DARK SHADOWS FORUMS
General Discussions => Current Talk Archive => Current Talk '24 I => Current Talk '12 I => Topic started by: David on February 26, 2012, 10:59:53 PM
-
I was not aware of 1968 being disliked. I LOVE all the stuff with Nick Blair--and Angelique as a vampire was such a fun twist.
Plus Marie as Eve--so theatrical & fun, plus the Liz buried alive story was creepy!
Let's start a new thread & talk about 1968!
-
Apparently you haven't read several of the posts right here on the forum. [snow_wink] But I've split this from the John Karlen/Hidden Faces discussion, so here's a topic to discuss the 1968 storyline, much of which I love as well. I only really have two problems with it. And they would be Jeff Clark and post-Nicholas Adam. But I'll let others share their opinions before I might jump in with details of why I think watching both are possibly worse than enduring water boarding and how if our government really wanted to get suspected terrorists to spill all they know, all they really ever had to do was force them to watch both repeatedly! [snow_strange]
-
OK, Angelique as a vampire was wonderful!
Gotta love Eve/Marie's theatricality!
Dream Curse was a little silly, but campy fun.
Let's discuss!
-
David, I know you take the camp attitude toward DS, but DS for me is a dark, supernatural, romantic drama. When it works. When anything comes along in DS that makes me less able to take it seriously and suspend disbelief, I get angry at Dan Curtis or ABC for it. I realize it's a little late to do anything about it now, but I get mad anyway... 1968 was full of this sort of thing. It starts off with a real, vital sort of energy, as sweeping changes are being made fast to present-day DS (right after 1795), new characters added... then the "fun" starts... everything makes less sense, everything supernatural but the kitchen sink is thrown in...
I hope I can find a way to enjoy 1968 more, if we get to it in the Watching Project.
-
My favorite portions of the show are 1795 for the dark, tragic romanticism of it, but I do find the Haunting of Collinwood & 1995 genuinely scary, still.
1897 was a grand adventure.
To me, 1968 works on a B movie level, kinda like House of Frankenstein (1944) and House of Dracula (1945) films which featured Dracula, the Wolfman & the Monster all in one film.
-
My favorite portions of the show are 1795 for the dark, tragic romanticism of it, but I do find the Haunting of Collinwood & 1995 genuinely scary, still.
1897 was a grand adventure.
To me, 1968 works on a B movie level, kinda like House of Frankenstein (1944) and House of Dracula (1945) films which featured Dracula, the Wolfman & the Monster all in one film.
Good, concise summing up of the eras. I never know what to say about why I love 1897.
-
1968 was my first introduction to DS, and it reigns with 1897 as my two favorite time periods, though I generally fast forward through the early Adam episodes, parts highlighting Jeff Clark, and the terrible betsy durkin scenes. I love Nicholas Blair, Cassandra, the dream curse, Joe Haskell as Angeliques victim... I think particularly in early 1968 Barnabas and Julia being presented as self-interested, amoral, egomanacial pariahs who manage to alienate everyone (Carolyn, Professor Stokes, and the "villain" Nicholas who is actually much kinder to others than they are) is much more appropriate and accurate then writing them as "heroes" later on in the show. I also like how, unlike in the story following 1897, they managed to incorporate a lot of the 1795 elements into the plot instead of virtually pretending it never happened.
-
I hope I can find a way to enjoy 1968 more, if we get to it in the Watching Project.
So long as members continue to want to watch/discuss the eps, the WP will continue to be the place to do it. [snow_smiley]
though I generally fast forward through ... parts highlighting Jeff Clark
As much as I can feel your pain when it comes to Jeff Clark, I didn't see the words "fast forward" in your post. Nope. In my mind I will continue to think you would never do such a thing. [snow_wink]
-
As for Adam, I like it (depending on how successfully I can keep out of my head that after "Dracula" has appeared in Collinsport, now "Frankenstein" has too...) before Adam speaks. The only interesting thing about a Frankenstein's monster is how he develops. Adam just becomes a one-note automatic threatening machine.
The Dream Curse is the most embarrassing part of DS for me. I can't believe they did it. It's the actual dream set I'm thinking of.
-
those who have been at this board for awhile may recall my 1968 diatribes when i first watched it several years back.
i won't repeat all of it except to say it is the one period on the series that i absolutely loathed.
that they let this dumb, boring, stupid character(adam)highjack the entire series for nearly a year infuriated me to no end.
this period is DS at it's absolute camp worst. [snow_sick2]
-
I totally loathed the Adam story line. However, I totally enjoyed the Cassangeluique one.
Gerard
-
yes cassandra was...or had the potential to be...loads of fun.
but she quickly got sidelined by the adam drivel. it was a wasted opportunity.
i also hated the way the original cast was treated during this time. they were either written into the margins or written out altogether in favor of a cast of disposable monsters.
by the end of the year many of them were gone. [snow_sad]
-
I never get tired of Cassandra (or her astonishing frock variety; butterflies, that's all I have to say).
-
true,
mrs.roger collins was granted a dizzying array of(mostly green)ensembles.
-
i also hated the way the original cast was treated during this time. they were either written into the margins or written out altogether in favor of a cast of disposable monsters.
There are so many subpar characters in this part of the series, it's hard to remember all of them... But Adam and Jeff Clark would have to be the Kings of Subpar.
The Adam story distresses me so much that I shall ignore it for this post.
Joan Bennett and Lara Parker could have and should have had a great deal of screentime together. And it would have been phenomenal. Instead the writers cut it short by pulling out Cassandra's magic tricks. It is an abysmal failure of what should have been an excellent continuation of the pre-1795 story. Upon shifting back to the present, we had all of the characters and elements necessary for a successful story. But as soon as the accident happens, and all of the new characters come on board, it all goes to pot.
Some of the things I loathe most about this time period: Jeff Clark in every scene - but especially those with Eve and those with Vicki (They are so uncomfortable to watch - even more so than the Ned and Sabrina scenes, and that is saying something). Dr. Lang. Dr. Lang and his tape recorder. (This is a perfect example of non-suspense. It is so trivial and it runs for so long, we no longer care about it.) Harry Johnson. Cassandra and Tony. The fact that every original castmember is sidelined.
The redeeming aspects of this period included the return of John Karlen and the Maggie-napping subplot which harkens back to the first Barnabas story. It is one of the few times that I actually feel invested in something that is happening on screen. But it is quickly thrown to the wayside, like everything and everyone else that made DS so great in 1967. HAA is fantastic as Nicholas Blair, but the character gets boring near the end of his story. And my favorite thing about this time period other than the brief scene of Joan and Alexandra before the wedding... Vicki, Maggie, and Barnabas sitting outside having coffee. It is the only NORMAL thing that happens this whole year. And because it is so normal, it sticks out like a sore thumb and makes me realize just how ridiculous this part of the series is.
-
Thayer David is amazing in this storyline as Professor Stokes, particularly during his showdowns with Angelique (and Cassandra). "Alive and kicking." Never get tired of that line reading. Or, "You've grown very lazy!" Grayson Hall, Lara Parker, Nancy Barrett (except when she's hysterical), Thayer David, Humbert Allen Astredo (oh, Humbert Allen Astredo!), and John Karlen help make up for the horrendousness that is Adam and the boorishness that is Jeff Clark.
-
Totally agree with everything you said here, Cousin B. 100%.
-
As far as the original cast is concerned, when I think of 1968, Carolyn often comes to my mind as being one that was highlighted and who had a real stake to play and held her own among the supernatural characters in this storyline. As I've said before, she also had some great outfits in that time period in addition to many memorable scenes telling of Barnabas, being hypnotized by Nicholas, etc. TBH I definitely prefer what was done with the original cast in 1968 as compared with anything that happened post-1897.
Yes, it is sacrilege to admit to fast forwarding; let's just say I pressed the mute button and looked somewhere else whenever Jeff Clark came on the screen.
-
Yeah, I can't do Jeff Clark. Or Adam. Fastforwarding happens a lot with them both.
-
Yes, it is sacrilege to admit to fast forwarding; let's just say I pressed the mute button and looked somewhere else whenever Jeff Clark came on the screen.
Though I'm sure you've only accidentally pressed the mute button. [snow_cheesy]
Truthfully, I have to confess I've been tempted numerous times to mute Jeff Clark and post-Nicholas Adam (and not to mention Leviathans Jeb), but I never have. When I watch DS I take in the whole experience in as it was originally intended to be seen, no matter how much some characters might aggravate me. And besides, rarely do those characters appear in scenes by themselves, so muting them would also mean muting characters that I do like. [snow_wink] And also, muting characters that get on your nerves can even result in missing plot points - sometimes even plot points that are never dealt with again (which is how I suspect some people completely miss things like the whole explanation regarding 1970PT's Dameon Edwards).
-
And also, muting characters that get on your nerves can even result in missing plot points - sometimes even plot points that are never dealt with again (which is how I suspect some people completely miss things like the whole explanation regarding 1970PT's Dameon Edwards).
Nope. I never mute, and I never fast forward, but the Dameon Edwards explanation just didn't stick with me because it was so unsatisfactory. But that's OK. PT1970 specialized in unsatisfactory explanations, denouements, and back stories, and I've accepted that, and shall even endeavor to enjoy them next time I watch that storyline.
As for 1968...I remember commenting in the Watching Project that out of the four villains - Nicholas Blair, Angelique, Adam, and Eve - I disliked watching three - Angelique, Adam, and Eve. But I like a couple of the subplots that people tend not to like: the dream curse (it's such fun to see the variety in the beckoners) and Liz's buried alive subplot, which has some wonderfully funny moments.
-
1968 is when I first stumbled onto DS so I have a strong attachment to it. Quite enjoyed the dream curse. Sure, it looks kind of tacky now but it was genuinely creepy when I first saw it. I remember being a bit disappointed that Joe and Roger didn't get the dream. Wonder what their dreams would have been like.
-
I see what you mean, MB. The first time I watched DS was during a scifi run and I watched every second of it, even when I was really bored (like with the leviathin kids saga.) But I have a very hyperactive memory, and now that I've seen 1968 several times and I already know that a scene just involves jeff clark touching his hair and acting like an agressive prick with no important plot points, I'm happiest to skip ahead to those scenes I do like. Such as one of my favorites, at the end of the dream curse when Julia exclaims to a bemused Proffessor Stokes that
[spoiler]Oh no! I buried Barnabas alive![/spoiler]