[Gothick]

I personally think the quality of any Dark Shadows related product plummets in direct proportion to DC's personal input.  But that's just me.  As Grayson points out on the anniversary CD, "Dan really does have a genius for spook!"

Gothick

[Darren Gross]

No prob, Stuart.


I don't find the idea of a remake of NODS offensive in the slightest. Heck, I'm up for anything that might provide the impetus for a restoration of the original.

I don' t think you could match the original for mood, location and camerawork (Dan's tendency these days is to use endless amounts of diffusion and fog filters- I prefer his older, razor-sharp, deep-focus photography)but it would certainly be curious! (Just think, these days films tend to be much longer and very padded. We could end up with a 4 hr film! Perhaps a mini-series...hmmm...)

I've even toyed with the idea of re-shooting a choice deleted scene or two (Quentin finding the skeleton, poolhouse dream scene) with the actors as a fun inclusion in a 'making of' featurette. You know, have a series of clips and interviews detailing the making of the film, introduced from one of the actors on the Lyndhurst property (my choice is Chris Pennock because he's the only cast member who doesn't have re-recording work in the longer version).

Then, after an interview clip mentioning how several scenes were cut from the full 2-1/2 to 3 hr version, we do a jump cut to Selby and Karlen (in brand new footage, in costume) tearing down the basement wall, opening the door, with candelabra and finding the skeleton, etc. Then, after Selby's line reading, just where the scene would cut, Selby stops, breaks character and addresses the camera discussing how the original version of that scene is gone, why, and where it would have gone. Then cut to more interview footage.

I think it'd be a fun inclusion and would satisfy the die-hards who have been wanting to see that scene for 30 years.  

[Mysterious Benefactor]

The plan, I believe was to do a two-movie version of the 91 series; one film covering the intro of Barnabas, Vicki etc.; the second covering 1795. I'm not sure if this ever went to script stage or just outline stage.

On June 24, 1993, Curtis authorized a message that was put up on the old Prodigy DS BB (which was moderated by DS Companion coauthor Melody Clark) that said that he was interested in doing two DS features (covering the basic story points that you've explained) and asked for fan feedback. There was also a blurb in the July 29th NY Post. By October the project had been scaled back to only one film that would take place in the present. A script for that one was completed and was supposedly "under review" at "various" studios. But by January 1994 the project was basically dead in the water.

Dan Curtis is always 'planning' another DS show, DS movie, and a NIGHT STALKER movie (which have been pitched, rewritten and rejected numerous times).

I said pretty much the same thing last week. That NIGHT STALKER project has gone through who knows how many stages of development since before the '91 series aired!

[Stuart]

I've even toyed with the idea of re-shooting a choice deleted scene or two (Quentin finding the skeleton, poolhouse dream scene) with the actors as a fun inclusion in a 'making of' featurette... we do a jump cut to Selby and Karlen (in brand new footage, in costume) tearing down the basement wall, opening the door, with candelabra and finding the skeleton, etc. Then, after Selby's line reading, just where the scene would cut,

Hmmmm...  I'm not entirely bought on that -- the years haven't exactly been kind to John Karlen, for instance.  However, I think that if it was redone with extras, maybe in sillhoette, or at least partially obscured with the actual actors doing their line reading, it could be amazing

[Darren Gross]

Well- since the scene is designed to be almost entirely in silhouette, I think we could get away with it. It's only supposed to be a recreation, anyway- I would never think of cutting it back into the picture.

The poolhouse is pretty near impossible though, and could only work with stills integrated with the surviving 9 second clip. The script only indicates a 'series of dissolves' to Angelique and Quentin's lovemaking. There are no notes of what the shots are or the angles. Are they static shots, wide shots, high angle shots, extreme close-ups? In what order? Is it a 10 shot series or 3 or 5 or what? And what is the onscreen action, apart from the well-documented kissing shot? Do they suggestively lie down? They do in another scene in the full-length version. It probably was staged much like the intense full-length tower makeout flashaback. I've shown some extended bits of this tower scene at the shows I've done, and am thinking of unleashing it at the Fest presentation....Should be quite a jaw dropper.

I disagree about John Karlen, though. A couple of years back, I would agree, but he's been looking great lately. Of course, he might be reluctant to shave his mustache off. If he was reluctant, that'd pretty much kill it as far as I'm concerned; it'd look too much like a fan video or convention skit.

I've heard that Dan Curtis wants to revise the director's cut with digital technology and re-integrate new scenes he was unable to film because of special effects limitations of the times. For example, he always wanted Walter Matthau to play the hippie at the beginning of the film but couldn't afford him so the scene wasn't shot. Now, using digitally manipulated stock footage of Matthau (pulled from previous MGM productions) and newly filmed backgrounds, we'll be able begin the film as it was supposed to.

Also, the famous 'shopping with Gregory' scene will finally be filmed and integrated. The same type of computer effects work will be used as in the previously mentioned shot, in order to include Nancy Barrett and Kate Jackson with the camp Gregory character. For Gregory, Dan's gone a little risky with his choice (but I think it's bold and inventive and screams cutting edge excitement- so hip with the kids these days) and is thinking of morphing the head of Keith Prentice (with 'mod' ascot and long hair) onto the body of Jabba the Hutt. For consistency's sake, though, Jabba will be clothed, referred to as 'Gregory', and will speak his lines in English, not Huttese.

[Brian]

I've heard that Dan Curtis . . . always wanted Walter Matthau to play the hippie at the beginning of the film. . .

Also, the famous 'shopping with Gregory' scene. . .Dan's gone a little risky with his choice. . . and is thinking of morphing the head of Keith Prentice (with 'mod' ascot and long hair) onto the body of Jabba the Hutt. . .

LOL, Darren. . .but having heard some of DC's other ideas over the years, the Matthau casting could almost be true.  

By the way, John Karlen does look good--esp. considering he's pushing 70--next year, I think!  (We'll all--hopefully--get there, too, someday!)

Brian

[Darren Gross]

Yup, hopefully we'll all get there...and hopefully I won't still be posting about 'possible' restorations at that point.