Depp/Burton DARK SHADOWS Is In Release!!

[Uncle Roger]

I guess that I'm not that much of a purist. At least not in the strictest sense. I've seen or experienced just about all the various incarnations of DS, including that extremely bizarre Off Broadway play from the late '80's. The original is and will likely remain my favorite. But I've found things that I enjoy in each one of them. And I've also found things that I can't stand.

Is this the best movie ever made?  Absolutely not. Is this the movie I would have made? Definitely not. Unfortunately, I just didn't happen to have $150 million lying around when Warner Brothers was looking for backers. Did it keep me entertained? Definitely. It's nothing short of miraculous that more than forty years after its demise, Dark Shadows is still seen as a viable property. That's unheard for a daytime serial. (No one seems to be chomping at the bit to do a big screen revival of The Secret Storm.).

The film has increased awareness of Dark Shadows among the general population. Several of the younger people that I work with went to see it because "it's that show you like so much." And the general population is who this movie--and most movies--was made for. Cult, by nature, means a small, albeit devoted, audience. There are simply not enough of us to support a big screen version. If we were, one of the attempts at a reunion with the original cast would have gotten produced.

And, with its theatrical run just about at an end, the 2012 movie will become its own memory. Dark Shadows is like Cher. Or, if you prefer, like the Phoenix. Just when you're about ready to write it as done, it comes back in a new form.

[Gerard]

And considering that this film has successfully remained, despite the detractors saying it was a "dud," in theaters for over a quarter of a year, well, that says something.

Gerard

[Mysterious Benefactor]

It's certainly not the case here, but elsewhere I've seen purists (and not just DS purists) describe themselves as people who don't want to see anything changed when it comes to remaking a favorite TV show or film. They want everything to remain the same, practically down to every word of dialogue and even the sets/locations. And if that isn't the case, which it invariably isn't because it's only natural that anyone remaking something wants to put their own stamp on it, then it's sacrilege! And I suspect that's the type of purist the person writing the open letter to Burton was addressing. 

104 days 10 hours 35 minutes 20 seconds since the Depp/Burton Dark Shadows has been in release(ET)!!

[The Doctor and K9]

"I've seen purists (and not just DS purists)...They want everything to remain the same, practically down to every word of dialogue and even the sets/locations. And if that isn't the case, which it invariably isn't because it's only natural that anyone remaking something wants to put their own stamp on it, then it's sacrilege!

Unless they became more conservative after the show ended and NODS was released, then the first two movies are sacrilige as well. I'm amazed at people who will read the Ross books and the comics, yet be overly critical of anything that came after '76 (when the comic ended).

[Mysterious Benefactor]

You definitely bring up an interesting point because I don't think I've ever seen any DS fans claim either of the two original films are sacrilege.    And certainly in the case of hoDS, one would think it would only be logical that those with that sort of predilection might because so much is different in hoDS from the way things played out on the daytime show. So, it's really fascinating that they haven't seemed to jump on the sacrilege bandwagon in that instance. But then I suppose logic may not play much of a part in it. 

104 days 11 hours 3 minutes 35 seconds since the Depp/Burton Dark Shadows has been in release(ET)!!

[madscntst]

Just a guess but I think that the reason many fans might forgive the differences in HODS and NODS is because they use the familiar and beloved OS cast*.  That is a very strong love and loyalty!  Also, perhaps there was a lot of excitement when HODS and NODS came out because they came out during or just after the OS and they may have been swept up in it.  Now, they still love them because they were a part of the history and fandom that they remember, whereas later versions and incarnations could be met with a more critical eye.

*I would not count the all-too-brief cameos of our 4 wonderful OS cast members in the film.  If anything, I think that may have made some of the purists even angrier, because not enough screen time was given to them.

Edited to add- and to the point that the characters in HODS weren't the same as in the OS and that the ones in NODS were quite different altogether, that might be true.  But then again part of enjoying the show was seeing the cast members play different versions of beloved characters and also different characters altogether so I maybe a lot of folks were okay with that.

[CastleBee]

So, it's really fascinating that they haven't seemed to jump on the sacrilege bandwagon in that instance. But then I suppose logic may not play much of a part in it. 

I agree.  And, of course, they may be taking a lesson from the so-called Reverend Trask who mentioned sacrilege a few times too often for his own good.  Perhaps they're trying to avoid another brick in the wall so to speak.  Tee hee...

[KMR]

Yes, it seems like there are "purists" for whom anything DS must include either the original cast, or the exact same plots/scripts.  Woe to anyone (such as Depp/Burton) who attempts to create a new work using BOTH a new cast AND a new plot/script!  IMO, such "purists" should simply lock themselves away with the original series and ignore the rest of the world. 

[David]

Expecting every incarnation of DS to be exactly like the original is idiotic.
Dan Curtis had one vision, Burton had another.

Just compare Bela Lugosi in Dracula & Christopher Lee in Horror of Dracula--two VERY different takes on a classic tale and character. Both work beautifully, albeit for different reasons.

[Nancy]

Excellent point.  HODS was a slap at the still-existing series as far as I was concerned.  It seem to be accepted by the masses only because the original cast and Dan Curtis was involved with it. 

You definitely bring up an interesting point because I don't think I've ever seen any DS fans claim either of the two original films are sacrilege.    And certainly in the case of hoDS, one would think it would only be logical that those with that sort of predilection might because so much is different in hoDS from the way things played out on the daytime show. So, it's really fascinating that they haven't seemed to jump on the sacrilege bandwagon in that instance. But then I suppose logic may not play much of a part in it. 

[Gerard]

A virtual word-for-word, scene-for-scene of Psycho was made in 1998 (with Vince Vaughn and Anne Heche) and it was simply dreadful.  The only thing worse about whole thing was the change in the end where the heroine (Julianne Moore), after finding Mamma Bates turned into a Ninja warrior.  The moral of the story is, even though something worked in its original totality and specifics, doesn't mean it'll work again.  A virtual stoke-by-stroke fake of the Mona Lisa is still a fake.  It's better to take the concept of an original and use it as a base for something else that has its own uniqueness.  There are even occasions when remakes are just as good, and sometimes better, that the original.  Take, for example, the '78 version of Invasion of the Body Snatchers.  Critics hailed it just as good as the '56 classic; some said it was even better.  That's because the producers didn't try to exactly copy the original; they updated it, changed locations (from a sleepy California town to the hustle-and-bustle of San Francisco) and reworked the characters.  And yet I remember back in '78 there were sci-fi buffs who screamed blasphemy.  When Stephen Spielberg did his cinematic version of War of the Worlds in '05, he emphatically stated it was not a remake of the '53 classic - it was his take on the HG Wells novel.  He did, however, pay homage to the '53 version, restating a few lines of exact dialogue in one scene and having the original stars make a cameo at the end.

Gerard

[The Doctor and K9]

Excellent point.  HODS was a slap at the still-existing series as far as I was concerned.  It seem to be accepted by the masses only because the original cast and Dan Curtis was involved with it.

Depending upon your point of view, HODS might have seemed like a departure from the OS. It did not to me. I got started on DS, unless you count some very dim memories of the 60s, with the Ross novels. DS was also being syndicated at the same time, in '76.  When I finally got a chance to watch, WLVI 56 had it on 11:00 PM so I could only see it on certain Fridays, I was very confused. Barnabas seemed so brutal compared to the Ross books I was getting in dribs and drabs. As I'd find them in used book stores and various sales, I'd grab them up. When I finally saw HODS in about '82, it was farily consistent with what I'd seen. OK, Carolyn was not a vampire, but she was bitten and doing Barnabas' bidding. I later found out that HODS was simply going back to the original plan for the Barnabas story. That may be another reason why fans are so willing to accept it. It's not as much of a departure since it's a chance to see what might have been.

[Nancy]

In HODS, Barnabas' [spoiler]killing off most of his family[/spoiler] was a major departure from the series and the character, enough so for me to not like the movie very much. 

Nancy

[The Doctor and K9]

In HODS, Barnabas' [spoiler]killing off most of his family[/spoiler] was a major departure from the series and the character, enough so for me to not like the movie very much.

Oh I don't dispute that it was a departure. But for me, coming from the superhero Barnabas of the Ross novels, (I did not get Barnabas Collins or Secret of Barnabas Collins for several years-the books came to me in near random order), the way he behaved in the 1967 story was a shock. For me, it wasn't much of a leap to go from there to HODS. But if you were watching in the 60s and seeing 1840, I can certainly see why HODS would seem like a total departure, especially if you came in say, post 1795 and only saw his MOSTLY heroic period.

[Mysterious Benefactor]

Not sure about the other three theaters that we knew of, but according to Fandango and Box Office Mojo (oddly enough, considering they say DS has closed), DS is still playing 4 times a day in that theater in Hooksett, NH. In fact, the same basic lineup is still there except that one film closed (I'm not even sure what it was - but it wasn't any of the other supposedly closed films I mentioned that were also still playing there last week because they're also all still there) and Magic Mike has opened.

105 days 9 hours 58 minutes 32 seconds since the Depp/Burton Dark Shadows has been in release(ET)!!