1991 DS/WB DS observations

[WileyS]

Quoting from AOL's dictionary, the second definition of rehash is "to present or use again in another form without substantial change or improvement" (the first is to talk or discuss again).

I may be in the minority but I do not consider the 1991 series to be a complete rehash of the original series. I've seen this term used quite a bit and just wanted to post my thoughts, because the same is being said about the WB version before we've even seen it.

The 1991 version was not done the same was as they original series, IMHO. While one could argue that the changes were not an "improvement" I do believe there were a number of completely new character interpretations (and a few new characters) and certain plot twists/changes that were not done in the original series. While basic themes/outlines were the same, these changes prevent the series from being a rehash as defined above IMHO.  Just a few differences that stick out in my mind:

* A HUGE change was the fact that Victoria was the supposed reincarnation of Josette, not Maggie.
* Another huge change was the fact that the past storyline played concurrently with the present-day storyline.
* A third huge change was how Barnabas was cursed. The attack was completely different and much better done. (though I prefer the words Lara Parker was given to say).
* Angelique makes an appearance in the present-day storyline. As we know in the original, her first present-day appearance was as Cassandra.
* The characters of Julia, Angelique and Maggie were vastly different than the original. Julia was harsher (and did not run Wyndcliff, and did not pose as a historian), Angelique was completely evil and non-sympathetic, and Maggie was not an innocent-girl-next door type. Also, Jeremiah and Barnabas were brothers, not uncle/nephew.
* Phyllis Wick had slightly more to do in the 1991 version.
* New characters/combined characters: Daphne Collins, Willie Johnson, Ben Loomis, Professor Woodard

Sorry this is so long...just wanted to share my thoughts. If I offended anyone else's views it was not my intention. :-)

[Mysterious Benefactor]

I couldn't agree with you more, WileyS. The '91 DS was not a rehash of the original DS - and the very reasons you point out so well constitute much of the proof of that. Those of us who've enjoyed the '91 series for what it was, which was an entirely different version of DS than the original, have been thought to be in the minority - or even heretics (and I've worn my heretic badge proudly  ). But just like the NoDS fans who've revealed themselves gradually through the years, the fans of the '91 series continue to surface and become unafraid to say how much they enjoyed the show.

As for criticizing something before it has even been seen, well, sadly, that was also the case with the '91 series. It would seem as though that might be an unfortunate offshoot of some fans' love and devotion to the original DS. One can appreciate and even empathize with where it comes from, but it's also unfair.

Of course, it's completely understandable to believe that nothing can ever come close to recapturing the same magic of the original DS. But at the same time, there's no reason not to believe that something different, but possibly equally special could potentially be created - not to replace the original - but to coexist alongside it. That's the way I see the '91 series, and I'm hoping a WB DS might turn out to be something even more interesting. After all, valuable lessons were learned with the '91 series, and one can hope that a WB DS would both build and improve upon them...

[Mark Rainey]

Of course, it's completely understandable to believe that nothing can ever come close to recapturing the same magic of the original DS. But at the same time, there's no reason not to believe that something different, but possibly equally special could potentially be created - not to replace the original - but to coexist alongside it. That's the way I see the '91 series, and I'm hoping a WB DS might turn out to be something even more interesting. After all, valuable lessons were learned with the '91 series, and one can hope that a WB DS would both build and improve upon them...

Very much agreed, MB. Although I'll be the first to acknowledge -- and bitch about -- many of the problems inherent in the 91 DS, I'm still a fan. Not to mention an unabashed fan of NoDS. I'm one of those who would probably prefer to see a next-generation-style DS rather than yet another retelling, but at the same time, I'm very excited about the prospect of a new one, regardless of the form it takes. Who knows, this one may put the 91 series to shame and find the longevity it deserves. Or it may not. But I'll stay cautiously optimistic until the show itself proves itself worthy or unworthy of following.

--Mark

[Brian]

Remake, rehash or reinterpretation--as long as something new and interesting can be brought to the screen (whether TV or Film--or even Broadway stage), then, in my opinion, revisiting favorite and/or classic works (and some not-so classic non-favorites) works for me.

I still enjoy the '91 DS show and wish it had run longer.  I think DCP would have provided us with some new and surprising storylines.

I'm looking over my DVD collection, and notice quite a few original versions and "rehashes", each of which I enjoy for different reasons.  Among them:

Rodgers and Hammerstein's 1965 CINDERELLA and the 1997 Disney version.  (But I really prefer the 1957 Julie Andrews version.)

MYSTERY OF THE WAX MUSEUM/HOUSE OF WAX;

DR JEKYLL AND MR HYDE (1931 and 1941) (but I prefer DCs TV version);

DRACULA (Lugosi and Langella versions);

THE LAST MAN OF EARTH/THE OMEGA MAN

INVADERS FROM MARS (50s version/Karen Black version, which is really pretty bad, but so is the original);

Others with more than one version:  PLANET OF THE APES, THE PICTURE OF DORIAN GRAY, SOUTH PACIFIC, OKLAHOMA!, BYE-BYE BIRDIE, THE MUMMY, 13 GHOSTS, etc.

More than 25 years ago my then-boyfriend took me to see the National tour of THE WIZ.  I just "knew" going in that I would hate it, since THE WIZARD OF OZ was (and is) an institution.  Well, how wrong was I?  I loved the stage version of THE WIZ--and learned that a talented, creative production team can "make something old into a new entertainment."  (USUALLY!!  Blake Edwards did us no favors in transferring the great 1982 film of VICTOR/VICTORIA to the stage.  Likewise, the remake of PSYCHO should never have happened, nor should THE HAUNTING has been done over, especially since the focus was changed from what may or may not have been entirely in Nell's mind in the original book and film were envisioned and "seen" by the other character in the remake--sort of like Lela Swift telling DC that "we've crossed over into a ghost story" when only the audience saw Bill Malloy and his seaweed, or Sarah alone in the woods.)

That said, I hope the new version brings us something new, and something to interest this 48 year old DS fan--and that the scenes are not edited like MTV in five second clips.

[Josette]

Actually, as far as different versions of things go, what about famous plays?  New productions still involve the same plot and even the same lines, but one wants to see what different actors do with the part.  Certainly I would hope that they wouldn't do a literal remake of DS with different actors, but new people tackling the same subject can still be done well and be enjoyable.

[Cassandra Blair]

I for one am an out of the closet fan of the 1991 series and completely agree:  it wasn't a rehash, it was more of a reimagining.

I recently (over Christmas holidays) rewatched the 1991 DS and just loved it - again.  I think the idea of Victoria/Josette was brilliant, and it really worked, esp. with Joanna Going in the dual role.  Maybe I'm just a fan of the Julia character (I know Barbara Steele is resented by some), but I adored the 1991 Dr. Hoffman, and I thought the story moved along at a nice clip.  There really weren't many wasted scenes.

I'm still disappointed that we never got to see what happened next.  I was totally shocked when they killed off yummy Michael T. Weiss's Joe Haskell, and my guess is he would have soon resurfaced as Peter Bradford, had the series continued.  Somebody (MB?) recently posited that Angelique may have shown up in the present day as Roger's long lost wife (and David's mother), Laura Collins, and that would have been an interesting revamp on the original as well.

That being said, it was disappointing that Jean Simmons was given little to do, either as Liz or as Naomi.  Really hoping that the new series (if it happens) will do something with Blair Brown, esp. if as they claim, they aren't gearing the WB's Dark Shadows to the teen/twenties crowd.

Ever since Hollywood began, they've been telling and retelling stories - what's wrong with that?  "A Star is Born" for example, has been made four different times (with two different titles).  That doesn't make the story any less compelling.  If anything, it demonstrates (as does the undying nature of Dark Shadows) that there are some stories that are MORE compelling than the average, and these invite numerous retellings.

Like Mark, I'm cautiously optomistic about the new series.  The original show offered timeless stories of love and loss, betrayal and redemption.  So did the 1991 series, but in a different way.

And of course I'm not the first one to mention that the original series itself retold or reimagined other stories.  Who was it that said there are really only four basic original stories in the whole world, and that every story descends from these?  Dark Shadows is one I don't mind hearing over and over again.

[jennifer]

i  didn't like 1991 because i did not like the retelling and the changes
it was the same as the movie Cape Fear the first one was good but
when they "retold it" they made all the characters horrible and i hated it!
sometime remakes are better and only time will tell !

jennifer

[Philippe Cordier]

Sometimes we're told something so many times that we believe it without taking the trouble to examine the situation anew and question the assumptions we accept uncritically.  In this case, you make a good case for the 1991 series not being a simple "rehash" as is often said (I'm sure I've used that term myself in talking about it).

I'd agree most of these were among the 1991 series' strong points.  And while I'll continue to rewatch the 1991 series every so often --  it is DS, after all --  my approval rating is about 50 percent and disapproval (e.g., the new interpretations of some of the characters) about 50 percent.  In my view it definitely had some great moments.  My approval rating of the many and varied aspects of the original series, though, remains much higher.

CassandraBlair, I like your thoughts on telling and retelling stories.