Anyone Care About The Burton DARK SHADOWS?

I'm skeptically interested because of the source material, a supposedly intentional camp tone, and the fact that this has long been a passion project for Depp.  I hope it turns out well.  If not, it's at least sure to be a trainwreck of glorious proportions!

I'm skeptical because I feel like you'd have to be an incredibly ardent fan to actually think Tim Burton still makes interesting movies.

Alice Cooper has a cameo as himself. That is the only reason I need to see it.

Have they set a modern record by now for how many times an actor and a director have worked together?

Aside from Sweeney Todd, which I thought was great fun, Burton's best film of the past decade or so (Big Fish) didn't have Depp.

I'll probably see this — depends on the look/tone of the trailer, I guess — but Alice in Wonderland was the first Burton film I hadn't seen in the theater since Beetlejuice, and I still haven't been able to bring myself to look at it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gabe T 

I'm skeptical because I feel like you'd have to be an incredibly ardent fan to actually think Tim Burton still makes interesting movies.

I guess I'm an incredible ardent fan then. I don't understand this backlash at all. Other than Planet of the Apes and Alice in Wonderland, he's yet to make an uninteresting movie. If this is half as good as Sweeney Todd, there's nothing to worry about.

Maybe it was post-POTA backlash on my part - I seriously walked out of that thing wanting to quit movies, or take a break or something - no movie has inspired that in me so much. Maybe 2001 was just that bad a summer, but it was just every kind of bloated big budget terrible. Big Fish was inoffensive, and Sweeney Todd was confidently dark, but they both kind of bored me from a thematic and stylistic perspective. And "Chocolate Factory" was a dire slog, with Alice In Wonderland LOOKING like so much of a disaster that I avoided it the way you cross the street to not look someone in the eye. 

Maybe I'm also just attacking hyperbole, but "half as good as Sweeney Todd" sounds like a fucking death sentence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martin Blank 

Have they set a modern record by now for how many times an actor and a director have worked together?

 

Aside from Sweeney Todd, which I thought was great fun, Burton's best film of the past decade or so (Big Fish) didn't have Depp.

 

I'll probably see this — depends on the look/tone of the trailer, I guess — but Alice in Wonderland was the first Burton film I hadn't seen in the theater since Beetlejuice, and I still haven't been able to bring myself to look at it.

Alice in Wonderland is worse than the bubonic plague and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was only marginally better.

Burton needs to do an original film like, ten years ago. I'm interested in Frankenweenie but I want the guy who made Beetlejuice and Edward Scissorhands back. 

I'd also like to see him do a straight up horror from him. I've always wondered if he can do scares.

I'm interested in it because I used to watch the original show on Sci-fi when I was a kid.  Also, from the quotes I've read from Burton and Depp, they get what made that show special: the fact that all these actors were playing this stuff dead serious while props fell over, cue card guys were in shots, and Barnanbas turned into a rubber bat on a string.  That said, Burton has been shit for a very long time, so I have no high hopes for it, but I'll be there.

When it was  originally on I couldn't get home from school to see it but kept up with it thru the Dell comic books and the paperback original novels that came out. And Famous Monsters of Filmland. When House of Dark Shadows and Night of Dark Shadows came out I saw them in theatres (House was great, Night was truly lousey). The short lived tv revival / re-boot I managed to miss. This Burton version I'll see on home video, but not in a theatre. His movies are so hit & miss. 

Loved Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. Thought it captured Roald Dahl's book perfectly much better than the 1971 film.

But what I find interesting is the criticism over his style.  It's one thing not to enjoy his films because of the characters or the story lacking but what I don't get is the complaints levied at his films from a design perspective. That the "Burton-esque" style is always the same. Isn't that the point of watching a Tim Burton film? You're paying to see his stamp on the material. There is a topic in the Wes Anderson thread about this particular thing. I'm going to quote Greg Clark as I feel his argument is apt in this case as well

I think my main issue with CHARLIE wasn't so much Burton's style as it was Depp's performance.  Say what you will about the original version's fidelity to the source material, but Wilder's pin-sharp performance was, in my opinion, leagues ahead of Depp's obvious, over-mannered, insufferable man-child interpretation.  Wilder could convey that childishness without going so overboard.  It was a stink that the rest of the movie rarely escaped from.

In terms of his style, I think I've simply lost interest in it.  In Alice especially, I found nothing evocative about the visuals anymore.  That has not happened with Anderson yet.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martin Blank 

I'll probably see this — depends on the look/tone of the trailer, I guess — but Alice in Wonderland was the first Burton film I hadn't seen in the theater since Beetlejuice, and I still haven't been able to bring myself to look at it.

Keep it that way.  Coming from someone who is still a Burton fan for the most part, Alice In Wonderland is one of the worst films I have seen in theaters in the past decade.
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by User_32 

I guess I'm an incredible ardent fan then. I don't understand this backlash at all. Other than Planet of the Apes and Alice in Wonderland, he's yet to make an uninteresting movie. If this is half as good as Sweeney Todd, there's nothing to worry about.

100% agreed.
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by User_32 

Isn't that the point of watching a Tim Burton film? You're paying to see his stamp on the material.

Back when Sweeney Todd came out, my wife and I had a great time with it.  A friend of mine went to see it with his wife the same weekend.  I asked him what he thought and here is a basic summary of the conversation...

Him - "I hated it.  It was exactly what I thought a Tim Burton horror musical would be like."

Me - "I'm confused.  What exactly were you hoping for then?"

Him - "I don't know, something different?"

Me - "Why would you go to a Tim Burton film and expect to get something that WASN'T like a Tim Burton film?"

Him - "I don't know.  I just did."

I've been friends with the man for half my life.  That said, I just don't get his logic sometimes when it comes to film.  I truly don't understand people whose minds operate like that.  I love him, but he's an idiot twice over for such a statement. 

#1 - Why would you watch a Burton film and expect to get anything other than a Burton film?

#2 - If Tim Burton movies aren't you cup of tea, why in the hell are you watching it?

It's like touching a hot stove repeatedly and expecting NOT to be burned every time.  I can understand checking out a new work from an auteur that you don't particularly care for on the off chance that you might like one of his/her films this time out.....................but what possesses someone to expect that it would be drastically different than their previous work in terms of style, tone, and (in this case) subject matter?  I just don't get it.

When I go see a Tim Burton movie, I know what I'm getting myself into.  I'm never positive that I will like it (as Alice In Wonderland horrifyingly proved), but I'm well aware of what kind of situation I'm placing myself into as a viewer.

Where the fuck is Phil?!

How can I help?

You can better articulate why, against all odds, people like you and I are hoping that this is the weird unmarketable curio that it should be. I've a feeling in my bones that, whatever the outcome quality-wise, this isn't just going to be the default Burton whimsyfest that we've gotten for the past ten years.

Having seen this being shot, from what I witnessed, I'd say Burton is aiming for a straight down the line Twilight parody. It also felt somewhat cynical towards his fans. I hope the finished product reflects that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SeanCE 

Having seen this being shot, from what I witnessed, I'd say Burton is aiming for a straight down the line Twilight parody. It also felt somewhat cynical towards his fans. I hope the finished product reflects that.

That's interesting, as I've suspected he was going to be goofing on the original show, but since no one really knows the original show, I wonder if it will come off as goofing on Twilight?

Well I guess you could say that Dark Shadows was the Twilight to the vampire films of it's time, it's actually a pretty apt adaptation. Updating it's themes so its relevant for modern audiences. I think that's probably the only real way you could get the tone right.

Some guy on why DARK SHADOWS might just be more interesting than it appears to be.

Sounds pretty much like what I saw very "Breaking Dawn" via a Tim Burton aesthetic and more room to play around and make fun of the concept.

Sure, but the actual tone of the series is more "school play with cheap-ass sets and convoluted plots and all the actors taking shit so seriously and forgetting lines" and I truly, truly believe that's what Depp and Burton might be going for.

God I hope so.

Originally Posted by Phil 
Sure, but the actual tone of the series is more "school play with cheap-ass sets and convoluted plots and all the actors taking shit so seriously and forgetting lines" and I truly, truly believe that's what Depp and Burton might be going for.

Well, I'd say that's pretty close, except the sets aren't cheap and forgetting lines part.  But everything being taken 100% seriously with operatic plots is pretty spot on. Which makes sense as soap opera's on the whole don't look like that anymore, they look like Twilight or Downton Abbey. I'm pretty confident in saying this is going to be the funniest thing he's done since Mars Attacks.

I still want a Burton-Depp London After Midnight.

Your interpretation of Anderson's filmography is just as simplistic as your average reading of Burton, though.  You're not the only one who has made the observation that ALL HE DOES IS QUIRKY!  Did the man step on your kitten, though?  I don't recall anyone on this thread denigrating Burton for supposedly being a 'jerkoff''.

I think some of the resentment comes from the culture that has been built around Burton's work, commercially.  Nothing from Wes is really as comparable in that regard.

I didn't realize that Burton and Anderson were directly comparable in the first place - it seems so obvious now...

...wait, no it doesn't.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bong Water 
 But Burton doesn't have his actors perform exactly the same way as everyone else in every other movie. He also doesn't compose his shots in almost the exact same manner in every film, symmetrical and boring.
 

Well...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bong Water 

The type of reverence that Anderson gets here is because "He's an artist, not like that fucking hack Burton!". Well, how is he any better than Burton? Neither make movies with characters that you would call realistic. They way I see it, the reason why people rail against Burton is because he's been hugely successful. If Anderson's movies made 100 million every time and there was Hot Topic merchandise you'd be fucking bitching about him being a sellout. You people are never fucking happy. You do nothing but shit all over Kevin Smith all the time when he's never made hit movies and most of his work has been true to himself, with a few exceptions. But because he doesn't make pretentious, quirky, whimsical films that the critics line up to give blowjobs over, you dump on him and that's because in your minds you seek validation and secretly wish you made movies that people compliment you on but are not too successful because if everyone likes it then it's just mainstream shit according to you. I've read consistently on CHUD that James Cameron's a fucking hack despite the fact that Avatar and Titanic were easily better than any popcorn flick that Spielberg has made since E.T. But Cameron's never made a movie like Schindler's List so fuck him, right?  

 

You see, when I read the posts here, I don't see people who critique movies in an objective manner. I see people who base their opinions of Director's on how critically and financially successful they are. You all want to be Anderson who gets critical acclaim while asserting that his movies don't make money because "people are too stupid to 'get' his work". BULLSHIT! Smith's movies are neither critically acclaimed or financially successful so in your minds it's "oh, he's a fucking hack piece of shit" although he has a career spanning almost 20 years despite his limitations as a Writer and Director. He's happy doing his thing so what the fuck do you care? Burton likes making Gothic eccentric movies with his two best friends (Depp and Elfman) and the mother of his children while making hundreds of millions of dollars. We should all be so lucky. But Tarantino makes movies that are both critically acclaimed and financially successful so 99% of you slobber his fucking knob. Now I know that you'll scoff at the idea of comparing Smith to Tarantino but that's my point that, yes, I'd say that Tarantino makes much better movies than Smith and has been more consistent, but to totally dismiss all of Smith's work just because he doesn't get the sort of success and acclaim as QT shows a severe level of snobbery that is really off putting here at CHUD and the reason why this site has the reputation it does. 

Are you trying to retort to every thread on the site at once or something?

I love a good meltdown.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Workyticket 

Are you trying to retort to every thread on the site at once or something?

 

Creepy knows his time here is short. Especially now he seemingly can't help getting his dick out and waving it around so quickly that he's spotted and tagged in under an hour when he does turn up.

 Don't piss on hospitality, bro.

I concede that Wes Anderson, whose movies I enjoy, does indeed repeat themes, motifs and even plot elements from movie to movie.

Can we all be freinds, now?

I like Burton.

I like Wes Anderson.

I think they're comparable in that (A) you can tell it's them from a single random shot and (B) they play in their own little toyset worlds. Which I kinda dig, having been the kid who played with Colorforms and the Batcave and the Death Star and even the Well of Souls.

Some folks find their Burtonworld/Andersonworld approach overly hermetic, which is fine. I wouldn't want a steady diet of nothing but movies that take place in an expensively art-directed simulacrum of someone's head; getting out into the real world is also nice. But if you like to be in that fantasy space every two years or so, it's fine.

It occurs to me that part of what the new Marvel movies do right is that they try to engage with a real world, even if it's a lacquered Life-magazine WWII world as in Captain America. Even Thor brings the dude into the world of diners and trucks. It seems one key difference between the two Hulk movies is the shift in worldview — one is in Ang Lee's head, one is in the larger Marvelverse. I like both.

Oh shit, did I miss him again, has he been banned?

Bugger.

Yeah, I'm interested in this.

What can I say, I like Tim Burton. I like his style. I like directors with their own fantastical vision, like Gilliam, Del Toro, and Burton. Those guys aren't going to change up their style dramatically, and I'm fine with that. Artists of any field should be true to themselves. The one time that Burton seemed not to be true to himself was with Planet Of The Apes, which was arguably his worse movie.

I have no real idea about Dark Shadows, I never saw the original show, but, yeah, I'm up for  gothic mansions, vampires, and schlocky soap opera shenanigans.

The banhammer can be so heavy... even if CTM was being a hyperbole-happy twat, as always, he did create a thread for The Player. That was kinda nice.

No, he gets what he deserves. He's not here to talk about movies, no matter how many threads he may start to make it appear otherwise.

Well, someone should start a Player thread. Because I'm lazy.

 I saw the EW pictures and I like the make up for Depp in it. It reminds me of the look for Interview with the Vampire. I read somewhere that Depp was consider for Lestat at one time. I wish that would have happen. Then maybe the first three books would have been made into movies.

I doubt a Depp-starring Interview With The Vampire would have had any better luck at producing a good sequel, let alone a trilogy.  I won't be surprised if we get a new adaptation (or if they just skip interview and adapt/re-adapt Vampire Lestat and Queen of the Damned) in the near future though.  Hell, they were chasing after Robert Downey Jr for the role about two years ago.

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.D. Bob Plissken 

I doubt a Depp-starring Interview With The Vampire would have had any better luck at producing a good sequel, let alone a trilogy. 

Hell, if the existing one with Cruise and Pitt didn't pave the way for more until the crappy-ass one we got like 100 years later, Depp (who at the time wasn't yet *$$JOHNNY DEPP$$*) wouldn't have.

I wonder if Anne Rice said something about Scientology, and that is why there was never a sequel. I have no proof to back this up. Its just a hunch.

I'm going entirely off of memory here, but I was under the impression that Cruise was never even approached with the prospect of a sequel.  I seem to recall him stating at one point that he would have been interested in returning, but was never asked.  Sounds like either a regime change occurred or the producer who was gung-ho about the property moved elsewhere.

According to Wikipedia, Neil Jordan supposedly attempted to get a second film developed, but nothing came of it.  The studio basically didn't bother to get their asses in gear until about a year before their rights option expired.  They whipped together a half-assed script and tossed the film into production at the last minute.................and the results speak for themselves.  Supposedly Rice herself offered to write the screenplay in the late 90s for an adaptation of the second novel (with Cruise in mind), but the studio turned her down.

Sorry you missed it.  We used to rush home to watch every episode after school.  Loved this series...ummm... this was before I knew it was a soap opera. I hope that the movie is as good as the series.  Tim Burton should do it right.  I hope he also captures the campiness of the show.  I wish they still played the old reruns of this series.  Brings back such scary thrilling moments of my childhood.  

I haven't cared about a Tim Burton movie since the late 90s.  The guy is dead to me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pmac415 

I hope he also captures the campiness of the show.

By all account he absolutely has.......................and Disney seems to be having an aneurysm trying to figure out how to market it.
 

Good! I hope it's ED WOOD-level hard to sell.

That's my personal hope as well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.D. Bob Plissken 

 

By all account he absolutely has.......................and Disney seems to be having an aneurysm trying to figure out how to market it.
 

They should just give it to the John Carter marketing team to sell.