Cousin, thanks for the link to Graeme-Smith's article.  Once again, my reaction is different than Richard's in that I'm encouraged that there will be more to the film than a black/white extreme of a parody.  But that's just me- I am not sold on the film but am still open to it.

I agree with you, I found that article encouraging in that Smith states it's a balance between gothic drama and comedy--not one or the other.  I take that to mean there's this other side of the film that wasn't represented as much in the trailer. 

I've been trying to avoid learning any more information before I actually see the film, but I've just watched the trailer anyway.  I don't think there is really anything new in it; Depp said a long time ago they were going to play up how Barnabas adapts to life in the 70's, and they've been using the word comedy to describe it for years; people just didn't want to beleive it.  I thought two of the jokes were really amusing; regarding Barnabas being 'stoned' and Elizabeth informing him they don't have horses.   Even that scene where Angelique rips open her blouse or w/e was fun, and sort of reminded me of a scene in Eating Out 3...  But it is a very typical trailer in that jokes and humurous, light moments are edited and emphasized in ways that don't really reflect the resulting film (for instance, it seems obvious to me that they edited in the phrase "I'm a vampire.")  I thought it was interesting how Angelique in the 1700's had dark hair, and then blonde in the present; sort of a reverse Cassandra.   

I don't really hate the trailer, I wasn't that shocked by it and I still want to see the film.  What has always interested me was seeing what they did with the material, how they interpret, adapt, and comment on it.  If they didn't make any interesting changes or choices then it would just be another 1991/HODS retread, which I would rather boil my eyes than sit through. 

Personally it is my feeling that the original series was on the air long after it's prime, and storylines such as the Summer of 1970 and 1840 were really bad, campy, and cheesy at times. I imagine a trailer could be made emphasizing things like Pansy Faye's dance in the 1897 old house, Prof. Stokes walking down the stairway through time surrounded by psychedelic flashing colors, Quentin and Desmond's "jailbreak" in 1840, etc. that would make it seem like the original series was also never serious.

I just read the issue, and wow what a bunch of immature cheap horror cheese, and totally out of continuity with the original series.

[spoiler]I thought the Angelique plot would have gone on longer; what the hell was the point in the first place?  I thought both the writing and the drawing declined significantly in quality this issue; from the first page when they actually described Angelique as a "magical, time-lost woman."  Everyone's faces looked horrible.  And I hated the ludicrous and stupid fights between Quentin and Barnabas, and the fact that they don't even bother to explain why now Quentin changes into the werewolf and can even speak and conciously control himself while he does so.  None of the characters held themselves up in a dignified manner in this issue, they were all reduced to a bunch of exaggerated, hysterical, vulgar people with no wit.  Just a bunch of ugly monsters fist-fighting down by the docks.  I think I'll stop buying this series now.    [/spoiler]

I'm really loving these peisodes.  But the crypt really has changed a lot over the years...

[spoiler]In 1897, it was in the basement of a two-story building, and the headstone read "Laura Stockbridge Collins," not L. Murdoch Stockbridge.  Laura Radcliffe also became a Collins instead a Murdoch.  But really, one of the biggest changes is actually the lack of any eerie atmosphere when they visited the crypt in 1897.  As has been said, it was just another trip to the cemetary by that point... [/spoiler]

 1968 was my first introduction to DS, and it reigns with 1897 as my two favorite time periods, though I generally fast forward through the early Adam episodes, parts highlighting Jeff Clark, and the terrible betsy durkin scenes.  I love Nicholas Blair, Cassandra, the dream curse, Joe Haskell as Angeliques victim...  I think particularly in early 1968 Barnabas and Julia being presented as self-interested, amoral, egomanacial pariahs who manage to alienate everyone (Carolyn, Professor Stokes, and the "villain" Nicholas who is actually much kinder to others than they are) is much more appropriate and accurate then writing them as "heroes" later on in the show.  I also like how, unlike in the story following 1897, they managed to incorporate a lot of the 1795 elements into the plot instead of virtually pretending it never happened.   

I think it's hilarious when Burke delivers these overly saccarine lines to Carolyn with such a deadpan, almost sarcastic tone.   In reality Carolyn played no part whatsoever in his real life, emotional or otherwise.  Sadly, Laura regards Burke much the same way he regards Carolyn...

Well, that's what Roger thinks, anyway.  That may say more about Roger than it does about Laura.  Still, we got more detail about Laura today than we have gotten previously.  I don't think alcohol has ever been mentioned before; all we knew was that she was in an institution.  The writers were being carefully vague so that they would have a free hand when they finally decided what to do with her.

Yes, that's a good point.  [spoiler]As the episodes have gone on, I've been wondering how much of the 'hopeless, terminal' insanity she exhibited at the institution was in fact her remembering her past lives and supernatural existance as a phoenix.  Perhaps the accident just compounded the trauma and difficulty of her very long life.  [/spoiler]

Well, I'm sure Sebastian Shaw and Roxanne would prefer the paintings of women in flames; Sam will have to adapt to the changes in the local market if he wants to survive as an artist.