DARK SHADOWS FORUMS

General Discussions => Current Talk Archive => Current Talk '24 I => Current Talk '10 I => Topic started by: Joeytrom on April 08, 2010, 04:07:27 PM

Title: Terry Crawford after 1897
Post by: Joeytrom on April 08, 2010, 04:07:27 PM
Was it ever mentioned why Terry Crawford wasn't brought back in the present time until 1840?
Title: Re: Terry Crawford after 1897
Post by: Midnite on April 08, 2010, 06:58:44 PM
Since she was cast in a small role in HoDS during that time, maybe there just wasn't an available part for her during the year she was off the show?
Title: Re: Terry Crawford after 1897
Post by: The Doctor and K9 on April 08, 2010, 09:35:21 PM
If I remember correctly, she was allowed to leave, still under contract, to shoot "Sam's Song" with Robert De Niro. Her contract ran for two years and she was called back for 1840.  I used to keep in contact with her, and I'm pretty sure that's what she told me. 
Title: Re: Terry Crawford after 1897
Post by: Taeylor Collins on April 13, 2010, 11:48:59 AM
Do you know what she is up to these days The Doctor and K9! I wish she would come back to the fests!
Title: Re: Terry Crawford after 1897
Post by: The Doctor and K9 on April 13, 2010, 04:35:25 PM
I used to see her when she was in Atlanta. My wife and I would visit on our way up or back from our drive to RI. I also used to talk to her on the phone from time to time. She moved to NY briefly in the early 90s I think, then to Geneva. Neither of us wrote letters much, so we lost touch after that.  She was involved with a program to further rights for disabled people worldwide, if I remember correctly. I was pretty much out of DS fandom from 1992 to 2006. Prior to 92, I'd been to every fest except for 90, the year I got married (20th anniversary this July). I don't know how many fests she's been to since then.  I do know she was not at the '06 or 08 fests; I attended those.
Title: Re: Terry Crawford after 1897
Post by: Midnite on April 13, 2010, 05:26:07 PM
Wasn't Sam's Song made during the 1897 storyline and while she was still playing Beth?  Sources consistently date the film as 1969 (which totally makes sense within the context of DeNiro's career), and Beth's final appearances were taped in late October, which was very nearly the end of the 1897 story anyway.  But in the movie, the trees aren't bare in the park, and would Crawford and DeNiro be running on a beach, jumping into a swimming pool, and yachting in NYC even at the end of October?
Title: Re: Terry Crawford after 1897
Post by: Midnite on April 13, 2010, 05:54:22 PM
I think her last Fest was Brooklyn/2003, and she made it because her original travel plans fell through.  It was unfortunate for her ministry but fortunate for us, because it made her available to record "Return to Collinwood."

I wish she could make it back too, Taeylor.
Title: Re: Terry Crawford after 1897
Post by: michael c on April 14, 2010, 04:54:46 AM
there really didn't seem to be a role available for crawford in 1969/1970 "present time". i guess the writers could have come up with something but it seemed like a full house with oldsters like nicholas blair and so forth showing up.

still terry was gorgeous and it's a shame we only got to see her in period costume. it would have been fun to see her in a fall and a mini.
Title: Re: Terry Crawford after 1897
Post by: David on April 15, 2010, 06:43:00 AM
I know Terrayne quite well and still speak to her. We became very close friends when we both lived in NYC in the 90s, though we both live elsewhere now.
I've spoken to her within the past month.

She actually did Sam's Song before DS. Prior to that film, she had done musical theatre and many national TV commercials.
During her run as Beth, she was also in school studying to be a therapist. She was planning to leave showbiz and told me that Edith Collins was the last role she intended to play.
The last episode she did paid for part of her move to Atlanta.
She did do a few small parts in Atlanta here and there, but was no longer pursuing acting.

In New York in the 90s she got involved in human rights work, which she still does.
She said she'd come to a fest again if asked, but Jim P hasn't invited her of late, so I suggest requesting to Jim that she be brought to Burbank this year.

She's a dear friend and I love her.
I last saw her in New York in 2003, right before we both moved. On Hallowen night of that year, Terrayne & I went to a screening of the 1933 King Kong!

David
Title: Re: Terry Crawford after 1897
Post by: Taeylor Collins on April 15, 2010, 07:25:15 AM
I appreciate everything Jim Pierson has done but sometimes I don't get his thinking!   But anyways....
Title: Re: Terry Crawford after 1897
Post by: Joeytrom on April 15, 2010, 02:02:16 PM
Given that Terry Crawford was in 1897 for a few months longer after Marie Wallace's character was written out, I am surprised they didn't offer TC the part of Megan Todd.
Title: Re: Terry Crawford after 1897
Post by: Midnite on April 15, 2010, 05:33:53 PM
Curtis wanted Marie Wallace to play Megan from the start, even at the objection of the writers (Gordon Russell, anyway, as Marie says in her book, but he came around after he saw her in the role), but of course DC ruled (which I mean in the literal sense).
Title: Re: Terry Crawford after 1897
Post by: Willie Loomis on April 15, 2010, 05:43:43 PM
terry crawford is one of the reasons i like to watch the 1897 story line.   loved Beth Chavez.    and i love Edith Collins as well.  shame she didn't do more for the show.
Title: Re: Terry Crawford after 1897
Post by: The Doctor and K9 on April 15, 2010, 07:37:33 PM
Wasn't Sam's Song made during the 1897 storyline and while she was still playing Beth?  

It could be. I don't really remember the conversation clearly.  I do remember that she left, still under contract and that's why she was recalled for 1840. I believe that was also reported in an interview published in a fanzine.
Title: Re: Terry Crawford after 1897
Post by: Joeytrom on April 15, 2010, 11:03:18 PM
Did they want a new actress to play Megan?

 [ghost_tongue]
Curtis wanted Marie Wallace to play Megan from the start, even at the objection of the writers (Gordon Russell, anyway, as Marie says in her book, but he came around after he saw her in the role), but of course DC ruled (which I mean in the literal sense).
Title: Re: Terry Crawford after 1897
Post by: Midnite on April 16, 2010, 12:43:35 AM
Did they want a new actress to play Megan?

She doesn't say, only that "Gordon thought I was all wrong for the part; that I was much too dramatic for Megan, who he saw as the 'girl next door.'"

Of course, Megan became so much more than that, and I'm not sure that I've seen enough of Terry Crawford's acting to guess at how she would have handled the changes that the character went through.  What do the rest of you think?
Title: Re: Terry Crawford after 1897
Post by: Taeylor Collins on April 16, 2010, 01:15:57 AM
I honestly don't think I could see her as Megan!  Not after the craziness started. It certainly would be interesting!
Title: Re: Terry Crawford after 1897
Post by: Midnite on April 16, 2010, 02:05:33 AM
I don't really remember the conversation clearly.  I do remember that she left, still under contract and that's why she was recalled for 1840. I believe that was also reported in an interview published in a fanzine.

No worries, Doctor and K9.  A fan (Kosmo) tells yet another variation on the story that was related to him by Terry some years ago during a visit to Lyndhurst.  She said she was taking classes during her hiatus from DS and when the role of Edith came up and she heard about it, she felt that the timing was good for her.  A contractual obligation wasn't mentioned.

I've begun to wonder if this situation is similar to her telling the story in in the DS Companion about Beth bouncing back up after a fall that occurred during taping (she specifies how the timing related to a commercial break), but we know it did not happen while the camera was running.  Unfortunately, even memories of a person's own experiences can sometimes change.
Title: Re: Terry Crawford after 1897
Post by: The Doctor and K9 on April 16, 2010, 04:36:29 AM
I rely on my memory much less than I used to. Not only am I getting older, but I've also read a great deal about how memory works. We reconstruct events rather than simply replaying them on a recorder. Therefore, what we THINK happened is often a mish mash of actual memory and reconstructions to fill in the gaps. So honestly, I don't really know what I can reliably say to add to the discussion. David's account is much more recent. And as was brought up, we often can't even rely on a first hand account. It's been literally 40 years now (this fall) since 1840 aired.
Title: Re: Terry Crawford after 1897
Post by: Nancy on April 16, 2010, 05:10:24 AM
Not quite true.  I know from what has been on the festival website at times and from asking about Fest policy myself that all actors and personnel from Dark Shadows are always welcome to attend the fests.  The reason why some actors don't come is because their way is not paid.  

Nancy

She said she'd come to a fest again if asked, but Jim P hasn't invited her of late, so I suggest requesting to Jim that she be brought to Burbank this year.
Title: Re: Terry Crawford after 1897
Post by: David on April 16, 2010, 06:10:04 AM
Nancy is usually right, LOL!
Terrayne did tell me that she was invited to come on her own dime.
She prefers to be provided with a plane ticket and a room, and, as she sells no merchandise nor charges for her autograph, I think she's right!

David
Title: Re: Terry Crawford after 1897
Post by: Willie Loomis on May 24, 2010, 06:44:50 PM
so, to go back to her acting......i was watching her the episode where [spoiler]Jenny was killed, [/spoiler], and her reaction, and her decompressing to explain to Edward what happened was so great!   she worked that well with Louis Edmond.   
Title: Re: Terry Crawford after 1897
Post by: MagnusTrask on May 25, 2010, 03:31:09 AM
Terrayne did tell me that she was invited to come on her own dime.
She prefers to be provided with a plane ticket and a room, and, as she sells no merchandise nor charges for her autograph, I think she's right!

Not much of an "invitation", is it?