DARK SHADOWS FORUMS
General Discussions => Current Talk Archive => Current Talk '25 I => Polls Archive => Topic started by: IluvBarnabas on October 19, 2006, 04:10:52 AM
-
Was is your opinion about Dark Shadows, pre and post Barnabas? Did the show get better or worse with the addition of the show's resident bloodsucker or did it stay the same in terms of quality....
Since Barnabas was the reason I started I started watching the show in the first place, you all know what my answer is gonna be....what is your view? Did you like the show better with or without him?
-
It's hard to make a judgment about this because the show changed dramatically after Barnabas came along. It wasn't just that adding a vampire made the show more interesting (which it did, IMO), but the very show dynamic and creative processes were altered. Continuity, character development, character-driven stories, and realism were thrown out the window and DS became the Barnabas and Julia Show. I do think that the pre-Barnabas episodes on the whole were very slow and sometimes boring, but while the post-Barnabas stories were more exciting, I don't know that the toss-in-the-kitchen-sink-and-fly by-the-seat-of-your-pants writing was an improvement. I believe that the epitome of the series was the 1967 phoenix storyline. It successfully blended realistic reactions and day-to-day issues with a compelling supernatural mystery. The early Barnabas episodes are like this too. I think if the writers could have maintained this level of writing, with attention to character and detail, DS could have been even better than what it actually was.
ProfStokes
-
I haven't seen the pre-Barnabas episodes, so really I shouldn't even post to this thread. That being said, I voted "with Barnabas" but I think "post-Barnabas" would be more accurate. IMO, the earliest Barnabas episodes are among the spookiest, and some of the best writing was on display that year. I'm assuming that those episodes were closest in style to the pre-Barnabas eps, and maybe somewhat better for it, but I just can't imagine that DS got worse after Barnabas came along. Would we even be here discussing it 40 years later if he hadn't? I don't mean to say that Barnabas's character was necessary to carry the show, I enjoy the episodes he's not in as much as I do the ones he is, but weren't the writers freed to throw caution to the wind once an undead blood-sucker was introduced to the mix?
-
Since he's my favorite character and the reason I started watching the show - with Barnabas, in the 1967/1795 days, when the show was still character centric and the writing was stronger.
I didn't really care for the "Barnabas and Julia solve the Collins family problem of the week" tone the show took on after 1795. I always wanted Julia to get a side story of her own and Barnabas to team up with other characters besides her all the time. And there's a definite change in the writing during the those later years, too. Everything went faster and character development was often sacrificed.
-
The early Barnabas episodes had some of the most sophisticated and atmospheric writing in the whole series, IMHO. There were soliloquies for Barnabas that gave the show a very theatrical mood-based feel. The black-and-white video gave this early BC storyline a great "classic" feel, the whole thing was drenched in noir. As the series picked up steam, so did the pace of the show, sacrificing most of this earlier style. It did, however, lay great groundwork for the flights of fancy that were to come.
Petofi
-
When I was 10 years old, I started watching DS because of Barnabas. I have seen the "pre Barnabas" DS, and it seems to me that it was just like the other daily shows. But with Barnabas, a whole can of worm was opened. We have gone back and forward in time, we met his wife and his cute cousin, Quentin. [hall_kiss]
Besides, Barnabas is the man.
-
I agree wtih B'Bride here. Barnabas is my favorite character but I was never interested in the Barnabas/Julia team and wish they had kept Barnabas in 1795 (after the 1795 flashback) or got him back there again instead of making him the vampire-sherlock holmes of Collinwood. I DON"T like what they did with him as a recurring figure throughout the series and I hated that the monsters took over the series. Barnabas was a very popular character but they could have created other ways to keep Barnabas around - such as a ghost or something.
I've seen a few pre-Barnabas shows. They're very much like the early B&W intro Barnabas which we all seem to agree was probably (overall ) the best part of the series though I will always be partial to 1795.
-
I cannot vote, because I personally don't think one is better than the other. Contrary to popular opinion, I believe that Barnabas was the death-kiss of the show, but it took four years! Don't get me wrong, I love, absolutely love, the supernatural stuff! But currently viewing the 1897 storyline, there are about four supernatural occurances per episode, and it's a little bit Supernatural Overkill. I think I would enjoy it even more if just half or more of the characters were involved in a "real" storyline, such as infidelity, business takeovers, a murder mystery, catfights in the attic, baby-swapping, alcoholism, paralysis from a carriage accident, etc. It seems to me that it would be enough that they are in another time, period--and maybe have just the Werewolf as part of The supernatural storyline.
But, oh well, this is, I suppose, just the "more is more" approach the show took, beginning with 1795. It's a shame, because with the first Barnabas episodes, and probably the Phoenix episodes, the "less is more" approach worked very, very well. But getting back to why I think Barnabas was the death-kiss, I don't think he would have been if they had kept things like they were in early 1967. I think it was a mistake to make all episodes Barnabas-centric. Once you make one character the focal-point of any television show, once that character or actor leaves the show, you can pretty much guarantee the show will suffer, and/or get cancelled. Can you imagine "Happy Days" without the Fonz? That show never would have lasted if he had left before the end. Anyways, I really believe that Barnabas should have been staked/destroyed. Yes, I loved the 1795 storyline, and think it was a very good idea, but it should have ended with Barnabas begging to be staked, or at least Victoria finding out he was a vampire, and destroying him. The show should have continued to focus solely on the Collins family itself.
I am all for the various supernatural creatures and famous monster movie rip-offs! They should have done a different character every year! But brought in a likable, handsome, melancholy soul like Jonathan Frid or David Selby once a year to play out that particular storyline. And at the end of the year, have them destroyed, leave town, exorcised, or die peacefully. But while all this was going on, they still should have focused on the every day soap opera type stories for the rest of the characters. I believe the show could have gone on for 10, 15, maybe twenty years if they had not focused on Barnabas, and only Barnabas, and the nonstop supernatural events every episode!
But, the show only did last five years, and I will continue to watch it for the outrageous-ness, the campiness, the over-the-top acting and the unbelievable occurances. Not for character development or plausibility! [hall2_grin]
-
they still should have focused on the every day soap opera type stories for the rest of the characters. I believe the show could have gone on for 10, 15, maybe twenty years if they had not focused on Barnabas, and only Barnabas, and the nonstop supernatural events every episode!
Hmmm, disagree w/this completely. The show, as a 'normal' soap, was, to quote DC, "Going down the tubes." Throwing in the supernatural stuff is what saved it. If ppl wanted to just see ordinary soap stuff, why were they watching DS! Go watch Guiding Light or Search for Tomorrow etc...
I also thought the Barnabas/Julia pairing was inspired! That's my favorite aspect of the show, those two thwarting the evil flavor of the month (Adam, Nicholas, Angelique, Quentin, Gerard). I hated when they didn't get along in the beginning and actually was surprised when I rediscovered the show in syndication years after it was cancelled that that there'd been a time when they'd been implacable enemies! Nope, didn't like that at all! [hall2_rolleyes]
-
I do urge fans who haven't seen them to check out the original Laura Collins storyline shows from Dec. 1966-March 1967 (and it then segues very neatly into the introduction of Barnabas). There's such an eerie quality to those shows. I think if I had seen the part as a child where Liz disturbs Laura while she's casting one of her spells at the fire and we see a dramatic, snap close-up of Laura's death-glare (it showed up here once as a floatie! now THAT was frightening), I would have had horrible nightmares.
In many ways, Laura's story was a dress rehearsal for how they handled both the original Barnabas storyline, and Cassandra's story in the following year. Cassandra even wound up wearing one of Laura's old dresses!
Even before Laura, though, DS was anything BUT another soap opera. The only way I could prove this is to upload some episodes from Days of our lives from 1966 to show you. From the beginning, DS was something very special. So moody and atmospheric. I really love the early months of 1966 but it's more character based and the spook moments are very judiciously paced. (I'm watching an English series from 1979, Sapphire and Steel, right now, and there's this story set in a haunted railway station that really reminds me of the 1966 DS in how it is paced and performed.)
G.
-
If I were doing the show, Barnabas would've stayed the main character, but I would've focused more heavily on the Collins family as a whole and how he interacts with them, and less on various outsider supernatural characters. Barnabas would've remained the focal character, but he would be the only supernatural character 75% of the time. That's what made the early episodes work so well, IMO. Barnabas was a vampire and everyone else, for the most part, was normal. Instead of bringing in Frankenstein, a warlock, a witch and a werewolf on top of each other, I'd throw one in every so often for Barnabas and the family to deal with. The ongoing storylines would still revolve around Barnabas and the family. I'd allow a family member or two to find out what Barnabas really is so that the dynamic between Barnabas and the Collins family stays interesting. The family wouldn't stand around and be clueless: they would have active roles in the storylines with Barnabas. That gives you a well rounded cast of characters and endless possiblities. By keeping the supernatural characters to a minimum or spreading them out over time, the Collins family wouldn't have to fade into the background.
Then you have Barnabas, the main Collins family, and the atmosphere of the early episodes. Best of both worlds. IMHO.
-
I voted "With Barnabas" because he was a very compelling character. More, the complexity of his character and situation set off interesting ripples of such elsewhere in the show.
-
I voted for "with Barnabas" simply because he really put the show on the map and turned it into what we think of when we think "Dark Shadows." Sure, there was Laura the Pheonix, and Josette's Ghost and Sarah's Ghost before him, but Barny boy put that show on the map. *points to map* See? There it is? It should be it's own country: Collinwoodonia! lol
Anyway, I do agree that the show probably would have lasted longer if they had a more show and don't tell approach. Which means that they would give a little hint of the supernatural here and there, then go full blown with it, with wrapping it around other issues that also should happen in soaps, like the drinking, adultery etc.
SPOILER BELOW FOR 1840
I think this was successfully done in the 1840 area, and even in the 1840 PT area, where you have [spoiler]Gerard trying to take over Collinwood with Judah, and Gerard wanting to marry Samantha but WHOOPS Quentin comes home just in time, then he gets tried for witchcraft and Barnabas defends him but you don't know what's going to happen. And Gabriel/Quentin/Daniel bickering all the time was inspired![/spoiler] [female_skull]
-
I know many people didn't like that the show went overboard witht the supernatural but that is exactly what made Dark Shadows such an entertaining show for me.Seeing normal issues like adultery and alcoholism would have taken the fun out of it and would have been so out of place on there at least for me.
I might have felt differently if I had seen the pre-Barnabas episodes first, but I was exposed to Barnabas and all the other vampires, witches, ghosts, werewolves on my very first viewing. The pre-Barnabas episodes were interesting in their own right, but I still love the supernatural escapism that the show became famous for.
-
If Dan Curtis hadn't come up with the supernatural idea, the only thing left to try would have been the introduction of a whole lot of randy teenaged friends of Carolyn. THAT might have been enough to keep a young audience involved. Otherwise, there was little to make DS stand out from other soaps already on the air....."Edge of Night" being the first that comes to mind because it already had the "edgy, noir vibe" going on.
-
I saw several of the pre-Barn episodes because DS during its original airing led into an afternoon program I regularly watched. I turned the TV on when I got home from school and waited for the program I wanted to see. The atmosphere of the pre-Barn eps did interest me to a point but it wasn't until Barnabas came on that I really watched the show. I don't think I would have watched the show as an earnest view but for Barnabas. My dislike of soaps in general was apparent even in my youth.
Nancy
-
I also want to add that I was more of a fan of Jonathan Frid's than I was of DS. That fact dictated much of my watching and when JF was off on vacation I didn't watch the show until I heard at school he had returned. I wanted to study "voice" because of listening to JF as Barnabas and acting too. It was a very wild coincidence many years later that I would be hired to work with JF on his one man shows and be a creative consultant and editor to the many projects he was involved in. That was a big trip. The fact that I came to find out what a great person he was in real life was an added bonus.
Nancy
-
I think this poll sets up a hard choice because it all depends on how one interprets the word quality.
If one goes with a meaning of quality as the general standard or grade of something, well then the pre-Barn eps could win hands down because there was a much stronger emphasis on character, continuity and general story telling at that time than there was on DS in later years when certainly, as ProfStokes quite rightly points out, things like continuity went out the window and character was sometimes sacrificed in favor of plot.
However, if one interprets quality as the show's essence, then the post-Barn period could win out because the predominant supernatural themes brought an excitment to the show that was certainly different and probably more heightened than it had been previously to turning supernatural. Though to complicate matters, the supernatural elements were introduced on the show prior to Barnabas' arrival and they were well incorporated into the show during that time, which wasn't always the case post-Barn. [hall2_undecided]
I believe that the epitome of the series was the 1967 phoenix storyline. It successfully blended realistic reactions and day-to-day issues with a compelling supernatural mystery. The early Barnabas episodes are like this too. I think if the writers could have maintained this level of writing, with attention to character and detail, DS could have been even better than what it actually was.
I agree that if DS had only maintained that level of writing, it could have been even better. But sadly, once Art Wallace left the scene, none of the other writers could stand up to DC in the way that Wallace was apparently able to. [hall2_sad]
-
Yes, DS was better with Barnabas than I think it would have been without him.
Which kills me to admit because, as most of you know already.....I deteste, loathe, and despise Barnabas. [_witch_]
-
i'm definitely in two minds about this.
while i like barnabas...i don't need barnabas.i enjoyed the show just as much before him and also enjoy episodes where he is not featured as well.for me the sun just doesn't rise and set to him(no pun intended). [hall2_wink]
in fact i'm currently watching the laura collins story and i think it's perhaps the most well produced storyline ever on the show.here the cast functions as a true ensemble and each character is given some of their best material ever to work with.later on the cast functions as satellites to barnabas' sun.
i thought that the barnabas/julia dynamic was interesting and organic for the first couple of years but by 1970 the formula was becoming cliche'd.as barnabas' bride and profstokes mentioned the monster-of-the-week thing got stale fast and having a single character(and his sidekick)dominate the plot also i think contributed to it's burning out in just a few years.the ensemble approach might have lengthened it's life.
-
I somehow missed this thread therefore I didn't vote ... ::) If I had, I would have voted "for Barnabas". He's one of my favorite characters [I have a few] and love all the scenes with him in them. I don't always like Barnabas, and sometimes I want to slap him so bad but he makes the other characters that much more interesting to watch. The chemistry between Barnabas and some are just so riveting to watch. Yeah, my vote is ON him!
Recently I had the opportunity to see the pre-Barnabas episodes and I'm very glad I did. It had more of a "soap opera" feeling but with an extra twist to it... it held my interest more. Vicki being "Nancy Drew" and bad-boy David terrorizing his father while befriending Burke were great parts. Having the ghost of Bill Malloy and Josette show up added some supernatural elements while still being down-to-earth... sort of. :D
-
Definitely with Barnabas. I haven't seen the pre-Barn' shows in years, but I mostly remember agonizingly dull scenes of Vicki putting David to bed, David saying he's not tired, Vicki telling him he needs his sleep, etc. The Laura Collins storyline was really the only thing of interest in that whole period. Vicki's romance with what's-his-face was dull as dirt as well. I was so happy the day the news came about the plane crash >:D
-
It's interesting....I've been on a Buffy the Vampire Slayer kick, having purchased some of the dvds (finally). And I'm remembering why I used to sing this show's praises until I nearly lost my voice....
There's no doubt who the star/main character of Buffy the Vampire Slayer is. She'd the lead. She's the one that brought the Scooby Gang together, the one that the villains are after....the show revolves around her. To use mscbryk's analogy: the others are satellites to Buffy's sun. Almost everything that happens to the characters (development- good or bad) goes back to Buffy existing in their world. They change, grow, and contribute. They each have their own individual backgrounds and storylines, but they orbit seamlessly around Buffy while bringing their own strengths and weaknesses to the table (the show). The show is an example of an ensemble used very well, while still obviously having a star.
In Dark Shadows, most of the characters are still. That's the difference. They don't change with the experiences Barnabas brings upon them. And their interaction with him is limited to surface scratching because they're not allowed to develop. For example: Vicki stayed the clueless ingenue until she left. Compare that with Willow, who went from a wallflower to a powerful witch. There were a few good instances of development for other characters on DS - Quentin and Willie immediately come to mind. Unfortunately, though, they weren't really utilized afterward. They were just 'there' like everyone else that wasn't Julia.
Imagine BTVS with just Buffy and Giles solving issue after issue on the Hellmouth - everyone else still there, but not actively participating in the plots unless they're in a clueless victim role. That's my problem with the Barnabas/Julia dynamic.
-
Well, I voted with Barnabas, because as someone else said, he put the show on the map and saved it from cancellation. However, I enjoyed the pre-Barnabas episodes immensely and I did start watching the series from day one when I was a kid. The supernatural came into it fairly quickly, even before the Laura/Phoenix storyline. There was Bill Malloy's ghost haunting Vicki when David locked her in a room in the West Wing. As a kid, I found that super-spooky. No, in my opinion, Dark Shadows wasn't your typical soap opera before Barnabas. It was more of a Gothic novel kind of thing.
-
Was is your opinion about Dark Shadows, pre and post Barnabas? Did the show get better or worse with the addition of the show's resident bloodsucker or did it stay the same in terms of quality....
Since Barnabas was the reason I started I started watching the show in the first place, you all know what my answer is gonna be....what is your view? Did you like the show better with or without him?
Definitely with Barnabas if for no other reason than the fact that the show was fixing to be cancelled and he was just the shot in the arm that it needed. The fact that he was so popular was what kept the show going another 4 years. If there had been no Barnabas or if the producers had made the mistake of going with their first intention of having him staked after 13 weeks the show would have bit the dust long before I ever began to watch it. That would have been a shame since I have such fond memories of watching the show with my mom and brother and then rediscovering the show in 1996 on the scifi channel and consequently searching out and making friends with other fans when I got online. So definitely with Barnabas.
Alondra
-
Yes, DS was better with Barnabas than I think it would have been without him.
Which kills me to admit because, as most of you know already.....I deteste, loathe, and despise Barnabas. [_witch_]
Is that right? I have very complex feelings regarding Barnabas. I guess it depends on the episode and what point we are at in the show. I detest the early Barnabas who [spoiler]beat Willie with his cane, enslaved him and tormented Maggie.[/spoiler] But I begin to like him and sympathize with him in the 1795 storyline when we see how he became a vampire, and see all the suffering he went through. Not that it excuses his behavior in the pre 1795 storyline, not a bit. As time goes on, there are times I still hate him, mostly for how he treats Willie, though he becomes human his treatment of Willie remains the same. He may not continue to beat him with his cane but he still plays mind games with him and expects him to do the dirty work, the gross nasty jobs like [spoiler]digging up cadavers for Julia's experiments and shows no sympathy whatsoever for what Willie suffered during the dream curse for his sake.[/spoiler]
I begin to like him again when [spoiler]I see how sensitively he treated Chris and wanted to help him, and was willing to go to the past, even becoming a vampire again to save David's life. Throughout the 1897 storyline, I like him as he tried to help his family, especially Quentin, though gak if I don't hate him for his murder of Carl.[/spoiler]
My feelings go back and forth through the whole show, it's like he takes one step forward and two steps back or two steps forward and one step back. I am not at all attracted to him but some of his scenes are so compelling, they have me on the edge of my seat.
What are your reasons for despising Barnabas, are they similar to mine?
Alondra
-
I voted with Barnabas. The show just wouldn't be the same without him in my opinion.