DARK SHADOWS FORUMS

General Discussions => Current Talk Archive => Current Talk '25 I => Current Talk '02 I => Topic started by: VAM on March 29, 2002, 03:53:10 PM

Title: Original vs Revival
Post by: VAM on March 29, 2002, 03:53:10 PM
I watched the original run of the Series. However, I think that after others (that never saw the original), upon viewing the episodes to this point,  have to conclude that the revival series pales in comparison to this CLASSIC series.  Just look at the scene between Bennett and Edmonds (discussed in another post), those zinger stares and that wicked laugh by Parker,  brilliance of Barrett's characterization...Nothing can replace it!
Title: Re: Original vs Revival
Post by: Miles on March 29, 2002, 06:51:58 PM
Quote
However, I think that after others (that never saw the original), upon viewing the episodes to this point,  have to conclude that the revival series pales in comparison to this CLASSIC series.


Gee, I think pales in comparison is being a little harsh on what I thought to be a pretty descent revival of DS in '91.  Sure, it'll never be the original, especially to those who saw it in the '60s (I didn't), but from an objective viewpoint I think you have to realize that both shows have their respective strengths and weaknesses.  Its really just a matter of personal preference.  I thought the revival was pretty cool, a little weak in some areas, but overall I liked it.
Title: Re: Original vs Revival
Post by: VAM on March 29, 2002, 07:43:19 PM
Quote


 Sure, it'll never be the original, especially to those who saw it in the '60s (I didn't), but from an objective viewpoint I think you have to realize that both shows have their respective strengths and weaknesses.  ..


 Maybe what it had going for it was the advances in technology of the 90's...special effects, etc...THE '91 Series ran for almost a year while the Original Series went  for FIVE years. That in itself is a telling factor.
Title: Re: Original vs Revival
Post by: Carol on March 29, 2002, 08:54:27 PM
Personally, I don't think revivals can ever capture the essence of the original. What was done on TV during the early years represented that period in time and what was available to actors/producers/directors.

If DS were done again, it would represent the technology of today. Having seen the original when it was first aired, I compared the second 1991 series with the first. Granted, Ben Cross was a good Barnabas but he wasn't JF.  I hated the Willie character portrayed by Jim Fyfe.  It just wasn't the same.

Some original shows should best be left alone no matter how much we'd like to see it again IMHO.

  Carol
Title: Re: Original vs Revival
Post by: Miles on March 29, 2002, 09:09:02 PM
Quote

 Maybe what it had going for it was the advances in technology of the 90's...special effects, etc...THE '91 Series ran for almost a year while the Original Series went  for FIVE years. That in itself is a telling factor.


I still think youre selling it short.  I though the '91 outing improved upon the original in more than just special effects (which ultimately don't make a difference either way).  Its biggest plus was probably the fact that the cast (a pretty talented one if ya ask me) was given time to make the scenes flow consistently.  As for the fact that the show lasted 12 eps, eh, theres plenty of trash TV out there (just look on the WB network; they've got scads of shows whose sole marketing power is in the bust size of the female lead) that has been running for 5+ seasons.  As for the other end of the spectrum, i guess I'll just point out "the Prisoner" a brilliant show that lasted for 17 eps.
Title: Re: Original vs Revival
Post by: MikeS on March 29, 2002, 09:57:19 PM
As another viewer of the original run, I feel the revival falls short in comparison.  However, taken on its own merits, I think it was, for the most part, quite good. If another remake is ever  attempted, I think it would have more of a chance of succeeding if it were to tell original stories, instead of yet another retelling of the Barnabas storyline. Telling the same story over and over is going to make comparisons to the original inevitable.  And, at least IMHO, the remake is almost never as good.  I wonder why Dan Curtis feels the need to keep repeating the same story?
Title: Re: Original vs Revival
Post by: VAM on March 29, 2002, 10:01:24 PM
People were more aware of quality TV in the '60's!
Title: Re: Original vs Revival
Post by: Cassandra on March 29, 2002, 10:59:16 PM
I totally agree with you Vam & Carol. There's nothing like an "original." There's no comparision. The actors on the original series were also accompolished & experienced actors by the time the original show aired in the 60's, some of them, also experienced stage actors, that made these wonderful dialouge exchanges between two actors priceless! 35 years later, the original still has a large following fan following! That says enough for me! ;)
Title: Re: Original vs Revival
Post by: Mark Rainey on March 30, 2002, 01:32:35 AM
I enjoyed the 1991 series for its own merits, although it was sadly lacking in a lot of respects. It's a shame it was prematurely cancelled -- due largely to the problem of audiences being unable to find it amid all the coverage of the Gulf War; a highly unfair set of circumstances to compete with. It was just hitting its stride when it was cancelled, and I think it might have had many high points had it been allowed to continue.

S * P * O * I * L * E * R * S


One of the show's most glaring faults was its scenery. The intricate miniature of Collinwood was interesting, but obviously a miniature, and inferior in design to either Seaview or Lyndhurst. Greystone simply didn't cut it -- especially doubling as the Old House. Everything about the locale screamed "California," and never succeeded in making me believe this was a small New England town.

I detested the idea of Maggie Evans being Roger's mistress. Didn't do credit to either character. Jim Fyfe's Willie took off on a ludicrous note and then got worse. But during the episodes just prior to the journey back to 1790, his character began to mature and become more tolerable.

I also hated Ben Cross's vampire makeup. Frid always came across as impressive and subtly dangerous when he donned his fangs. Cross looked like a reject from THE EVIL DEAD and had no charisma whatsoever in vampire mode. I'll give him credit for doing Barnabas justice when he was "normal." He's a capable actor and did a good job with the material until he was required to turn undead.

The best part of the revival series was the 1790 period episodes. These came across as intense as anything showing on TV at the time, especially Victoria's trial. For the most part, the actors here were all wonderful in their parts, especially Stefan Gierasch as Joshua. No one could have been more perfect. Adrian Paul was fabulous as Jeremiah, and I liked the fact that the script made him Barnabas's brother rather than Uncle; the relationship worked a lot better that way. Even Jim Fyfe came across better as Ben.

Gotta admit I didn't care for Lysette Anthony's Angelique. She was effective in her own way, but her character came across as a bit too manic; very different from Lara's portrayal. Uniqueness is fine, but the right chemistry between her and the other players never happened. Not to denigrate her performance; it just didn't sit well with me.

By far the best element of the 1991 series was Joanna Going as Victoria. Gone was the clueless twit that Alexandra Moltke had become. In her place was a beautiful, somewhat vulnerable, perhaps naive young woman, but with a decent brain in her head and the wherewithal to take the initiative in dealing with the uptight Collins clan. When Beth and I wrote DREAMS, we had to model Victoria on Joanna, even though all the rest of the characters hearkened back to the original series. To top it off, Going's ability to play Josette convincingly alongside herself as Victoria was no mean feat. She had me convinced she was two different individuals, both with their own personalities and mannerisms.

Dang, I think I'm in love with her all over again. ;)

There is one scene in particular that stands out in my mind as being one of the series' best. That's when Barnabas embraces Carolyn in a twilight setting with Cobert's eerie music playing, and the camera trains on a stream of blood that runs down her neck and over her breasts. It's a beautifully erotic and "mature" DARK SHADOWS moment, one of the few in which Cross works well as the vampire Barnabas. Strangely, I've heard some people say they were offended by this scene. Personally, I find that an inexplicable reaction, when one considers how eroticism and blood figure so prominently in the entire vampire mythos. I can't imagine a more tasteful manner of dealing with a vampire feeding -- showing just enough to be tantalizing.

It would have been interesting to see where the show progressed.

[shadow=purple,left,300]--Mark[/shadow]
Title: Re: Original vs Revival
Post by: VAM on March 30, 2002, 01:49:37 AM
Thanks Mark, your comments were interesting.
Title: Re: Original vs Revival
Post by: MrsJ on March 30, 2002, 03:37:26 AM
Quote
I enjoyed the 1991 series for its own merits, although it was sadly lacking in a lot of respects. It's a shame it was prematurely cancelled --


Your comments on the revival series mirror my own (although you stated them much more eloquently than I would have, lol).  I think that having seen the original series with the original cast really "spoiled" the revival series for many of us.  If I hadn't been among one of the original viewers, I might have a very different view of the 1991 series.  It was a shame it was so short lived, perhaps it would have eventually won me over  :-*

MrsJ.
Title: Re: Original vs Revival
Post by: Teresa on March 30, 2002, 03:54:25 AM
Well for the original series I remember sitting all cozy with my Mom watching in awe. :o I liked the revival but it makes me think of sitting in my crappy apartment on the floor because I could not afford furniture. :'( Thank God for floor pillows :D
Title: Re: Original vs Revival
Post by: Brian on March 30, 2002, 07:22:17 AM
THE '91 Series ran for almost a year while the Original Series went  for FIVE years

Well, as much as I enjoyed the '91 version (I was also around and watched the original!!), the '91 series DID NOT run for almost a year.  It premiered on January 13, 1991, and the last episode (THANKS TO THE GULF WAR AND GWB) aired on March 22, 1991;  it only aired for little more than 2 months. . .;(
Title: Re: Original vs Revival
Post by: VAM on March 30, 2002, 02:24:25 PM
Quote
THE '91 Series ran for almost a year while the Original Series went  for FIVE years

Well, as much as I enjoyed the '91 version (I was also around and watched the original!!), the '91 series DID NOT run for almost a year.  It premiered on January 13, 1991, and the last episode (THANKS TO THE GULF WAR AND GWB) aired on March 22, 1991;  it only aired for little more than 2 months. . .;(



Sorry, I guess my timing was off on this one... ::)
Title: Re: Original vs Revival
Post by: ROBINV on March 30, 2002, 02:53:01 PM
I've come to think of the 1991 revival series as a parallel time to the 1960 series.

I will always love the original, I watched it during my most vulnerable teenage years and it had a deep impact on me that hasn't let go all these years later.

The 1991 version was filled with flashier special effects, no bloopers, but IMHO, no where near as much heart.

I agree with Mr. Rainey that Joanna Going made a far better Victoria Winters; she was lovely, vulnerable, but still intelligent and spunky.  She was the only cast member of the '91 show who outdid her predecessor, at least IMHO.  I still have a soft spot for Alexandra Moltke, however, and don't hold her to blame for what happened to Vicki's character.  I think Dan Curtis had a chauvinistic and outdated concept of women, and it shows in just about all of his female characters at one time or another.  

Love, Robin  
Title: Re: Original vs Revival
Post by: Luciaphile on March 30, 2002, 03:43:18 PM
Mixed feelings about 1991.  That they were remaking it didn't bother me (not an original viewer) and I have to be honest most of the taped episodes I had seen of the original by then were not all that impressive with a few exceptions.

Loved Joanna Going.  She almost made the whole "girl on a train" cheesy Gothic heroine thing work, almost.  Moltke and KLS, Lord love them, simply aren't in her league.  But even the talented Ms Going couldn't turn back the clock to make this plot device work.  

Lysette Anthony's Angelique.  Hmmm.  Well, I never thought I would call Lara Parker's acting subtle, but in comparison it was very much so.  Ben Cross was okay, I guess.  Jim Fyfe--hammy doesn't begin to cover it.

Michael T. Weiss made a gorgeous Joe Haskell and I liked Joseph Gordon Levitt as Psycho David.  My personal favorite actor though was the gentleman who played Sheriff Patterson.

The directing with one or two exceptions (forgive the language) sucked.  Pedestrian, trite, hackneyed.  

The writing was less than stellar.  Hell, it was way less than stellar.  

When you have Jean Simmons in your cast, you do not just have her pouring tea.  Go hire someone without that kind of talent if that's all you're going to have her do.  It is an utter crime to waste Jean Simmons on wringing her hands.  

Mark wrote:
Quote
One of the show's most glaring faults was its scenery. The intricate miniature of Collinwood was interesting, but obviously a miniature, and inferior in design to either Seaview or Lyndhurst. Greystone simply didn't cut it -- especially doubling as the Old House. Everything about the locale screamed "California," and never succeeded in making me believe this was a small New England town.


I think part of the problem was that they were obviously never interested in making us believe it was a small New England town.  Which is probably a large part of my reaction--that was part of what I loved about the original show.

A couple years ago, I dragged out my tapes to see if memory was being too harsh.  Unfortunately, memory was pretty on target.

Two scenes that stick out still as being worth rewatching:

1. Ellen Wheeler as Phyllis Wick with the Sheriff and Elizabeth.  "Sir, this is not how things are in Connecticut."  (you have to see it to appreciate it).

2. Sarah's ghost leading Victoria through the house.  It's daylight and it's wonderfully creepy.  

Luciaphil
Title: Re: Original vs Revival
Post by: Julia99 on March 30, 2002, 08:01:51 PM
Wellllll I'll put in my 2 cents. . . Joanna Goeing was good and i liked how they combined the Josette/Victoria character right away .. Maggie was someone else entirely.   The clothing and interiors were very nice too.  Jean Simmons as Elizabeth/Naomi was fine but Ben Cross as Barnabas did not engage me at all.  I thought he was horribly stiff and unsympathetic. . .. All I really remember though.. . .at the time of the revival series was when I first discovered "online communities" . . .there was a group of us from Ohio, New York City and WAsh D.C. talking about the series.  And all the guys (who I later met and they were "normal in every way") kept talking about was how "HOT" Dr. Hoffman was(Barbara Steele-even with the horrible poneytailed hair)!  They all loved Grayson but thought Barbara's rack and Grayson's lovely legs or awe inspriring cheekbones were of two separate universes, e.g. no comparision. . . >:(
Title: Re: Original vs Revival
Post by: Mark Rainey on March 30, 2002, 08:13:47 PM
Quote
1. Ellen Wheeler as Phyllis Wick with the Sheriff and Elizabeth.  "Sir, this is not how things are in Connecticut."  (you have to see it to appreciate it).

2. Sarah's ghost leading Victoria through the house.  It's daylight and it's wonderfully creepy.


Luciaphil, yep, you nailed those, especially #1. I enjoyed Michael Cavanaugh as Sheriff Patterson, especially his initial appearance. "Where'd it all go?" he drones. "There's no blood. Where'd it all go?" Hokey to the point of actually being believable. ;)

Veronica Lauren's Sarah was altogether less annoying than Sharon Smyth's; so sorry. I saw the original series' episodes with Sarah for the first time when DS went into syndication in 1976. Blessedly, I had missed those during its original run.

But since that year, the tune of "London Bridge" drives me to cover my head with a paper bag; then the local lads all have to stand in a fish tank and strike up a chorus of "Jerusalem" to get me to take it off.

[shadow=purple,right,200]--Mark[/shadow]


Title: Re: Original vs Revival
Post by: VictoriaWintersRox on March 30, 2002, 09:06:00 PM
Quote
I agree with Mr. Rainey that Joanna Going made a far better Victoria Winters; she was lovely, vulnerable, but still intelligent and spunky.  She was the only cast member of the '91 show who outdid her predecessor, at least IMHO.  I still have a soft spot for Alexandra Moltke, however, and don't hold her to blame for what happened to Vicki's character.  I think Dan Curtis had a chauvinistic and outdated concept of women, and it shows in just about all of his female characters at one time or another.

I agree with your point on Victoria could've been better on the original series. And I agree that she can't be blamed because I've read that she is a very intelligent women in real life. If Dan Curtis had let that element of Alexandra into Victoria, her character may have lasted longer and made Alexandra a little happier of the direction of her character.

IMO, no matter how good a revival is, the original is almost always the best known. Many people remember the 1970s Angels verus the 2000 Angels, etc.
Title: Re: Original vs Revival
Post by: AllenCollins on March 30, 2002, 09:24:52 PM
I find comparing the original DS with the revival series very Apples & Oranges,. Its like comparing the original show with the MGM movies. They were all made under very different environments and formats. The movie and revival lack character and scene development, they are both vert fast pace. Through the Original show we learn who each character is and motivates them. There is also more time to provide more details to the scenes.  

There is also the difference of how each show was made. The original had a very theatrical feel to it while the revival and movies have the Hollywood Motion Picture feel. I remember reading a post here from Julia99 about when she saw the HODS movie on TV and the scene where Barnabas attacks Carolyn got her attention. The scene was very intense fast paced and brutally graphic. The revival also has a number of very graphic and sesual scenes while the original show never had anything like that. However I always felt that the acting in the original show had to be stronger to compensate for lack of effects and the character development.

The revival also had a Dynasty feel to it, (who's screwing who) which the original show manged to avoid.

While I like all three versions, (the original being my favorite), I find comparing them difficult.

B  
Title: Re: Original vs Revival
Post by: Dr. Eric Lang on April 02, 2002, 04:43:28 AM
Wow I'm really enjoying all the intelligent discussion in this thread and on this board in general. So nice to be among people who are able to express their opinions so articulately! I almost don't feel worthy to be here with all the DS knowledge on this board.

Just my opinion, but I LOVED the revival series. Of course I agree that it could never be like the original series. With the original daytime soap you have the opportunity for character development through many episodes that you don't get in a one-hour prime time show.

But I loved many of the changes. I loved how they made Victoria the reincarnation of Josette instead of Maggie. This did, however, leave Maggie with very little to do, and her part as a psychic/Roger's mistress was pretty peripheral.

I loved Jim Fyfe as Willie Loomis/Ben Loomis - I guess I'm the only one! Julianna McCarthy was fantastic as both Mrs. Johnson and Abigail - but of course so was Clarice Blackburn.

Barbara Blackburn was interesting as Carolyn - a very different take on the character but still good. However, her Millicent wasn't nearly as good as Nancy Barrett's. By the same token Lysette Antony was good at making Angelique a different sort of character, but nobody can ever take Laura Parker's place. At least they had genuine French accents though!

I really liked Ben Cross as Barnabas and found him more believable as a love interest than Jonathan Frid, but then again what do I know? :-)

Roy Thinnes was OK as Roger/Trask but no one can compare to Louis Edmonds'  Roger. I thought it was interesting they changed Roger into Trask instead of Joshua but I liked it. Jerry Lacy was a different kind of Trask but equally good in his own way.

I really liked how they were able to switch back and forth between Victoria in 1790 and the Collins family in the present day. I agree with the comment that the miniature used for Collinwood looked cheap though - and the "new" house and "old" house were indiscernable from each other.

I was never so mad as when they cancelled this show without a fair chance. It aired on Friday nights and historically no show has ever done well on that night. We missed the chance to see what they could have done with some original material post-1790 and that's too bad.