'90 Series Question

[quentincollins]

I think Pfeiffer did a good job as Liz. She had her own spin on the character, and had a lot of new stuff to play with, her knowledge of what Barnabas was, and how she accepted him, and in her own way used him, were all interesting developments.
Makes me think of how Jean Simmons's Liz was so different from Joan Bennett. I think Simmons had the right touch of old money class and warm maternal side, but I don't think she had the air of tragedy that Joan Bennett had. I think Pfeiffer did have a similar air of tragedy about her, although she was more pragmatic at dealing with her problems.

[michael c]

true...


while simmons' liz went hugely underdeveloped as a character she did lack the note of tragedy bennett brought to the role. nothing we learned about her indicated anything along the lines of what OS liz went through in terms of her husband and her reclusiveness.


I suppose such a backstory could have been established for her in future seasons had they progressed but as it stood it wasn't hinted at and simmons herself didn't lend the character that quality.

[quentincollins]

Jean Simmons's Liz was really underdeveloped. We know so little about her. We know nothing of her husband/Carolyn's father. Was he dead, did he leave her like Paul in the original series? The whole reclusive story was dropped, and I don't remember there being the business and financial problems that were important in the tv series and movie. Liz and Roger had a niece Daphne, but we know nothing more about their family. Presumably they had another brother. The mystery of Victoria's origins and Liz's involvement also were dropped on the tv show, but one of the Innovation comics, I think it was the last one, did have Roger ask Liz when she was going to tell Vicki that Liz was her mother. If the comic series had continued we probably would've learned about her past in that format anyways.
But on the tv show there are no hints of Liz having marital problems, a secret illigitimate child, her torment over thinking she had killed Paul, and yes, there is no subtext in the performance for any of that. I don't mean it as any criticism of Simmons, she played the character as written, and none of those elements were part of the 91 series, but her character didn't get as much depth because of it, although I still liked her. 
I feel that she had more to do with Naomi at least, with a cold husband, the deaths of two children and her son the vampire, and going mad.
Even in just two hours Pfeiffer's Liz got a lot of development, she had a crumbling family fortune she was trying to hold togather single handed at the begining, a troubled teen with a secret and a disturbed nephew, an odd but mature and believable friendship with Julia, and her character's ruthless traits as she accepted a vampire, turning a blind eye to the deaths Barnabas brought about, because she needed him. Pfeiffer really was one of the best parts of the movie imo.

[michael c]

the 91 series in not my forte but to my recollection the family business was barely referenced if referenced at all...


I certainly don't remember the word "cannery" being tossed around with any frequency. nor any mention of financial difficulties. the main family sort of carried on like inherited wealth socialites.

I really got the impression liz and roger were just part of an establishing "presence" much like they were in the OS's later years more than the types of characters that would actually drive the narrative.


getting more OT if I recall in lara parker's atrocity 'the salem branch' liz(who, again, went unused completely as a character)either rented out Collinwood as a bed and breakfast or else had it shown to tour groups. either way it was as idiotic as the rest of the book.

[Gothick]

I agree that Pfeiffer was the best part of the Burton/Depp film.  I have no interest in seeing the film itself ever again but I would enjoy seeing a reel of Pfeiffer and HBC's outtake scenes, if such were ever released (seems unlikely).

I thought Jean Simmons was utterly wasted in the 1990 redaction.  She's a gifted actress and there could have been some wonderful moments for her, but with DC calling the shots, it became all about how much gore, fanging, and carnage they could get away with in each episode. DC would have loved the current era of HBO and other network serial killer dramas with all the loving slo-mo close-ups of manglings, stabbings, dismemberments, gougings etc.

Just my two drachmae.

G.

[Mysterious Benefactor]

DC would have loved the current era of HBO and other network serial killer dramas with all the loving slo-mo close-ups of manglings, stabbings, dismemberments, gougings etc.

I think you're totally right there. I shudder to think of what a DS might be like if DC were still alive and able to helm a version on HBO or, potentially worse yet, Starz!! 

[KMR]

I thought Jean Simmons was utterly wasted in the 1990 redaction.  She's a gifted actress and there could have been some wonderful moments for her,

The character of Liz seemed totally pointless in the 1991 series.  While she had a few lines here and there, nothing at all figured into any of the plots, at least as far as I can remember.  Jean Simmons had one moment that was exceptional, though, and that was in 1790, at the end of the duel scene.  Watching her play a grieving Naomi was heartbreaking.  While one could say that even here her character was still only reacting to things going on around her, it was all about the human tragedy that was at the core of the best of DS.

[Gothick]

I agree, Jean did have some wonderful moments as Naomi.  Unfortunately I found how the 1990 redaction did the 1790s storyline to be really hard to take, in general, but it's hard to blame anyone other than Brandon Tartikoff for that since apparently he forced them to accelerate the plot to the point where it became utterly ridiculous.  and DC really should not have been encouraged to pack MORE blood-and-thunder action/posturing into a shorter space.  But, anyway...

Another wasted actress (IMO) was Lysette Anthony.  I do wish they had done the second season just to have seen Lysette's take on Laura Collins.  I bet *that* would have been something to see.

G.

[Mysterious Benefactor]

Yes, Tartikoff did limit the amount of eps that could take place in the past, but I honestly blame DC more than I do Tartikoff for 1790 being rushed. It wouldn't have been an issue if DC had listened to Tartikoff and the writers because they wanted the '91 DS to stay in the present for the entire 13 hour run and to do 1790 in a second season - but DC was adamant that they absolutely had to do the flashback in the 13 hours. Tartikoff did finally agreed to that, but one of his stipulations to allowing it was that, unlike in the original DS, time would not be suspended in the present and in the eps that took place in the past there would also be scenes that took place in the present in order to keep the audience connected to the present day characters while events also unfolded in the past. One might only imagine how things might have turned out had DC not gotten his way.

[Gothick]

That's really too bad, MB.  But so typical of various stories I have heard about DC and how he operated over the years.

I know it's common to give Curtis all the credit for Shadows having been as fabulous as it was, but at least where the original series (which has my heart) is concerned, I've said before and I'm saying now--the project attained greatness DESPITE the "input" and interference of Dan Curtis.  The best periods were often when he was away working on other projects--such as the introduction of Barnabas (and maybe the preceding Laura Collins storyline, too).

G.