A Recommendation For DS

[Mysterious Benefactor]

Check out: Dark Shadows - My Obligatory October Horror Post

I particularly love this section:

Lines are forgotten, mike booms and cameras sometimes get into shots and impenetrable brick walls often shudder when touched. Re-shooting scenes was an expense the producers were not able or willing to incur, but I'm a firm believer that bad special effects do not ruin good stories. Dark Shadows is a cracking good story.

Exactly! And if only more people who write about DS could see past the occasional bloopers to grasp that the real attraction of DS has always been the story.

[David]

 

1795, 1897, and the Haunting of Collinwood are brilliant--they still hold up far better than recent horror tales.

[MagnusTrask]

I wonder if the writer is British.   They tend to know this there, or used to.   In the US, fannish viewers (fans of other shows) judge shows based first on special effects, without embarrassment.   It's like holding up a big neon flashing sign saying "I'm shallow!!!" with a big red arrow pointing down at you, to judge in that way, as far as I'm concerned.    US SF fans, though, will judge SF shows based on effects as if they're being sophisticated connaisseurs.   They seem to think that people who still watch shows with older effects are naive.  It's amazing.   I suppose it's the same with all TV and films requiring effects, horror too.  

[ProfStokes]

They seem to think that people who still watch shows with older effects are naive.  It's amazing.   I suppose it's the same with all TV and films requiring effects, horror too.  

I can't help but be unimpressed by modern special effects.   I always feel like I'm watching Who Framed Roger Rabbit? when I look at a CGI-heavy film.  The effects look that cartoonish.  The animation has no weight or substance to my eye, and I can't believe in what I'm seeing, so I prefer older films with props and prosthetics for that reason.  But also, it impresses the hell out of me to see just how effective special effects in films of 40+ years ago were, knowing that limited technologies were involved.  I watch The Invisible Man every year around Halloween and can't take my eyes off the floating shirt, levitating policeman, etc.  Those special effects are far more impressive to me than anything James Cameron could whip up.

ProfStokes

[DarkLady]

Very true, Professor! And if the writer of the article was a Brit, s/he is probably familiar with Dr. Who, which in the early days had more than its fair share of tacky special effects--and it certainly hasn't made the show less popular.

[KMR]

The problem with so many movies in the era of CGI is that it becomes all about the effects.  It's like they essentially just come up with ideas for visuals they want up on the screen, and then try to fit a story around them.  The emphasis used to be more on the story, and the effects were there to help tell the story.  They would go with the most sophisticated effects possible at the time that would fit into the budget of the production, and if the story and all of the other elements were strong enough, the effects didn't have to be of the calibre everyone expects today.  Yes, a lot of the DS effects and production values look quaint (if not cheesy) to modern eyes, but the fact of the matter is that it was pretty much state of the art for a daily videotaped soap opera in its time.  DS was not a cheap show by any means whatsoever, but try to get today's audiences to understand that...  They just have no idea of the context of the original DS.

[Mysterious Benefactor]

DS was not a cheap show by any means whatsoever, but try to get today's audiences to understand that...  They just have no idea of the context of the original DS.

Sadly, that's very true.    And even sadder is that some movies today simply exist for the CGI effects. Forget about trying to fit a story around the effects - there basically is no real story. And what's worse is that there are producers who think that's perfectly fine (and I'm sure we all know who they are). But then, why shouldn't they when their films continually rake in big bucks at the box office.    So until the mass audience becomes more demanding of a real story over effects, some in the industry are going  to continue to put out what are often terrible movies but ones that make tons of money simply based on the effects on screen...

[Gerard]

I so also agree with you, ProfStokes!  I just could not get myself to completely watch Avatar, no matter how good the story might have been, because the CGI special effects made it look like a cheap animated film.  Every time I tried, I ended up walking away.  Give me aliens who are humans in make-up and heavy costumes.  I'll take prehistoric monsters that are, again, humans in a big rubber suit smashing to-scale model cities.  Even the grand, old stop-motion photography is far superior than the stuff they have now.  I just hope that the DS movie isn't filled to the brim with computerized "special effects."  It'll end up looking like an Adult Swim program on the Cartoon Network.

Gerard