DARK SHADOWS FORUMS

General Discussions => Current Talk Archive => Current Talk '24 I => Current Talk '13 I => Topic started by: Patti Feinberg on January 23, 2013, 01:38:51 AM

Title: NoDS
Post by: Patti Feinberg on January 23, 2013, 01:38:51 AM: I am going to watch
Night of Dark Shadows
I have never seen this before.
As a matter of fact, I had never seen the trailer before, so, I just watched it. What a hoot!! Qu'elle 70's!!

Patti

thanks Darren!
Title: Re: NoDS
Post by: Uncle Roger on January 23, 2013, 02:34:56 AM: Please post your comments after you've watched it.
Title: Re: NoDS
Post by: Patti Feinberg on January 23, 2013, 04:38:10 PM: Well, it wasn't the way I imagined it.
It was good on it's own merits; slightly NOT "DSish".
Two production items: first, the sound was badly done (specifically during 1st half, often hard to hear Grayson).
Second, the makeup was phenomenal! Everyone looked about 10 years younger!!
Not soon, but I probably will watch again, just to see my own 'takes' on it.
I was so wonderful to hear music by R. Colbert!!!

So, who here has seen NoDS?
Please tell me your takes/opinions.

Patti
Title: Re: NoDS
Post by: dom on January 23, 2013, 07:06:21 PM: I saw it when first released to theaters and when it was released on VHS. I thought is was very creepy both times and the scene with the car filling up with ectoplasm really got to me. I liked the film but it holds no sentimental value for me like house does.
Title: Re: NoDS
Post by: KMR on January 23, 2013, 09:45:51 PM: I saw it on the very first day of release. Sat through it twice! At the time, I considered it to be far inferior to HODS, but since then my opinion has changed drastically. The story in NODS has better flow (even considering the story problems due to the overnight edit done to satisfy the MGM suits). HODS just jumps around from scene to scene, scarcely giving the audience time to pause and take some breaths. (Although, I have to say the final section of HODS, starting with Jeff on St. Eustance Island after his encounter with Stokes and on to the credits, is overall my absolute favorite part of DS overall. It is such a classic piece of vampire storytelling.)

I'm dying to see the "complete" version of NODS, should that ever happen. But until then, I'll keep enjoying the version we have, and dreaming of being able to sit in the gallery (my favorite room in the world) on a sunny winter day...
Title: Re: NoDS
Post by: David on January 23, 2013, 10:49:47 PM: NODS is Dan Curtis' Ingmar Bergman film, beautifully shot, very well acted, creepy, atmospheric, etc.
What the MGM suits forced Dan & Sam to do to it is a shame.
Title: Re: NoDS
Post by: Patti Feinberg on January 25, 2013, 02:12:42 AM: Quote from: David-Elijah Nahmod on January 23, 2013, 10:49:47 PM
NODS is Dan Curtis' Ingmar Bergman film, beautifully shot, very well acted, creepy, atmospheric, etc.
What the MGM suits forced Dan & Sam to do to it is a shame.
Wholeheartedly agree!

Quote from: KMR on January 23, 2013, 09:45:51 PM
The story in NODS has better flow (even considering the story problems due to the overnight edit done to satisfy the MGM suits). HODS just jumps around from scene to scene, scarcely giving the audience time to pause and take some breaths.

I couldn't agree with you more. The first time I saw HoDS, I was 12ish and therefore, 'scared' (especially of a certain character who aged alot).

Perhaps it's my age now, but, I too agree that in story plot and continuity, it's superior.

Patti
Title: Re: NoDS
Post by: tragic bat on April 27, 2013, 09:56:56 PM: I just watched the NODS DVD after not seeing the film in about fourteen years. At the time I had a good impression of it, but today I couldn't even sit through the picture. It really doesn't have anything to do with DS, and that is cemented through the constant use of (often very dim) natural lighting to highlight the seemingly minimal use of makeup on set and the dingy, dated, horribly decorated interiors. Quentin and Tracy are supposed to go home to this mansion on a great estate, but the main house is cramped, claustrophobic, and ugly. The film seems to be inspired by The Shining.

The disrepair on the rest of the estate is highly disturbing. I don't know if the 129 minute cut is supposed to have more character development and buildup, but it's sorely needed. Because I don't beleive and I don't care about these characters when we're suddenly jolted into the dreams, flashbacks, and domestic violence. I want to hear them have a conversation like "it's really too bad we don't have the money to restore this place..." or at least something to justify their extremely laid back view of their real-estate.

Despite reading all of Darren Gross' material and knowing what the story is supposed to be, I still only see what the film implies, like that James Storm's character (and what a waste of the actor to have to stutter in that horrible accent through the script) was the lover of Angelique's ghost before Quentin shows up. The editing is so damn bad. If Tracy could actually be given proper CPR and not that ridiculous (soundtracked) version in a new edit, that would be great too. It's too bad that the DS TV sets couldn't be used for this movie, but I guess they were destroyed by that point.
Title: Re: NoDS
Post by: michael c on April 28, 2013, 11:36:01 AM: despite it's buzz saw editing job the film has some merits to me. it has distinct gloom and atmosphere...

but, as you say, it is DS in name only. it has nothing whatsoever to do with OS story continuity and stands alone in the "canon". despite it's name, location and OS cast to me it feels more like any early 1970's horror movie. without stalwarts like frid, bennett and edmonds the true DS "flavor" is not achieved which is what curtis might have been going for anyways. a new mood.

even with the putative "luxury" of the lyndhusrt setting it has the distinct look of a drive-in "b" movie. or even made for television. and for me, like greystone, lyndhurst is decidedly not collinwood. seaview is. so I have no emotional or visual connection to the location.
Title: Re: NoDS
Post by: Gerard on April 28, 2013, 03:31:03 PM: I saw it in its original theatrical release (double-billed with HoDS; remember the days of double-features, cartoons, maybe a documentary, and all for less than fifty cents?). I found it creepy as well, with edge-of-the-seat suspense. Some of it confused me and now I know it's because of the horrible re-editing and shortening ordered by the MGM PTB's.

There were some people in the audience totally unfamiliar with DS. HoDS played first, followed by NoDS and those audience members were thrown off by seeing several of the same actors/actresses from HoDS in NoDS and got all discombobulated by it. Those of us who were familiar with DS, of course, fully understood how the same performers would play completely different characters in various plots (and sometimes the same plot) as was done on the show.

Gerard
Title: Re: NoDS
Post by: MagnusTrask on April 28, 2013, 06:55:02 PM: I haven't seen NODS. I was starting to get interested, and had started to wonder if the two movies at least shared a "universe"... I thought, well everybody seemed to get killed off during HODS, so maybe that's why Quentin came in and took possession. DC might have become addicted to pressing the reset button every five minutes. That's what threw people with 1840/1841 PT I think (it did me).

It sounds as if NODS went into its own past, which is total DS. While making things even more confusing for casual viewers, or for everyone, all the crazed indiscriminate reality-jumping in dimensions and time is fun in its own way.
Title: Re: NoDS
Post by: michael c on April 28, 2013, 07:35:42 PM: true that most of the main cast was killed off in HODS. but then they all showed up on everyone's television sets the next day. so in that one has to conclude that the films are meant to stand alone outside series continuity.

in that situation is NODS a "sequel" to HODS(with it's attendant characters killed off)or another stand alone story? it certainly in no way squares with anything that ever happened on the series. Selby plays yet another generic "Quentin" but otherwise the film is populated with characters named "Carlotta" and "Claire" and "Tracy". Elizabeth is mentioned as an establishing touchpoint but nothing else from the OS seems to be part of this universe.

in classic DS storytelling this would have to fall into a "parallel-time" world.
Title: Re: NoDS
Post by: dom on April 28, 2013, 08:02:24 PM: I don't remember - was Cobert's 'standard' DS music used for NoDS?
Title: Re: NoDS
Post by: michael c on April 28, 2013, 08:22:30 PM: if I recall they employed a few of the classic musical cues but it also had it's own separate score.
Title: Re: NoDS
Post by: Cousin_Barnabas on April 28, 2013, 08:24:40 PM: "Joanna" and "Shadows of the Night" were the only real standards, though both had a couple of new arrangements, especially "Joanna." That being said, I believe the rest of the "mood" music was completely new.
Title: Re: NoDS
Post by: michael c on April 28, 2013, 09:04:53 PM: the whole thing was decidedly more "70s" than "60s" in sensibility and tone...

there were even a few scenes where Quentin, Tracy, Claire and Alex were hanging out getting drunk(and high?)that almost has a "swingy" sort of vibe. [easter_shocked]
Title: Re: NoDS
Post by: Mysterious Benefactor on April 28, 2013, 09:27:30 PM: I'm sure I've mentioned this before, but I love the new pieces Cobert wrote for NoDS - and when I play the soundtrack CD for hoDS and NoDS, I almost exclusively play the NoDS music. I don't even remember the last time I listened to all of the hoDS section (though I do like those pieces - just not as much - well, maybe with the exception of Carolyn & Barnabas, which has always been one of my big favorites from the daytime show, and I tend to associate it with Petofi more than anything else). My favorite NoDS pieces have to be Nightmare In The Past, Gerard's Attack, Angelique's Assault and Searching For Carlotta. I especially like the way Cobert utilized reverb because it sets the perfect mood for the scenes scored with those pieces. And I also like how Shadows Of The Night is weaved throughout a lot of the music. (It's a shame that the 1810 piano scene was cut from NoDS because it explains the real significance of weaving SOTN throughout the other pieces. But hey, maybe one day we will actually see NoDS restored.)

I do believe, though, that two pieces from hoDS also appear in NoDS. Off the top of my head I don't honestly recall what both are, but one is definitely The Search For David, which plays over Angelique's attack on Alex.
Title: Re: NoDS
Post by: MagnusTrask on April 28, 2013, 09:44:22 PM: Quote from: michael c on April 28, 2013, 07:35:42 PM
true that most of the main cast was killed off in HODS. but then they all showed up on everyone's television sets the next day. so in that one has to conclude that the films are meant to stand alone outside series continuity.

I took it as already-understood that the films were entirely separate from the series. I was saying that I had thought that the two films, and just those two films, shared one continuity between them-- and that now, going by people's recent remarks on NODS, it now appears to me that this isn't true. Now I get the impression that each film is separate, and has no continuity with anything but itself.
Title: Re: NoDS
Post by: tragic bat on April 28, 2013, 09:50:59 PM: The two films don't really connect with each other, and yeah it is just another generic Quentin with very little individual backstory to differentiate him from the other Quentin's we've seen. He's basically just a stand-in for his ancestor.

It's so jarring for me to go from the closed-off, escapist atmosphere of the original series to seeing a few familiar actors tramping around Lyndhurst and calling it Dark Shadows. It just isn't. The Old House wasn't even used or mentioned as existing, not even as a place for Claire and Alex to live. And since the characters drive just a few hours each way into New York City, the setting obviously isn't Maine anymore.

I did like some of the original string music utilized in the film, though it melded better with the picture in my memory.
Title: Re: NoDS
Post by: MagnusTrask on April 28, 2013, 10:04:20 PM: Odd he dumped the series music, since he went back and reused series music in at least one thing "A Darkness at Blaisedon" I think it's called.
Title: Re: NoDS
Post by: dom on April 28, 2013, 10:54:21 PM: I wonder how the fan reaction would have been to the film if the series' music had been used. If it would have made things 'weird' or odd or seemingly confusing or unlikable because of the departure from what DS was by way of the series or 'house'. It appears Curtis was very wise to have Cobert write new music for 'Night'.
Title: Re: NoDS
Post by: Cousin_Barnabas on April 28, 2013, 11:29:49 PM: Quote from: Mysterious Benefactor on April 28, 2013, 09:27:30 PM

I do believe, though, that two pieces from hoDS also appear in NoDS. Off the top of my head I don't honestly recall what both are, but one is definitely The Search For David, which plays over Angelique's attack on Alex.

Now that you mention it, I recall that piece being used.

Cobert always went back to the original DS music, though. I believe Burnt Offerings and The Night Stalker both have, at least, one DS cue.
Title: Re: NoDS
Post by: michael c on April 28, 2013, 11:31:45 PM: what's interesting is that there has always been talk that NODS somehow "failed" because of the absence of frid. that when he opted out it was instantly doomed...

but as it stood structurally there was no role for frid. or at least not barnabas. had he decided to participate in another movie it would have been a second film or more of a traditional sequel but not this film even if it had been called "NODS".

this was entirely structured around David Selby and Kate Jackson. if frid had been on board they'd have had much different/smaller parts to play.

and yes, going back to the earlier question it would appear that the two films exist as stand alone stories with no literal connection to the series or each other other than flying under the DS banner.
Title: Re: NoDS
Post by: Mysterious Benefactor on April 28, 2013, 11:58:33 PM: I've never subscribed to the notion that NoDS somehow wasn't DS because Frid chose not to participate. Though I suppose that's not a surprise because I've said on numerous occasion that I never felt, not even back in the day, that Frid and/or Barnabas were the end all and be all of DS. Sure, each made a great contribution to DS, but to say that either was completely necessary for something to be DS would be to totally invalidate the entire 9 months of DS that took place before Frid/Barnabas ever appeared - and those 9 months are certainly just as much DS as what came after is.

As for what a sequel with Frid/Barnabas might have been, none of us will ever know. Apparently a script was never written, and there are even conflicting stories as to whether or not an outline was ever prepared. But in either case, once Frid refused to do the second film, any initial work on the original idea was tossed out and no one, not even Sam Hall, remembers what the storyline might have been. Instead DC and Sam Hall decided to go with a ghost story (rather than a werewolf story). Though the one interesting thing that was chief regarding whatever the second film turned out to be is that DC was insistent that there be a large role for Kate Jackson.
Title: Re: NoDS
Post by: michael c on April 29, 2013, 12:03:13 AM: I agree mysterious...

those nine/ten pre-barnabas months are like a little gem to me. the bleeder valve. the fountain pen. culiminating the the brilliance of diane millay's appearance as laura.

I love it just as much(if not more)than anything that comes later.
Title: Re: NoDS
Post by: tragic bat on April 29, 2013, 12:16:03 AM: People moving into a strange house and finding ghosts is the plot of a hundred other B-horror films (and so is the ghost being a witch killed long ago seeking lost love and/or revenge.) Barnabas is definitely not essential, and his presence in HODS didn't cause it to veer closer to Dark Shadows' character driven drama then to horror tropes from Hammer's Dracula series either.
Title: Re: NoDS
Post by: Mysterious Benefactor on April 29, 2013, 12:33:08 AM: Quote from: tragic bat on April 29, 2013, 12:16:03 AM
his presence in HODS didn't cause it to veer closer to Dark Shadows' character driven drama then to horror tropes from Hammer's Dracula series

Actually, one of the biggest problems I have with hoDS is that it's not character driven. Some really wonderful character scenes were included in the script, but in his infinite wisdom DC decided either to not shoot them or to leave them on the cutting room floor in favor of focusing on the blood and gore instead of character. In that way hoDS definitely hues closer to the Hammer films - and apparently that was DC's intent.

On the other hand, NoDS is more character driven, like the daytime show, and I've always felt it was all the better for it. And one of the things I've always found fascinating is the divergence of opinion the two original films bring out in the horror press vs. the general press. For the most part, the horror press looks upon hoDS more favorably than the general press does, whereas the opposite is true when it comes to the general press, who for the most part look upon NoDS more favorably.
Title: Re: NoDS
Post by: Gerard on April 29, 2013, 12:40:38 AM: I consider NoDS a direct sequel to HoDS. As already mention, a quick reference was made to Elizabeth, stating that she had recently passed away, so take that as connecting it with the first movie. Interestingly, no mention is made of David, the only other member of the family to have survived. But regarding that, I make stuff up in my mind regarding inconsistencies. After the carnage of HoDS, David was sent away (maybe with Maggie and - gulp - Jeff to start aneew somewhere else. David would retain a big portion of the family wealth, while the rest passed onto the only other distant relative, Quentin, who inherited the estate when David had no intention of returning. So, after all the blood-letting, Elizabeth remained, living in isolation. Mrs. Johnson had also sought employment elsewhere, leaving a secondary Carlotta as the new housekeeper (she was the second-floor maid until then). David, with Elizabeth's blessing, moved away with Maggie and Jeff. When Elizabeth died, and with David not wanting anything more to do with Collinwood, enter Quentin, a distant cousin.

Gerard
Title: Re: NoDS
Post by: michael c on April 29, 2013, 01:10:00 AM: wow. that's a lot of work to connect the two.

other than the fleeting mention of liz no reference made even obliquely to anything or anyone that had ever appeared in any other variation of the story. the setup is completely different. it's an interesting theory but unfortunately can only be read as fan fiction since nothing that actually takes place in the film supports it or even hints at such a scenario.

seems easier to just read them as stand alone stories.
Title: Re: NoDS
Post by: Cousin_Barnabas on April 29, 2013, 01:29:16 AM: What is clear is that Mrs. Stoddard died without any close relatives or direct descendants, [spoiler]which could connect back to the events of the previous film - with the exception of David. [/spoiler]
Title: Re: NoDS
Post by: Nicky on April 29, 2013, 01:29:38 AM: I saw NoDS for the first time in 1991, when TBS ran HoDS and NoDS one Sunday morning to coincide with the Revival series on NBC. I was completely confused by NoDS: still developing my DS trivia, I had labored under the impression that Quentin was a werewolf and that Angelique was in love with Barnabas. I recall being bored silly by the time Tracy finally got hers at the film's finale, and still confused (but mostly bored). Years later, however, as my appreciation for Lara Parker, Nancy Barrett, and Grayson Hall has grown, I have come to appreciate NoDS as an atmospheric ghost story featuring my favorite actors from the original series. I love how Lyndhurst feels like an entirely new estate, separate from HoDS, and, as others have mentioned, I also enjoyed the flashbacks and the actors playing different characters.

I'm one of the people who was incredibly disappointed by the DVD and BluRay releases' entire lack of restoration. It's beautiful to look at, however (though disconcerting due to missing musical cues and editing SNAFUs, like Angelique's weird, misplaced laughter in the first flashback scene), and that makes me happy.

As a sidenote, as we discuss the plot of NoDS and its similarity to a dozen other haunted house movies in the '70s, the last time I watched "Let's Scare Jessica to Death" was strongly reminded of NoDS: unstable tenants in a spooky, rural house, the doubling of actors, the creepy/sexy revenant, the intense '70s feel of the piece, the downbeat ending.
Title: Re: NoDS
Post by: Gerard on April 29, 2013, 02:19:57 AM: Quote from: michael c on April 29, 2013, 01:10:00 AM
wow. that's a lot of work to connect the two.

Ain't it though, Michael? But I learned early on from watching DS from the very first episode that one has to create his/her own workable solutions to plot discrepencies. But when one does that, it seems to work. Besides, it's fun.

Gerard
Title: Re: NoDS
Post by: Cousin_Barnabas on April 29, 2013, 03:34:43 AM: In the OS, I always attribute historical inconsistencies, like changing dates and relationships, to unreliable family histories. It's a lot more fun than to say the writers didn't really think everything through, so you're not alone. [easter_wink]
Title: Re: NoDS
Post by: Willie Loomis on April 29, 2013, 05:48:39 AM: There was also Angelique, Gerard Stiles and Gabriel Collins and Laura Collins as far as characters, but not in their original status from the show (well, maybe Angelique). But, my main question is WHY was the reverend called STRACK instead of TRASK? That boggles my mind. Was it because Thayer David played him instead of Lacy so changed the name....mind boggeling.

All in all a good movie that would have been 100% better in it's entirety.
Title: Re: NoDS
Post by: tragic bat on April 29, 2013, 05:59:18 AM: I agree that mentioning Elizabeth's name is not any indication itself that the movies exist in the same universe, and any extrapolating beyond that is fan fiction. The films make no attempt to refer to each other or integrate the events into a coherent plotline, and that's that. According to the dates in each film, hardly any time passed at all since the vampiric mass death and yet not even Alex and Claire with their scooby doo detective work find out about it?
Title: Re: NoDS
Post by: Uncle Roger on April 29, 2013, 01:37:30 PM: In the script that was published in KLS' DS Movie Book, the reverend was named Trask. Apparently it was changed to Strack when Jerry Lacy wasn't available. Also, the named of Charles Collins' wife was originally Samantha, not Laura.
Title: Re: NoDS
Post by: Mysterious Benefactor on April 29, 2013, 05:46:55 PM: Jerry Lacy was doing a soap (I *think* it was As the World Turns) when NoDS shot, and he couldn't get time away to play Trask. And I *think* Virginia Vestoff was already shooting 1776 when NoDS shot, and that's why she couldn't play Samantha. Though honestly, as much as I love both of them and would have enjoyed seeing them as Trask and Samantha in the film, I really think Thayer David and Diana Millay were wonderful as their replacements Strack and Laura. (Though why do I suspect that in her mind Diana was playing a phoenix even though there's no indication of it in the script/film? [easter_cheesy])
Title: Re: NoDS
Post by: Uncle Roger on April 29, 2013, 06:41:12 PM: Jerry Lacy was playing Simon Gilby on ATWT. And it looks like Virginia Vestoff was doing 1776 in Burbank during the NODS shoot. Heaven forbid DC adjust his schedule, I suppose.

MB, somehow I think that Diana would have played everything as a phoenix, whether it was in the script or not.
Title: Re: NoDS
Post by: Gothick on April 30, 2013, 03:42:15 PM: Nicky might not like it that I am bringing this up, but many years ago he wrote a brilliant fanfic about Carlotta's arrival at Collinwood, after the events of hoDS, when Mrs. Stoddard was still living at the estate.

I won't reveal anymore of what he came up with, but I thought it was really quite brilliant. After reading his tale, I found myself much more comfortable thinking of NoDS as a somewhat perverse sequel to hoDS. I'll admit that taken in and of themselves, the two films are for all intents and purposes stand-alone stories. Of course, the NoDS trailers, which we all saw before the movie played way back when, had a would-be ominous voiceover that began: "Come back to Collinwood... that HOUSE of Dark Shadows..." So, regardless of the reality of the release, the second film was *promoted* as a sequel to the first.

Mention of the use of Shadows of the Night was made above. One of the frustrations to me is that in the film as we have it, the scene that actually explains why Quentin keeps hearing that particular snippet of music in his mind has been cut---and it would have been one of the best scenes in the entire movie! Ah well...

G.
Title: Re: NoDS
Post by: Mysterious Benefactor on April 30, 2013, 05:23:03 PM: Quote from: Gothick on April 30, 2013, 03:42:15 PM
and it would have been one of the best scenes in the entire movie!

Yes, I love the way the scene plays in the script. Angelique plays SOTN on the piano and tells Charles how much the tune gives her a feeling of being near him when he's not around. That of course leads to Charles and Angelique making out. And when Laura catches them, they taunt her about staying to watch them and about how they do things openly in front of the family and the servants. And all that prompts Laura to accuse Ang of being a witch and mesmerizing Charles - and after Laura questions whether or not Charles is even aware of what's happening to him, Ang gets to deliver:

(http://www.dsboards.com/moviesquoteimages/0811NoDS_0.jpg)
NoDS: Scene #67A - Angelique: 'Oh, he knows
what's happening, Laura, my darling, and for the
first time in his life he's really enjoying it.'
Title: Re: NoDS
Post by: Patti Feinberg on April 30, 2013, 06:28:06 PM: Quote from: MagnusTrask on April 28, 2013, 06:55:02 PM
It sounds as if NODS went into its own past, which is total DS. While making things even more confusing for casual viewers, or for everyone, all the crazed indiscriminate reality-jumping in dimensions and time is fun in its own way.

I think that's how the younger viewers of today viewed the 'new' Johnny Depp movie.

I was surprised that my 17-year old daughter liked it (JD movie)...she really hasn't watched much of DS (it was being aired on ScyFy when she was about 5 years old).

Patti
Title: Re: NoDS
Post by: michael c on April 30, 2013, 08:03:31 PM: as much fun as it was seeing thayer and, even more so, diana in their roles as the film stood they ended up being little more than extras.

perhaps they were intended to be larger parts(particularly laura)and they fell prey to the film's buzz saw editing. but it almost doesn't matter that lacey and vestoff were otherwise engaged. and i certainly can't see curtis changing the shooting schedule to accommodate them given how small the parts were anyways.

still that "the gang's all here" element of the extended DS universe was preserved.

and yes, at least in her imagination, millay appeared to be portraying the same demented pheonix she did in all her various stints on the program.

as far as lacey is concerned any and all respites from his repetitive and obnoxious gallery of "trasks" is welcome in my book. ATWT can keep him. [easter_rolleyes]
Title: Re: NoDS
Post by: Darren Gross on April 30, 2013, 08:38:23 PM: It's extremely unlikely that the shooting schedule was dictated by Dan Curtis. Once MGM decided on a second film, they wanted it turned around quickly; ie: HODS was shot in April for a summer release in 1970, so set the same situation in motion for NODS. If anything, Curtis conceivably would have wanted more time, to prep the script, shoot and edit the film, if it was up to him. They were really up against near impossible deadlines, especially with a premiere set for a month earlier than HODS had been.

If there had been more time in post-production, Cobert could have scored the film scene-to-scene, instead of creating a cue library for it. Think of how glorious that would have been. 100+ minutes of specifically written music.
Title: Re: NoDS
Post by: Nicky on April 30, 2013, 11:58:02 PM: Oh Gothy, I forgot all about that story! I don't even have a copy -- if you do, I'd love to read it again!
Title: Re: NoDS
Post by: Gothick on May 01, 2013, 04:07:35 PM: Oh No! I think I do have it, but it's buried in a folder in a box in the basement. I have been going through those, believe it or not, so if it surfaces, I will send you a copy! It really was very good... I'm sorry it got lost in the shuffle!

hugs, G.
Title: Re: NoDS
Post by: Philippe Cordier on May 09, 2013, 08:45:34 PM: Something about the music in NODS put me off track from the DS universe and the gothic atmosphere was the harmonica. To me that's such a folksy instrument, and I know it was big with folk music in the '70s. But to me it doesn't go with "Dark Shadows" and gave the movie a much different atmosphere from the show and also HODS. I didn't necessarily like the additions to the music in HODS, but the harmonica in NODS changed things too much for me.
Title: Re: NoDS
Post by: Cousin_Barnabas on May 10, 2013, 01:47:45 AM: I feel that the harmonica is an effective tool that Cobert uses to demonstrate the difference between the "normal" and the "abnormal." Tracy and Quentin are two very typical folks from some typical American upbringing. When they come to Collinwood, they are faced with the abnormal and the Gothic - all represented by the vibes and strings.