Other then DC, who created Barnabas?

[Miss_Winthrop]

  As I've stated serveral times, it's probably my favorite non-supernatural storyline that DS ever did - due in no small part to the absolutely wonderful performances of Dennis Patrick. During that storyline, Patrick had the ability to bring out the best in everyone he shared a scene with, and it was always a joy to behold. Well, at least for me.    (It's just too bad that lightening didn't strike twice with his portrayal of Paul Stoddard. Paul did have some great scenes - but for the most part, given the character's huge potential, he was wasted during Leviathans.)

I have to agree with you regarding Dennis Patrick.  His performances always brought out the best in the other actors in whose scenes he was with. I part company with you regarding Paul Stoddard.  Dennis Patrick was great in that role and I was really disappointed when he was killed off.

Barnabas arrived on the scene less than 10 months into the series.

Also regarding Jonathan Frid as Barnabas, I understand that he started rehearsals for his character in February 1967.  I'm guessing but he may have been hired in January/February which would make it approximately 7 to 8 months into the series.  I think his character was being planned for as early as late 1966.

[Nancy]

Maybe this is too extreme, but I tend to think that DS became a big success in spite of DC's interference... um, I mean, INPUT.

I could not possibly agree with you more, Steve.

Nancy

[Nancy]

I agree with you, MB.  I don't see how any one person can possibly be credited with the creation of Barnabas.  The character was created to spark up the ratings for 13 weeks and I'm sure as the character became more successful, recollections of who did what when probably suffered.  Even after Wallace left the show I believe the writers were entitled to take and elaborate on ideas he created while working on DS.  My understanding is that Curtis had nothing to do with the ultimate creation of Barnabas.  The writers are the one who ran with the idea and wanted the character to a three dimensional villain and called the actor in for discussions on that point before the actor even made one camera appearance. That was not a common thing to be done on soap at all.  Naturally, as Barnabas became more popular the character evolved even more and, unfortunately, they stopped evolving anyone else more or less.

Nancy

[Nancy]

does ANYONE here remember exact conversations or group idea developments from their work 30+ years ago?  I don't remember 15 years ago or 5.

Hell no!!! LOL!!

I had an experience a few months ago of being at a party and someone I apparently worked with back in the early 1980s came over and reintroduced herself.  She talked about a project we had worked out together and I wrote several pieces.  I have no recollection of having written anything for that project but evidently, as I saw for myself later, I did!

Nancy

[murph]

Maybe I'm missing something.....................................

In several posts here there is talk about the backstory written for the Barnabas character being written by the time Jonathan Frid first appeared on the show.  One of the writers' apparantly had taken credit for his backstory and this writer left shortly after Barnabas was introduced.

My question is this.  Why would the powers that be create this backstory for a character they thought was going to be staked after 13 weeks?  It's my understanding they didn't expect the show to last through the summer.  In the Dan curtis interview with DVD disc 10 he talks about how Barnabas became the relunctant vampire because tptb planned on killing him off but when the ratings shot through the roof they knew he had to live and had to come up with a reason to keep him on.

It doesn't make any sense to me that an elaborate backstory for Barnabas was written before the ratings shot up and they knew he had to stay which was probably sometime in May or June of '67, certainly not before the character appeared at Collinwood, which was mid April.  Like I said earlier they thought the show was going to get cancelled.

If I'm missing somthing please let me know.

Murph

[Joeytrom]

They probably wanted to make the Barnabas character as interesting as possible, so they decided to do a backstory on him.  The series was in danger of being cancelled so they had nothing to lose.  They wanted to out on a high note.

Barnabas remaining on the show for the long term apparently didn't happen until a short time prior to 1795 started.  I read some of Jonathan Frid's letters to his mother back in the summer and fall of 1967 (from a fan collection) and one letter stated he was to be off DS by September 1967, a later letter stated he was to leave DS in November 1967 and another later one said that they have decided to do an origin of Barnabas.

[Philippe Cordier]

The writers are the one who ran with the idea and wanted the character to a three dimensional villain and called the actor in for discussions on that point before the actor even made one camera appearance. That was not a common thing to be done on soap at all.

I'm having a hard time making sense out of several comments.  First, what does Nancy mean by "called the actor in for discussions on that point before the actor even made one camera appearance."

Can you explain what this means?

I'm equally having trouble understanding the next two posts.  Murph writes:

My question is this.  Why would the powers that be create this backstory for a character they thought was going to be staked after 13 weeks?  It's my understanding they didn't expect the show to last through the summer.  In the Dan curtis interview with DVD disc 10 he talks about how Barnabas became the relunctant vampire because tptb planned on killing him off but when the ratings shot through the roof they knew he had to live and had to come up with a reason to keep him on.

To me it sounds like Murph is saying it seems unlikely that an elaborate backstory would have been written (presumably by Art Wallace, who claimed to have done so) for a temporary character.

But then Murph says:

It doesn't make any sense to me that an elaborate backstory for Barnabas was written until the ratings shot up and they knew he had to stay which was probably sometime in May or June of '67, certainly not before the character appeared at Collinwood, which was mid April.

which seems to contradict what he said if this means it's unlikely that the backstory was written later on when the ratings shot up.  So, it's unlikely the backstory was written early on, and it's unlikely the backstory was written later on?

 

And finally, Joeytrom writes:

They probably wanted to make the Barnabas character as interesting as possible, so they decided to do a backstory on him.  The series was in danger of being cancelled so they had nothing to lose.

which makes it sound like the backstory for Barnabas was written only later on when the show was about to be cancelled.  In other words, it's unlikely that Art Wallace wrote the backstory early on?

 

I mean, I know we'll probably never know exactly what happened, and I certainly understand how memories become fuzzy over time, but Art Wallace clearly claimed credit for the creation of Barnabas.

And Nancy says she agrees with MB that one person probably cannot take credit, yet MB has stated, if I understand correctly, that he believes that Art Wallace does deserve the credit.

[murph]

Hi Vlad,

Sorry my post wasn't clear.

I find it hard to believe that the writers would create an elaborate backstory for a character that was only supposed to last 9-13 weeks.

It's my understanding that the show could have been cancelled and gone off the air before he was to be staked.  And it probably would have been had the ratings not gone through the roof.

I've never written a television show or characters within the show but it seems logical to me that it would take a lot of time to create an elaborate backstory for a character and this would only be done if the show was going to stay on the air and they were going to keep that particular character.  Otherwise it would be a waste of everyone's time.

It seems logical to believe that the elaborate backstory for Barnabas was probably created in late May or June of '67 and not the time period before mid April which is when he arrived on the show.  By June the ratings had gone way up and the show was not going to be cancelled and they obviously had to find a way to keep Barnabas around.

Does this clear up my point for you Vlad?  Again I am sorry I wasn't clear.

Murph

[Mysterious Benefactor]

I find it hard to believe that the writers would create an elaborate backstory for a character that was only supposed to last 9-13 weeks.

It's my understanding that the show could have been cancelled and gone off the air before he was to be staked.  And it probably would have been had the ratings not gone through the roof.

I've never written a television show or characters within the show but it seems logical to me that it would take a lot of time to create an elaborate backstory for a character and this would only be done if the show was going to stay on the air and they were going to keep that particular character.  Otherwise it would be a waste of everyone's time.

Not really, murph. Just because a show is threatened with possible cancellation is no reason to scrimp on fully fleshing out a character. In particular, it would be done so that the actor portraying him/her understands the character's motivations and where he/she is coming from. Also, a backstory explains how the character fits into the framework of the plot, which in Barnabas' case would have meant explaining how Barnabas was linked to Jeremiah and Josette, as well as how Barnabas was tied to Josette's suicide. Those were extremely important details that were not only intricate to Barnabas' development, but to his storyline, as they figured prominently as his prime motivations for kidnapping Maggie.

[Mysterious Benefactor]

And Nancy says she agrees with MB that one person probably cannot take credit, yet MB has stated, if I understand correctly, that he believes that Art Wallace does deserve the credit.

If you reread my reply #27, you'll see that I put forth the notion that Wallace most probably deserves at least some of the credit. In light of several people taking credit, it seems to be unclear exactly how many people actually may have factored into Barnabas' creation. Which is likely why Nancy said that she agrees with me that one person probably can't take all the credit.

[Philippe Cordier]

Does this clear up my point for you Vlad?  Again I am sorry I wasn't clear.

Yes, and it makes sense to me (though I see MB disagrees).  Thanks.

[Stuart]

It's my understanding that the show could have been cancelled and gone off the air before he was to be staked.  And it probably would have been had the ratings not gone through the roof.

I've never been bought by the whole "threat of cancellation" story for 1967.  It sounds quite dramatic until you consider that they were given 26 weeks to raise the ratings - six months worth of episodes.  To me, that sounds like a pretty leisurely timeframe for a situation apparently so drastic.  It's waaaaaaaaay more notice than the show had when eventually was yanked in 1971.

People also overlook the fact that the show had already been renewed from its initial six month order in 1966 - that in itself suggests that it was doing acceptable business.  I tend to think that DS was it was renewed, just with more stringent expectations than before - not the outright make-or-break situation it's since been painted as.  In tangent with the folklore of Barnabas' creation, I supect it's another of those anecdotes that's become subtly more dramatic over the course of time.

[dom]

Mr. Frid might know or have some insight. Does he take DS related questions at his site? Hell, I don't know if he takes any questions at all!? I sure wouldn't want to be the first one to ask though, lol.

Come to think of it, I wonder if Malia Howard's book on Frid has any info regarding the creation of Barnabas? Probably not.

[Nancy]

Jonathan has said at DS conventions since he started going that after he got the role and before he even made this first appearance the weekend before he was to start, he got a call from the studio asking him to come down the following morning. It was a Saturday, I believe. He thought he had been fired already.  When he got there, the writers were there and wanted his take on Barnabas and what could be brought to the character.  Jonathan later would say that since Ron Sproat was at Yale with him and knew his work, Sproat probably had something to do with his getting the role.  Jonathan was known at Yale for putting good in bad characters and bad in good characters wherever he could in order to provide depth to the role.  If that is so, it would stand to reason Sproat thought it worth the writers' while to talk with Jonathan about the role and his feelings about it.  That was not a common thing to do back then especially with an actor who was not a name in television.

nancy

Mr. Frid might know or have some insight.

[Philippe Cordier]

OK, so far in the creation of the character of Barnabas we have:  a probable initial "light bulb" idea for a vampire by Dan Curtis (maybe another dream), a possible original character sketch by Art "I created Barnabas" Wallace, development of the character by Ron Sproat and other DS writers, with significant input from barely cast Jonathan Frid (who soon wrote home that he probably wouldn't be on the show much longer).

Have I missed anybody?  Edith Tillies? 

Seriously, my above sentence seems to capture what is known and for whose involvement in the creation of Barnabas some evidence appears to exist, does it not?  And it actually seems quite reasonable.