Depp/Burton DARK SHADOWS Spoilers

as we know the actors portraying joshua and naomi do not have any "present time" counterparts...

and nothing thus far has indicated or even suggested that the main 1972 actors will play duel roles with characters from the 18th century.

in fact everything we've heard would imply that the piece is largely set in 1972.

so if a helena bohnam carter character [spoiler]bites the dust here i think one can safely assume it's doctor hoffman. sorry julia-philes. [/spoiler]

I certainly hope they didn't do any of the "repertory company" kind of casting that was done in the original and 1991 series.  In the original series, it was really essential, because they needed to keep their actors busy (and not hire new ones).  In the 1991 series, since they included scenes from both 1790 and 1991 in each episode, it might have worked a little better to cast different actors in most of the parts, but it was fun to see the actors play two different characters.

With the movie being a one-off, I think it would only confuse audiences to see the same actors play different characters in the past and "present".  Much better to just have an actor assigned to one role, unless there is a very specific story reason to have them play two roles, such as with a reincarnation.

There's been talk of Bella Heathcote playing a dual role as both Vicki and Josette (or simply the ghost of Josette?).  If Heathcote has scenes as Josette set during the 18th century, Helena could also have a dual role and play Natalie as well.  I am sure Helena would have a lot of fun with that part.  I somehow imagine her performance owing more to Barbara Steele's version of Natalie than Grayson's... they were sharply different characters...

G.

This link was posted to another site.  It's a review from someone who attended the test screening.  Beware there are plot SPOILERS, mostly for the early parts of the story:

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/54274

For those who do not wish to read, this viewer saw the movie as a comedy, and a successful one in that there were lots of laughs.  The final comment was that the only way the movie could fail to be a hit is if the studio *doesn't* market it as a comedy.

Regards, G.

(admin note:  Be sure to read reply #81 before replying to this post. Thanks.)

How two people can claim to be fans of the original show, and then focus on comedy, is simply beyond me. Of all the characteristics of the original series one could name, I think comedy would be mighty low on the list.  Over the years, we've all come to expect this sort of thing from people who weren't fans of TOS, but this comes from two guys who claim to be part of us. 

As Andy Griffith used to say, "Don't that beat all?  Don't that just beat all?"

(admin note:  Be sure to read reply #81 before replying to this post. Thanks.)

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/54274

"...this version is most definitely a comedy, and a pretty damned funny one."

(admin note:  Be sure to read reply #81 before replying to this post. Thanks.)

Admin Note:

Even though this is a spoiler topic, Midnite and I would please ask that none of the specifics of the scenes mentioned in the aintitcool.com article be discussed. Firstly, that site may not respect the non-disclosure agreement that people had to sign, but we do. And secondly, while Midnite doesn't mind general spoilers, she'd really like to not have the story spilled before the movie opens when she can see it for herself! And she can't avoid reading this topic because I'm already avoiding it. So, we would appreciate it if you respect our wishes.    There will be plenty of time to discuss specifics about the film after it comes out. 

Thanks,
MB

Either the reviewer had a short attention span or they've made a BIG change...

[spoiler]Michelle Pfeiffer plays Elizabeth, matriarch of the Collins clan, who lives in the mansion with her ineffectual husband, Roger (Johnny Lee Miller), and their two children, David (Gulliver McGrath) and Carolyn (Chloe Moretz).[/spoiler]

Sorry if I upset you and Midnite by posting the link, MB.  I didn't think the spoilers were all that much beyond what is stated in the official synopsis released long ago by TPTB, but perhaps you've even avoided reading that.  I seem to lack the faculty for being spoilt--or even understanding what is meant by "spoiler," and I do try to play it safe here.

To Phil, I had the same thoughts you did about that character's fate in the film.  It might have been done deliberately as an homage by Burton.  I don't know that the screenwriter is DS savvy enough to come up with such thing.  I guess we'll all see when the movie actually comes out.

G.

Probably needless to say, I haven't read the aintitcool.com piece - I was simply judging by the warning in your post that it contains plot spoilers.    On the other hand, I have read the synopsis, so if that's all there is to their piece, it would be fine. Though I suspect there is more to the piece than just that because I've since read a few PMs/e-mails warning us about it.

Dark Shadows was always underpinned by literary roots. Underneath the soap and the Gothic horror, there is epic tragedy. The new feature film should be a Wuthering Heights, instead it's a comedy with a drag-queen substituted for the Shakespearean lead.

Crossing The Addams Family with The Rocky Horror Picture Show is not Dark Shadows.

I don't like Tim Burton's flamboyant fetish comedies, and I despise Johnny Depp's drag-queen mentality. They trivialize every story they touch, and I wish they'd stop.

Warner Brothers stalled Dan Curtis for years. I don't care what anybody tells you, the young execs did not want Curtis, they just wanted to do their own thing with his intellectual property. They muscled him out, and then they waited until he died so that they could turn Dark Shadows into a Tim Burton franchise. And they will relish the moment that their "grandmother's generation" reacts to the put-down. That's the sort of people they are at Warner Brothers.

The people responsible for this film disgust me, and I don't care who knows it.


Richard

Sorry if I upset you and Midnite by posting the link, MB.  I didn't think the spoilers were all that much beyond what is stated in the official synopsis released long ago by TPTB, but perhaps you've even avoided reading that.  I seem to lack the faculty for being spoilt--or even understanding what is meant by "spoiler," and I do try to play it safe here.

A nondisclosure agreement includes all information that isn't publicly known at the time of disclosure, so "all that much beyond," while it might not seem like a big deal to a casual reader, IS a violation, and I did learn that there are indeed details in the report on aintitcool.com that constitute a violation of the confidentiality agreement.  (Many thanks to ProfStokes for cleverly avoiding the issue with her careful choice of YouTube clips.)  I understand your frustration, Gothick, but we're stepping into legal territory with any report that violates the NDA, so while we don't police off-site links, please understand the position of MB and myself when we seek to prevent the discussion of them here.  Thanks.

I agree with you, Richard and the fact that this will clearly be a comedy makes me sick. For awhile I had hopes that the yay sayers were right and that it wasn't going to be THAT funny but it looks like I'm wrong. What gives me pause is the legions of original fans who are ready to embrace such a thing. And you know I saw the 2004 pilot at a DS fest. I didn't care for it because I didn't feel it was true to Dan Curtis' vision either BUT I think that was more faithful than what this train wreck will likely be.

Warner Brothers stalled Dan Curtis for years. I don't care what anybody tells you, the young execs did not want Curtis, they just wanted to do their own thing with his intellectual property. They muscled him out, and then they waited until he died so that they could turn Dark Shadows into a Tim Burton franchise. And they will relish the moment that their "grandmother's generation" reacts to the put-down. That's the sort of people they are at Warner Brothers.

As I understand it, making the DS movie wasn't any Warner Bros. execs' idea, it was Johnny Depp's.  Johnny Depp was the one who wanted to make the movie, and ended up at Warner Bros.  It was Johnny, not Warner, that wanted Tim aboard, wasn't it?

As I understand it, making the DS movie wasn't any Warner Bros. execs' idea, it was Johnny Depp's.  Johnny Depp was the one who wanted to make the movie, and ended up at Warner Bros.  It was Johnny, not Warner, that wanted Tim aboard, wasn't it?

Correct. Depp owned the rights and could have taken it to whatever studio he wished. And his producing partner Graham King is 52.