DARK SHADOWS FORUMS

General Discussions => Current Talk Archive => Current Talk '24 I => Current Talk '07 II => Topic started by: michael c on December 31, 2007, 06:49:51 PM

Title: how $14 and a writers strike got me to 1991
Post by: michael c on December 31, 2007, 06:49:51 PM: for whatever reason i've never had much interest in the 1991 revival series...

however i found the dvd set at a local record/video store priced at a cool $14 so i just couldn't resist.plus all my favorite shows at the moment are in reruns/pre-emptions due to this seemingly interminal writers stike.

i'm only four episodes in so i can't say i dislike it but what i can say is it has me dumfounded.baffled.perplexed.

let's get the most glaring implausibilities out of the way first.for a show set in maine it's obviously shot i the blazing california sun(and no amount of dry ice can disguise this fact).what's more there are numerous shots of barnabas wandering around in said blinding sunlight.

a few fashion notes of course.even though this is technically a product of the 1990's it looks 1980's to me.three things i hoped to never see i my life.joe haskell with a mullett.david collins in 'coogi' sweaters and 'members only' jackets.barnabas collins in tight black t-shirts.and 91' maggie evans needs some serious hair conditioning...talk about frizz!the fashions,hairdos and make-up trends of the 1960's hold alot of charm for me.the early 90's not so much.

what i found most astounding is the pacing.why on earth did they try and cram an entire year's worth of storyline into a twelve episode season???why before they even established the present day characters did they thrust the show back to 1795?talk about blowing your wad.what were they going to do in season two?1897?

major characters like carolyn,maggie and liz are woefully underwritten.i'm not sure why maggie's original storyline went to this unknown "daphne" character.willie loomis is an idiot and seems to be a composit character of the original willie,matthew morgan and harry johnson.

that said i am getting sort of a kick out of it.i do think that if i wasn't familiar with the original material i would think this was the dumbest thing i had ever seen...there's just too much crammed in.the 1960's version get slammed for it's "campiness" but sixteen years later this "big budget" version is looking almost just as dated and cheesy.

like i said i'm only on episode four so i'll have more to say i'm sure. [a2a3]
Title: Re: how $14 and a writers strike got me to 1991
Post by: Mysterious Benefactor on December 31, 2007, 08:37:59 PM: Quote from: mscbryk on December 31, 2007, 06:49:51 PM
what's more there are numerous shots of barnabas wandering around in said blinding sunlight.

Perhaps the first time around you never read all the posts in the topics dealing with the '91 series' DVD release, so you may want to check out:
Quote from: Darren Gross on January 17, 2006, 11:17:36 PM
Review of DS Revival Series DVD as seen in 2006 Videoscope
starting with that particular post, and
Quote from: Darren Gross on August 13, 2005, 07:27:38 PM
1991 Series To Be Released On DVD
starting with that post.

Sadly, they will completely explain why, say, scenes in Ep #2 look like this on DVD:

(http://www.dsboards.com/images/91_Ep02_1a.jpg)(http://www.dsboards.com/images/91_Ep02_2a.jpg)

while they look like this on MPI VHS and the original broadcast:

(http://www.dsboards.com/images/91_Ep02_1b.jpg)(http://www.dsboards.com/images/91_Ep02_2b.jpg)

As for many of your other questions, they are also answered in several different '91 series topics. However, I will briefly mention here that ...

Quote
what were they going to do in season two?1897?

... something like that was indeed the plan. They were going to drop the whole Adam/Eve storyline in favor of introducing Quentin (played by Adrian Paul) and combining Peter Bradford's appearance with the Chris Jennings/werewolf storyline, with that character being played by Michael T. Weiss.
Title: Re: how $14 and a writers strike got me to 1991
Post by: Gerard on December 31, 2007, 09:46:11 PM: Those palm trees! Don't forget those palm trees! How those things drove me nuts! They still do just thinking about them! Paaalllmmm tttrrreeesss!!! Aaaaaaaaaagh!

Gerard
Title: Re: how $14 and a writers strike got me to 1991
Post by: B.Collins on December 31, 2007, 11:35:46 PM: THIS is the version that got me hooked on "DS" i had NEVER even seen the original at the time. just saw the VHS tapes in stores. & my dad making brief mentions of it being on the air for a few years in the 60's. & early 70's, other than that i had NEVER seen it. me & him were both hooked on it. & than they went & Cancelled it & pissed US OFF cause it left ya's on a cliff-hanger! i do agree they did RUSH To fast to go back in time. & i remember watching i prefer the standard timeline. just like the 60's show i prefer the standard time line buuut the 1897 of course if my favorite time line, & so is the 1795 one coming in a close 2nd. buut

when i 1st started watching it in (1998) i think it was? on sci-fi channel the 1st episode THAT they aired was #189 & It took me bloody FOREVER to get into the show cause i had NO CLUE On what was going on. i think they & STILL think they SHOULD have started with episode one. for years i thought THAT was the 1st episode.

least for a couple of years anyways. MAINLY cause i had no way of finding out otherwise. i had no books nor did i have any sites to find this stuff out. i also had no puter. & it also took me awhile to get used to it's cast NOT being the (1991) cast. & NOW when i have caught the (1991) cast i have to get used to it's cast as well.

buut in short i STILL think they should bring a NEW version back. buut NOT cram everything together like you said. & find the right director & right script & cast WHO THAT can make a good show ya know? since the last time they tried it i hear it was pretty bad. i HAVE YET to still see it though. [angry9]
Title: Re: how $14 and a writers strike got me to 1991
Post by: michael c on January 01, 2008, 12:00:51 AM: quentin in season two???

again blowing one's wad.

the weird thing about that(and this version in general)is that dan curtis tied to include too much of the original plot in too short an amount of time...and the only reason he did that would be to entertain himself and pacify long time fans who would demand that all of their favorite characters be included right off the bat.

the general public does not know who "quentin" or anyone else from the series is and to try and introduce too much to them is confusing.they're not expecting so-and-so because new viewers(and millions of them would be needed for a show to succeed)aren't familiar with the story.

it would have been wiser to flesh out the 'present time' characters and allow viewers to get to know them before getting into the time travel stuff so soon.
Title: Re: how $14 and a writers strike got me to 1991
Post by: Nelson Collins on January 01, 2008, 03:36:29 AM: yap, reading about the really shoddy work done for the dvd (esp. the day for night scene's) is was encouraged me to get the VHS set instead...
Title: Re: how $14 and a writers strike got me to 1991
Post by: Nelson Collins on January 01, 2008, 03:49:18 AM: Quote from: mscbryk on January 01, 2008, 12:00:51 AM
quentin in season two???

again blowing one's wad.

the weird thing about that(and this version in general)is that dan curtis tied to include too much of the original plot in too short an amount of time...and the only reason he did that would be to entertain himself and pacify long time fans who would demand that all of their favorite characters be included right off the bat.

the general public does not know who "quentin" or anyone else from the series is and to try and introduce too much to them is confusing.they're not expecting so-and-so because new viewers(and millions of them would be needed for a show to succeed)aren't familiar with the story.

it would have been wiser to flesh out the 'present time' characters and allow viewers to get to know them before getting into the time travel stuff so soon.

Is it possible he was "speeding through" the popular storylines of the original series in order to get to some new stuff that would sort of pick up where the original series left off?

Or is it more likely, DC (rest his soul) was just looking to rehash his best cash crop?
Title: Re: how $14 and a writers strike got me to 1991
Post by: Nelson Collins on January 01, 2008, 03:51:30 AM: MB,

Was there ever a satisfactory explanation from MPI about how poor the dvd mastering and (you could hardly call it) restoration came about?
Title: Re: how $14 and a writers strike got me to 1991
Post by: Gerard on January 02, 2008, 03:24:14 PM: Weren't they going to do a Laura Collins storyline in season two as well? They seemed to be hinting towards it - David's apparent but very subtle "abilities" (including what seemed to be an infatuation with fire), Maggie warning Vicki not only about David's "problems" but saying outright that his mother was a witch, and maybe a few other teasers. If they did do a Laura plot, I think that the most perfect actress to have portayed her was another "Collins" and a queen of primetime soaps - Joan Collins.

Gerard
Title: Re: how $14 and a writers strike got me to 1991
Post by: michael c on January 02, 2008, 04:12:07 PM: i watched another episode last night and i too was intrigued by the references to laura...they definitely seemed to be setting up a possible entrance for her in season two which to me would have made much more sense than getting into the quentin/chris jennings stuff so soon.for the laura storyline to have alot of impact david has to be quite young.it's odd that in the same episode that they introduced angelique they were referring to laura as a "witch".that's sort of confusing to viewers unfamiliar with the story.i would have been like "so who's this witch who cursed barnabas...laura or angelique?".maybe they thought that the whole "pheonix" thing was too obscure.

i do think that even in 1991 joan collins would have been much too old to play david's mother.

again i'll say most of the characters were woefully underwritten and underdeveloped.i don't know what to think of maggie as a "psychic" having an affair with roger.it's kind of random.i think maybe dan curtis wanted to include maggie but didn't really know how to so he just pulled this out of a hat.

one thing i really don't like is that by episode two everyone in collinsport is running around shouting "vampire!".it takes all the suspence and mystery out of it.in the original it was way cooler how no one knew what was going on just something strange and undefinable.if everyone in town knows there's a vampire it's sort of too much of a "spook show".oh,and those yellow contacts are so "thriller"!
Title: Re: how $14 and a writers strike got me to 1991
Post by: Gothick on January 02, 2008, 04:16:22 PM: I revisited as much of the 1991 series as I could stand last year (I think the only episodes I didn't rewatch were 3 and 4). My roomie watched too and was laughing his ass off at the horrendous 1980s fashions, particularly Carolyn's clothes--he opined that her true profession would have been as an after ten p.m. girl out in a certain area of Hollywood... As for mullets, I really had never noticed until this recent version just how horrifying Ben Cross's hair was. I'm sure they felt obliged to come up with something to help us forget the original spiked bangs but honestly...

And if you think you're horrified now, wait till you see what they make poor Lysette Anthony do in her episodes as Angelique. I wish I could forget, but it's scarred permanently into my cerebellum now.

I heard there were quite a few bloopers in this version as well, including the purported fact that you can spot somebody wearing a wristwatch in one of the 1790 courtroom scenes, but I failed to catch the latter in my last viewing. I did enjoy Roy Thinnes stratospherically over-the-top scenery-chewing as Trask, and Julianna McCarthy's version of Abigail. And, of course, I'll watch Barbara Steele read from the Manhattan phonebook--I very much enjoyed her work here.

Look at it this way--you only paid $14, and maybe you'll be able to trade it in for store credit once you're done.

cheers, Steve
Title: Re: how $14 and a writers strike got me to 1991
Post by: Gothick on January 02, 2008, 04:22:24 PM: I really feel for Jean Simmons too, being given so little to do as Elizabeth. OTOH, after seeing what they made Blair Brown do in the WB pilot in the role, I realize now that it could have been so much worse. Brown's turn in the part is like the Saturday Night Live skit on Dark Shadows.

The role of Laura was going to be played by Lysette Anthony and I believe the plan was to combine the characters of Laura and Cassandra (maybe they got the idea from the fact that the two wore the same dress successively in 1967 and '68?), which is why they describe Laura as a Witch rather than a Phoenix.

The character of Daphne came from hoDS (the movie) as does the jerky pacing of the first few episodes.

There's a lot of material available on the 1991 series, including a book, Dark Shadows Resurrected, with a companion video (which should have been included as an extra on the DVD set but wasn't because MGM was both cheap AND incredibly incompetent, hacking out visual content in the image to make the series convert to faux letterbox, as the Mysterious Benefactor's screen captures above show clearly).

cheers, Steve
Title: Re: how $14 and a writers strike got me to 1991
Post by: michael c on January 02, 2008, 04:28:54 PM: yes gothick,

here we go on the fashion again(someday i'm going to get into trouble).

i haven't noticed carolyn's clothing too much because she hasn't been featured that heavily in episodes i've seen so far.she does wear skirts that are extremely short however...funny the miniskirts of the 1960's look cute and girlish but the one's from the 1980's look trampy.i'm not sure why that is.

a look that look me aback was one weird combo that they put vicki in.she's almost wearing a victorian-type outfit of a long,floral print skirt,a high-necked,lace-collared blouse worn with a cameo brooch but they topped it with this athletic looking jacket.i had forgotten that type of look.it's really bad.
Title: Re: how $14 and a writers strike got me to 1991
Post by: Gerard on January 02, 2008, 11:49:20 PM: Quote from: mscbryk on January 02, 2008, 04:12:07 PM
i do think that even in 1991 joan collins would have been much too old to play david's mother.

She might've been type-cast perfect for the part, considering the character is actually several hundred years old and still looked pretty darn good. And wouldn't it've been rather neat when Elizabeth (Jean Simmons) has her face-off with her about taking David away, and instead of Laura (Joan Collins) casting a spell, the two of them have a good old fashioned, hair-pulling, furniture toppling, fall-into-the-pool cat fight with every other line being "you bitch! - you bitch!"

Gerard
Title: Re: how $14 and a writers strike got me to 1991
Post by: Lydia on January 05, 2008, 07:41:20 AM: I watched the first episode yesterday, having bought the series during Deep Discount's latest sale. I am pleased to report that I am every bit as squeamish as I was when I watched the episode on its original airing: the blood once again made me queasy. Telling myself “It's too red for reality” didn't help.

I had trouble distinguishing the blonds, but was eventually able to sort them out, with Barnabas's help: shorter-haired blond was Maggie, healthy long-haired blond was Carolyn, sick long-haired blond was Daphne. I never did get good at figuring out which older woman was Mrs. Stoddard and which was Mrs. Johnson.

I couldn't see much difference between the Old House and Collinwood, whereas in the original series there's never any doubt about which house you're in. The size of the houses was sort of neat, however. I liked imagining Joan Bennett's Elizabeth, in her evening gown, scrubbing floors as big as football fields and toting the laundry down those huge staircases to the basement – although Jean Simmons's Elizabeth wouldn't have had to worry about that because in her time band, Mrs. Johnson was established in the house right from the start.

Um...looking for something good to say...Joseph Gordon-Levitt's David was appropriately unpleasant, and I liked the passing reference to something that he had done to make himself persona non grata at the local public school I liked Sheriff Patterson...or maybe I just liked his name tag.

But where is the humor that was in the original Dark Shadows?
Title: Re: how $14 and a writers strike got me to 1991
Post by: Nelson Collins on January 06, 2008, 03:57:37 AM: Quote from: Lydia on January 05, 2008, 07:41:20 AM
But where is the humor that was in the original Dark Shadows?
IIRC, all the humor (term used lightly :) ) was written into the chraracter of Wille "Ihaven'tbathedorbrushedmyteethsinceIwas12" Loomis.
Title: Re: how $14 and a writers strike got me to 1991
Post by: Lydia on January 06, 2008, 07:56:21 AM: Yes, that occurred to me after I put my post in. It reminds me of really old fashioned musicals in which the leads and everybody around them are serious, except that there are one or two Comic Characters who, unless they are played exceptionally well, get very, very tiresome. The example that springs to my mind is Desert Song. (I adore that show, by the way.) It seems odd that this revival series, which was supposed to be so modern, strikes me as a throwback to the Twenties.

I watched episode two yesterday. Now that I'm viewing this Willie in the right perspective, I'm finding him easier to accept than apparently a lot of people do - but shouldn't there be a bada-bing drumroll every time he delivers a line?
Title: Re: how $14 and a writers strike got me to 1991
Post by: michael c on January 07, 2008, 05:04:45 PM: i find the willie character to be unnecessarily gross and stupid.i'm not sure why they chose to write the character that way.this show seems to want to take itself very seriously but he's written in a very camp way.plus he gets too much screen time.

jean simmons is completely wasted as elizabeth.

on the plus side ben cross does nicely as barnabas,barbara steel makes a suitably duplicitous julia and joanna going a charming victoria.

but as a whole this version lacks,as as been said,the humor but also the charm,naivete and whimsy of the original. [snow_lipsrsealed]
Title: Re: how $14 and a writers strike got me to 1991
Post by: Lydia on January 08, 2008, 07:00:21 AM: mscbryk, if I remember correctly, you are similar to me in not liking the horror genre outside of Dark Shadows. I fear that, odd though it seems, we are not the audience that the revival series targeted.

The sound of the revival series seems much harsher than that of the original. Lots of echoing, and Ben Cross's voice is more strident than Jonathan Frid's.
Title: Re: how $14 and a writers strike got me to 1991
Post by: arashi on January 08, 2008, 05:11:13 PM: Quote from: Lydia on January 05, 2008, 07:41:20 AM
I couldn't see much difference between the Old House and Collinwood, whereas in the original series there's never any doubt about which house you're in.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure they used the same foyer for both Collinwood & the Old House and just shot it at different angles!
Title: Re: how $14 and a writers strike got me to 1991
Post by: michael c on January 08, 2008, 05:12:17 PM: lydia,

that's a very interesting point and one i never really thought of before.

other than d.s. i'm not remotely interested in the scifi/fantasy/horror genres.this version of d.s. seems to want to appeal to fans of those types of shows.

funny,the original series aired for many years on the sci-fi channel and the actors often appear at fantasy/comic book types of conventions but that's not my approach to it.for me it was always a soap opera with a supernatural element to it.it's of a secondary concern.the fact that a vampire is the star of it is almost incidental.
Title: Re: how $14 and a writers strike got me to 1991
Post by: Midnite on January 08, 2008, 06:54:46 PM: Quote from: arashi on January 08, 2008, 05:11:13 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure they used the same foyer for both Collinwood & the Old House and just shot it at different angles!

You're not wrong that the same mansion represented both houses! Greystone was used for the interiors and exteriors of both Collinwood (except for the foyer, huge entrance hall, and drawing room, which were sets) and the Old House (except for Barnabas' bedroom, also a set), and was also used as the Sheriff's office, jail cells, courtroom, and Maggie's studio. Its stables, swimming pool, gardens and grounds (for Widow's Hill) are seen too. Even the specially created miniature represented both by altering some of its details.
Title: Re: how $14 and a writers strike got me to 1991
Post by: Nelson Collins on January 09, 2008, 08:22:02 PM: I have to agree about 91 Elizabeth. Speaking as a big fan of ECS as played by Joan Bennett, and respecting Jean Simmons' abilities, I was very disappointed in how little she was used, and how blandly she was written. Not even a hint of mystery (was Liz' 18 year self-imprisonment even mentioned?) Even as Naomi , she was wasted. I mean there is such a think as back story. How much richer would the 1790 tapestry have been if Naomi was quietly, in the background, a sot? How much more memorable would ECS in the 20th C would be, with just a few hints about the tragedy in her past, laying seeds for a possible storyline to come?

Maybe part of my problem is the slacks...I am not sexist by any stretch of the imagination, but the very idea of the imperious Collins' Family Matriarch Elizabeth Collins Stoddard, who can quell any and all opposition with a glance in khaki trousers is just ... wrong ... somehow. :)
Title: Re: how $14 and a writers strike got me to 1991
Post by: Lydia on January 10, 2008, 12:35:48 PM: It always startles me when Ben Cross gets star status in the opening credits. The Great House of Collinwood becomes subordinate to the Old House, and that's just not right. But if the Old House and Collinwood are played by the same house, then I guess it's not surprising.

I've made it through episode 7, and I've grown to like the Maggie Evans character. She's nothing like the Maggie Evans in the original series, and that probably has something to do with why I like her: no comparison is possible. In a previous thread, somebody wondered who would fill the function of the original series's Professor Stokes, i.e. the authority on the occult, given that the obvious candidate bit the dust in the first season. I'm guessing that Maggie Evans was slated for that job, and I like the new twist.
Title: Re: how $14 and a writers strike got me to 1991
Post by: michael c on January 10, 2008, 04:22:31 PM: yes!

among the many crimes-of-fashion committed in this series is the unforgivable blunder of putting the imperious elizabeth collins stoddard in pants!

i don't think the costume supervisor understood the importance of liz looking 'regal' at all costs.

dr. hoffman wore a few too many pleated trousers for my taste as well.

the styles of the early 1990's were very strange indeed. [snow_strange]
Title: Re: how $14 and a writers strike got me to 1991
Post by: Lydia on January 15, 2008, 10:29:55 AM: I finished watching the revival series this past weekend. Given how they rushed to get to 1790 (it was 1790 in the revival series, right?), it was disappointing to see how they whizzed through it. Most of the wonderful personalities from that period got dropped. Naomi is a nice, ordinary American lady. Natalie is a nice, ordinary French lady. Millicent is a stereotypical rich bitch. I don't see any particular reason, at the outset, for Barnabas to fall in love with Josette rather than with Angelique: the Josette-good/Angelique-bad dichotomy just wasn't clear. And Angelique's love (or whatever it was) for Barnabas isn't made clear, either, so the relationship between the two of them isn't interesting.

In the Dan Curtis interview on one of the later DVDs, he said his idea with the revival series was to tell the Dark Shadows story as everybody thinks they remember it – which means, I guess, with expensive sets and a lot of horror.

There are some interesting ideas in the revival series, though, and it would have been fun to see them developed – but I suspect their development would have been as cursory as the development of the storyline from the original series was.
Title: Re: how $14 and a writers strike got me to 1991
Post by: Nelson Collins on January 15, 2008, 01:42:44 PM: Ang's motivations in the Revival are so vague. Barn and Ang have maybe two or three scenes together in the whole of the 1790 story so the idea that Ang is in love with Barnabas (and thus is her motivation for everything that comes after) just doesn't fly with me. Plus I really don't like the actress playing Ang. However evil or twisted her motivations were, I had no trouble believing that Lara's Ang really did love Barnabas.

I liked the revival at the time, and looking back, I can see where Curtis might have had that impression, Lydia, because it was mine. At the time I watched the revival on original broadcast, the only original DS I had seen up to then was the syndication package starting with Barn's arrival and ending just after Vicky got back from 1795. The revival, certainly does cover all the important bases, and looking back ISTR ticking all the boxes as they occurred. but now it really comes across as just a going through the motions exercise. All the events are there but hardly any of the emotions, the character, the depth, and given that a years worth of weekday episodes are being shoehorned into 12 episodes, perhaps that not very surprising. I find myself wondering if the Revival had taken a slower pace and did the modern day Barnabas story in those 12 episodes cliffhanging on Vicki's trip into the past, if the show might not have been renewed? Or at least aged better?

One wonders how does the 2004 Pilot compare to the revival? Pity I will probably never get a chance to see it...

If DS were ever to be given a new least on life as a primetime series, I think it still has a very workable concept. One only has to look at Heroes (the only other broadcast TV show I really watch) to see that serialized high concept storytelling is still alive and well and can be done well and is certain proof (in my mind) that the show doesn't have to pander to a WB style audience to be popular with that demographic.
Title: Re: how $14 and a writers strike got me to 1991
Post by: arashi on January 15, 2008, 02:23:26 PM: I don't think there's any evidence in the Revival series that Lysette's Angelique loved Barnabas at all. She wanted to possess him, to own him, and that's something completely different.
Title: Re: how $14 and a writers strike got me to 1991
Post by: Nelson Collins on January 15, 2008, 02:33:02 PM: Quote from: arashi on January 15, 2008, 02:23:26 PM
I don't think there's any evidence in the Revival series that Lysette's Angelique loved Barnabas at all. She wanted to possess him, to own him, and that's something completely different.
Agreed. And far more succinctly put than my own ramble.... :D
Title: Re: how $14 and a writers strike got me to 1991
Post by: arashi on January 16, 2008, 02:04:09 PM: [snow_bigglass]

As for Elizabeth's 18 year self-imprisonment.... I think there might have been a nod to it in the cut scenes included on the VHS release... but I might be thinking of the comic book adaption.
Title: Re: how $14 and a writers strike got me to 1991
Post by: michael c on January 19, 2008, 04:16:54 PM: funny,

in watching the "present day" part of this show one can almost check-off the high points of the early part of the barnabas story on the original series...

vicki getting caught at the old house during a storm and spending the night in josette's room.CHECK.barnabas biting carolyn and placing her under his control.CHECK.sarah stopping barnabas from kiling julia.CHECK.costume party.CHECK.sceance.CHECK...

if one is familiar with the original one knows to look for these milestones.that might have been part of the problem with this version.dan curtis was trying to touch on all these points because they were part of the original "mythology" and he and the fans of the original series were expecting these plot developments and he tried to put too much in during the twelve episodes he knew for sure he was going to get.

this might have worked better as a deliberately self-contained mini-series.
Title: Re: how $14 and a writers strike got me to 1991
Post by: michael c on January 21, 2008, 03:47:12 PM: a few more observations...

this version of the series seems to exist in something of a void.some distant star in the d.s. galaxy.

it's 'dark shadows' but because of the huge changes to the storyline it doesn't mesh with "canon" and has to be viewed on it's own terms.

for whatever such things are worth the original actors seem to have the "clout" here.
if lysette anthony penned a novel based on the show it would not have the same cache as being written by "angelique" as the lara parker books do and that's even if she had the rights to do so.the original actors have been given the key to market their experience with the show in a way that these actors have not(even if they wanted to).the kathryn leigh scott books mention this version as a mere footnote when it's mentioned at all.these actors are not invloved in any of the "official" continuations of the series such as the "return to collinwood" presentation or the new "big finish" audiodramas.they do not attend the festivals.this version rarely comes up even here at this board.other "cult" show seem to be a more inclusive "world" involving all the various versions of the base show but both versions of d.s. seem to exist as separate entities.it's a bit like 'dan curtis productions' views this as something of a forgotten stepchild.

i did find a site devoted to this version run by a fellow who used to post here once in awhile.

it's 'd.s.' but it's not.that's not to say it's not a valid spin on the story and is sort of an interesting chapter in the show's history.
Title: Re: how $14 and a writers strike got me to 1991
Post by: Gothick on January 21, 2008, 06:04:26 PM: Good golly! The DS Forums are back and looking more spiffy than ever! Io Evohe!

MSC, the 1991 stars did attend the first DS Festival I ever attended which I believe was the 1993 one in NYC. I remember Lysette Anthony, Jim Fyfe, and I think Barbara Blackburn was there as well. I saw a lengthy autograph line at Lysette's table when I arrived.

My impression was that the 1991 stars were either too busy working or simply were not sufficiently courted by the DS Festival machine (I vaguely recall Nancy writing about how the thing is organized but I can't remember the details sufficiently to know whether one should speak of a committee, a volunteer-run thing, or a top-down business run as a side venture by Dan Curtis Productions--this has never been something I understood, just as I have never understood all the legal rigmarole about who owns the DS master tapes and where the tapes lived during the years between the end of DS and the beginning of syndication in the mid 1970s). I have read several times that only some actors have their plane tickets and hotel rooms paid for by the Festival. If the 1991 stars did not fall into that privileged category, there may have been no real incentive for any of them to want to have anything more to do with the Festivals.

Again, it's been noted in the past, but my understanding is that at most conventions these days, you pay the star for their autograph. Some are charging very high sums for their John/Jane Hancocks--I've heard upwards of $50 for some actors. I'll never forget how at a Lost in Space event held in Boston in circa 1995, you could pay $99 and get a large color photograph signed by all the surviving cast members (obviously Guy Williams was no longer with us then). At the time this seemed unbelievably exorbitant to me, but I went just to gawk and people were lining up with memorabilia in hand to meet the stars and pay their money for the signatures.

G.
Title: Re: how $14 and a writers strike got me to 1991
Post by: michael c on January 28, 2008, 04:10:14 PM: i finished this over the weekend.

as i believe lydia pointed out they were in this huge rush to get to the 1790 storyline(at the great expense of developing the present day characters and storyline)and then once there didn't do much to develop those characters either.it was just too much story to try and cover in six episodes.the original telling of the 1795 story was a rich tapestry with lots of colorful supporting characters and subplots to give it atmosphere.

if i cared more about this version of the show i think they would have been better off spending the first season in it's entirety developing the present day story and then having as a season-ending "cliff-hanger" the seance that sent vicki back to 1790 and then spending a good chunk of season two there.

something about the way the 1790 sequence was filmed and the costumes had the air of the old 1980's judith krantz "bodice ripper" mini-series.i half expected jane seymour to walk in at any minute.

poor jean simmons.her agent must have pitched this to her as a "starring" role but in both time periods she was little more than a bit player.

all that being said i cannot say that i disliked this version of the show.it had it's own vibe and made for an entertaing few nights worth of viewing.it would have been interesting to see where it went if it had been picked up for a second season.even though i vastly prefer the original series i can see where this developed it's own fanbase.
Title: Re: how $14 and a writers strike got me to 1991
Post by: Joeytrom on January 28, 2008, 05:26:43 PM: Thats why the original series worked so well, as there wasn't any prior DS series to go by, so they were able to start fresh and slow. First, by the regular Collins characters for the first 10 months and then the development of Barnabas, and later Julia, over the next 8 months before they decided to show an origin in 1795 that was for five months.

Being a daytime soap allowed them a lot of trial and error to get it right and by doing that trial and error, we got to get really involved with these characters for the long run.
Title: Re: how $14 and a writers strike got me to 1991
Post by: michael c on January 28, 2008, 05:57:47 PM: one more minor detail...

in this version everyone called victoria "victoria" where as in the original everyone called her "vicki".

it sort of made the her sound more like a character from a romance novel.more "flowery" somehow.

i wonder why they made this decison. [snow_undecided]
Title: Re: how $14 and a writers strike got me to 1991
Post by: Doug on May 23, 2008, 12:05:02 PM: I watched the remake a month ago. I have the collection on VHS. When I was watching, I could'nt get
the fact the series was filmed in Beverly Hills, CA out of my mind. I tried to make believe the story is
taking place in Maine.

The Collinwood house looked to be okay, but I did'nt like the old house.