It's official: Dark Shadows returns as a film with Johnny Depp

[MsCriseyde]

How can anyone hate The Doors? 

I can get behind hating Windows, but I don't get hating The Doors. 

[Midnite]

Ha!  Yeah, "Do not lean on The Doors." 

[JS]

Not to change the subject here but I had a thought that I don't know if anyone else had brought it up before, if so, let me apologize in advance. I had this great idea about the first DS film taking place 200 years ago when Barnabas first became a vampire. The first movie would end with Barnabas' father chaining him in his coffin. Then in the sequel, they could call it "Dark Shadows II, Barnabas Unchained"  . Boy that would be way too cool.What do you guys think?

[Doug]

I have wondered how they will tell the story in the movie. Will it be about when Barnabas became a vampire in 1795 or will it take place in the present when Willie unleashed Barnabas from in coffin?

[Mysterious Benefactor]

That's the million dollar question at the moment. And there seems to be as many fans who would like to see the film done in the past as in the present. It will certainly be interesting to see which way the script goes...

[Barnabas'sBride]

My preference is that they start with Barnabas as a human, and end the film with him chained in his coffin.

If they made a trilogy, mine would go like this:

01) Barnabas becomes a vampire in 1795
02) Barnabas is unchained in 1897 and we get to see the Quentin/werewolf storyline along with Barnabas being a vampire.
03) Barnabas and Quentin, both immortals, are in the present day with the present day characters.

By making 1897 take place between Barnabas's origins and the present day Collins family, you bypass all the messy time travel crap while still getting to use one of the most popular characters and storylines in the show (Quentin).

[Mysterious Benefactor]

Interesting. That timeline could work nicely. 

[Garth Blackwood]

Yeah but what exactly would motivate the 1897 storyline? In the original having the ghost haunting the house was the only reason to care what happened in 1897 ...

I think having (1) Present day, (2) 1795 would made the most sense. Trilogy wouldn't be likely to work very well ...

[Barnabas'sBride]

As a stand alone movie, unsure of its success, Barnabas's origins is the best starting point. It has a perfect beginning, middle and end. It's tragic, it's gothic, it's horror filled...it's pretty much everything. It's epic. And with Burton on board as director, I think he could rock a period film (loved Sleepy Hollow).

I would definitely choose the 1700s as the starting point.

Barnabas being unchained from the coffin can start 1897 and the audience would care because it would be seen through Barnabas's eyes (the lead character). Naturally, he would go to meet the current family once he was freed, just like he did when Willie freed him. He and Quentin could start off as sort of enemies and end up as relunctant allies. To tie things in with the first film, Angelique could certainly be included, just like she was in the original.

I think it would flow pretty naturally.

And then for whatever reason, Barnabas and Quentin go their separate ways, maybe Barnabas is chained in the coffin again, or maybe he isn't (I think it might be more interesting if he isn't). Then a third film picks up in the present with Elizabeth, Roger, Victoria, Carolyn, etc... Willie can definitely be in there somewhere..... Maybe the family is in danger and Barnabas and Quentin have to come together again to stop whatever evil haunts them.

[Cousin_Barnabas]

And the second film (1897) could end with Barnabas finding the reincarnation of Josette, and then traveling with her via some supernatural time warp to the present.  However, once he gets here, (third film) present day Josette (Maggie or Vicki) won't be able to remember him and Angelique will be here to complicate matters.

Just my little idea on how a trilogy (in the above suggested order) could go.   

[Mysterious Benefactor]

I see where Variety is reporting that the third film in the Twilight series, Eclipse, has an expected release date of June 30, 2010. Yet another reason why the Depp/DS film hopefully won't be released before fall 2010.

[retzev]

Barnabas's release in the present kicked things off quite successfully in the original series, and in the revival. The flashbacks are exactly that - flashbacks. To have a "first" film set in 1795 or 1897 would make DS primarily a period piece to a lot of new fans, and set them up for disappointment when we move to the boring ol' present. The flashing back, and forward, are interesting largely because DS is essentially set in the present. To retell the story in linear fashion is a major departure from the original spirit of DS, and a very bad idea...in my opinion 

[Barnabas'sBride]

I think it's a great idea. Creative departure is needed. The thing about this movie, is that it has to appeal to the general audiences, most of the people who see Depp's DS are going in without having seen the original series. So departing from that won't detract from it. They'll have no previous experience with DS.

The revival, IMO, copied the original way too much. And I'm hoping this movie moves away from that and is its own film. Telling the story from the beginning works better for a film series than time travel and tons of flashbacks. With film, you don't have the time that you do on a regular show. And back when the original was being done, no one knew Barnabas was going to be popular enough to tell his origins. But with him being the main character, an origins story works better if it comes first. No need for messy time travel with Victoria that way.

1795 was its own storyline, not a mere flashback at all, and I think it's the most powerful storyline on the show in the fact that it's the most complete and develops Barnabas's character like no other one does.

If the first movie is successful and new audiences love Barnabas, they will follow him where he goes - 1897 to the present.

[michael c]

Barnabas's release in the present kicked things off quite successfully in the original series, and in the revival.To retell the story in linear fashion is a major departure from the original spirit of DS, and a very bad idea...in my opinion 

i agree with retzev 100%.

as fond of the period storylines as fans may be d.s. is a story set primarily in the present.setting the first film(which is in and of itself quite presumptuous in assuming there will be more)is a very bad idea.what made 1795 so compelling is that we already knew barnabas and then got to see his origins.

also i know quentin is a hugely popular character but i'm not sure why a later character and storyline(1897)have even entered this conversation.

[Mysterious Benefactor]

Just as a bit of trivia, back in '93 when DC was hoping to translate the '91 series into feature films, he planned to do the present day story of Barnabas' release as the first film and Barnabas' origin as the second. And more than likely that's the sort of scenario the current producers are considering should the first film be successful enough to do a sequel. But at this point, without any real knowledge of what shape John August's script is taking, it's still fun to speculate about how they might really shake up the story as we've come to know it.