Since Wallace *apparently* had left the show before anything supernatural happened, I would question the idea that he suggested, planned, or outlined the Barnabas storyline, although it would be interesting to see evidence to the contrary.
Maybe it's just that the Jason (I want to say "Blaire" but I know that's not right ... ) blackmail storyline seemed so interminable to me, I thought that story alone took at least a year ; ) And after that there was still the Laura storyline before Barnabas was introduced.
Maybe my memory is faulty, but didn't the Jason blackmail story overlap somewhat with the intro of Barnabas?
I'm surprised to hear that the supernatural aspects of the show began that early, about week 10. Not just spooky things that might have natural explanations, but an actual ghost.
Wallace's memory may be hazy, but he is correct that the show started getting really supernatural around week 10. I forget the episode # but there is a scene where we see a book opening by itself in the drawing room. The book is a Collins family history and it opens to a picture of Josette, I believe.
It sounds from this interview like Barnabas arrived on the scene hot on the heels of this first ghost (which would later prove to be Josette), but that obviously was not the case.
Maybe it's just that the Jason (I want to say "Blaire" but I know that's not right ... ) blackmail storyline seemed so interminable to me, I thought that story alone took at least a year. ;)
And he was closely involved "not much longer than one year." Did Barnabas appear at about the one year mark?
Maybe this all works out, but it seems surprising to me that no one seems to talk about Art Wallace as the creator of Barnabas.
blackmail storyline seemed so interminable to me, I thought that story alone took at least a year. And after that there was still the Laura storyline before Barnabas was introduced.
ART WALLACE LIED THROUGH HIS TEETH!
Mr. Wallace was obviously jealous of what the latter writers (especially Hall & Russell) did, having turned his basic Gothic melodrama into something unique and fabulous.
After 13 weeks of writing scripts he walked away and didn't look back until he found out that the show had become a hit without his presence.
I mean, read all the behind-the-scenes books and articles that have been written- aside from Mr. Wallace's pithy remarks, everything else published bolsters the above story about how Barnabas was created.
If Wallace had truly lied, one would suspect that at least one of the interviewees that followed might have mentioned that fact or at least disputed his claims. No one did.
has anyone connected with the show ever stated or confirmed that Mr. Wallace was indeed the creator of Barnabas?
would be interesting to see the whole thing...
it's kind of funny though to think that Joshua's "rewriting" of history extended to putting his wife's death 30 plus years into the future!
Obviously they couldn't have guessed that the show would ever be repeated, let alone the way it is now!! Astute fans at the time must have noticed a lot of the discrepancies, but it probably wasn't that big a deal. How funny that they WERE quite aware of it, but hoped it wouldn't matter - not knowing how years later everyone would be poring over every detail!!!
Contrary to Charles_Ellis' interpretation, I read those quotes to mean that Wallace did provide the background for the Barnabas story up to the point where they went to the flashback.
It appears that Costello was crediting Wallace with the backstory of Barnabas.
I'd have to say that the Sproat quotation seemed clearer and less ambiguous than the Costello quotation.
I had been thinking today that the papers Mr. Wallace filed in his legal action against Dan Curtis (or Dan Curtis Productions?) would likely have spelled out in precise detail exactly what Mr. Wallace's contributions as a writer and conceptualist were to the series. (I am rather stymied as to how one might research those legal filings, though -- a task that a biographer might well under take.)
Truthfully, only the people who were actually involved in Barnabas' creation know the entire and complete story of that creation. In the larger scheme of things, isn't all that's important is that Barnabas, by whatever manner he came to be created, became a part of the DS canvas?
[thumb] As I've stated serveral times, it's probably my favorite non-supernatural storyline that DS ever did - due in no small part to the absolutely wonderful performances of Dennis Patrick. During that storyline, Patrick had the ability to bring out the best in everyone he shared a scene with, and it was always a joy to behold. Well, at least for me. [wink2] (It's just too bad that lightening didn't strike twice with his portrayal of Paul Stoddard. Paul did have some great scenes - but for the most part, given the character's huge potential, he was wasted during Leviathans.)
Barnabas arrived on the scene less than 10 months into the series.
Maybe this is too extreme, but I tend to think that DS became a big success in spite of DC's interference... um, I mean, INPUT.
does ANYONE here remember exact conversations or group idea developments from their work 30+ years ago? I don't remember 15 years ago or 5.
The writers are the one who ran with the idea and wanted the character to a three dimensional villain and called the actor in for discussions on that point before the actor even made one camera appearance. That was not a common thing to be done on soap at all.
My question is this. Why would the powers that be create this backstory for a character they thought was going to be staked after 13 weeks? It's my understanding they didn't expect the show to last through the summer. In the Dan curtis interview with DVD disc 10 he talks about how Barnabas became the relunctant vampire because tptb planned on killing him off but when the ratings shot through the roof they knew he had to live and had to come up with a reason to keep him on.
It doesn't make any sense to me that an elaborate backstory for Barnabas was written until the ratings shot up and they knew he had to stay which was probably sometime in May or June of '67, certainly not before the character appeared at Collinwood, which was mid April.
They probably wanted to make the Barnabas character as interesting as possible, so they decided to do a backstory on him. The series was in danger of being cancelled so they had nothing to lose.
I find it hard to believe that the writers would create an elaborate backstory for a character that was only supposed to last 9-13 weeks.
It's my understanding that the show could have been cancelled and gone off the air before he was to be staked. And it probably would have been had the ratings not gone through the roof.
I've never written a television show or characters within the show but it seems logical to me that it would take a lot of time to create an elaborate backstory for a character and this would only be done if the show was going to stay on the air and they were going to keep that particular character. Otherwise it would be a waste of everyone's time.
And Nancy says she agrees with MB that one person probably cannot take credit, yet MB has stated, if I understand correctly, that he believes that Art Wallace does deserve the credit.
Does this clear up my point for you Vlad? Again I am sorry I wasn't clear.
It's my understanding that the show could have been cancelled and gone off the air before he was to be staked. And it probably would have been had the ratings not gone through the roof.
Mr. Frid might know or have some insight.
I've never been bought by the whole "threat of cancellation" story for 1967. It sounds quite dramatic until you consider that they were given 26 weeks to raise the ratings - six months worth of episodes. To me, that sounds like a pretty leisurely timeframe for a situation apparently so drastic. It's waaaaaaaaay more notice than the show had when eventually was yanked in 1971.
People also overlook the fact that the show had already been renewed from its initial six month order in 1966 - that in itself suggests that it was doing acceptable business. I tend to think that DS was it was renewed, just with more stringent expectations than before - not the outright make-or-break situation it's since been painted as.
I've never been bought by the whole "threat of cancellation" story for 1967. It sounds quite dramatic until you consider that they were given 26 weeks to raise the ratings - six months worth of episodes. To me, that sounds like a pretty leisurely timeframe for a situation apparently so drastic. It's waaaaaaaaay more notice than the show had when eventually was yanked in 1971.
People also overlook the fact that the show had already been renewed from its initial six month order in 1966 - that in itself suggests that it was doing acceptable business. I tend to think that DS was it was renewed, just with more stringent expectations than before - not the outright make-or-break situation it's since been painted as.
Leisurely for today maybe, but I might have been a different story in 1966, I tend to agree with you there. I don't pretend to know much about how daytime TV at that time was judged/rated by the networks, but I am sure it was more economical to renew with a mandate to raise the viewership than ax it unceremoniously and start from scratch on something else.
They probably wanted to make the Barnabas character as interesting as possible, so they decided to do a backstory on him. The series was in danger of being cancelled so they had nothing to lose. They wanted to out on a high note.
Barnabas remaining on the show for the long term apparently didn't happen until a short time prior to 1795 started. I read some of Jonathan Frid's letters to his mother back in the summer and fall of 1967 (from a fan collection) and one letter stated he was to be off DS by September 1967, a later letter stated he was to leave DS in November 1967 and another later one said that they have decided to do an origin of Barnabas.
Re: my earlier "Character by Committee" post ... I forgot to mention Robert Costello's having supplied the name "Barnabas" to the character. ;D
When all this evidence is weighed in, it really looks like the character of Barnabas Collins was developed as a collaborative effort. That a character as interesting as Barnabas Collins came about as a committee effort truly surprises me -- I would have expected just the opposite: one fell swoop of inspiration, with one creative mind responsible.
While it appears that Art Wallace deserves credit to some degree, his statement "I created Barnabas Collins" implies (at least to me) that he was the sole originator and developer of the character and doesn't suggest collaborative effort. Why he would have said this if it wasn't the case (and it hardly seems possible given the other testimonies adduced here) leaves room for speculation. I would suggest the possibility that his involvement had been forgotten, that he was exasperated by that, and that he perhaps exaggerated his role in the course of this particular interview as a result of the lack of recognition. That's truly speculation.
I'm having a hard time making sense out of several comments. First, what does Nancy mean by "called the actor in for discussions on that point before the actor even made one camera appearance."
Can you explain what this means?
And Nancy says she agrees with MB that one person probably cannot take credit, yet MB has stated, if I understand correctly, that he believes that Art Wallace does deserve the credit.