What are the chances of a new Dark Shadows?

[MagnusTrask]

I think killing characters is a perfectly legitimate aspect of developing a plot.  It can be done badly or well.

I agree!

But I didn't make a sweeping claim about every single televison program on the air nor about most of the professionals making their living as writers.

Neither did I!    Except if you mean a great many, but not all, TV writers.   I really didn't expect to hear any disagreement on that one.    "90% of everything is crud."-- Theodore Sturgeon.

Nor did I make any claim--or hint--that enjoying any t.v. currently in production somehow means anyone's judgment is impaired.

Neither did I!

The idea of a "sequel" series sounds good, but in practice has proven problematical.  Star Trek: The Next Generation was pretty much a slave to its past, a retread in all but name for the first three seasons. 

Just my opinion, but for me, by the end of season one, Next Gen was a great example of how this can be done.    Unfortunately, it got stale and mechanical early in season four and stayed that way.   Fortunately, Deep Space Nine then came along, and got better and better every year, honoring and respecting the original Trek, but forging its own way, and becoming its own special story.

[Mysterious Benefactor]

the kind of "edginess" I personally would like to see in a new Dark Shadows is not that of increased death of violence.  One could hardly exceed the original for that.

It's hard to imagine that they could. It certainly seems as if at least half the characters in almost any given storyline were wiped out by the time it concluded.

Victoria Winters could not remain curiously asexual and have that work.

One of the things I liked most about the '91 series was the change they'd made to Vicki in that regard. She was just as passionate about Barnabas as he was about her.

I would opt in general for drama rather than melodrama--not least because it was when DS was dramatic that it also proved most compelling.

Exactly. For me, DS was always its most interesting when it dealt with the truer-to-life conflicts between the characters as opposed to a predominance of plot over characterization. Of course the supernatural elements were great, too - but to me they were most effective whenever they sprang from the characters' relationships rather than when they were being imposed upon them.

I am not a fan of Smallville but I have some friends who are and I've seen a few episodes.  Purists may whine, but that show certainly has done a good job of redefining its plots and the like--much as the different film versions of Dracula have each tried to find their own mythology, their own unique slant.  The result has been success, measured in the only way that really matters--the stories are welcomed by the audience.  Not every single detail by every single viewer, but as a whole.  Grown-ups know better than to expect everyone to agree with them.

Again we agree. And one of the things I most enjoyed about the 2004 WB DS pilot was how it was a mix of both old and new twists. And perhaps that was due in no small part to the fact that Mark Verheiden, who has been heavily involed in the evolution of Smallville, was also involved in the DS pilot.

Just my opinion, but for me, by the end of season one, Next Gen was a great example of how this can be done.    Unfortunately, it got stale and mechanical early in season four and stayed that way.   Fortunately, Deep Space Nine then came along, and got better and better every year, honoring and respecting the original Trek, but forging its own way, and becoming its own special story.

I was a big fan of ST:DS9 myself, but the interesting or perhaps disappointing thing about it is that it was the least successful ST spin-off in terms of ratings, and from what I read, in general, it seems to be the one that's held in least regard by a good many ST fans. I'm not quite sure why that is because it ranks quite high for me.    But, of course, that's not a discussion for this forum. 

[Brandon Collins]

I agree with some what what both Zahir and Magnus have said.

I don't think that killing off a TV (because that's what I'll be talking about here) character is a bad thing, but like Zahir said, it could go either way. For me, it largely depends on what the reason behind the "offing" was, and whether or not it will resonate with the other characters in the show.

I do think it is rather formulaic in that when series need a jump, they kill someone, and the TV ads basically say "Oh look, one of these TEN people is going to die," and then it's up to you to guess and guess about it until it finally happens and you hate what happened. Let's look at some examples:

1. As Buzz said, Rescue Me kills someone at least every season. The death toll has been inching up and up each year, and I'm getting tired of it. They killed Tommy's son, his brother, his cousin (dead before the show started really) and left him and his cousin's widow (who he is dating) in a burning house at the end of last year. Do I expect someone to die? Maybe. But do I think they will? No. Why? Because Tommy is the star of the show, and Denis Leary, who plays him, is the creator and a writer for the show. That would be stupid. And the girl in the house is part of an on-going plotline involving several characters, so that won't happen.

2. ER premiered this year with HUGE buzz about the fact that someone was going to die. I swore up and down that if it were Abby I would hate the show because I really like her character. Was I worried? A little, but not much, because she is one of the MAIN characters of the show, and has a lot of story left to tell. Who ended up dying? Sam's ex-husband who I didn't, and I suspect many didn't, give a crap about in the first place. But this may present challenges for Sam and her son since she murdered the man. We'll see.

3. Nip/Tuck killed this blonde-headed nanny that Sean McNamara was cheating on his wife with. I really HATED this. Why? Because while I was shocked at her literal SUDDEN departure, I knew it was coming. I knew when she walked out in the street that SOMETHING was going to hit her. I was more shocked at how mangled she was than by the fact that she actually died. And why did I hate the death of this character? It wasn't because I liked her, but it was because in the following week's episode, it was completely forgotten about as if nothing ever happened, nobody was grieving or anything. Tsk tsk.

Those are three bad examples. A good example, I think, is Buffy the Vampire Slayer. With this show Joss Whedon only killed people off when it tied into a storyline and when it would resonate with the characters. I can't think of any character that died, that I cared about, that didn't affect the story somehow. Maybe Anya, but that's only because they didn't have time to show effects of her death because it was the last episode. Buffy, Tara, Joyce, Angel, Jenny, Kendra, and others I  may have forgotten--all these characters who died had some sort of affect on at least one, if not all of the characters, and it wasn't simply thrown away.

MY POINT is that killing a character simply for shock value and to get viewers is something that I really HATE. I don't mind when characters are killed off as long as there is a good story to go along with it. If it's not tied in to a good story, then what is the point in doing it in the first place? You don't just haul off and have Barnabas walk out into the sunlight one morning and die, with no story supporting it.

So, if a new DS truly did need to kill off characters, great! Go ahead! I can live without some characters. I've done it before and I can do it again. You just have to get used to them being gone. But what I can't get used to, and what I can't accept is if the writers of this new DS were to just kill off Barnabas or Julia or Roger or David or Vicki or anyone just for the sake of saying "Hey, we're edgy, so throw some ratings our way!"

And, at the risk of making myself look like a fool and discrediting myself in this series post, I give you this:  

[Mysterious Benefactor]

A good example, I think, is Buffy the Vampire Slayer. With this show Joss Whedon only killed people off when it tied into a storyline and when it would resonate with the characters. I can't think of any character that died, that I cared about, that didn't affect the story somehow. Maybe Anya, but that's only because they didn't have time to show effects of her death because it was the last episode. Buffy, Tara, Joyce, Angel, Jenny, Kendra, and others I  may have forgotten--all these characters who died had some sort of affect on at least one, if not all of the characters, and it wasn't simply thrown away.

It's interesting that you make this point because it most certainly wasn't always the case with DS. Sure, there were some characters whose deaths impacted certain storylines from the moment their deaths took place to quite a bit afterward (Bill and Jeremiah come to mind), but in a great many cases characters were killed off simply to tie up loose ends (can you say Sky?). And even in the cases where there was a character whose death impacted future story, it wasn't often that a character's death was truly lamented by the audience long afterward. I mean, I still haven't gotten over Jenny Calendar's death in season two of Buffy, and even though many deaths on DS have been tragic (Sarah, Josette, Rachel, just to name a few) it's very hard to come up with many deaths on DS that have affected me as much. But then Buffy's Joss Whedon is a master at making his audience care and then pulling the rug out from under them. But that's not a discussion for this forum.

[Barnabas'sBride]

Ahh... Jenny's death on Buffy. I remember that so vividly. That episode, "Passion", and the two part finale that season, "Becoming"....two powerful episodes that dealt with death and loss, and no other episode on any other tv show has ever moved me the way those did. I remember crying, and I never cry.

DS rarely had that level of drama, especially in the later years of the show because the stories moved so quickly that character development was tossed out of the window. If there's a major character death, the impact of that death should be felt and dealt with. For example: [spoiler]Victoria being killed off during the Leviathan storyline[/spoiler]...that should've been a huge deal. That should've greatly affected other characters on the show, and instead they didn't even realize it. If Whedon would've been behind the wheel...imagine the hell that would've broken loose....and the great drama that we would've gotten from it.

I'm another one who doesn't mind characters getting killed off - if the story and characters benefits from it. Like Jenny's death on Buffy, as much as I loved her....that really upped the stakes at the end of the season. I don't like senseless offing of characters when it has little to no impact on the story or other characters.

[Brandon Collins]

I've just come across a thought:

Perhaps the reason why DS offed characters so easily is because it was soap opera, and soap's tend to just kill a character without much story after that. I mean, today soaps seemingly don't to this as much, but how many times have we heard of a particular soap character being killed off because the actor's contract is up, or the actor and the studio can't agree on a dollar amount, or the actor is leaving the show period? A LOT. And let me just add a FREAKING in the middle of those two words. It seems to me that soaps will kill a character and then by the end of that week (5 episodes or so) the thing is done and over with. The character is buried and forgotten about, unless of course they are going to be bringing them back in some miraculous recovery or something.

So, I suppose it is sort of unfair to compare a primetime series, which is EXPECTED (at least by me) to be more careful with this, with a soap, which, in the course of a week, may have not even gone through one entire day.

[MagnusTrask]

A new DS might not get the message that we fans don't want capricious, contrived character deaths for the sake of ratings, etc., if the original has a history of it.   Too bad we don't have some unified voice to speak with.

[Zahir]

If you don't want capricious, poor story-telling, then get good producers and writers.  If you don't have those, then it doesn't matter what the fans say or do.  If you do have them, then odds are you'll have really good stories.

[Brandon Collins]

If you don't want capricious, poor story-telling, then get good producers and writers.  If you don't have those, then it doesn't matter what the fans say or do.  If you do have them, then odds are you'll have really good stories.

Even the best shows and the best writers are subject to mistakes and lapses. And I'd venture to say that if you didn't have good producers first, you're show wouldn't even be on.

[retzev]

The '91 revival didn't connect with a lot of fans who felt it was a tired/uninspired retread of the original series and HODS. But it had very strong ratings and its failure has been attributed mainly to scheduling changes and pre-emptions caused by the war in the middle-east. Could the ratings have been even stronger if they had leaned more towards sequal storylines combined with explanatory flash-backs? As other Cousins have alluded to, long-time fans would likely be impressed by a series involving new angles and new plots involving a combination of fresh and older/aged characters, and newbies could be roped in not only by the new plots, but with flashbacks explaining/exploring back-story (which the old-timers would appreciate as well, if done properly.)

Wasn't only one script for the '04 series written, the pilot episode? Maybe the money-bags weren't able to see the opportunities available in a new DS? It's hard to imagine anyone who hasn't watched a significant portion of the original series understanding the possibilities inherent in the back-stories alone. (What about new characters or aged originals transported back to the 1960s to meddle with the classic storylines, inadvertantly creating even scarier outcomes for future generations of the Collins clan?)

Combining all of what came before with new stories involving classic and contemporary characters...the potential seems endless, but producers needs to be made to see that potential. I don't think a script for one episode will do it, a season of scripts needs to be written. A strong pilot that will grab the attention of someone unfamiliar with the series, and successively stronger episodes that will keep their attention while revealing the complexities of the back-stories (the first couple seasons of LOST are a great example of this.)

I think it needs a collaborative effort.

 

[Brandon Collins]

The '91 revival didn't connect with a lot of fans who felt it was a tired/uninspired retread of the original series and HODS. But it had very strong ratings and its failure has been attributed mainly to scheduling changes and pre-emptions caused by the war in the middle-east. Could the ratings have been even stronger if they had leaned more towards sequal storylines combined with explanatory flash-backs? As other Cousins have alluded to, long-time fans would likely be impressed by a series involving new angles and new plots involving a combination of fresh and older/aged characters, and newbies could be roped in not only by the new plots, but with flashbacks explaining/exploring back-story (which the old-timers would appreciate as well, if done properly.)

Wasn't only one script for the '04 series written, the pilot episode? Maybe the money-bags weren't able to see the opportunities available in a new DS? It's hard to imagine anyone who hasn't watched a significant portion of the original series understanding the possibilities inherent in the back-stories alone. (What about new characters or aged originals transported back to the 1960s to meddle with the classic storylines, inadvertantly creating even scarier outcomes for future generations of the Collins clan?)

Combining all of what came before with new stories involving classic and contemporary characters...the potential seems endless, but producers needs to be made to see that potential. I don't think a script for one episode will do it, a season of scripts needs to be written. A strong pilot that will grab the attention of someone unfamiliar with the series, and successively stronger episodes that will keep their attention while revealing the complexities of the back-stories (the first couple seasons of LOST are a great example of this.)

I have a copy of the 04 Pilot script and I have read it, of course. It is somewhat different from the actual produced result, and in some ways is much better. It is truly a shame that the WB didn't pick this up because I think it realized what all fans here are talking about.

In regards to an entire season of scripts being written--

The fact of the matter is that would probably never happen. The script-writing world is structured so that a pitch is made, then a pilot ordered, a script written (if it hadn't been before, most of the time it has) or altered, the pilot shot, presented to the network execs and then subsequent episodes are ordered. What they SHOULD do it order the Pilot and then if they are remotely interested in that they should order scripts to be written for the next 2 or 3 shows to show how the story would progress somewhat. These scripts would be presented for reading, not produced as actual episodes. This way if the pilot was good but not stellar, the execs could see how the story is going to progress, even though they usually ask about that in the pitch session anyway. But it would illustrate the point further, I think.

Script was good, production was okay, and in the end, it was the produced thing that gave it the dump. If the pilot had've stayed true to the script, I think we might just be talking about the latest episode of the week.

[retzev]

Well, what about pitching the potential of the combination of back-stories, new plots, and an established fan-base?  I know this might be stretching it, but what about a 2-hour pilot to set the whole thing up? How do 2-hour pilots get made?

[retzev]

Also, what about LOST? It's gotta be one of the most expensive series ever produced, and one of the most complex in terms of back-story and plot development. How does  an untried something like that get greenlighted on the basis of a simple pitch and pilot script/episode?

[Zahir]

Lost got on the air largely because a proven production team sold it to the network.  Keep in mind that JJ Abrams had just had a big hit with Alias and he had allies within the network as well as an excellent track record.  This is also largely how Aaron Sorkin got both The West Wing and Studio 60 on the air.

I do believe that a new Dark Shadows would benefit froma  series "bible" that would spell out lots of backstory--the exact nature of magic, what vampires can and cannot do, when was Collinwood built, etc.

[BuzzH]

Lost got on the air largely because a proven production team sold it to the network.  Keep in mind that JJ Abrams had just had a big hit with Alias and he had allies within the network as well as an excellent track record.  This is also largely how Aaron Sorkin got both The West Wing and Studio 60 on the air.

I was just gonna say, Lost got on the air, and probably effortlessly, because of JJ Abrams.  And Aaron Sorkin is a big player too w/lots of clout in Hollywood, but so is John Wells who produced the WB pilot, and what excited me about the prospect of not only a new show, but a GOOD one, not like that crap NBC rolled out a dozen or so years ago.  Don't know why his clout wasn't enough for the WB to give it a shot, maybe because DC was still around?  I hate to say this, but his death MIGHT be what we needed to actually get a new show.