Did the Writers Find the "Present" Boring?

[Fletcher]

Was anyone else frustrated by the lack of good storylines in the present, after the show returned from 1897?  After that point, it seemed to me that the writers were bored with the "same ole" characters in the present, but took delight in the freedoms they had to write more dynamic characters in the past, future, or parallel time.

In the present, we had a core family that, for the most part, needed to remain static.  Untimately, no matter what craziness they went through, the present family had to emerge from the story unchanged.  None could die, none could sucessfully marry, no pregnancies, and David wasn't really even allowed to grow up -- hence the pre-1840s stuff with a 14 year old playing with a doll house.

Hope I'm not being too harsh here, but the core cast was a bit like the Flintstones.  At the end of each story, Fred, Wilma, Barney, Betty and the kids had to be okay and unchanged.

That kind of structure usually works on a cartoon, but was a major departure for a soap opera family.  I think that knowing the family had to get through any struggle more or less unscathed, made the writers bored with the cast in the present -- especailly when they could do almost anything to anyone in the past (or parallel time).  The writers probably felt freed to write more exciting stuff everytime the story left the present.  Perhaps that is why they trurned to alternate time-lines more and more often.

In any alternate time, major characters could die, go crazy, murder, become vampires, marry -- they could do all that because there was no expectation that "it would all be okay in the end."

Think about it -- the only major character who ever left the present was Vicki.  Admittedly that was a MAJOR change.  But unfortunately, her exit was minimized.  She disappeared into the past with little fan-fare and was quickly replaced by Maggie.  I'm disappointed TPTB didn't write a wonderful umbrella story surrounding Vicki's exit.  Now, that would have been exciting writing and exiting viewing. The present certainly wouldn't have been boring with a storyline from which Vicki didn't emerge.  (before you flame me, I do acknowlege that both Burke and Maggie left the show too.  But, they left without storylines or real closure.)

I guess what I am really getting-at is -- do you think the show made a mistake by allowing so little change within the Collins family of the present?  Do you think the writers eventually tired of the static characters in the present?  And if so, what could have prevented this?

One thing that could have prevented this problem was to make the Collins family larger to begin with.  Roger and Liz could have had another sibling living out of town.  And that sibling could have had children.  Also, either Roger or Liz could have had more then one child, again living out of town until needed.   Having the option of a larger family could have opened the characters in the present to more dynamic storylines, more change, perhaps even death.

Just my opinions.  Anyone agree?

[Julia99]

good notion . .what if. .say Julia came back from one of her adventures you know . ..knocked up or something with uhh oh Petofi's offspring . . then they coulda had a Rosemary's baby/Spawn of Satan  in the present day . . .

okay i'm obviously bored. . .

[Barnabas'sBride]

I do wish that the writers came up with more for the present day characters to do. It was almost like it was easier for them to jump from this time to that time, instead of creating new ideas to explore with the present day family.

I don't feel that the present day characters had to remain static. I would've liked to see more storylines and characters developing and evolving over a period of time. Just no babies, that's all I would ask for. Babies on shows like DS just don't work.  But that's a personal issue I have. Too many of my shows were ruined when a baby was introduced.

Victoria's death....should've been a big deal. Not because DS was a soap, but because that would have been good writing and storytelling. When a major character dies, the death should be more affective, especially when you consider how many people cared for Victoria and would've been greatly affected by her death. Elizabeth, David, Barnabas, Carolyn, Maggie, etc..... Instead it's just thrown in there like it doesn't matter (like an afterthought, and I suppose it was...) That doesn't work for me.

I do think they made a mistake by not taking more advantage of character development within storylines. I think they breezed past it sometimes to focus on the constantly changing stories.

[stefan]

1795 was brilliant but if it were me .. I'd had made Barnabas freaked over Victoria Winters visiting the past, got him back to pre-vampire Banie and kept him there, in 1795. I would have then alternated between the two periods and simply continued with the present-day Collins (i.e Roger, Liz, Carolyn and maybe some changes if Barnie and Josette had married and Jeremiah had lived - new ancestors etc.) and then sometimes revert back to Barnabas in the past but, essentially Barnabas is the character that should have been recurring only. The more monster crazy they got, the less vibrant the ordinary folks became. I would have back-burned Barnabas for months at a time.

[MagnusTrask]

I don't have 1968 so this thread was frought with land-mines for me.    There should have been more people living in that huge mansion in the first place.    Did any other soap have a rule that main characters had to end up alright and healthy?  I doubt it.    But still they couldn't just savage characters right and left until there wasn't much left, in the present, the way they could in 1897.    That was obviously fun for them and sort of liberating i guess.    Lots more elbow room for the writers.

After a certain point, in the present, if main characters had been killed off, the viewers would have said, "Why don't they just go back in time and fix everything, the way they have before?"     So it was pointless to even think about storylines like that.    They'd only feel that way about the present strangely enough.   I doubt any viewer during 1897 said, "Now that Carl's died, why doesn't someone go back a bit earlier and prevent it?"   Or, "Why can't Q throw his own I Ching wands, and stop Beth from going off the cliff?"

[Misa]

The writers didn't seem to be that interested in the present day characters. I'd never really thought about that before. Once Quentin became a present day character they made him boring too.

They really should have written about the present day characters more. The writers were the ones who made them boring. I'm sure that if they had written interesting things for them to do they would have been interesting, much more interesting than Quentin the first and friend.

If the writers had concentrated on the present Collins family I think it might have helped the ratings. All of the time travel got a bit boring to me, after 1897, as it continued to contradict itself I like continuity. I didn't like 1840 it just seemed an inferior redo the 1897 story. I think the writers were trying to recapture the ratings that, that storyline had.

I also think that Judah Zachery wasn't a part of the original story when they started the haunting of Collinwood by the ghosts of Gerard and Daphne. I think if he had been his ghost shouldn't have looked like Gerard. Anyway, I wish that they would have stayed in the present and written some interesting things for everyone to do.

Later if they wanted to do another flashback the 1920s would have been interesting, or maybe the 30s.

If Dan Curtis would have allowed Alexandra to play someone evil, maybe he could have gotten her to come back too. It would have been interesting to have seen her play an evil look alike. Everyone could have thought she was a nice girl for awhile, and then let the viewers know before letting someone on the show find out. After all, they had lots of people who resembled other people, why not someone resembling Vicki? Who knows, if Dan had let her play an evil person she might even have been persuaded to play Vicki again later.

Misa

[stefan]

After a certain point, in the present, if main characters had been killed off, the viewers would have said, "Why don't they just go back in time and fix everything, the way they have before?"     So it was pointless to even think about storylines like that.    They'd only feel that way about the present strangely enough.   I doubt any viewer during 1897 said, "Now that Carl's died, why doesn't someone go back a bit earlier and prevent it?"   Or, "Why can't Q throw his own I Ching wands, and stop Beth from going off the cliff?"

I completely agree with you on this point but ... because Barnabas was such an enormously popular character I would have made an exception in this case and made a huge adventure out of it. Somehow Barnabas deserved to be given a second chance but both he and Angelique would have been it for me. No more monsters. except the usual ghosts and gothic sensibilities (like the Judith/Trask storyline which was terrific, exciting, well acted (could have been a modern couple) with only "human" monsters - lots of those too ). Reincarnations are cool also.

[Ian]

If Dan Curtis would have allowed Alexandra to play someone evil, maybe he could have gotten her to come back too. It would have been interesting to have seen her play an evil look alike. Everyone could have thought she was a nice girl for awhile, and then let the viewers know before letting someone on the show find out. After all, they had lots of people who resembled other people, why not someone resembling Vicki? Who knows, if Dan had let her play an evil person she might even have been persuaded to play Vicki again later.

I know it's been discussed before, but if you haven't read Charles Delaware Troll's "Continuation of DS" fanfic, I highly suggest you do. It's nice to a see a lot of the wrap-ups that didn't show up in the original series.

To stay on topic, CDT's continuation actually supports this because (as far as I've read) there are two time travel areas. One is a very short trip, while the other is a completely separate story arc. I think that anyone who hasn't read it would find it very interesting.

[Gerard]

I've also pondered why there was so little emphasis on the present-day characters.  It does seem true that they really didn't know what to do with them, and not just before the 1897 storyline, but even right after the 1795 plot.  I've made it no secret that I completely disliked the whole Adam spiel.  And yet, when that tale was over, the wonderful drama of Quentin's ghost began, but it appeared apparent that it was also a lead-in for another journey to the past, and one that would become the longest story-arc in the show's history.

I did enjoy the Leviathan story, if only because it was a return to the present (no matter how much I did also enjoy the 1897 antics).  It had so many truly soap-operaish twists and turn (I loved the whole "reunion" between Elizabeth and Paul; the scene of their meeting in the hotel room was priceless).  I got into the 1970PT plot because it was, in a sense, set in the "present."

Maybe the producers and writers couldn't think of things to keep the present family going and interesting (they could've, if they tried - if that was the reason).  Or, possibly, the were just looking at the bottom line in ratings.  Stories set in the past caused the ratings to go up (it peaked during 1897).  Kind-of like what happened with I Love Lucy.  They did that multi-episode of the Ricardos and Mertzes going to Los Angeles and it was popular, so why not do it again?  They did, by packing them off to Europe for an even longer jaunt.  And tried still again with having them head down to Florida.  For ILL, it was trips to different places that seemed to do a ratings trick; for DS, it was trips to the past (and excursions to the parallel and the future).

Gerard

[Barnabas'sBride]

Though I love 1795 and adored 1897, I'm not too fond of all of the time jumping that the show does. Even though it's set in the "present", I would've still much rather watched the continuation of the real time present day situations post-Leviathan than 1970PT. I think what it comes down to for me is that I get attached to a certain set of characters and become emotionally invested in them. While I did that with 1795 and 1897, it becomes harder as the time jumping becomes more frequent and (IMO) overdone.

I became spoiled by the post-Barnabas, pre-1795 episodes. It was due to them that I became so attached to the present day characters, and I guess seeing what little is done with them in the later years just disappoints me.

[Sandor]

good notion . .what if. .say Julia came back from one of her adventures you know . ..knocked up or something with uhh oh Petofi's offspring . . then they coulda had a Rosemary's baby/Spawn of Satan  in the present day . . .

You mean "Spawn of Satan In High Heels"?

I remember as a kid talking to the neighborhood gang as to what was happening on "Dark Shadows" around the fall of 1970, and they all seemed lost (These were some die-hard ten year old fans, but every time the storyline shifted to the past, it became harder for them to stay involved with the characters or the plot).  The writers only gave present time 1970 two months of storyline before shifting to 1840 - had they taken the time to re-involve us with established characters, the mind reels at the possibilities (Liz runs off to Woodstock with Sebastian Shaw and joins a hippie commune, where lo and behold, Chris, Amy & Sabrina have taken up residence... following Ned Stuart's mysterious demise... so it's up to Barnabas and Julia to rescue Liz from the dubious counterculture. Julia goes mod and gets addicted to uppers and free love. Barn sports more nehru jackets and fringe). Another unexplored soap staple would have been to give current day Barnabas amnesia. Can you imagine having to convince someone that they're actually a 175-year-old vampire? Many lost opportunities, but we do have fan fiction and vivid imaginations.

[BuzzH]

Another unexplored soap staple would have been to give current day Barnabas amnesia. Can you imagine having to convince someone that they're actually a 175-year-old vampire? Many lost opportunities, but we do have fan fiction and vivid imaginations.

That's interesting that you say that Sandor as I too think this would have been an interesting plot idea.  I actually wrote a fan fiction story once where our fave vampire gets amnesia and wanders away from Collinsport. 

[Willie]

It seemed like the storylines in other times were more well-thought-out, like they wrote the whole story from beginning to end before they began filming (just my impression, not based on any actual facts), so the stories seemd to move at a nice pace and have satisfactory conclusions.  In the present day, it seemed like they were winging it.  They'd have a storyline involving one character, then they'd come up with another idea for a different sotryline with another character (leaving the first in limbo), then there'd be a story with a third character.  Then they'd decide they better wrap up the first storyline so they'd do an episode or two which brought it to a rather unsatisfying conclusion, while still the second story was left hanging, etc. 

Maybe that's why it seemed like they didn't do much with the present day characters? 

[Julia99]

(Liz runs off to Woodstock with Sebastian Shaw and joins a hippie commune, where lo and behold, Chris, Amy & Sabrina have taken up residence... following Ned Stuart's mysterious demise... so it's up to Barnabas and Julia to rescue Liz from the dubious counterculture. Julia goes mod and gets addicted to uppers and free love. Barn sports more nehru jackets and fringe). Another unexplored soap staple would have been to give current day Barnabas amnesia. Can you imagine having to convince someone that they're actually a 175-year-old vampire? Many lost opportunities, but we do have fan fiction and vivid imaginations.

this whole thought made me guffaw with laughter Sandor!

[michael c]

great points all around.

the writers did seem to become 'bored' with the present day characters or if not bored they didn't really know what to do with them for many of the reasons pointed out here.hence there was alot of floundering.

in some ways i find it 'comforting' that the core characters essentially remained unchanged in the present.a little constant in an insane world.but it does prove problematic when trying to come up with compelling storytelling.

i too noticed the lack of direction for the original cast as soon as the story returned to the present after 1795.
they drifted about the perifery of the plot for several months before being somewhat returned to center stage during quentin's haunting of collinwood.

it is interesting to note that the core family didn't really change in the present.not only did they need to emerge from every crisis unscathed but essentially they always forgot about it entirely.for nearly a year the adam plot consumed everything and eveyone around it but as soon as it was 'done' and the plot shifted to the quentin storyline everyone acted like none of it had happened at all.which is pretty remarkable when you consider what everyone went through during it.it's also true that david wasn't really allowed to grow up in a realistic way.i started to notice that as soon as maggie took over as governess.he seemed too old even then to be babied by a governess and in real life would have been sent away to school.

it was questioned here why they didn't make the collins family bigger in the first place.why not more siblings and children?my theory is that the show started off with as many characters as it could to establish itself.over the proceeding months a few more joined the fray:mrs.johson.jason mcguire.willie loomis.

then the character was introduced that would fundamentally change the whole format of the show:barnabas collins.after barnabas dr.julia hoffman was the last major "human" character that was allowed to take root on the show in the present.look at the characters that come to center stage after her.they are either supernatural by nature(angelique,adam,nicholas,eve) or by influence(quentin,tom/chris jenings).once it became clear that the supernatural edge was bringing in the ratings the produces didn't bother to introduce us to 'regular' human beings in the present fearing that they would probably read as 'boring' to the viewers responding to this new hook.thus when characters like burke,victoria and joe depart they aren't really replaced by comparable characters.why date a fisherman when you can date someone trying to create a master race dedicated to satan?this thinking was perhaps short-sighted and misguided.

at the same time the writers must have recoginzed that the original family was important to viewers because as has been said no matter what disaster befell them they always(for the most part)emerged without a hair out of place.