Shadows of the Vampire

[jimbo]

Did everyone check out Stuart's(from www.collinwood.net website) new article entitled "Shadows of the Vampire"- a brief history of Dark Shadows posted at
www.popthought.com/display_column.asp?DAID=222

It is truly well written and contains some information new to me. For example, I did not know that NBC had initially rejected the 1990 pilot and in subsequent years there was talks of having two DS theatrical films using the 1991 cast. I would like to know more about why NBC had rejected the pilot which was eventually aired. Perhaps there was a re-shoot?

I highly recommend this article.

Thanks Stuart.

[coterie-mc]

I had no idea they were looking to do these films with the 1991 cast. thank you for the post  Jimbo.  I also learned that ..."Jonathan Frid seemed disenchanted with Barnabas in the wake of  "House of Dark Shadows", which he found excessively violent"

[Mysterious Benefactor]

I would like to know more about why NBC had rejected the pilot which was eventually aired. Perhaps there was a re-shoot?

No reshoots, jimbo.  Here's the story as explained in the book, Dark Shadows Resurrected:

On May 16, the pilot was delivered to the network. Brandon Tartikoff and his colleagues would now view the completed project and decide if they felt the effort was worthy of being picked up as a new series for their fall schedule.
It would be a week before NBC officially announced their line-up for the 1990-91 season. But with the tremendous amount of publicity surrounding Dark Shadows' resurrection, the audition of the pilot appeared to be a formality. Yet, when NBC revealed their schedule, Dark Shadows was nowhere to be found.
Dan Curtis received an apologetic call from Tartikoff, who explained that Dark Shadows had narrowly missed being picked up. But Curtis wasn't prepared to give up without a fight. He expressed his dismay and disappointment to Tartikoff, pointing out that there had been an understanding from the beginning that the show was destined to get on the air. As a conciliatory effort, Tartikoff responded with an offer for five new Dark Shadows episodes to be put on NBC's schedule as a mid-season replacement. However, Curtis knew the abbreviated order was half-hearted as well as inadequate for a show of Dark Shadows' scope. It simply wouldn't be financially sound for Curtis and MGM to produce a minimum of five episodes. The expense and ambition of the show would require a commitment of at least thirteen hours. But Tartikoff declined, and Curtis notified the stunned cast and production members that Barnabas would not be rising from the dead after all.
NBC's rejection was unexpected, unsettling, and temporary. Two days after Dark Shadows was declared dead and buried, Tartikoff phoned Curtis with a reprieve; the network had reconsidered and was now prepared to offer a firm thirteen-hour order for Dark Shadows as a mid-season replacement. Tartikoff promised Curtis that the series would be given priority back-up status, assuring him that it would be inserted into the schedule as soon as an opening became available.
Curtis moved swiftly...

Continuing the story as laid out in SHAODOWS IN THE '90S: The Dark Shadows Concordance 1991:

The new series was originally slated for fall, 1990 season. First October 28, then [a] November release were announced. Curtis explained the show simply wasn't ready to go on the air in the fall.

and in subsequent years there was talks of having two DS theatrical films using the 1991 cast

As for the films, here's the message that was posted on the old DS message on Prodigy on June 24, 1993 (as you'll note from one of my recent posts, Debbie Smith, DC's former assistant, often posted on the old Prodigy BB in his name and with his complete authorization):

To: All "Dark Shadows" Fans
From: Dan Curtis
We are considering producing two big-screen "Dark Shadows" movies that in effect would be a 4 hour retelling of the story that was done in the 13 hour mini-series on NBC -- with additional twists and turns!
The first 2 hour movie would take place primarily in the present -- it would involve the love "triangle" between Barnabas, Victoria, Julia, and Angelique -- ending in tragedy for Barnabas.
The second 2 hour movie, the sequel, would have Victoria going back to the past to change the course of history, to save Barnabas and the Collins family. We envision the second picture in theaters approximately 6-8 months after the first. The plan is to use the same cast we had in the NBC series.
We would love your reactions!
Sincerely,
Dan Curtis - Producer/Director "Dark Shadows"

News of the project quickly spread to the "normal" press and throughout fandom. But the films were not to be - mainly because no studio was willing to finance them - not even after the project was scaled back to only one film...

[jimbo]

No reshoots, jimbo.  Here's the story as explained in the book, Dark Shadows Resurrected:
...

Thanks so much for the explanation about the almost failed 1991 DS pilot and series. That answers alot of my questions. Real interesting about Hollwood's reeling and dealing behind the scenes. Hopefully there will not be any misunderstanding between John Wells and the WB about Dark Shadows' role on their schedule. Thanks again for the detailed response.

[jimbo]

I had no idea they were looking to do these films with the 1991 cast. thank you for the post  Jimbo.  I also learned that ..."Jonathan Frid seemed disenchanted with Barnabas in the wake of  "House of Dark Shadows", which he found excessively violent"

You are welcome. Yes I was surprised too about Frid's belief that House of Dark Shadows was excessively violent. Maybe for that time period it could have been considered violent but not by most people, I think. I wish there was a great deal more of "violence" in that movie.
It's great posting on this board. There are many people like Mysterious Benefactor(who has helped me here in this thread) who take their time out of their lives to  educate us in areas of Dark Shadows we may not know about. And there are articles like this one that informs us too on the history of DS.

[Connie]

..."Jonathan Frid seemed disenchanted with Barnabas in the wake of  "House of Dark Shadows", which he found excessively violent"

Hmm....well maybe, but a violent scene that springs to my mind is toward the end when Barnabas gets it in the back.  I thought JF was REALLY good in that scene.   

[Stuart]

One thing I'd like to clarify is that the stuff about Jonathan Frid is only my opinion.  It may be that other elements influenced Jonathan's change of heart, but many sources and interviews seem to suggest that the movie was a turning point for him - certainly more so than other obvious factors.

Jonathan has stated in interviews that he found the movie to be inferior to the series - citing the violence and gore, amongst other qualities.  My own instincts from my research is that HODS was a turning point across the board for the show.

I think in the wake of direct comparison with a bigger, more technically accomplished version, the impetus for "Dark Shadows" on television rapidly diminished from cast, crew and the network.  Rightly or wrongly, I suspect it was viewed as a transition time, creatively and career-wise (note how many cast members migrated to California soon after the cancellation), so maybe the gut instinct was simply that the TV show's work was done.

[Nancy]

I was surprised too about Frid's belief that House of Dark Shadows was excessively violent. Maybe for that time period it could have been considered violent but not by most people, I think. I wish there was a great deal more of "violence" in that movie.

I don't believe HODS turned out as Frid thought it would but his remarks about the film's excessive violence don't surprise me.  His individual tastes run along the subtle rather than the obvious and excessive violence is what producers use when they have run out of a story.  He has often said during Q&As following his charity work that movies and TV are usually overly violent and bore him.

The movie was excessively violent for the period only because it was one of the first movies where new codes allowed for that kind of violence to be shown. That would have surprised anyone but it was also so different from the series.

During the time of the movie's promotion Frid made it no secret that he felt Dan Curtis had used the lowest common denominator in making the film.  No wonder he did not want to make a second movie.

Nancy

[Gothick]

Well, I agree with Jonathan Frid on this one. hoDS would have benefited from a lot more atmosphere and character development, and a lot less red stuff running out of every orifice onscreen.

As I've said before, as my sister and I were taking our seats in the theatre back in the Summer of 1970 when we saw the movie, I heard one guy ask his friend what he thought of it, and the latter summed the whole thing up with terse eloquence:  "lotsa teeth, lotsa blood."  Maybe that level of gratuitous violence helped make it a hit for MGM, but I have read that hoDS and the resulting parental protests led to a lot of ABC affiliates around the US dropping the series.

I read an interview that Mr. Frid gave in Baltimore's City Paper in the 1980s or 1990s, I believe, in which he characterized the violence in hoDS as pornographic (or words to that effect), and said that the "realism" of the movie robbed the story of its fantastic qualities that had made it so special in the first place.

I also have an interview with Grayson Hall from 1973 in which she says that Jonathan did not want to play a vampire any longer.  I wondered whether he had it written into his contract that he would not have to do any further fanging scenes on the show since there were none after the Roxanne storyline in 1840.

In my opinion, the hoDS director's preference for sensationalism over storytelling was also what ruined the 1991 Dark Shadows series, particularly as it went on in the later episodes.

G.

[Nancy]

Well, I agree with Jonathan Frid on this one. hoDS would have benefited from a lot more atmosphere and character development, and a lot less red stuff running out of every orifice onscreen.

I agree too, Gothick.  I have to go a step further though and say I think HODS wound up being a terrible movie with the way editing went, etc.  It did such an injustice to the series, IMO.

As I've said before, as my sister and I were taking our seats in the theatre back in the Summer of 1970 when we saw the movie, I heard one guy ask his friend what he thought of it, and the latter summed the whole thing up with terse eloquence:  "lotsa teeth, lotsa blood."  Maybe that level of gratuitous violence helped make it a hit for MGM, but I have read that hoDS and the resulting parental protests led to a lot of ABC affiliates around the US dropping the series.

I got a lesson of sorts too after viewing the movie at the theater for the first time in 1971. My father picked me up afterwards and I remember telling him I was horrified that Barnabas got killed at the end of the movie and I wondered if he was gone from the show too for good.  My father's response
was "Honey, they are making too much money off that guy to kill him off."  I have always remembered that.   

I read an interview that Mr. Frid gave in Baltimore's City Paper in the 1980s or 1990s, I believe, in which he characterized the violence in hoDS as pornographic (or words to that effect), and said that the "realism" of the movie robbed the story of its fantastic qualities that had made it so special in the first place.

JF differentiates between pornography and erotica as sex being on the screen for a reason and not just to appear to the baser instincts and shock people, etc. which is what he felt HODS did with the use of violence.  A story with two people making love makes a great love story and can be very erotic because the sexual acts are within a story and seems like the right "next step."  That makes for good erotica.   It's no surprise that a vampire would be violent and the big attraction of vampires for DS vampires is that the bite is a sort of sexual act or intimacy (usually).  Barnabas was like a rabid dog in HODS and chewed on everybody in his family for no apparent reason.  That's like bad pornography . . . . extreme action for no reason, no context.  I dunno . . . I am lost in a point I am trying to make here and now I am in a maze I can't get out of. I'll just leave this alone for now, lol.

I also have an interview with Grayson Hall from 1973 in which she says that Jonathan did not want to play a vampire any longer.  I wondered whether he had it written into his contract that he would not have to do any further fanging scenes on the show since there were none after the Roxanne storyline in 1840.

Now there is a good question to follow the next Frid charity performance!  The people who had personal investments in the second movie were undoubtedly not happy that the cash cow didn't want to be involved.

In my opinion, the hoDS director's preference for sensationalism over storytelling was also what ruined the 1991 Dark Shadows series, particularly as it went on in the later episodes.

It has ruined much of what he has done, IMO.  Curtis seems to have an idea of what good drama is but lacks the finesse to fine tune it and develop a full bodied script.   It seems as if the idea is a good one and then somehow falls apart towards the end.

Nancy

[Mary]

Well, decided to throw my 2c into this issue -- I don't care if it is "the lowest common denominator," my vote is bring on the fangs, bring on the blood!  LOL!  HODS was scary, intense, and cool (IMHO).  I hope the WB DS goes for the blood!  Hee hee!

Mary

[onyx_treasure]

Barnabas was like a rabid dog in HODS and chewed on everybody in his family for no apparent reason.

     I thought the Barnabas in HODS was a different character than in DS the series.  When he first attacked Caroline, I was uncomfortable but when he brutally attacked her in Josette's room there was no trace of the tortured vampire.  He was a rabid animal.  I know there were scenes deleted that showed his humanity and maybe that might have made a difference.  However by the end of the movie, everbody but the mailman was a vampire.