DARK SHADOWS FORUMS

General Discussions => Current Talk Archive => Current Talk '24 I => Current Talk '03 II => Topic started by: Raineypark on November 29, 2003, 02:57:09 AM

Title: Thoughts on a new DS and the '91 series
Post by: Raineypark on November 29, 2003, 02:57:09 AM: Somewhere on here (probably a year and a half ago) there is a long thread in which many of us commented on what we thought a 'new' DS should look like.

The general consensus was that a re-make of the old was impossible, but a "next generation" was a good idea. Frankly, I'll be surprised if the new one currently being created isn't a "next generation" concept.
Title: Re:Thoughts on a new DS and the '91 series
Post by: Mysterious Benefactor on November 29, 2003, 03:56:45 AM: Quote from: Raineypark on November 29, 2003, 02:57:09 AM
there is a long thread in which many of us commented on what we thought a 'new' DS should look like.

The general consensus was that a re-make of the old was impossible, but a "next gemneration" was a good idea.

The discussion you're referring to can probably be found pretty easily by anyone who's willing to invest some time using the forum's search feature. :) But there are actually numerous topics on the forum dealing with a new DS because it seems like we have the same discussion (Dark Shadows: The Next Generation - GOOD, Dark Shadows: The Retread - BAD) every time the possibility of a new DS project gets announced or even hinted. ;)

The first batch that I'm aware of: three threads dealing with a proposed new DS on FOX:
The first, "DVDs and a New DS," from back in January 2002, is the 6th topic down on page #18 of the board Current Talk I in the General Discussions Archive. A second, "Prediction re: New Series," is currently ("currently" because I haven't gotten around to changing over the posting dates in the database for this topic from the dates Midnite or I had transferred it to the YaBB SP version from the eboards4all version of the forum back before the SP version had officially opened) the 15th topic down on page #15 of Current Talk I. And a third, "NO NEW DS, MAYBE FOR THE BEST," is currently the 11th topic down on page #13 of Current Talk I.

Quote
Frankly, I'll be surprised if the new one currently being created isn't a "next generation" concept.

You know, who knows? :- The first announcements for this latest possibility all stated that Barnabas was to be a central character. Perhaps, if the series does actually pan out, we will get sort of a next generation concept, but apparently it wouldn't seem to be a sequel to the daytime series in, say, the same fashion that Star Trek: The Next Generation was a sequel to the '60s Star Trek on NBC. Well, unless ol' Barn time travels to the future or some such. Or better yet, somehow Barn got rechained in his coffin, gets released again, and events start all over again with a new generation of Collinses who know nothing about him. [wink2]
Title: Re:Thoughts on a new DS and the '91 series
Post by: dom on November 29, 2003, 07:11:58 AM: True, MB. They could go with the basic premise of Barnabas being released from his coffin. Eveything else could be different. Can you imagine Barn in the computer age? There would be a lot of room for humor. That could be a refreshing change. At least they could finally have a phone in the Old House...a cell phone! Hopefully Barn did well in his science and math studies. ([wink2])
Title: Re:Thoughts on a new DS and the '91 series
Post by: Mark Rainey on November 29, 2003, 04:14:06 PM: Quote from: Mysterious Benefactor on November 28, 2003, 08:58:46 PM
Fans can say what they will about it, but I honestly think the '91 series did pretty well when it came to character development. Certainly they packed in about as much as the dizzying pacing of network nighttime TV seems to allow for these days...

You're quite right about this. One must consider the audience at the time, and the expectations of character. The 91 DS did pretty well with character development considering it was a one-hour weekly show. One of my problems with it, though, was what they did with some of the characters -- such as having Roger and Maggie (psychic, at that!) in the middle of an affair. Yeah, okay, right.

I think some fans of the original show tend to confuse character development with endless character reinforcement. The daily soap opera format was such that if you missed a few episodes here and there, you actually missed very little of what was happening, plot-wise and character-wise. That's no longer an option, and characters can be well-drawn in a one-hour weekly show. It's done all the time with decent television drama, i.e., Buffy, ER, Law & Order, CSI; the key is the job the writers and the actors do, not the allotted running time.

--Mark
Title: Re:Thoughts on a new DS and the '91 series
Post by: Mysterious Benefactor on November 29, 2003, 05:36:22 PM: Quote from: Mark Rainey on November 29, 2003, 04:14:06 PM
One of my problems with it, though, was what they did with some of the characters -- such as having Roger and Maggie (psychic, at that!) in the middle of an affair. Yeah, okay, right.

I'm usually in the minority, but I actually liked what the '91 series did with Maggie and Roger. To this day I wonder if daytime David was an early experiment in artificial insemination because I have an amazingly hard time picturing daytime Roger being in love with anyone but himself. [lghy] But '91 series Roger was definitely sexual. And Ely Pouget's Maggie...well, let's just say I enjoyed her quite a bit. In fact, I still try to catch Pouget whenever I notice that she's guesting on a series (as she did on ER just a few weeks back - and which I videotaped). ;) (The tape is around here somewhere - perhaps I'll post a screen cap or two for any of her other fans to enjoy. [b003])
Title: Re:Thoughts on a new DS and the '91 series
Post by: Mark Rainey on November 29, 2003, 07:59:44 PM: Quote
I'm usually in the minority, but I actually liked what the '91 series did with Maggie and Roger. To this day I wonder if daytime David was an early experiment in artificial insemination because I have an amazingly hard time picturing daytime Roger being in love with anyone but himself. But '91 series Roger was definitely sexual. And Ely Pouget's Maggie...well, let's just say I enjoyed her quite a bit. In fact, I still try to catch Pouget whenever I notice that she's guesting on a series (as she did on ER just a few weeks back - and which I videotaped). (The tape is around here somewhere - perhaps I'll post a screen cap or two for any of her other fans to enjoy.)

I'll be the first to plead guilty to having expectations based on preconceived notions when it came to Maggie in the '91 show. KLS spoiled me to the core, and I simply never accepted Ely Pouget as Maggie. I could handle Ben Cross as Barnabas, Jim Fyfe as Willie (after much initial difficulty), Jean Simmons as Elizabeth and BOY, I EVER-SO-SLIGHTLY TOOK TO JOANNA GOING AS VICTORIA! Ooops, sorry. ;) But never Pouget as Maggie, alas.

Roy Thinnes was excellent as Roger, by the way; and his Trask was first rate.

--Mark
Title: Re:Thoughts on a new DS and the '91 series
Post by: Mysterious Benefactor on November 29, 2003, 08:24:08 PM: Quote from: Mark Rainey on November 29, 2003, 07:59:44 PM
BOY, I EVER-SO-SLIGHTLY TOOK TO JOANNA GOING AS VICTORIA! Ooops, sorry. ;)

No need to apologize - I really liked Going too (another whose work I tape whenever I get the chance. ;))

Quote
But never Pouget as Maggie, alas.

It could just be that I'm one of the rare DS fans who loved all the casting on the '91 series. Yes, even Lysette "'EAR me, Barnabas Collins!" Anthony (as our Gothick is fond of referring to her ;)). But then, I was really open to the idea of a new take on the old storylines, and welcomed any and all changes with open arms. (I've even gone so far as to commit what some would considered heresy and say that in some ways the '91 series improved on the original.)

About the only thing I didn't particularly like was how the DC co-written and directed first hour of the second night of the mini-series (Episode #2 in the MPI tapes) was a complete rehashing of not only hoDS, but, uh, scenes and stagings "borrowed" from DC's version of Dracula with Jack Palance. :- (DC never spoke more accurate words than when he freely admitted to rarely ever having an original idea in his head when it came to DS! ::))

(BTW, I've completely lost count already - just how many times has this thread veered completely away from its original FAVE Magazine subject? Perhaps someone should review all the posts and see if it's at all possible to split the different subjects into their own threads...)
Title: Re:Thoughts on a new DS and the '91 series
Post by: wes on November 29, 2003, 10:10:02 PM: :) I have to add something on the subject of the casting of the 1991 series -- specifiaclly Ely Pouget as Maggie Evans.

;) Pouget did play Maggie Evans. She played the original concept of the character. She played that part better than KLS, in my opinion. But, wait, before you jump... KLS played this character only in the beginning. This was the hash-slinging working girl, from the wrong side of the tracks.

>:D When Barnabas Collins arrived, he needed victim #1 -- now, they picked the semi-regular Maggie character. This is really when KLS began to shine. Later, Kathryn (as Maggie) took over the role of Victoria Winters. This was the only thing to do, because replacing Alexandra Moltke's Vicki in name just wasn't possible... it wasn't working..

8) So, the Maggie Evans character replaced Victoria Winters. That worked. That was the only thing you could do, until maybe Moltke returned. The fan reaction to Vicki being replaced was pretty much the same reaction they had to seeing Maggie in the 1991 series -- she seemed totally out-of-character (but was not, really).

;D When most fans tuned in to the nightime 1991 series, they expected Maggie to be the Maggie they remembered... the Maggie who was the gothic governess, not the working girl.

:) There were three characterizations of Maggie: 1) the original concept 2) the victim/Josette and 3) the gothic governess. Ely Pouget played characterization #1, as directed to. Fans were not prepared, since most of them had not known Maggie as originally played. Pouget did well, but wouldn't have been able to play Maggie as well as Kathryn later did... making her the memorable victim, then Vicki-type governess.

;) By the way, I thought Going was fine as Vicki, too. I agree, also with what was said about Roy Thinnes' work (though Jerry Lacy would have been a nice choice). Not mentioned was Michael Weiss -- he was pertectly cast as fisherman Joe Haskell. But, anyway, they played the parts as they were instructed... someimes it worked, but most of the time it didn't work... for various reasons.

;D Really, Kathryn Leigh Scott and Ely Pouget played different characters.
Title: Re:Thoughts on a new DS and the '91 series
Post by: Mark Rainey on November 29, 2003, 11:04:21 PM: Quote
Really, Kathryn Leigh Scott and Ely Pouget played different characters.

Wes -- You hit it on the head. To me, she failed as Maggie for this very reason. She wasn't Maggie Evans; I might disagree, too, that she played Maggie as she was first presented in the original show. Working class, somewhat hardboiled, but that's pretty much where the similarity ended. KLS's Maggie, in any phase, could never have been a convincing psychic or mistress for Roger. They could've named Ely Pouget's character Hazel Honeycutt or some such, and it might have been more palatable to those of us who anticipated a reasonable facsimile of the "real" Maggie. ;)

Ely Pouget stands out to me because the other characters tended to have more in common with their original counterparts. They were often played differently, but their origins were at least comparable.

Still, in a new show, I'd much rather see next-generation characters than yet another re-interpretation of existing characters -- except for those that can make for some distinct continuity, such as Barnabas, Quentin, et. al. Time will tell.

--Mark
Title: Re:Thoughts on a new DS and the '91 series
Post by: Julia99 on November 30, 2003, 03:10:45 AM: I'll chime in here. . I liked the '91 series too except for Ben Cross as Barnabas (and that's a mighty big exception/problem). I thought he was stiff, unsympathetic and well, not all that attractive. . .
Title: Re:Thoughts on a new DS and the '91 series
Post by: onyx_treasure on November 30, 2003, 05:46:14 PM: I enjoyed the 91 series. I was disappointed that it was not given a chance to find itself. It was like an alternate reality. I was surprised by the Ben Cross casting. There has always been a debate as to how old Barnabas was supposed to be. I know some believe he was in his twenties. As portrayed by 40 plus Jonathan Frid, this seems unbelievable. However, Ben Cross was also obviously older than 20 something. Do you think that DC will actually cast a 20 something actor in the role? Of coarse, everyone else will have to be younger, too. Forget the Tony Petersen line about Barnabas being an old man.

PS. I agree with MB perhaps we need a new thread about casting the new DS.
Title: Re:Thoughts on a new DS and the '91 series
Post by: Patti Feinberg on December 02, 2003, 12:53:27 AM: Quote from: Mark Rainey on November 29, 2003, 04:14:06 PM
-- such as having Roger and Maggie (psychic, at that!) in the middle of an affair. Yeah, okay, right.
[size=8]EUHHH[/size]

euh, euh, EUUUUHHHHH [repuke]

eeeuh,

Patti
ick
time to shower
Title: Re:Thoughts on a new DS and the '91 series
Post by: Mysterious Benefactor on December 02, 2003, 01:42:29 AM: Have you ever seen the '91 series, Patti?
Title: Re:Thoughts on a new DS and the '91 series
Post by: Misty on December 02, 2003, 02:27:32 AM: ::) A new DS series, in order to be successful, will have to attract a LOT of new viewers. In order to do this , I think some review or summary or possibly flashbacks will need to tell the tale of the original Collins family----at least up to a point where new storylines could be introduced. In the original series, that (the introduction of a new storyline) might be the Leviathans. It will be interesting to see what DC has in mind for this new venture.
Misty
Title: Re:Thoughts on a new DS and the '91 series
Post by: Patti Feinberg on December 02, 2003, 02:33:53 AM: Quote from: Mysterious Benefactor on December 02, 2003, 01:42:29 AM
Have you ever seen the '91 series, Patti?

No, in one of these threads I stated I'd never seen it. I've only heard sort of bad stuff, but, this may've been before I've seen orig. DS a couple of times.

I think I'd be able to enjoy something else (but I don't think I could deal with Maggie & Roger!!)

PS...since my 'promo' price with digital cable is up, I called the >:D cable company >:D today; I asked how much will it be, on the promo, $7.00/mo (just for one); it'll be $15.

I said have a cabledude come disconnect it. Oh, don't you like it? No, not $15 worth. (Honestly, except for SoapNet, I really haven't enjoyed it, PLUS the houligan 12 year old watching/listening to the Houligan music stations).

(psstt...don't tell the cable co., if DS comes on, I'll call them and get it back for a promo price!!)

Patti

pps...is it Hooligan or Houligan?
Title: Re:Thoughts on a new DS and the '91 series
Post by: Matt on December 02, 2003, 04:24:53 AM: I really can't comment on the '91 series, since I didn't see it when it was on and I've never had the heart to shell out money for the tapes (they're on video, aren't they?), especially after hearing mostly negative things about it. Maybe if I run into them in a video rental place or something I might check them out.

However, as far as a new series in general, I'm not sure if I'm in the minority here or not, but I always just cringe everytime I hear about the possibility. It just seems to me that while the original series was hokey in a good way, a new series would be hokey in a horrifyingly bad way. Maybe it's because I just really love the kitsch factor of the original show, with the sketchy plots and touch and go acting that seemed come along with the soap opera format. A clean, slick, prime time sort of production of the show really doesn't appeal to me at all. I guess it could work as geared to a new audience who is unfamiliar with series, but I don't think I could go for it as a viewer of the original show. Any thoughts?
Title: Re:Thoughts on a new DS and the '91 series
Post by: Mysterious Benefactor on December 02, 2003, 04:35:07 AM: Quote from: Patti on December 02, 2003, 02:33:53 AM
I've only heard sort of bad stuff, but, this may've been before I've seen orig. DS a couple of times.

With all due respect to the people whose comments you may have heard/read, don't believe everything you hear/read. ;)

Quote
I think I'd be able to enjoy something else (but I don't think I could deal with Maggie & Roger!!)

Well, the key is to not go into it with the preconception of the daytime Maggie and Roger. If it were them as a couple, I'd be the first one there with with you screaming "EUHHH! Euh, euh, EUUUUHHHHH!!!! [repuke]", but they aren't.

Here are some screen captures from their love scene in episode #2:

(http://www.dsboards.com/images/ds_9101.jpg)
(http://www.dsboards.com/images/ds_9101a.jpg)
(http://www.dsboards.com/images/ds_9102.jpg)
(http://www.dsboards.com/images/ds_9103.jpg)
(http://www.dsboards.com/images/ds_9104.jpg)
(http://www.dsboards.com/images/ds_9105.jpg)
(http://www.dsboards.com/images/ds_9106.jpg)
(http://www.dsboards.com/images/ds_9109.jpg)
(http://www.dsboards.com/images/ds_9110.jpg)
(http://www.dsboards.com/images/ds_9117.jpg)
(http://www.dsboards.com/images/ds_9119.jpg)

Also, a clip from this scene was even used for Ely Pouget for the opening credits/theme:

(http://www.dsboards.com/images/ds_9100.jpg)

Quote
PS...since my 'promo' price with digital cable is up, I called the >:D cable company >:D today; I asked how much will it be, on the promo, $7.00/mo (just for one); it'll be $15.

Um - you were only paying $7.00/mo for digital cable, but soon it'll be $15? I WOULD KILL FOR A PRICE THAT CHEAP!!!!

Oh, excuse me - I lost control there for a minute. But the average cable bills around here are well over $30/mo. By those standards, it seems to me like you're practically getting cable for free. [wink2]

(Edited December 11th to remove attached Real Video of 2 minute '91 series trailer)
Title: Re:Thoughts on a new DS and the '91 series
Post by: Mark Rainey on December 02, 2003, 04:58:03 AM: Quote
Um - you were only paying $7.00/mo for digital cable, but soon it'll be $15? I WOULD KILL FOR A PRICE THAT CHEEAP!!!! Oh, excuse me - I lost control there for awhile. But the average cable bills around here are well over $30/mo. By those standards, it seems to me like you're practically getting cable for free.

Digital Cable plus Road Runner here... $106.00/month. That's with no HBO, Showtime, or other premium movie channels.

While the 91 DS gives me a lot to complain about, it was also very entertaining in its own right, and there were occasional moments that were really, honest-to-God, authentic, no-shit-Sherlock DARK SHADOWS.

Victoria's trial was classic stuff; easily as intense as any of the "serious" TV dramas of its day. In fact, the whole journey to 1790 was quite good, and the Collins counterparts of that period were easily as good or better than in the original. (Yeah, yeah, don't start the trial for heresy without me.) I had no problem with the pacing, either. It eliminated so much of the tedium of the soap-opera format, yet still provided full-bodied characters. In my book, the good outweighed the bad two to one. Sometimes the bad was just so bad, though...[/color]

--Mark
[/b][/color]
Title: Re:Thoughts on a new DS and the '91 series
Post by: Gerard on December 02, 2003, 05:02:02 AM: It would've been interesting to see how it might have worked if, in the '91 version, Barnabas considered the Ely Pouget version of Maggie Evans as the reincarnation of his beloved Josette and had abducted her. Undoubtedly he would've - pardon the pun - bitten off more than he could chew.

Jim Fyfe Willie: "Barnabas, maybe it's not too late to let her go!"

Ben Cross Barnabas (voice full of fear): "Shhh, quiet, Willie! I don't think we're allowed to talk without her permission! Just mix her Absolut and tonic before she really gets mad."

Gerard
Title: Re:Thoughts on a new DS and the '91 series
Post by: dom on December 02, 2003, 08:42:24 AM: That scene (depicted in the captures) is disgusting and kinda made me sick to my stomach. I didn't get that far in my viewing of the 91 series, so it is very shocking to me, vulgar really. I hope the WB doesn't go for gratuitous sex in the new series (if it comes to pass).
Title: Re:Thoughts on a new DS and the '91 series
Post by: Mysterious Benefactor on December 02, 2003, 09:12:53 AM: Quote from: dom on December 02, 2003, 08:42:24 AM
That scene (depicted in the captures) is disgusting and kinda made me sick to my stomach. I didn't get that far in my viewing of the 91 series, so it is very shocking to me, vulgar really. I hope the WB doesn't go for gratuitous sex in the new series (if it comes to pass).

Um, you make it sound like you saw a special NC-17 version of Episoide #2? ;D

The version of that scene that I saw was an important one that I thought was actually quite tender as well as informative. It not only revealed the depth of the relationship between Roger and Maggie and gave more hints about Maggie's "supernatural" proclivity, but explained the major thing that they had in common: Art. It also dropped tantalizing tidbits of something having happened to make Roger lose his "need to create". Sadly, though, as it stands, the series left us with more questions than answers on that front because the real story of what had happened wasn't to be revealed until season two when Laura (also played by Lysette Anthony) was due to become part of the story...
Title: Re:Thoughts on a new DS and the '91 series
Post by: dom on December 02, 2003, 09:30:46 AM: Quote from: Mysterious Benefactor on December 02, 2003, 09:12:53 AM
Um, you make it sound like you saw a special NC-17 version of Episoide #2? ;D

Nope, just the captures.
Title: Re:Thoughts on a new DS and the '91 series
Post by: Mysterious Benefactor on December 02, 2003, 09:46:37 AM: Quote from: dom on December 02, 2003, 09:30:46 AM
Nope, just the captures.

Well, I suppose it just goes to show that random shots taken out of their full context can sometimes give an impression that isn't quite present in their full context. ;)

What a disappointment my explanation of the scene must be to anyone who hasn't seen it and might have actually been hoping for gratuitous sex because nothing like that is actually on view. (Though I do seem to recall something about more footage being shoot for that scene than was actually included in the episode... But then, that was the case with every episode. For example, all of Carolyn's bits from the finale, not to mention a shot of Maggie (possessed by Angelique) collapsing into Roger's arms in the final sequence, ended up on the cutting room floor.)
Title: Re:Thoughts on a new DS and the '91 series
Post by: Patti Feinberg on December 02, 2003, 01:33:05 PM: MB wrote:
Um - you were only paying $7.00/mo for digital cable, but soon it'll be $15? I WOULD KILL FOR A PRICE THAT CHEAP!!!!

Oh, excuse me - I lost control there for a minute. But the average cable bills around here are well over $30/mo. By those standards, it seems to me like you're practically getting cable for free.

No MB...that's JUST for the basic converter box, which includes all the Mystery Channels, Soap, Encore.

That's on TOP of $50ish WITHOUT any premium (HBO, SHOtime, Cinemax), so $70ish is tooooo much (unless DS comes to Soap, then I'll re-sign).

Actually, the only thing about the digital I'll miss is the convenience of the display for what's on.

Patti
Title: Re:Thoughts on a new DS and the '91 series
Post by: onyx_treasure on December 02, 2003, 02:28:35 PM: I saw the 91 series but seeing those stills made me think I had not been paying attention. The stills do make it look like a soft porn flick.
I recall my favorite scene was when Angelique appears in the fire. Willie cowers at Barnabas feet in terror like a small child wanting his parent to protect him. Barnabas looks at the fire and Angelique's apparition with total disgust(no fear at all just extreme annoyance.) The Angelique in the 91 series was over the top. A real hoot.
Thanks for the screen captures and a walk down memory lane.
Title: Re:Thoughts on a new DS and the '91 series
Post by: Raineypark on December 02, 2003, 03:21:51 PM: My cable bill is so obscene I won't even say what it is....but it's like being hooked up to an oxygen unit...don't think we could live without it....especially the computer access. ::)
Title: Re:Thoughts on a new DS and the '91 series
Post by: dom on December 02, 2003, 03:29:07 PM: We used to pay 90 bucks but that was for the whole kit-n-kaboodle. Now we pay $12.95 for basic cable. And that's fine by me. We're not big TV watchers, it's almost always on but it is more background noise for us. Mostly news programs that ruffle our feathers. We yell at the TV instead of each other, lol. ;)
Title: Re:Thoughts on a new DS and the '91 series
Post by: Raineypark on December 02, 2003, 03:34:07 PM: I yell at the news.....and then the rest of the house yells at me. ::)
Title: Re:Thoughts on a new DS and the '91 series
Post by: Cassandra Blair on December 02, 2003, 03:46:59 PM: It's been really interesting reading everybody's comments about 1991. Didn't know there was anyone else besides me who actually LIKED the nighttime version. That's encouraging. Thought the acting and character development were good, and thought the pacing was often (gulp) better than the original series.

I also really liked the idea of the nighttime Maggie and Roger together, and thought the trip to 1790 was amazing. Agree that Ely Pouget's Maggie Evans is pretty much a different character than KLS's, but it was an interesting choice. IMHO, Joanna Going was most affecting as Victoria/Josette, and although I'm a huge Grayson Hall fan, I thought Barbara Steele was marvelous as Dr. Julia Hoffman. Jean Simmons was exactly what an early 1990's version Liz Collins Stoddard needed to be. Am ambivalent about Ben Cross as Barnabas, but he wasn't really a bad choice. Only thing I hated was the obvious sunny California setting - that just didn't work for me.

It's so intriguing to hear from MB that the proposal was for Lysette "Angelique" Anthony to play Laura. Would have been perfect. That's something else I really liked about the revival series: the streamlining of characters (i.e. Vicki/Josette) and the switcheroos in casting, like Roy Thinnes as Roger AND Trask.

I personally am hoping against hope that the WB will be able to resurrect the series. I'm sure any such revamp of Dark Shadows will be more sexual than the original, and that's okay by me as long as it makes sense contextually, and they're able to invoke the sense of gothic foreboding that was always present in the original daytime series.
Title: Re:Thoughts on a new DS and the '91 series
Post by: Gerard on December 02, 2003, 07:52:35 PM: Quote from: Cassandra Blair on December 02, 2003, 03:46:59 PM
It's so intriguing to hear from MB that the proposal was for Lysette "Angelique" Anthony to play Laura.

That would have been rather fascinating. I recall a scene where Maggie is talking to Victoria, Victoria expressing her concerns about David's rather odd behavior, when Maggie says something along the line of "David's mother is a wit...." Who knows? Maybe the '91 Laura would have been Angelique returned in some form or a descendant of her. That way, Angelique (in whatever form) would have been married to Roger in '91, in the same way that Angelique as "Cassandra"was married to Roger in '67/68, even though the '91 series made reference to David having a rather pyrotechnic ability, so somehow the Phoenix would probably have slipped in there.

Although Lysette Anthony would have made an interesting Laura, I always pictured Joan Collins revising the roll for '91. We already know the woman is a gazillion years old and doesn't look a day over 35. Well, mostly. Talk about type-casting in that case, huh?

Gerard
Title: Re:Thoughts on a new DS and the '91 series
Post by: wes on December 03, 2003, 04:41:52 AM: ??? Well, there really wasn't going to be any "Laura" as we knew her... The 91 series would have had Lysette Anthony return as "Laura," but she was really more like "Cassandra." It was unification of characters. Like we've recently gone into over Maggie.

>:( The Maggie character most people remember was really like Vicki & that was combined. There was a lot of that going on. Willie Loomis and Harry Johnson was another that comes to mind. I think DC saw Laura as the dry run for Angelique (but she was the dry run for Barnabas).

:'( It would have been sad to see a real original character like Laura the Phoenix blended out of existance... that's the direction I think the 91 show would have gone into, had it continued.
Title: Re:Thoughts on a new DS and the '91 series
Post by: Mysterious Benefactor on December 03, 2003, 05:21:14 AM: Quote from: wes on December 03, 2003, 04:41:52 AM
??? Well, there really wasn't going to be any "Laura" as we knew her... The 91 series would have had Lysette Anthony return as "Laura," but she was really more like "Cassandra." It was unification of characters. Like we've recently gone into over Maggie.

...

:'( It would have been sad to see a real original character like Laura the Phoenix blended out of existance... that's the direction I think the 91 show would have gone into, had it continued.

Actually, wes, the '91 series writers weren't quite sure how they might handle Laura.

From SHADOWS IN THE '90s: The Dark Shadows Concordance 1991: The writing staff was quite interested in developing Roger's character - the romance with Maggie and the mystery about his wife were elements they intended to explore further. Laura Collins would have been an integral part of the storyline. They discussed many different options. It was suggested that Laura would actually be Angelique all along, but it is doubtful they would have followed that particular avenue. Laura would definitely be identified somehow with Angelique - and it was intended that Lysette Anthony play the role - without actually being Angelique. She could, perhaps, have been possessed by Angelique prior to her institutionalization. Or she could be a phoenix with supernatural powers of her own, as she was in the original series. The 'catfight' of all time was envisioned - a battle of witches. There would also be a nod to the Gene Tierney "Laura".

The book also goes on to say that the writers "did intend to bring Angelique physically into the 20th century, to incarnate her somehow."

So, given all that, it's not actually clear that a union of Cassandra and Laura would have been the way they were definitely going to go. For all we know, the nighttime Laura may have resembled the daytime Laura in many respects - or not at all. ;)
Title: Re:Thoughts on a new DS and the '91 series
Post by: Dr. Eric Lang on December 04, 2003, 02:21:42 AM: Quote
I hope the WB doesn't go for gratuitous sex in the new series (if it comes to pass).

I'm afraid it will be that and much more. Judging by the rest of the WB's shows, I'd venture a guess that the new series will be targeting young viewers, which means the newest incarnation of Barnabas will be some shirtless male model who can't act (a la "The WB's Tarzan") and a mostly-youthful cast of early 20-somethings.

Be afraid, be very afraid.
Title: Re:Thoughts on a new DS and the '91 series
Post by: Mysterious Benefactor on December 04, 2003, 03:28:28 AM: Quote from: Dr. Eric Lang on December 04, 2003, 02:21:42 AM
Judging by the rest of the WB's shows, I'd venture a guess that the new series will be ... a mostly-youthful cast of early 20-somethings.

Be afraid, be very afraid.

Hmmm - I wonder if the developers might be able to come up with a way for Liz and Carolyn to be around the same age? ;D

But kidding aside, not all of the WB's series showcase a cast comprised mostly of early 20-somethings and stories that only deal with their trials and tribulations of coming of age. The focus of Gilmore Girls is equally balanced between Lorelai (the 30s-ish mom) and Rory (her teenaged daughter). Everwood is pretty balanced between Andy (the 40s-ish (YES! 40S-ISH!!) doctor) and Ephram (his teenaged son) and their interactions with their friends/foes. And (last season aside when the cast included his teenaged son) Angel's cast features late-20s-to-early-30s characters and deals with extremely adult themes. If a new WB DS were to be similarly balanced, it could be something quite interesting and enjoyable as well as comparable to the original...
Title: Re:Thoughts on a new DS and the '91 series
Post by: Patti Feinberg on December 04, 2003, 03:42:40 AM: A few more notes:

1) Remember the '80's? Nightime SOAPS? I like the idea of a serial; really they're doing that with say West Wing.

2) Though I dont' really watch it, what about all the spin-offs from Star Trek. Different, yet, especially the first spin-off, along the same vein.

3) Recently (actually, occassionally within the last year) something I'm enjoying with OLTL: they make fun of themselves. Take today's eps with Dorian & Vicki 'dreaming'. Also, I don't watch Passions, but they too get silly. I think most viewers need comedy in what is traditionally a 'problem' fest (ie soaps).

Again....Maggie should be Mayor!!

Also, since I live in a very small town, and, presumably, Collinsport is small (at least in population); people should be involved in the community. This could bring in other dramas with a touch of supernatural AND mystery.

Of course, Roger & Maggie HAD to marry. Why? Was Maggie preggers? Was she blackmailing him...OR was Roger holding something on TLATKLS? Hmmm....this too could be a mystery for a while (think Liz with Jason).

No Barnabas...but why don't we ever see Jackson during the full moon???

Why won't Dr. MacIntyre let his sister Leticia in his R&D room???

Patti
Title: Re:Thoughts on a new DS and the '91 series
Post by: Gerard on December 13, 2003, 03:22:25 AM: Oh, goodness, it feels good to bet back here after being inundated with work!

Well, that being said, I think the one thing I didn't care for with regards to the '91 series was that it lacked the subtlety of the original. A case in point is that it took months and months to even use the word "vampire" after Willie sprang Barnabas (how I just loved the way Julia, during the tense early, mutually distrustful doctor/patient relationship with Barnabas would say: "what.....you are"). But in the new series, in an effort to speed things along, Barnabas gets sprung and, zis-boom-bah, ala House of Dark Shadows, half of New England's police officers are running around with crosses, hammers and stakes. Beyond that, I found it fairly entertaining and was sorely disappointed when it got cancelled. It wasn't perfect; almost all elements could've been better, but when it comes right down to it, so what? Okay, okay, so I wasn't thrilled that Maggie's '91 incarnation went back to the original crusty Eve-Ardenish type girl, if Eve Arden was "nineties-fied". But you can't have everything. Having the remarkable Jean Simmons play Elizabeth Collins Stoddard more than made up for that in my heart.

Gerard
Title: Re:Thoughts on a new DS and the '91 series
Post by: Patti Feinberg on December 13, 2003, 10:26:30 PM: Okay...just think about it for a minute.....

In the 'matriachial' role....Fran Drescher.

I absolutely abhor her, but, I think if she acted 'normal', she'd be good in it.

Patrick Demsey in a Quentin OR Cyrus type role.

As the n'er do well side-kick...what about oh I can't think of his name...the kid (now man) from Diff'rent Strokes. Arnold.

Oliva D'abo in a role would be good too, IMHO. Actually, in matriarch role...perhaps...Valerie Bertinelli.

Patti