Depp/Burton DARK SHADOWS Is In Production!!

You know...  I never really thought the house falling into "ruin" was an actual state of being for Collinwood Manor.  I thought of it as metaphorical.  It's now being run by a bunch of crazies who put macrame owls on the wall - hence ruin.  But, it could very well be a physical state and/or HIS Collinwood could be the Old House.  Lots to think about there. 

I'm really enjoying this discussion.  Thank you.

In re-reading the press-release, I noticed another detail not yet mentioned here.  Here's a quote from the release: [spoiler] "Angelique dooms him to a fate worse than death: turing him into a vampire, and then burying him alive."  Should we assume that Angelique is the person who seals Barnabas in his coffin (rather than Joshua)?   Probably so, since Barnabas is said to be the "master" of Collinwood in 1772 -- that probably means that Joshua is dead.[/spoiler] This seems like an unnecessary change in continuity, since it doesn't save any money or time.  Hmmm.

Sorry to complain -- but hiding these spoilers sure is a lot of trouble.  Definitely not a simple procedure. 

If Barnabas wasn't a playboy how would he know what to do to cause Angelique to still want him after 200 years?

He was the person that she wanted and she wasn't going  to give up. She made him out to be her savior, but he could never fullfil that, can anyone?

It's funny how that never seems to be discussed in fandom - but chances are extremely good that it has to be true for Angelique to still speak of "those nights in Martinique" for centuries afterward!  

I don't think that Angelique was a virgin. She might have been the one that had the skills, that she wanted Barnabas to remember.  Maybe she know how to please.

we haven't heard a peep about a sarah collins, have we?

seems like that subplot is getting dropped.

given the plot outline i don't think it's necessary...or perhaps even advisable...to have any of the "present time" actors portraying joshua and naomi. they're obviously going to be minor parts so that casting might confuse new audiences not familiar with the traditional turn of events. besides jonny lee miller is too young to effectively play the pompous, blustery joshua and there's a pretty significant age difference between him and pfieffer in terms of husband and wife.

perhaps having angelique be the one to entomb barnabas is simply more expedient given the time frame of a movie versus a series. the storyline appears to be set largely in the present(1972)so the whole story of joshua's reasons for entombing him might be too lengthy to get into.

we haven't heard a peep about a sarah collins, have we?

seems like that subplot is getting dropped.

I wondered about that too. Sarah was used to humanize Barnabas on both series, but I suspect the thinking may be that Depp's Barn may not need that same sort of humanizing because the audience will have already seen the human Barn before they ever see the vamp Barn and they'll also already be aware of the events that lead to Barn being cursed. It's a theory, anyway.  
(I briefly discussed parts of this (though not the Sarah aspect of it) in the "Potential Sequels To DS Film With Johnny Depp: Present VS. Past?" topic if anyone would like to continue that discussion over there.)

given the plot outline i don't think it's necessary...or perhaps even advisable...to have any of the "present time" actors portraying joshua and naomi. they're obviously going to be minor parts so that casting might confuse new audiences not familiar with the traditional turn of events. besides jonny lee miller is too young to effectively play the pompous, blustery joshua and there's a pretty significant age difference between him and pfieffer in terms of husband and wife.

I thought about the age difference between Pfeiffer and Miller - but then I dismissed it because there was an almost identical age difference between Joan Bennett and Louis Edmonds, too (13 years versus 14 years for Pfeiffer and Miller), and they can do even more with makeup nowadays than they could back in the original DS' time.
(I also briefly discussed in the "Potential Sequels To DS Film With Johnny Depp: Present VS. Past?" topic the merits or lack thereof of the 1972 cast playing parts in the past because that was one of points we'd already been discussing there. I basically came up with only one good reason to have Pfeiffer and Miller play Naomi and Joshua, and it wouldn't be confusing to the audience if the film were to go with it. So, if anyone would like to continue the discussion there...)

perhaps having angelique be the one to entomb barnabas is simply more expedient given the time frame of a movie versus a series. the storyline appears to be set largely in the present(1972)so the whole story of joshua's reasons for entombing him might be too lengthy to get into.

I agree - I think it will be more expedient. I could be wrong, but it almost seems from the press release that Ang will curse Barn and seal him in his coffin in almost one fell swoop, rather than having Barn become a vamp, go around killing people, and then be entombed.
(As I also theorized in the "Potential Sequels To DS Film With Johnny Depp: Present VS. Past?" topic, it may be because they want to get to 1972 as quickly as possible because that seems to be the film's main story.)

356 days 23 hours 10 minutes 56 seconds until the day the Depp/Burton DARK SHADOWS is released(ET)!!

It would be a shame if the movie forgets about Sarah. One of my favorite scenes in the original series is when she gives him what for when she stops him from killing Julia. Barnabas pinned by a little girl--and grieving AND conscience stricken--was a wonderful moment.

I am so excited. I read the press release which wasn't too spoilerish for me.   I love the changes and to me there is nothing in the synopsis to suggest it's a comedy! The changes sound wonderful and exciting!

I cannot wait...more later!!!

One of my all time favorite scenes from DS was when Barnabas was in Maggie's room presumably to kill her and suddenly you hear the voice of Sarah singing "London Bridge."  That backs the back old vampire away from Maggie's bed and right out that French door.  He asks "Where are you?" and then right at the French door still backing up, the camera zooms in perfectly on Barn's face as he says "What do you want of me?" A great shot, a memorable moment for me in the series.

That said, it would not surprise me if Sarah is left out.  After all, the movie can only be so long.  They have to be careful about what they incorporate into it and play out.

I think some comedy angles would be Barnabas being confronted with some modern elements such as seeing a car or being in one for the first time or any number of other things. I see some comic relief being drawn from such encounters.

I agree, DarkLady, that omitting Sarah would be a loss - but unfortunately, in order to streamline a TV show into a two hour film, a lot of great things have to fall by the wayside. (As I theorized in the Potential Sequels topic, it would certainly seem as if the whole trip back to 1795(1772 in the film) would be completely unnecessary given the way the WB press release explains how the Depp/DS film will begin.)

(And BTW, every time I see your name on the forum, I think of Cher's Dark Lady. And given that it's Cher's birthday today (which I noticed while quickly flipping through the new issue of Entertainment Weekly), I think we should all join in singing the chorus as a tribute to you both:

"Dark Lady laughed and danced
And lit the candles one by one
Danced to her gypsy music
Till her brew was done
Dark Lady played black magic
Till the clock struck on the twelve
She told me more about me
Than I knew myself"

There - wasn't that fun?    (And now I've gotten it out of my system.  ))

356 days 11 hours 44 minutes 26 seconds until the day the Depp/Burton DARK SHADOWS is released(ET)!!

Yes, I think of that too when I see our cousin's name on the forum.  That also happens to be my favorite Cher song.

Angelique may not have been "pure" before Barnabas but one thing we know. She was after him, not the other way around. Which tells me that she was impressed. 200 years later she still wanted him. Maybe Josette was true love and maybe she rocked his world, who knows. Whatever the case may be I hope this movie doesn't have alot of nudity or gore. I don't mind either but I don't think DS needs it.

Gosh, well, thanks! *blush* I have to confess that I didn't know the song at all, but I'm certainly flattered to be so distinguished by my cousins on this board. *preens just a teeny bit*

Here you go, DarkLady.  Dark Lady just for you.  And since the movie is set in the early seventies, how appropriate if it was included in the sound track!

Gerard

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnYAkvCpom0

I find the plot outline in the press release to be fascinating.  I like that they are going to streamline the story and give it a context fitting for the characters they are going to use.  That will at least be much better than the rush-job 1795 arc in the 1991 series, where characters were included just to stand around and remind us of the original (i.e. Millicent.)  It may also be that we have no look-alikes or 'reincarnations' except for the two characters who do cross time--Angelique and Barnabas.   I also find it interesting that the 1972 date is almost like they are picking up shortly after the original series was cancelled. 

Speaking of clothes and eras, I don't picture BC wearing a caped topper but rather a longish, ankle-length type coat like those worn by the Earp brothers in 'Tombstone'.  Will he wear a leisure suit for dinner?  Mini-skits were very popular in 72' and I picture BC getting a look at all that flesh around him...it will be quite interesting.  Saw a photoshopped(?) pic of JD's BC character in google where he does have the heavy jewely and what looks like an earring.  While the hair is not JF fringy, it definitely is a fringed bang style.  JD looks extremely good in this picture.  What a shock for Angelique to find out Barnabas has been unearthed. What were her plans for him since she may have been the one to bury him and keeping him alive but for what purpose.