Author Topic: Original vs Revival  (Read 2028 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline VAM

  • Full A ed Newest Fervor Post
  • Muted
  • Senior Poster
  • ****
  • Posts: 1523
  • Karma: +80/-118
  • Gender: Female
  • Adding to my canvas of life...
    • View Profile
Original vs Revival
« on: March 29, 2002, 03:53:10 PM »
I watched the original run of the Series. However, I think that after others (that never saw the original), upon viewing the episodes to this point,  have to conclude that the revival series pales in comparison to this CLASSIC series.  Just look at the scene between Bennett and Edmonds (discussed in another post), those zinger stares and that wicked laugh by Parker,  brilliance of Barrett's characterization...Nothing can replace it!
It is a good day because I am still ticking!

Offline Miles

  • ** Time Traveling Orphan Governess **
  • Full Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 142
  • Karma: +146/-644
  • Witch Hunter Robin
    • View Profile
Re: Original vs Revival
« Reply #1 on: March 29, 2002, 06:51:58 PM »
Quote
However, I think that after others (that never saw the original), upon viewing the episodes to this point,  have to conclude that the revival series pales in comparison to this CLASSIC series.


Gee, I think pales in comparison is being a little harsh on what I thought to be a pretty descent revival of DS in '91.  Sure, it'll never be the original, especially to those who saw it in the '60s (I didn't), but from an objective viewpoint I think you have to realize that both shows have their respective strengths and weaknesses.  Its really just a matter of personal preference.  I thought the revival was pretty cool, a little weak in some areas, but overall I liked it.
Three hundred and twenty years have passed since the coven sank in the dark...

Offline VAM

  • Full A ed Newest Fervor Post
  • Muted
  • Senior Poster
  • ****
  • Posts: 1523
  • Karma: +80/-118
  • Gender: Female
  • Adding to my canvas of life...
    • View Profile
Re: Original vs Revival
« Reply #2 on: March 29, 2002, 07:43:19 PM »
Quote


 Sure, it'll never be the original, especially to those who saw it in the '60s (I didn't), but from an objective viewpoint I think you have to realize that both shows have their respective strengths and weaknesses.  ..


 Maybe what it had going for it was the advances in technology of the 90's...special effects, etc...THE '91 Series ran for almost a year while the Original Series went  for FIVE years. That in itself is a telling factor.
It is a good day because I am still ticking!

Offline Carol

  • * Fiction Filly *
    Full A ed Newest Fervor Post
  • Senior Poster
  • ****
  • Posts: 642
  • Karma: +18/-116
  • Gender: Female
  • New York Cat
    • View Profile
Re: Original vs Revival
« Reply #3 on: March 29, 2002, 08:54:27 PM »
Personally, I don't think revivals can ever capture the essence of the original. What was done on TV during the early years represented that period in time and what was available to actors/producers/directors.

If DS were done again, it would represent the technology of today. Having seen the original when it was first aired, I compared the second 1991 series with the first. Granted, Ben Cross was a good Barnabas but he wasn't JF.  I hated the Willie character portrayed by Jim Fyfe.  It just wasn't the same.

Some original shows should best be left alone no matter how much we'd like to see it again IMHO.

  Carol
carolinamooon

"All that we see or seem is but a dream within a dream" - Edgar Allan Poe

Offline Miles

  • ** Time Traveling Orphan Governess **
  • Full Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 142
  • Karma: +146/-644
  • Witch Hunter Robin
    • View Profile
Re: Original vs Revival
« Reply #4 on: March 29, 2002, 09:09:02 PM »
Quote

 Maybe what it had going for it was the advances in technology of the 90's...special effects, etc...THE '91 Series ran for almost a year while the Original Series went  for FIVE years. That in itself is a telling factor.


I still think youre selling it short.  I though the '91 outing improved upon the original in more than just special effects (which ultimately don't make a difference either way).  Its biggest plus was probably the fact that the cast (a pretty talented one if ya ask me) was given time to make the scenes flow consistently.  As for the fact that the show lasted 12 eps, eh, theres plenty of trash TV out there (just look on the WB network; they've got scads of shows whose sole marketing power is in the bust size of the female lead) that has been running for 5+ seasons.  As for the other end of the spectrum, i guess I'll just point out "the Prisoner" a brilliant show that lasted for 17 eps.
Three hundred and twenty years have passed since the coven sank in the dark...

Offline MikeS

  • Full A ed Newest Fervor Post
  • Full Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 196
  • Karma: +0/-46
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Original vs Revival
« Reply #5 on: March 29, 2002, 09:57:19 PM »
As another viewer of the original run, I feel the revival falls short in comparison.  However, taken on its own merits, I think it was, for the most part, quite good. If another remake is ever  attempted, I think it would have more of a chance of succeeding if it were to tell original stories, instead of yet another retelling of the Barnabas storyline. Telling the same story over and over is going to make comparisons to the original inevitable.  And, at least IMHO, the remake is almost never as good.  I wonder why Dan Curtis feels the need to keep repeating the same story?

Offline VAM

  • Full A ed Newest Fervor Post
  • Muted
  • Senior Poster
  • ****
  • Posts: 1523
  • Karma: +80/-118
  • Gender: Female
  • Adding to my canvas of life...
    • View Profile
Re: Original vs Revival
« Reply #6 on: March 29, 2002, 10:01:24 PM »
People were more aware of quality TV in the '60's!
It is a good day because I am still ticking!

Offline Cassandra

  • Full A ed Newest Fervor Post
  • Senior Poster
  • ****
  • Posts: 2239
  • Karma: +152/-322
  • Gender: Female
  • I love DS!
    • View Profile
Re: Original vs Revival
« Reply #7 on: March 29, 2002, 10:59:16 PM »
I totally agree with you Vam & Carol. There's nothing like an "original." There's no comparision. The actors on the original series were also accompolished & experienced actors by the time the original show aired in the 60's, some of them, also experienced stage actors, that made these wonderful dialouge exchanges between two actors priceless! 35 years later, the original still has a large following fan following! That says enough for me! ;)
"Calamity Jane"

Offline Mark Rainey

  • Full A ed Newest Fervor Post
  • Senior Poster
  • ****
  • Posts: 906
  • Karma: +1169/-3545
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • The Realm
Re: Original vs Revival
« Reply #8 on: March 30, 2002, 01:32:35 AM »
I enjoyed the 1991 series for its own merits, although it was sadly lacking in a lot of respects. It's a shame it was prematurely cancelled -- due largely to the problem of audiences being unable to find it amid all the coverage of the Gulf War; a highly unfair set of circumstances to compete with. It was just hitting its stride when it was cancelled, and I think it might have had many high points had it been allowed to continue.

S * P * O * I * L * E * R * S


One of the show's most glaring faults was its scenery. The intricate miniature of Collinwood was interesting, but obviously a miniature, and inferior in design to either Seaview or Lyndhurst. Greystone simply didn't cut it -- especially doubling as the Old House. Everything about the locale screamed "California," and never succeeded in making me believe this was a small New England town.

I detested the idea of Maggie Evans being Roger's mistress. Didn't do credit to either character. Jim Fyfe's Willie took off on a ludicrous note and then got worse. But during the episodes just prior to the journey back to 1790, his character began to mature and become more tolerable.

I also hated Ben Cross's vampire makeup. Frid always came across as impressive and subtly dangerous when he donned his fangs. Cross looked like a reject from THE EVIL DEAD and had no charisma whatsoever in vampire mode. I'll give him credit for doing Barnabas justice when he was "normal." He's a capable actor and did a good job with the material until he was required to turn undead.

The best part of the revival series was the 1790 period episodes. These came across as intense as anything showing on TV at the time, especially Victoria's trial. For the most part, the actors here were all wonderful in their parts, especially Stefan Gierasch as Joshua. No one could have been more perfect. Adrian Paul was fabulous as Jeremiah, and I liked the fact that the script made him Barnabas's brother rather than Uncle; the relationship worked a lot better that way. Even Jim Fyfe came across better as Ben.

Gotta admit I didn't care for Lysette Anthony's Angelique. She was effective in her own way, but her character came across as a bit too manic; very different from Lara's portrayal. Uniqueness is fine, but the right chemistry between her and the other players never happened. Not to denigrate her performance; it just didn't sit well with me.

By far the best element of the 1991 series was Joanna Going as Victoria. Gone was the clueless twit that Alexandra Moltke had become. In her place was a beautiful, somewhat vulnerable, perhaps naive young woman, but with a decent brain in her head and the wherewithal to take the initiative in dealing with the uptight Collins clan. When Beth and I wrote DREAMS, we had to model Victoria on Joanna, even though all the rest of the characters hearkened back to the original series. To top it off, Going's ability to play Josette convincingly alongside herself as Victoria was no mean feat. She had me convinced she was two different individuals, both with their own personalities and mannerisms.

Dang, I think I'm in love with her all over again. ;)

There is one scene in particular that stands out in my mind as being one of the series' best. That's when Barnabas embraces Carolyn in a twilight setting with Cobert's eerie music playing, and the camera trains on a stream of blood that runs down her neck and over her breasts. It's a beautifully erotic and "mature" DARK SHADOWS moment, one of the few in which Cross works well as the vampire Barnabas. Strangely, I've heard some people say they were offended by this scene. Personally, I find that an inexplicable reaction, when one considers how eroticism and blood figure so prominently in the entire vampire mythos. I can't imagine a more tasteful manner of dealing with a vampire feeding -- showing just enough to be tantalizing.

It would have been interesting to see where the show progressed.

[shadow=purple,left,300]--Mark[/shadow]

Offline VAM

  • Full A ed Newest Fervor Post
  • Muted
  • Senior Poster
  • ****
  • Posts: 1523
  • Karma: +80/-118
  • Gender: Female
  • Adding to my canvas of life...
    • View Profile
Re: Original vs Revival
« Reply #9 on: March 30, 2002, 01:49:37 AM »
Thanks Mark, your comments were interesting.
It is a good day because I am still ticking!

Offline MrsJ

  • Full A ed Newest Fervor Post
  • Junior Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 112
  • Karma: +7/-62
    • View Profile
Re: Original vs Revival
« Reply #10 on: March 30, 2002, 03:37:26 AM »
Quote
I enjoyed the 1991 series for its own merits, although it was sadly lacking in a lot of respects. It's a shame it was prematurely cancelled --


Your comments on the revival series mirror my own (although you stated them much more eloquently than I would have, lol).  I think that having seen the original series with the original cast really "spoiled" the revival series for many of us.  If I hadn't been among one of the original viewers, I might have a very different view of the 1991 series.  It was a shame it was so short lived, perhaps it would have eventually won me over  :-*

MrsJ.

Offline Teresa

  • Full Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 541
  • Karma: +2307/-523
  • Gender: Female
    • View Profile
Re: Original vs Revival
« Reply #11 on: March 30, 2002, 03:54:25 AM »
Well for the original series I remember sitting all cozy with my Mom watching in awe. :o I liked the revival but it makes me think of sitting in my crappy apartment on the floor because I could not afford furniture. :'( Thank God for floor pillows :D
" Some day we'll look back on this and it will all seem funny"

Offline Brian

  • Full Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 461
  • Karma: +18/-1570
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Original vs Revival
« Reply #12 on: March 30, 2002, 07:22:17 AM »
THE '91 Series ran for almost a year while the Original Series went  for FIVE years

Well, as much as I enjoyed the '91 version (I was also around and watched the original!!), the '91 series DID NOT run for almost a year.  It premiered on January 13, 1991, and the last episode (THANKS TO THE GULF WAR AND GWB) aired on March 22, 1991;  it only aired for little more than 2 months. . .;(

Offline VAM

  • Full A ed Newest Fervor Post
  • Muted
  • Senior Poster
  • ****
  • Posts: 1523
  • Karma: +80/-118
  • Gender: Female
  • Adding to my canvas of life...
    • View Profile
Re: Original vs Revival
« Reply #13 on: March 30, 2002, 02:24:25 PM »
Quote
THE '91 Series ran for almost a year while the Original Series went  for FIVE years

Well, as much as I enjoyed the '91 version (I was also around and watched the original!!), the '91 series DID NOT run for almost a year.  It premiered on January 13, 1991, and the last episode (THANKS TO THE GULF WAR AND GWB) aired on March 22, 1991;  it only aired for little more than 2 months. . .;(



Sorry, I guess my timing was off on this one... ::)
It is a good day because I am still ticking!

Offline ROBINV

  • ** Robservationist **
  • Senior Poster
  • ****
  • Posts: 1173
  • Karma: +20/-1464
  • Gender: Female
  • The Write Stuff
    • View Profile
    • Personal site of Robin Vogel
Re: Original vs Revival
« Reply #14 on: March 30, 2002, 02:53:01 PM »
I've come to think of the 1991 revival series as a parallel time to the 1960 series.

I will always love the original, I watched it during my most vulnerable teenage years and it had a deep impact on me that hasn't let go all these years later.

The 1991 version was filled with flashier special effects, no bloopers, but IMHO, no where near as much heart.

I agree with Mr. Rainey that Joanna Going made a far better Victoria Winters; she was lovely, vulnerable, but still intelligent and spunky.  She was the only cast member of the '91 show who outdid her predecessor, at least IMHO.  I still have a soft spot for Alexandra Moltke, however, and don't hold her to blame for what happened to Vicki's character.  I think Dan Curtis had a chauvinistic and outdated concept of women, and it shows in just about all of his female characters at one time or another.  

Love, Robin