DARK SHADOWS FORUMS
General Discussions => Current Talk Archive => Current Talk '25 I => Current Talk '05 II => Topic started by: arashi on July 15, 2005, 03:33:21 AM
-
I finally got my hands on boxset 8 today which really kicks off Adam's storyline.
I had just started watching it when my sister chased one of the cats into my room, then paused to check out what was going on.
Barnabas, Julia and Willie are standing around a sleeping Adam in the cell in the basement. (Why is there a cell in the basement abyway?!) Anyhow as Adam begins to wake up Willie freaks and asks what they should do now. Barnabas replies "Act natural."
We looked at each other and burst out laughing.
This show is great with an audience that appreciates the camp as much as you do. (Though I don't think anyone in my family appreciates the sometimes genuine creepy factor as much as I do.)
The scene later on with Mrs. Johnson on the terrace was a riot too. I guess there wasn't much room to move around on sets off camera because everyone just kind of shuffles to her rescue.
-
Some of the camp is funny but I much prefer Dark Shadows in its earlier years without much camp. I get sad when I see "camp" seeping its way into the later stories. My opinion is that camp is easier to write for than genuine horror or mystery. I still think the writers eventually got lazy.
-
Barnabas, Julia and Willie are standing around a sleeping Adam in the cell in the basement. (Why is there a cell in the basement abyway?!) Anyhow as Adam begins to wake up Willie freaks and asks what they should do now. Barnabas replies "Act natural."
One more comment about this...I wonder if the writers knew this was campy? Did they even know the difference between camp and genuine mystery at that point or were they so immersed in this horror soup they had lost their way. Did they understand that Barnabas replying "Act natural" was camp funny or were they completely serious?
-
Did they understand that Barnabas replying "Act natural" was camp funny or were they completely serious?
Everyone connected with DS has always said that they treated everything seriously. Though they often had fun with the material when the cameras weren't rolling. ;)
-
Everyone connected with DS has always said that they treated everything seriously. Though they often had fun with the material when the cameras weren't rolling.
That I can believe. But, were the writers at that point intentially making DS a campy soap? Were they going in that direction? In other words, I never sensed 1795 was anythihg except straight storytelling of what happened to Barnabas. I never thought camp was involved. I started to sense camp during the Adam story. I just wonder if that was intentional or did they take themselves so seriously at that point they didn't know the difference?
-
i do think that with the adam storyline the show began to veer toward high camp.whether the writers did this intentionally or not is up for speculation.what i do think that they did intentionally with this storyline was for the first time to actively court those "kids that ran home from school" as it's intended audience.where as the earlier stories were probably aimed at a traditional "soap opera" viewer(housewives and perhaps teenage girls)this had a more adolescent sensibility.
even so most of the actors played it all very straight.i think there were two exceptions however.
humbert allen astredo as nicholas blair and thayer david as professor stokes always seemed to be winking slightly at the audience i thought.like they knew that the material they were playing was absurd. :P
-
The Adam/Eve/Blair storyline on DS was not "campy" - at least not intentionally. However, it has been interpreted as such by some viewers. At this point in the series, Dan Curtis and the writers were trying to attain a new level of strangeness by upping the ante, so to speak. The over-the- top nature of these storylines, coupled with the the larger than life performances of certain actors, have lead some to label this segment of the series as camp (incorrectly so, IMO). If you watch some of the Universal horror films, the stories are very grandiose and the acting can be way over the top. I would not call these films campy though. The genre we are dealing with involves an exaggeration of the natural. This is sometimes interpreted (incorrectly IMO) as camp. The 60s Batman show is campy. DS is not. I will concede that as the show progesses, it increasingly relies on a willing suspension of disbelief on the part of the viewer.
That being said, the sequence you described is still pretty amusing.
~Penny Dreadful~
-
The Adam/Eve/Blair storyline on DS was not "campy" - at least not intentionally
I looked up the word camp in the dictionary " artificiality of manner or style, appreciated for its humor, triteness, or vulgarity" I my mind - vulgar for a Godfather montage ripoff of the mauling of the poor inkeeper crisscrossing with Nicholas Blair hexing Maggie, in addition to the vulgarity and absurdity of a Frankenstein ripoff per "Adam" including a blantant copy-cat sequence of the blind man (the "blind man" who used to be a viable character named Sam Evans with a real personality and life) in the cottage is very high camp. And both of those stories were occurring simultaneously. What were they thinking?
-
(the "blind man" who used to be a viable character named Sam Evans with a real personality and life) in the cottage is very high camp.
I disagree. How is employing the "blind man" from Frankenstein any different from employing Quint and Miss Jessel from "Turn of the Screw"? DS cribbed characters and plots from a variety of classic sources. Singling out the blind man doesn't make the premise camp. One thing you left out of your definition is the fact that camp is generally a deliberate attempt at eliciting humor through affectation, vulgarity etc. The writers and actors were most certainly not attempting to create humor through camp. Yes, there were several supernatural stories occuring simultaneously. This is the case with the majority of DS sequences post-1795. I don't understand why this would be considered campy. Does it require a major suspension of disbelief? Yes, of course. Is it funny or foolish? In my opinion, no it isn't. To buy into DS, it is essential to believe that there is in fact a monster made of dead people running around, as well as a warlock who's in love with a waitress and his witch "sister" who's putting dream curses on people. The DS storylies do in fact become increasingly convoluted and fantastic as the series progresses. This is not an attempt at camp, however. Dan Curtis wasn't creating a comedy. In fact, some of the people involved with the show have taken offense at such a perception, and I'd have to side with them on that, since they were genuinely making an attempt to create a fantasy in the tradition of classic gothic literature and films.
~Penny Dreadful~
-
I agree that the show is not intentionally campy. I've read many of the interviews where the actors say that they were very serious about their work. John Karlen said how he loved the show because he got to act out with such intense emotions that actors don't often get the chance to do so. I think what Barnabas meant when he said to act natural was to not show fear.
-
Well, in any case they were sure taking liberties in stealing from different sources. I saw some of their story-ripoff tricks even during 1795 when Nathan Forbes was trying to deceive Millicent that there was NOT a light in the tower window and that she WAS loosing things - straight from the old-time classic thriller "Gaslight" two versions, one staring Charles Boyer and the other Anton Walbrook both with nervous wives. I recognized the "outsourcing of material" but didn't mind really as it was subtly done and did somehow fit in with the plot at hand which was fresh and original. But, I think this is veering from the subject of this thread....
-
this is starting to get off-topic but let me ask this.
like "ugly" or "beautiful" is "camp" subjective?can one person perceive it and another not?or is it something more concrete?
i've read articles about the show that describe the entire thing as a classic piece of high camp. :-
-
"Camp" is something you have to set out to be....it's not something you stumble upon by accident. Think of the early "Batman" series with all those crazy "villains" like "The Penquin" and "The Riddler". The show was WRITTEN TO BE THAT WAY!!
Dark Shadows was never WRITTEN to be "campy".....but some have used that term because of certain actor's mannerisms and vocal delivery. The plots may have been outlandish, the acting idiocincratic, the directing highly stylized.....but the show was not written to be camp!!
-
Christopher Isherwood in his novel The World in the Evening has a section where two of the characters discuss "camp." I believe that this predates Susan Sontag's much better known Notes on Camp. The Isherwood novel is one of the first mainstream texts to discuss what began life as a very gay concept (I am using the word "gay" here to refer to homosexual people and our culture, not "stupid" as has become the meaning of the word in high schools and chatrooms around North America).
In it, Isherwood distinguished between high (or highbrow) camp, and low camp, as saying that high camp is like a production of the Tschaikovsky ballet Swan Lake--so stylised as to have a certain ridiculous grandeur, which only really "works" if everybody involved performs their parts with the utmost seriousness. Isherwood would have argued that something like a production of Swan lake by les ballets trocaderos de Monte Carlo (a celebrated all male ballet troupe with some brilliant dancers in their own right) was low camp if not burlesque because they are deliberately "sending up" the material.
I think the increasingly outre storylines of Dark Shadows required a more "elevated" stylistic positioning of actors and direction. There is also the factor that so many of the people involved in DS had worked either in theatre or from a tradition (such as Fifties Playhouse 90 or Studio One type anthology television) that was more informed by theatre. In my opinion there is an over-emphasis today on "naturalistic" performance due to the fact that it requires far less technique to bring this off than a really stylised performance of complicated material such as the typical DS script presents.
Besides, YOU try and find a "natural" way of saying this line: "Nobody and nothing will stop me from letting everyone know exactly What You Are!"
G.
-
"Camp" is something you have to set out to be....it's not something you stumble upon by accident. Think of the early "Batman" series with all those crazy "villains" like "The Penquin" and "The Riddler". The show was WRITTEN TO BE THAT WAY!!
Dark Shadows was never WRITTEN to be "campy".....but some have used that term because of certain actor's mannerisms and vocal delivery. The plots may have been outlandish, the acting idiocincratic, the directing highly stylized.....but the show was not written to be camp!!
rainey,i disagree
camp is absolutely NOT something that one has to set out to be.it often only happens in retrospect.
silly shows like 'batman" aside look at the work of the great mid-century actresses.bette davis,judy garland,joan crawford,gloria swanson and even joan bennett.if you asked any of these actresses in 1945 if they intended to produce a volume of work later perceived as "campy" i can assure you the answer would have been no.they intended to turn in good performances in the style of the period.
movies like "all about eve" and "sunset boulevard" only achieved camp status later when new audiences saw them and the world around them had changed.camp often does happen by accident.
that said,i doubt that the d.s. writers set out to write a campy show.but one has to accept that there is that perception out there.
-
I have to admit, one of the reasons I absolutely adore this show is the "camp". I don't think it was ever written to be camp, definitely not. But the absolute silliness of some scenes is highly endearing, you can't help but love the actors for being able to carry the show with such seriousness. I have never laughed at the show for being stupid, I have always laughed with affection.
-
rainey,i disagree camp is absolutely NOT something that one has to set out to be.it often only happens in retrospect.
But now we're talking about two entirely different things. Those things that were MEANT to be campy, and those that are (because of the passage of time, and changes in taste) PERCEIVED to be campy.
"Young Frankenstein" is about as deliberately campy as a film could be.
"Frankenstein" from the 1930's, most certainly was NOT meant to be camp...it was meant to be terrifying. But it sure is looked upon as camp now, isn't it?
If "Dark Shadows" is perceived as campy, it absolutely falls into the later category.
-
that said,i doubt that the d.s. writers set out to write a campy show.but one has to accept that there is that perception out there.
I guess we could argue left and right on the meaning of camp and if DS was camp. I still think there's pre-camp and camp DS. I'm also not convinced that after a couple of years into the show the writers hadn't decided to go for the "camp" value. I suspect it was deliberate and I think a poster here nailed it by stating that the writers, knowing who the fans were (pre-teens running home from school), got into writing silly campy stuff thinking that's what these kids wanted. I remember reading how Dan Curtis wanted more monsters, maybe because JF was exhausted and needed a break. Dan Curtis might have overestimated the vampire monster aspect of Barnabas and underestimated Barnabas' romantic and tragic appeal that would probably have been the case if he were no monster at all.
I think fans tolerated the camp out of a sincere affection for the show but I also think it's what lead DS to its downfall.
-
Well, all I know is that the actors, writers, directors and producers have continually said when asked that they never deliberately set out to make DS campy in any way, shape or form. If they had tried to camp it up, I can't really see why they wouldn't just admit it. But quite the opposite is actually the case - they become defensive whenever the idea that DS is campy is even suggested. So, take from that what you will...
-
I certainly agree with MB. The DS actors become very defensive when DS is portrayed as being "campy." It has been addressed many times at conventions and in assorted interviews that the cast played it straight as they considered it serious material, even the dumb scripts. They were not "winking at the audience" while doing the show in the way, say, BATMAN did. In the script or in adlibs it was wondered gee, whiz, it's as if someone wrote this for us to figure out and out and out said so at least once in my memory.
I didn't think the show campy when it was on and I don't think so now. I have to admit the thought of it being camp has been as mystifying to me as the focus on bloopers at times.
Nancy
-
I guess we could argue left and right on the meaning of camp and if DS was camp. I still think there's pre-camp and camp DS. I'm also not convinced that after a couple of years into the show the writers hadn't decided to go for the "camp" value.
There's not any evidence of that from what survives of interviews with and about the writers of DS that I know of, is there? Soaps were looked down enough in the industry at the time without a soap writer going for yet an ever more looked-down upon style/genre such as camp. It doesn't make sense to me that a writer would do it, especially when DS had such unprecedented success with a straight story.
I suspect it was deliberate and I think a poster here nailed it by stating that the writers, knowing who the fans were (pre-teens running home from school), got into writing silly campy stuff
One of the reasons that Ramse Mosteller and other production personnel fought with Dan Curtis was because of his insistence on doing everything as quickly and intensely as possible, including the writing of the scripts. He was not interested in pacing and really had no idea at the time why the show was such a success. The development of Barnabas was subtle and I really don't think Mr. Curtis has ever been familiar with that word. He had nothing to do with the casting of or development of Barnabas. He wasn't even in the country at the time the casting was done or the initial scripts written. JF and the writers met to talk about how the character could be developed. Curtis was never involved with that that I know of. But I digress: the reason the scripts became silly and illogical is because the writers were compelled to write at a frenzy they couldn't cope with. Who could? How else can anyone explain that the writers of the Leviathan scripts had no idea of really what was going on in the very scripts they created? I definitely do not think it was deliberate.
thinking that's what these kids wanted. I remember reading how Dan Curtis wanted more monsters, maybe because JF was exhausted and needed a break.
Actually, Stefan, that's not correct. Curtis wanted a more frenzied pace for the series, not monsters. It was Frid who went to him and said that it all too much for him and that if they wanted him to survive as an actor on the show, another leading man needed to be brought in. Frid and others have told this story at conventions and I believe in some of KLS' publications. That's where David Selby came in.
Dan Curtis might have overestimated the vampire monster aspect of Barnabas and underestimated Barnabas' romantic and tragic appeal that would probably have been the case if he were no monster at all.
Curtis' initial idea about what Barnabas should be was eventually revealed in HOUSE OF DARK SHADOWS. His original concept of the vampire was to be a monster and nothing more, to last maybe a cycle (13 weeks) before being staked. He did not, and has admitted as much, understand how much the public would be fascinated by Barnabas. You're right: he underestimated the tragic, vunerable quality of Barnabas and the appeal it would have.
I think fans tolerated the camp out of a sincere affection for the show but I also think it's what lead DS to its downfall.
From what I understand, the ratings were just fine when the decision was made for DS to be cancelled. The gore of the HODS movie concerned advertisers and parents about the series and there was also a change of programming vision at ABC. Not only that but as some of the actors will tell you, they believe the constantly changing time periods and characters in the latter part of the series made the series unwatchable unless you stayed with it every single day. There was much confusion about the plotlines. Curtis' drive for more more more is what eventually lead to cancel cancel cancel IMO.
Nancy
-
I didn't think the show campy when it was on and I don't think so now. I have to admit the thought of it being camp has been as mystifying to me as the focus on bloopers at times.
I agree and am just as perplexed by the camp misperception and the blooper focus. Yes, Dan Curtis insisted on adding increasingly macabre and involved elements to the plot. Yes, many of the actors performed in an appropriately stylized fashion. Some viewers can buy into the more fantastic storylines, and some can't stomach them very well. Applying the campy label to DS because of those facts is simply inaccurate.
-
My theory on this is that it wasn't the scripts... It wasn't the actors, actresses, producers, directors, etc. I think it was more to do with them not being able to do what shows can do today. That is the ability to edit and reshoot scenes that didn't work the first time around. That was the major factor in why it came across as over the top sometimes.
The actors on Dark Shadows were under alot of pressure, because of how it was filmed and sometimes I am certain that alot of the over the top acting came from nerves being on edge, because of them having to get the show wrapped at a certain time and on days when they were abit behind schedule. I'm certain that it showed up in their acting on certain days more than others.
As for the bloopers... Yes I like them... Simply because they were part of the show and, yes, sometimes they will make me smile... But that doesn't make me think any less of the actors and actresses acting abilities on Dark Shadows. That just showed they were human.
So I don't see Dark Shadows as being camp. Because considering they couldn't edit out mistakes or reshoot scenes that didn't quite go as planned. Dark Shadows still turned out to be a show worth watching.
FireRose
-
The actors on Dark Shadows were under alot of pressure, because of how it was filmed and sometimes I am certain that alot of the over the top acting came from nerves being on edge, because of them having to get the show wrapped at a certain time and on days when they were abit behind schedule. I'm certain that it showed up in their acting on certain days more than others.
I've really had little complaint about the actors. I think most of them did the best the could under the circumstances and some were just plain excellent. Bloopers don't really bother me either, I tend to ignore them. My "beef" is with the writiing and story direction after 1795. It's hard not to think of something as camp when ya got a Vampire story, a Frankenstein type story, a Warlock type story, a Warewolf story and a Witch story all going on simultaneously. Where's Abbot and Costello or the Marx brothers when you need them? Something was going nutsy with those writers.
-
My "beef" is with the writiing and story direction after 1795. It's hard not to think of something as camp when ya got a Vampire story, a Frankenstein type story, a Warlock type story, a Warewolf story and a Witch story all going on simultaneously. Where's Abbot and Costello or the Marx brothers when you need them? Something was going nutsy with those writers.
But almost any article written that I have read that refers to Dark Shadows as being Campy conveys this point clearly. They aren't referring to the storylines. They are referring to the actors and actresses and how they portrayed their parts on the show in those storylines. So when I hear the term camp. That is what comes to mind and I think that is so unfair.
But now here's a question: If Dark Shadows had been written in any other way using different stories than the Vampire, Frankenstein, Warlock, Werewolf and the Witch story. Would it have still been the same show and would we still be interested in watching it almost 40 years later?
FireRose
-
If the same show did not have that gorgeous B&W "Intro to Barnabas" and superb 1795, nope. If DS has started with the Dream Curse. I never would have been interested. Though I hear 1875 or (95?) is suppose to be good. The Bramwell/Catherine story was OK too.
-
We can debate the causes and intent of DS semi-campiness, but I bet we can all agree that it was never intended to (and didn't) reach the level of Campiness that "Batman In Color". That was intentionally campy with plots that were almost always a bit goofy in some form.
Un-intentional camp and quaint-ness sometimes relates to the age of the show. For example:
Several 80's shows look and sound campy now, because of there age and the change in writing and directing standards and practices.
Then again some 80's shows just weren't well written to begin with.
-
If the same show did not have that gorgeous B&W "Intro to Barnabas" and superb 1795, nope. If DS has started with the Dream Curse. I never would have been interested. Though I hear 1875 or (95?) is suppose to be good. The Bramwell/Catherine story was OK too.
The very first episodes I watched featured the tail end of the Dream Curse storyline, and I became hooked subsequently. I had to know who this "Cassandra" person was, and what her relationship with the odd Barnabas Collins entailed. True, this is one of the wackier, more supernatural storylines that may or may not have been directed at the growing child viewers. To each his or her own, I guess. I never thought DS was campy; a little over the top and extremely dramatic (aren't all soap operas?) at times, yes, but not intentionally campy.
-
On a somewhat related note, late radio personality and DS fanatic Ron Barry was pretty addicted to the Adam/Eve/Blair storyline, and gave the show some exposure back in '68 while those episodes were airing.
-
i think we're going to debate the meaning of "camp" endlessly...and i've certainly been thinking about it.
for me true camp requires some level of wit and sophistication and "batman" was just goofy and juvenile...it had no higher aspirations than what it was thus defies true camp.
to answer firerose's question would we still be watching/talking about d.s. if not for the vampire,frankenstein,warlock,werewolf and witch stories i can only speak for myself but i was hooked from episode one.long before i ever laid eyes on barnabas collins.i might be rare in this but as much as i enjoyed barnabas,julia and angelique i would have been perfectly content if the show continued to focus on victoria,the collins family and the assorted and sundry residents of collinsport. :P
-
I don't think DS was ever intended to be camp, and I've never thought of it as campy. I'm not much of a fan of the Adam storyline (too many outside characters from the Collins family, don't care for the take on Frankenstein....) and a lover of the Barnabas B&W-1795 episodes. I do think there was a significant change in tone/direction after 1795 with the Adam storyline, and I don't care for it. I don't think of it as a "camp" thing though.
If I had started watching the show during the Adam storyline...I'd have probably stuck with it (and would've been pleased when 1897 rolled around), but I'm not sure if I would've developed the same love for the show and the characters as I did upon seeing the earlier episodes.
-
But almost any article written that I have read that refers to Dark Shadows as being Campy conveys this point clearly. They aren't referring to the storylines. They are referring to the actors and actresses and how they portrayed their parts on the show in those storylines. So when I hear the term camp. That is what comes to mind and I think that is so unfair.
Great point. With one or two possible exceptions, I believe the DS actors played their respective roles very seriously.
But now here's a question: If Dark Shadows had been written in any other way using different stories than the Vampire, Frankenstein, Warlock, Werewolf and the Witch story. Would it have still been the same show and would we still be interested in watching it almost 40 years later?
I know I wouldn't have watched it but for the spooky element. I don't care for soaps in general now and I didn't back then either though I tried watching a few with some older friends. I didn't develop interest in that genre at all.
Nancy
-
I'm not a soap opera fan either. It was definitely the difference in DS (the gothic mood, the supernatural aspects) that continued to draw me in (Barnabas played the biggest role in that though), and this is coming from someone who prefers pre-Adam DS to post-Adam DS - with exceptions like the 1897 storyline.
I could never watch regular soaps. Too ordinary.
-
I could never watch regular soaps. Too ordinary.
I know what you mean: I've seen General Hospital and Days of Our Lives on Soapnet when nothing better was on, but they're so...bland. I can't tell the difference amongst the characters; they all seem so similar, whereas DS has so many wonderfully unique personas. DS just has a certain flair or ambience to it, and I think all the various characters (along with their actors), not the crazy storylines, played a big role in its success.
-
I don't have any interest in soap operas either. I could never get into them. Although I did try watching 'All My Children' years ago, in hopes of catching a glimpse of Louis Edmonds!
-
i don't do "straight" soaps either but i thought early d.s. had enough of a sense of mystery and gothic feel that it would have probably held my attention even without the overt supernatural stuff.
i did watch 'all my children' though when i was a kid(before i'd ever heard of d.s.)and from what i remember louis edmonds played some sort of traveling-carnival riff-raff who manages to snag the town's grande dame pheobe wallingford. :P
-
from what i remember louis edmonds played some sort of traveling-carnival riff-raff who manages to snag the town's grande dame pheobe wallingford. :P
lolololol....thanks for the fond memory mscbryk....who remembers the lout, the scoundrel??
I had mentioned recently on a different topic how, it seems to me, soaps are trying to pick up on the popularity of 'horror' shows (like Charmed, BtVS, etc). Soaps like Port Charles and Passions....so, it's not just you ;)
Patti
-
I watched Port Charles very briefly when Caleb was on, but never maintained any long term interest in it. I watched it out of curiosity. I never cared to watch Passions. It does seem that soaps have tried out the supernatural because of more successful supernatural primetime shows, like Buffy. :)
-
This show is great with an audience that appreciates the camp as much as you do.
This is so true! And why I love watching DS w/other fans, and why it's fun to watch them at Festivals too. Nothing quite beats an entire hotel ballroom erupting w/laughter at a scene that wasn't intended to be funny! [hall2_wink]
-
I have to admit, one of the reasons I absolutely adore this show is the "camp". I don't think it was ever written to be camp, definitely not. But the absolute silliness of some scenes is highly endearing, you can't help but love the actors for being able to carry the show with such seriousness. I have never laughed at the show for being stupid, I have always laughed with affection.
I totally agree w/you Arashi. Everyone knows the show was *meant* to be serious, but often it does, albeit, accidentally, come off as campy! I laugh uproariously at every episode-there's always *something* that's hilarious, whether intentional or not. But, like Arashi, I laugh w/affection, not derision. You could say I laugh WITH the show, not AT it. [hall2_cheesy]
-
The Bramwell/Catherine story was OK too.
Finally! Someone *else* who liked this plotline! I *loved* 1841 PT! I'm definately in the minority about it too. Most ppl's beef w/it is that a) all the characters were new and b) the show ended w/this plotline, leaving us wondering what happened to Barnabas, Julia and company, but I like that it didn't end w/any clearly defined direction for any of the "regular" characters. Just think of all that wonderful fan fiction out there!
But getting back to 1841, one of my favorite books is Wuthering Heights, so of course this story would appeal to me. Plus, it was an interesting twist to see Jonathan pining for and chasing Lara for a change, LOL! And he looked *so* good as Bramwell too, long flowing hair etc...and what *passion* those two had. I could go on and on and on.... [hall2_grin]
-
The supernatural aspect of the show is what drew me to the show (along with my favorite vampire ;).
Watching Dark Shadows is like watching live theater....we all know it was shot live on tape. The actors would make mistakes with their lines, sets would fall down, or wiggle but you never lost interest in the stories.
Dark Shadows was unique, it's a show in my opinion, full of supernatural fairy tells. It's so mysterious, so gothic which sets it apart from the soaps of today.
(Bit off-topic I have heard Passions is somewhat like Dark Shadows, minus the bloopers....it this true? Does it measure up to my favorite show? Maybe I should give it a try...)
-
You mentioned Passions, IluvBarnabus---I used to watch it. In the beginning it was pretty good-different than DS, but fun. I quit watching a few months back because it got so mysoginistic; women seting other women up to be raped, women cutting on themselves because "their man" didn't love them, physical abuse of women by men, etc. Just got too creepy-sick for me. I think they changed writers though, and I haven't watched recently. Hopefully Tabitha (Juliet Mills) and her toddler-daughter Endora are back making mischief and giving the show a lighter touch again. Does't come close to DS, though, IMHO.
-
You mentioned Passions, IluvBarnabus---I used to watch it. In the beginning it was pretty good-different than DS, but fun. I quit watching a few months back because it got so mysoginistic; women seting other women up to be raped, women cutting on themselves because "their man" didn't love them, physical abuse of women by men, etc. Just got too creepy-sick for me. I think they changed writers though, and I haven't watched recently. Hopefully Tabitha (Juliet Mills) and her toddler-daughter Endora are back making mischief and giving the show a lighter touch again. Does't come close to DS, though, IMHO.
Thanks for the info, rainingwolf. Sounds like it's become no different than any other soaps of today. Think I'll pass on it.