Depp/Burton DARK SHADOWS Is In Release!!

I agree, CB, that the way she appears so briefly in the film does seem to give the impression of someone from an earlier time. But looking closely at the still shot, I agree with Midnite that it is very 1960s.

Wouldn't that make sense, though?  She was lost at sea before Julia was brought in, which was at least 3 years before (if I'm remembering the dates mentioned in the movie), and we don't know how much time elapsed between Laura's death and Julia's arrival.  So that puts Laura's death back to at least Halloween, 1969, and I think it's safe to assume that neither a ghost, a banshee or a phoenix would have updated their wardrobe after death. 

But then a lot of times when things get cut they necessitate that other related things also get cut because they're no longer going to make sense, so you end up with a film that's 113 minutes rather than closer to 120.

I agree with CB that the Julia subplot seems totally extraneous. As the film plays now, you could cut all of Julia's scenes out of the film entirely and it would make no difference whatsoever to any of the rest of the plot. There are no threads to connect her to the story; just references to her (that still don't influence any path that the plot takes). In fact, the infamous "doctor/patient confidentiality" scene actually undermines what may have been a way to justify the sex scene with Barnabas and Angelique. Because I could not detect any chemistry between B & A, and given B's professed love for Josette and devotion to his family and his hatred for A, why did he give in to her so easily? I was thinking that maybe he was just dealing with 196 years with no "release", but since there had been that recent incident with Julia...

Mind you, I'm definitely not saying that Julia (or her subplot) shouldn't be in the film! I really like this take on the character. But I am dying to know what else may have been in there originally.

As far as the box office goes, I think it's safe to say that Dark Shadows will pass Contraband before this weekend.  I think it's possible that it will catch Act of Valor, but I'm kind of hoping that it can hang on long enough to catch John Carter.  I desperately want to have as much ammunition as possible to argue whenever somebody suggests that the movie was a flop, and to be able to point to real flops like John Carter clearly was (and Battleship is shaping up to be) certainly helps. 

Wouldn't that make sense, though?

Oh, yes. I guess the way I wrote my post wasn't clear that I thought the dress was quite appropriate. The brief time it appears on screen (and in a ghostly way at that) it does give the impression of something way older, but looking at the still it's exactly right. Perhaps part of the reason it looks so much older in the film is that we're used to seeing Josette's ghost, and portraits of other ancestors from the distant past, and we're then somewhat conditioned to thinking of a ghostly image as belonging to a character from a much earlier time.

I desperately want to have as much ammunition as possible to argue whenever somebody suggests that the movie was a flop, and to be able to point to real flops like John Carter clearly was (and Battleship is shaping up to be) certainly helps.

I hear you!    It's just maddening that so many people are calling DS a "flop" or a "bomb" or a "disaster". Compared to any typical movie it's doing quite well! The thing is, it came out at the second-worst possible time. Look at the grosses of everything else around, and you'll see that The Avengers had a humongous impact on every other picture, all around the world. Under the circumstances, DS is performing just as well as anything else. The only worse time for DS to be released would have been the weekend before! 

This is an interesting discussion, and I thank everyone for pitching in their thoughts.  A few more of my own:

1) Regarding Josette and Vicki- in my (rather long ) post from yesterday I didn't meant to try to claim that Josette wasn't involved in Vicki's actions.  But rather, what I was trying to say was that I don't feel that Vicki was being possessed or put under a spell by Josette, and that I felt that she was in control of her own actions.  I think that the flashbacks were meant to show that Vicki (or I guess I should say Maggie) always felt close to Josette- even as a child, she considered her as a companion rather than an entity that she was afraid of.  Even when Maggie was locked up, Josette was her only companion.  I think that she always felt this strong connection to Josette, even if she didn't always fully understand why, until the end when I think it must've all come together for her and she realized/remembered that she was Josette.  So sure, I think that Josette led her, and even demonstrated how to fall a couple of times, but I still feel that the decision was Vicki's to make.  I do agree that this could've all been conveyed better in the film, and perhaps I am making these leaps because of my past familiarity with the characters.

2) I wish that Laura's character would've been brought out slightly more in the film, but on the second viewing I did realize that they refer to her a lot more than I caught onto on the first viewing.  There were the things I mentioned yesterday- that it is Laura who leads David to find Barnabas in his coffin, and it is Laura who tells David to tell Barnabas where Vicki is.  But there is also David in the sheet, multiple mentions at the beginning to both Vicki and Barnabas that David thinks he sees/talks to his mother, and there is the conversation at the shore between Barnabas and Vicki.  So there is a lot there already.  I might be in the minority here, but I don't think that I would've wanted to see David and Laura chatting.  I'd rather that be kept a mystery, and not really know if David is really talking to her or if he's just imagining it all.

3) Regarding Julia's "treatment" of Barnabas, I second MB's thoughts on this.  Julia's first reaction to finding out that Barnabas is a vampire is anger- she can't believe that Liz would endanger the family by letting a vampire stay under their roof.  Liz vouches for him, but more importantly she plants the seed that he could be an interesting case for her to study.  I don't think that really occurred to her until Liz suggested it, but once she did, Julia started to realize the potential of what might be in it for her.  Once she and Barnabas had their conversation about the curse of vampirism vs. aging and dying, I think she was sold on the idea of totally trying to use him to her own purposes (immortality and youth).  I don't think she ever really cared that much about curing him, per se.  Personally, I can accept that this is a different Julia than the one we know, and as much as I loved the OS Julia and her quest to cure Barnabas, I'm okay with this being a different take.  Oh, and as for whether her subplot should've even been in the film at all, I'm okay with it and don't feel it's out of place.  It serves to show (even if too briefly) that Barnabas had a hope of a "monster becoming a man", and having that reduplicated when he wants to be with Vicki (when he storms into the lab and discovers her treating herself, he is coming in to beg her to work harder to cure him).  It also shows him being used yet again, and losing hope in his situation.

4) About Barnabas walking around in the day- in this incarnation, Barnabas was able to be outdoors as long as his skin wasn't directly exposed to sunlight, and I don't think that Julia's treatments (or lack thereof) had any bearing on that.  I don't have a problem with him being able to walk outside during the day- even Dracula could walk outside during the day, as I recall, but he was just weakened.  But I really wish they had added even a sentence or two about this, just to make it make more sense.  In one of the interviews with Johnny that I read, he mentioned that he liked the idea of having to use heavy sunblock.  This agrees with all the theories that popped up when we saw the first photos from the filming, and it explains why his makeup looked even more exaggerated outdoors than indoors.  But there was never any mention of it in the film, and I wonder if something got edited out.  They could've just said that just like the supposed allergy to silver, he had an allergy to sunlight too.  I mean, how do they explain to the family that Willie needs to stand there holding an umbrella over Barnabas?  I am just guessing that the audience is supposed to assume that this all happened offscreen.  In some ways, I think it's better not to spell out every single detail, because then it makes a film tedious if it keeps stating the obvious too many times.  But there is a balance, and they probably could've just clarified this a bit better- like I said, even a sentence or two might've done the trick.

Sorry, I've gotten long-winded again! 

Mind you, I'm definitely not saying that Julia (or her subplot) shouldn't be in the film! I really like this take on the character.

I do as well. And I also wish there was more of her.

But I am dying to know what else may have been in there originally.

Definitely! And particularly when Seth Grahame-Smith has lead us to believe that Helena Bonham Carter was one of the actors who was most affected by what was left out. Supposedly there was much more interaction between Julia and Barnabas and between Julia and Vicki. And I recall HBC talking about stuff involving Julia actually treating David - but if Liz didn't tell us that Julia was David's doctor, apart from a few passing remarks that Julia makes, we wouldn't really get much of an impression of that.

I desperately want to have as much ammunition as possible to argue whenever somebody suggests that the movie was a flop, and to be able to point to real flops like John Carter clearly was (and Battleship is shaping up to be) certainly helps.

Considering that John Carter cost like twice as much as DS but has so far made about the same amount of money as DS, that should make it very easy to distance DS from being anything like John Carter.

Though speaking of John Carter, and I'll keep the JC bits brief because it's mostly OT, but I found it very interesting when I read an article that said JC had a totally different ad campaign in Europe than it did here in the US and they credit the different campaign as at least part of the reason why JC did so much better in Europe than here. And even thought it's doing quite well in Europe, just think of how much bigger DS might have been there had it, like JC, had a different ad campaign there as well. Just think of how much better DS might be doing here in the US if it had had a different ad campaign. But alas, that's water under the bridge at this point. Though at the same time I do think that in that respect word of mouth has quite possibly been helping DS because I know of several people who after seeing the film told their friends that it wasn't like the trailers and TV spots made it seem - and that prompted those friends to see the film - and when they enjoyed it, they in turn told their friends.

It's just maddening that so many people are calling DS a "flop" or a "bomb" or a "disaster".

Sadly, the people using those words to describe DS are greatly exaggerating. But then, that's what they do. 

19 days 18 hours 13 minutes 47 seconds since the Depp/Burton Dark Shadows has been in release(ET)!!

Wouldn't that make sense, though?  She was lost at sea before Julia was brought in, which was at least 3 years before (if I'm remembering the dates mentioned in the movie), and we don't know how much time elapsed between Laura's death and Julia's arrival. 

My impression of seeing the dress on film was that it looked to be much earlier than the 1960s.  But the still shows that it probably is modern.  It's just those sleeves that bother me. 

As the film plays now, you could cut all of Julia's scenes out of the film entirely and it would make no difference whatsoever to any of the rest of the plot. There are no threads to connect her to the story; just references to her (that still don't influence any path that the plot takes). In fact, the infamous "doctor/patient confidentiality" scene actually undermines what may have been a way to justify the sex scene with Barnabas and Angelique. Because I could not detect any chemistry between B & A, and given B's professed love for Josette and devotion to his family and his hatred for A, why did he give in to her so easily?

It would have been nice had Julia actually stumbled upon a way to cure Barnabas even though she was just using him.  And that this accidental cure could have led him to become a day-walker, as opposed to just being one inherently.  In all honesty, this should have all been saved for a sequel.  It would have been great to give this new Julia her due.

Like you, I don't get a lot of the motivations behind Barnabas's actions in this movie. 

Regarding Josette and Vicki... I think that she always felt this strong connection to Josette, even if she didn't always fully understand why, until the end when I think it must've all come together for her and she realized/remembered that she was Josette.

I find this to be a very interesting observation.  And it leads me to another question... Does Josette's Ghost actually exist, or is she just in Maggie's mind?  Maggie is the only one who can see her.  (Her parents can't see her.  No one else at Collinwood saw her.)  So is this "ghost" just a figment of Maggie's very active imagination, an external symbol representing the fact that she is someone else?

I wish that Laura's character would've been brought out slightly more in the film, but on the second viewing I did realize that they refer to her a lot more than I caught onto on the first viewing.  There were the things I mentioned yesterday- that it is Laura who leads David to find Barnabas in his coffin, and it is Laura who tells David to tell Barnabas where Vicki is.  But there is also David in the sheet, multiple mentions at the beginning to both Vicki and Barnabas that David thinks he sees/talks to his mother, and there is the conversation at the shore between Barnabas and Vicki.  So there is a lot there already.  I might be in the minority here, but I don't think that I would've wanted to see David and Laura chatting.  I'd rather that be kept a mystery, and not really know if David is really talking to her or if he's just imagining it all.

Like you, I did not want to see Laura before the end.  But I needed more to verify her existence.  While they talk about her a lot, we don't hear any specifics about conversations with her from David or Julia (This would probably tie Julia back to the main plot).  It would have been cool to hear David talking to Laura from the other side of his bedroom door, a la 1991 (with David and Sarah).  If Vicki had conversations with David about his mother, and what his mother had to say...  Anything to let us know she was actually an important character.  To me, she seems to have replaced Sarah Collins.  And we all know how important Sarah was.  With Sarah, though, we got to see/hear a lot more from her.  They could have made Laura prominent and still kept the mystery going about her existence in any number of ways without actually ever showing her.

It serves to show (even if too briefly) that Barnabas had a hope of a "monster becoming a man", and having that reduplicated when he wants to be with Vicki (when he storms into the lab and discovers her treating herself, he is coming in to beg her to work harder to cure him).  It also shows him being used yet again, and losing hope in his situation.

Barnabas storming in on Julia treating herself was great.  It was a complete flashback to HoDS.  But it was way too short.  Again, no real build-up.

The film will also be leaving my hometown after tomorrow, meaning it played here for three weeks.  That's pretty good.  It will leave the theaters of the larger town we saw it in during the first Saturday afternoon matinee after one more week - a month - also pretty good.  But it certainly doesn't match the "staying power" of Titanic that played in some theaters for up to half-a-year and even longer.  Well, I got to see DS twice, and hopefully it'll play for a few days in our local 99 cent "cheapy" theater for a couple nights and, if I don't have to work, I'll be able to see it one more time.  After that, I'll just have to wait for the DVD release in several months.  (I still need to buy the soundtracks). 

It wasn't the massive "hit" we were hoping for.  It'll make a profit in its release, but that's about it.  I don't fault the movie.  I loved it.  Like I said several times before, I fault the marketing.  It just seems to me that we waited five years for this, and - at least with me - it came and went in less than a month.  Am I a tad disappointed?  Well, yes.  It took almost three years to build the Titanic, and she was lost in less than five days (I'm not comparing the two as "disasters," I'm just saying that something magnificent that takes so long to finally hit the public can be tragically brought quickly to an end because somebody at the top made a bad decision on just one thing).  Eventually, the threads here on our long anticipated movie will slow down and die and maybe we can look forward to still shots added to the "Caption This" and "Complete the..." threads.

Gerard

Just checked.  It leaves the Drive-In tomorrow.  But the other theaters are still showing it rather frequently.  It is losing two showings after tomorrow, but it's still around (4 shows at 4 theaters per day).  Hopefully it will be here long enough for me to catch it again. 

interesting observation about laura's ghostly attire...

i never even thought about it but "we" are so used to seeing DS ghostly apparitons in old fashioned(meaning 18th and 19th century)attire that i didn't stop to try and date laura's gown. perhaps the explosive and overstuffed nature of the film's climax and her sudden appearance were otherwise distracting. but, yes, it would have had to date from the mid-to-late 1960's.

and true that, unlike the daily series, which gave us over a thousand episodes to pour over and analyze over and again the two hour structure of the movie will not permanently support daily discourse and will die down eventually.

[quote author=Cousin_Barnabas link=topic=37211.msg210343#msg210343 date=1338419764I find this to be a very interesting observation.  And it leads me to another question... Does Josette's Ghost actually exist, or is she just in Maggie's mind?  Maggie is the only one who can see her.  (Her parents can't see her.  No one else at Collinwood saw her.)  So is this "ghost" just a figment of Maggie's very active imagination, an external symbol representing the fact that she is someone else?[/quote]

Yes, I believe she actually exists.  First, if I can believe all the other weird goings-on in the movie, why not believe in Josette's existence, too?    Second, other than seeing and interacting with Josette, Maggie/Vicki seems very level-headed to me, and not someone who just goes around imagining random things.  And really, that house could've been a fertile environment for strange imaginings!      And finally, and perhaps most importantly, I think that the audience is meant to see the parallels between David and Vicki- that they both have been misunderstood by their parents, and that Vicki understands what it feels like for people not to believe them.  There are a couple of sweet moments between Vicki and David, but it really would've been nice if they could've developed their relationship more.

It would have been cool to hear David talking to Laura from the other side of his bedroom door, a la 1991 (with David and Sarah).  If Vicki had conversations with David about his mother, and what his mother had to say...  Anything to let us know she was actually an important character.

Yes, agreed, and hearing a conversation from the other side of a door might've been a nice approach- similarly, they could've done something with strange noises (and not sexual ones!!) coming from Carolyn's room.  Nothing too overt, but just a couple more little hints here and there throughout the film.

Edited to add- it looks like all the theaters in my area will still have DS on Friday, though most of them have less showtimes.  One theater near me does still have about 8 showings, though, which is a little surprising.  Also, the 2 IMAX theaters are still showing DS through June 7- you can pre-purchase tix as late as that date.

Yes, agreed, and hearing a conversation from the other side of a door might've been a nice approach- similarly, they could've done something with strange noises (and not sexual ones!!)

   Oh, how do I agree with this statement?  Let me count the ways.  Talk about awkward dinner table conversations...    

maybe we can look forward to still shots added to the "Caption This" and "Complete the..." threads.

You can definitely look forward to that. In fact, I was going to hold off starting Games boards for the film, but by you bringing it up already, I've gotten an idea of how I can take random screen caps from the various videos clips that have been provided on the Internet along with the TV spots and then post something from them. The quality won't be quite as good as what I might post later on - but it will be a start for anyone who might want to begin playing those two games sooner rather than later. 

20 days 12 hours 16 minutes 53 seconds since the Depp/Burton Dark Shadows has been in release(ET)!!