Tim Burton's Dark Shadows - Part 2

[DACrowe]

I don't understand why people are acting like the original show was scary, eerie, spooky, Gothic, etc. It was campy, it was cheesy and it was not very good.

I was talking to my mother about the film and she was disappointed about the trailer as well. As a fan of the original show, she said she did not like that the film seemed to be making fun of the original show. I then asked her if she truly remembered how the show was and wasn't idealizing it and she said she didn't think so. We watched it on Netflix and she had to concede.

This show isn't Justified, Game of Thrones, or The Sopranos.

I could use the same logic for justifying Batman & Robin. I'm not saying Dark Shadows will be that bad. It may actually be good. But hey, the original Batman comics of the 1930s or 1940s were not very good and were very paper-thin, not very well written, cheesy, etc. And then you get htings later like Robin, Bat-Mite, the whole 1950s/60s thing. Why bother taking such fluff seriously?

Same logic.

 

[Majik1387]

Because Batman has just as much source material that isn't very paper-thin, not very well written, cheesy, etc.

Dark Shadows doesn't.

Not that this even matters considering the movie isn't going to be a comedy.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I could use the same logic for justifying Batman & Robin. I'm not saying Dark Shadows will be that bad. It may actually be good. But hey, the original Batman comics of the 1930s or 1940s were not very good and were very paper-thin, not very well written, cheesy, etc. And then you get htings later like Robin, Bat-Mite, the whole 1950s/60s thing. Why bother taking such fluff seriously?

Same logic.

Not at all. The source material for Dark Shadows is bad. It has some ok ideas, but really is bad, eye rolling stuff. If you take it "seriously" and do a literal adaptation, you would get people complaining about how bad that is.

Burton has taken lackluster material with good ideas and has decided to Burtonize it and try and make something worth seeing. It reminds me of the God of War games, clearly influenced by the awful Clash of the Titans from the 80s.

Oh and I have watched Batman: The Brave and the Bold. Bat-Mite is awesome there.

 

[Pfeiffer-Pfan]

I don't know if we know this or not... but..

The BBFC has officially rated this film a 12A as it contains, ''moderate violence, horror, gore, sex references and soft drug use''.

All sounds good, but in the 'Genre' category, it goes on to list the film as a COMEDY. So judging by this and some of the reviews, I think this film will come down to personal taste.


Also... the movie has a running time of 113 minutes (I hour and 53 mins).

http://www.bbfc.co.uk/AFF288423/

 

[Majik1387]

Cabin in the Woods was marketed as a horror movie, and while I loved the amazingness of it, it was clearly a comedy.

I see the same thing happening here.

 

[Road Warrior]

According to a poll by Fandango, this is one of the most anticipated movies by women.

 

[marvelrobbins]

I don't know if we know this or not... but..

The BBFC has officially rated this film a 12A as it contains, ''moderate violence, horror, gore, sex references and soft drug use''.

All sounds good, but in the 'Genre' category, it goes on to list the film as a COMEDY. So judging by this and some of the reviews, I think this film will come down to personal taste.


Also... the movie has a running time of 113 minutes (I hour and 53 mins).

http://www.bbfc.co.uk/AFF288423/

The early reviews defently prove to me the trailer and ads are overplaying
the comedic elements.It clealry can't be placed In 1 genre.It will defently
have serious and dramatic parts as well as comedic parts.The comedic parts
are Barnabas' being fish out of water In 1972,and Eva green's over the top
performance.Most straight comedys are not nearly 2 hours.Violence,Horror,Gore,Sex References,and soft drug use shows It Is not just a comedy.That may be how the studio Is selling the film but this wouldn't be first time a studio didn't mislead people.Look at trailers for past
Tim Burton films and you will know exactly what I am saying.

 

[DACrowe]

Not at all. The source material for Dark Shadows is bad. It has some ok ideas, but really is bad, eye rolling stuff. If you take it "seriously" and do a literal adaptation, you would get people complaining about how bad that is.

I disagree. It played well for its era and when I saw it as a kid decades after it ended its run, I liked it. If it's bad, then I will say the original Bob Kane Batman comics and pretty much any Batman comic pre-1970s was terrible. Therefore, taking the character seriously is as ridiculous as you treat those who want some respect for the DS material.

Again, your logic makes the perfect defense of B&R because it's essentially the "it's a comic book, lighten up" defense. DS worked in the 1960s and works at a younger age. Adapting it for 2012 does not mean you have to make a parody out of the material.

 

[Pfeiffer-Pfan]

I think you should just wait until you see it DA...

Your clearly very stubborn about this, despite the fact that there is some substantial evidence to claim this movie is not as comedic as the trailers make out.

No one can claim Burton is making a parody of the show until we see the full movie.

 

[Cain]

I'm actually interested in seeing this one (Green and Pfeiffer help it's cause). Would be the first time I see a Burton film on the big screen in almost a decade (Big Fish was the last one for me).

 

[El Payaso]

According to a poll by Fandango, this is one of the most anticipated movies by women.

Vampire + Johnnie Depp.

Do we really need a poll?

 

[Pfeiffer-Pfan]

 

[Majik1387]

According to a poll by Fandango, this is one of the most anticipated movies by women.

Not to be sexist, but I'm pretty sure women were the cult audience of the original show when it aired. I hear my mom and aunts talk about watching it with their female friends at the time, not really any males included in the viewing, but again to be sexist, that's how most soap operas are.

 

[DACrowe]

I think you should just wait until you see it DA...

Your clearly very stubborn about this, despite the fact that there is some substantial evidence to claim this movie is not as comedic as the trailers make out.

No one can claim Burton is making a parody of the show until we see the full movie.

I'm trying to be. I know people are using the musical score as proof it's a horror flick, but when half the reviews call it a comedy, when all the ads market it as a comedy and when the British Film Board labels it as a comedy...I gotta' maintain some healthy skepticism.

I only actually commented yesterday because people were going around sneering at the source material and basically calling it crap because they're viewing it as adults in 2012. That to me just rings of people who sneer at comic books because most of it, as originally written for decades, was very childish and meant solely for children under 10. But if you go tell fanboys that they will usually bite your head off. The irony I just kind of find frustrating/funny.

Not to be sexist, but I'm pretty sure women were the cult audience of the original show when it aired. I hear my mom and aunts talk about watching it with their female friends at the time, not really any males included in the viewing, but again to be sexist, that's how most soap operas are.

Well we know Tim Burton and Johnny Depp make at least two.

 

[Majik1387]

Odd how you respond to that comment yet ignored my Batman comment.

 

[DACrowe]

Odd how you respond to that comment yet ignored my Batman comment.

Batman had been a childish cartoon character for nearly 40 years before they gave him depth. It was closer to 50 before Year One/The Dark Knight Returns/Killing Joke turned him into what many people think of him today. I could just as easily argue that O'Neal, Miller, Burton, etc. were foolhardy to treat such a silly character with such miserable writing so seriously. Adam West shows it works great as a comedy! Anyone who wanted a darker tone (including comic book writers in the 1980s) were just taking schlock too seriously.

Exact same logic.

 

[Majik1387]

Except that it's not. At all.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I disagree. It played well for its era and when I saw it as a kid decades after it ended its run, I liked it. If it's bad, then I will say the original Bob Kane Batman comics and pretty much any Batman comic pre-1970s was terrible. Therefore, taking the character seriously is as ridiculous as you treat those who want some respect for the DS material.

Again, your logic makes the perfect defense of B&R because it's essentially the "it's a comic book, lighten up" defense. DS worked in the 1960s and works at a younger age. Adapting it for 2012 does not mean you have to make a parody out of the material.

The only way your argument works is if the 1970s and 80s doesn't happen. Even then it pretty much pointless because both Burton and Nolan "re-imagined" Batman when they did their films.

Which is what Burton is doing here. He is re-imagining Dark Shadows. This isn't a parody. It is an attempt to make a good film out of rather mediocre material.

Batman had been a childish cartoon character for nearly 40 years before they gave him depth. It was closer to 50 before Year One/The Dark Knight Returns/Killing Joke turned him into what many people think of him today. I could just as easily argue that O'Neal, Miller, Burton, etc. were foolhardy to treat such a silly character with such miserable writing so seriously. Adam West shows it works great as a comedy! Anyone who wanted a darker tone (including comic book writers in the 1980s) were just taking schlock too seriously.

Exact same logic.

The Dark Knight Returns is not how I see Batman and I feel insulted that you think so.

You seem to be under the assumption that because a film pokes fun at itself a bit it is suddenly not taking itself seriously. I have a good feeling that this movie will be far more genuine and "serious" then the material that has come before.

 

[DACrowe]

Except that it's not. At all.

Great counterargument.

I guess you could mean that DS was better written with more depth, characterization and interest to any Batman comic pre-1970s, but I doubt that's where you're going with that.

 

[DACrowe]

The only way your argument works is if the 1970s and 80s doesn't happen. Even then it pretty much pointless because both Burton and Nolan "re-imagined" Batman when they did their films.

Which is what Burton is doing here. He is re-imagining Dark Shadows. This isn't a parody. It is an attempt to make a good film out of rather mediocre material.

Except I disagree the material is mediocre. Dated and incongruent with 2012/adult sensibilities? Sure. My point is saying that is as condescending and oblivious as saying when Miller wrote Year One that he was trying too hard to darken mediocre material or that the fanboys who whined about Schumaucher overreacted because the material was ridiculous.

The Dark Knight Returns is not how I see Batman and I feel insulted that you think so.

I was speaking in broad generalizations. Yes, there is a difference between how O'Neal wrote the character, how Miller did it, how Allan Moore did it, how Grant Morrison does it, how Chris Nolan does it, etc. etc. However, there is a clear before/after effect of those three mid-1980s Batman stories that dramatically influenced how the character was viewed in pop culture starting with influencing Burton who changed the view of the character in pop culture that still saw him as Adam West schlock. After those stories you get Burton, TAS, Nolan, etc. and a general acceptance of Batman being darker and more serious than how he was viewed for roughly the first 50 years of the character's existence. Those were the stories that changed him in the popular imagination from the "Great chum" in an ambiguously gay duo to the widely accepted "Dark Knight" image we have today.

 

[Majik1387]

Great counterargument.

Already gave my counterargument, you're still ignoring it. You keep trying to use Burton and Schumacher's movies as adaptations of the 60's show and earlier comics, while ignoring all other works they were adapting. You're being selective with your Batman argument which is why it doesn't work at all.

I guess you could mean that DS was better written with more depth, characterization and interest to any Batman comic pre-1970s, but I doubt that's where you're going with that.

Batman comics pre-70s may have been campy, thinly written, etc. but it had just as much if not more depth and characterization than Dark Shadows.

 

[DACrowe]

Already gave my counterargument, you're still ignoring it. You keep trying to use Burton and Schumacher's movies as adaptations of the 60's show and earlier comics, while ignoring all other works they were adapting. You're being selective with your Batman argument which is why it doesn't work at all.

Batman comics pre-70s may have been campy, thinly written, etc. but it had just as much if not more depth and characterization than Dark Shadows.

Strongly disagree. Not much point in continuing this cycle.

 

[Majik1387]

Because you don't like your selective reasoning being wrong?

 

[DACrowe]

Because of your inability to comprehend that your opinion from (likely extremely limited) viewing of the show can be subjective or disagreed with. And for flat out ignoring my point about Miller, O'Neal etc. treating a cartoon character with depth after 40-50 years of mediocrity is equivalent.

 

[Majik1387]

How long had Dark Shadow's gone on for? What was it adapted from? What other forms of media was it in during it's run? After it's run?

If you're going to make a comparison, use one that works and don't get uptight when the one you used is not a good one.