DARK SHADOWS FORUMS
General Discussions => Current Talk Archive => Current Talk '24 I => Polls Archive => Topic started by: retzev on January 04, 2006, 11:48:50 PM
-
I'm slowly working my way through the '91 series, and I'm trying to judge it on it's own merits, but it's hard for me to keep from comparing it to the original...etc. etc.
So anyway, I got the idea for this poll -
-
I was a fan of the original first and I like the revival series too.
-
I lalso liked the revival series....especially certain actors & actress' were very good, Jonna Going, Lysette Anthony, Jim Fyfe and Adrian Paul. it's been 14 years since i saw those episodes, didn't Roger & Maggie have something going? the model they used for Collinwood was really lame thou. they should have just used the long shots of the original collinwood.
-
I may just have not been in a DS mood then. Or, the fact that the familiar old story was being REPEATED when i already knew it may have been a factor. Lukewarm on the revival.
-
I voted "lukewarm" on the Revival series. I watched it for the first time when I bought it on dvd. The beginning was much too HoDS for me. I found myself rolling my eyes a few times at the dialogue, etc...because of how close it was to House. It isn't until 1790 that I think the show picks up a bit.
My favorite was Joanna Going as Victoria (& Josette). I've always liked Alexandra Moltke and feel she got the short end of the stick over the course of the original series, but Going was near absolute perfection in my eyes. She brought a maturity and intelligence to the role and I adored her. The revival is worth owning for her, IMHO. While I was watching, I found myself daydreaming about what it would've been like to see her act with some of the original series cast, like Frid, Karlen, Bennett, etc... Quick! Somebody build a stairway through time!
My feelings on the rest of the cast is mixed. I liked Jean Simmons as Elizabeth. I found Barbara Steele to be fine as Julia. She gave a more subtle, cold performance, but I thought it worked. I didn't mind Ely Pouget as Maggie because they gave her something different to do. Lysette Anthony as Angelique was more primal and simplistic, but that wasn't a bad thing. Roy Thinnes and Barbara Blackburn didn't make much of an impression. I couldn't warm up to Jim Fyfe as Willie. I found the character to be too silly, too comic relief. It wasn't just the actor though, but the writing as well. I admit I laughed a few times, but I didn't like the take on the character.
Ben Cross.... He's not a bad actor. I think he improved as the episodes went on and he was good with Joanna Going. A few scenes between them, as Barnabas & Victoria/Josette, I enjoyed. Overall though, he just doesn't do it for me. There was a kind of stiff distance with his portrayal and I found it hard to get involved emotionally with him. His Barnabas would never appeal to me the way Frid's Barnabas does.
My favorite moment in the revival is [spoiler]Victoria and Josette realizing that they are the same person.[/spoiler]
I chose "lukewarm" because besides Going, the Victoria/Josette angle & some of 1790, nothing else really left all that big of an impression.
-
I voted that I disliked the 1991 ds.
I remember watching the first couple of episodes
and just hating character changes.
-
I despise the Revival series. I can't believe how stupid it is. I am on episode two and there's a scene where [spoiler]Barnabas goes to comfort Elizabeth at Collinwood and there's this big mirror in front of them clearly showing everyone that Barnabas has no reflection. The only one that sees it is Julia. Elizabeth could have seen it, she was facing the mirror.[/spoiler] I can't believe Dan actually thought this series was a good idea. To me, this series makes the original look like a joke. And the actors are so stiffed. Why couldn't they show emotion on the show? I can't believe I spent more than two weeks downloading that trash. I'm glad I didn't buy the set because I would have regretted it for the rest of my life. I doubt I'll watch the remaining episodes. It's too painful watching especially since that show is nothing more than a repeat of House of Dark Shadows and the original show.
-
I'm not generally a fan of "revival" anything except Creedence Clearwater. I've no inclination to see any of the DS "revival" shows.
-
Welcome, OldSeaRock!
-
I was a fan of the original first and haven't seen the revival series. And don't care if I ever do.
Janet
-
I loved the revival series. I thought that they did a great job of casting. The original series actor's were very good but some of the new cast brought their characters to the next level IMO. Ben Cross performance as Barnabas I felt was a little more powerful and his character a bit more emotional than that of Frid's. Don't get me wrong, I'm a die hard fan of the original series almost from day one. No one could ever replace the original cast members. They did an exceptional job with the budget they had. The revival series is definitely worth seeing, after all it is a Dan Curtis Production. Elmont...
-
The original show is without a doubt the best, but there were some things I enjoyed about the revival. It is only possible in your imagination to give the original a big budget, but I have a great imagination. Jonathan Frid's portrayal of Barnabas was great! If he had, had the luxury of retakes his Barnabas would have been perfect. When the performance is good he is excellent.
The revival had some big problems; the biggest was that the only characters that were developed were Barnabas, Vicki, Daphne, and Willie. The other problems were the Barnabas waiting for his victim to meet him scenes. They were so bad. He looked like he was a hissing cat. I also didn't like the Angelique floating there scenes, maybe once but after that they were boring. Joanna Going was wonderful as Vicki.
I was also displeased with the HODS redo that was used on this show. Yuck! But without giving away to much of the plot for those who haven't seen the revival I can't say much more.
I really think that the revival had possibilities, and I wish it had been renewed. I watched every episode of it.
Misa
-
I watched a single 1991 revival show and was instantly bored but, from reading theses posts, I'm sure it was fine.
When I saw the original DS I was immediately drawn in. Couldn't tell you why, really.
-
I still haven't made it through the entire '91 series, so maybe I still haven't given it a fair shake, but I'm just not digging it - Cross's Barnabas was bland (except for that ridiculous pompadour), Fyfe's Willie was a cartoonish buffoon, whats-her-name was so-so as Victoria - the only credible reinterpretation is Barbara Steele's Julia (and DAMN was she still a FOX!).
The slick production values make the plot seem corny in contrast. It doesn't have that shoestring-budget quirkiness which made the original work.
-
I put lukewarm towards the revival series...
parts of it where good, Joanna Going was good as Vicki...Willie was good. and so was the guy who played roger.
some things were terrible...Ben Cross' stiffness as Barnabas, Barbra Steele's slightly upity/superior Julia. I wasn't a fan of the Victoria/Josette reincarnation, i stll thought it should have been done by the Maggie or the actress who had played the late Daphne Collins.
Also i thought they made David a little too freaky.
but it was still a decent show and i would have liked to see it continue
-
The slick production values make the plot seem corny in contrast. It doesn't have that shoestring-budget quirkiness which made the original work.
I have to disagree. I found the plot [and characters] incredibly fascinating and they're what drew me to DS. The original worked for me because of the plot [and characters], not the shoe string budget.
Misa - I hated the way Angelique appeared/floated as well. I honestly thought that was horrible. The way it looked....it just didn't work for me at all.
-
The slick production values make the plot seem corny in contrast. It doesn't have that shoestring-budget quirkiness which made the original work.
I have to disagree....The original worked for me because of the plot [and characters], not the shoe string budget.
Notice I said "shoestring-budget quirkiness."
I've never been drawn into a cheap production simply because it was cheap, but certain productions do benefit from a lack of big dollars. In the case of the original DS, the the inability to shoot retakes, the relatively cheap sets, primitive special effects, etc. helped to create a certain kind of immediacy and heightened sense of surreality(is that a word? ::)).
Of course it all would have added up to nothing without the great plots, the fascinating characters and actors... :)
-
Cross's Barnabas was bland (except for that ridiculous pompadour)
I agree. He didn't do a thing for me as Barnabas and I've seen Cross on other projects and liked him well enough. I honestly believe Frid gave everything he had into Barnabas (initially anyway). I didn't respond to Frid as much on the big screen for the DS movies but, for some reason, he just glowed with those original 60's video-like cameras and within those close moody spaces. His smoky hurt eyes dominated the environment.
-
The revival did a lot of things right, which made its shortcomings appear all the more glaring. Ben Cross was at his best when not in vampire makeup. I always looked forward to the times Frid's fangs came out because he was impressive as a vampire. Cross came off silly.
I didn't have any problem with the House of Dark Shadows scenario opening the series; it set things in motion well enough and then the story took off on its own momentum, striking a balance between events from the original series and new imaginings. The 1790 scenes were often among the high points in the show, especially Vicki's trial. It had an intense quality that rivaled the contemporary courtroom dramas of the time.
Anyone who's read a post of mine before knows that I'm a big fan of Joanna Going; she was everything Vicki was supposed to be. I didn't mind her being Josette's reincarnation; given the characterizations of the revival, she was far more appropriate than Maggie. And I distinctly did not care for Ely Pouget's portrayal of Maggie. The whole psychic thing rang false, as did her relationship with Roger.
Joseph Gordon Levitt as David frequently made me want to find a set of goalposts, set him on a tee, and kick his young ass up for a field goal, if not something worse. (http://users.pandora.be/eforum/emoticons4u/crazy/1471.gif)
The show should have been given its chance to continue; it was near the end of its run that it was actually hitting its stride, and I think it would have proven a winner in the long haul.
-
And I distinctly did not care for Ely Pouget's portrayal of Maggie. The whole psychic thing rang false, as did her relationship with Roger.
The relationship with Roger was really disturbing to me too, maybe we didn't have enough backstory yet between them, but seeing it again after become such a huge fan of the original series I found it highly disturbing. I'd like to have seen where they went though, Mrs. Collins came back, that would have been an interesting storyline I think.
They did such an incredible job with the ghosts too. (Except maybe that banshee-version of Angelique. Hokey!) It would have been great to see what they would have done with any other ghosts that might have been conjured up later. ;)
-
I love the original, hate the NBC revival and loved the WB pilot. Figure THAT one out kids. ;)
-
While I was watching, I found myself daydreaming about what it would've been like to see her act with some of the original series cast, like Frid, Karlen, Bennett, etc... Quick! Somebody build a stairway through time!
General guffaw on that one. ;)
-
Frid's portrayal of Barnabas was great! If he had, had the luxury of retakes his Barnabas would have been perfect. When the performance is good he is excellent.
You know, for all my kidding about how often Jon looked at the teleprompter, when he was on, he was ON! Case in point, well, two, 1) The scene where Barnabas is telling Vickie and Carolyn about the night Josette threw herself off Widow's Hill. Ol' Jonny-boy must have painstakingly studied that soliloquoy because it was SPOT ON! No flubs, no hesitations that weren't supposed to be there (for dramatic effect) and NO searching for the teleprompter! Second case, the tower room scene early in the 1897 plotline, I think it's even the very first time he encounters Angelique in that time period (it's been a while since I've seen it but am on 1897 now w/my DVD's). Both Lara and Jonathan had great dialogue and they were both perfect in their deliverances of it. ;)
-
His smoky hurt eyes dominated the environment.
I've said from the beginning, that man's EYES are the key! ;) My favorite, sad, puppy-eyed look was when Joshua tells him Jeremiah and Josette are married! He is DEVASTATED and you see it in his eyes even before he opens his mouth. I cry every time I see that scene.
-
Jonathan Frid is a great actor! The people who say they don't understand how anyone found him sexy can't have watched much of the show. Ben Cross, from some of the articles I've read, didn't seem to want to play Barnabas this could be one of the reasons some people didn't like him as Barnabas and why his portrayal wasn't that good.
The writer's missed lots of the things that made the original great, but the show was getting better. I also wonder would people have been okay with Roger and the actress who played Maggie having an affair if she wasn't playing Maggie but a different, new character instead. I don't know the ages of the actresses who played Carolyn and Maggie at the time, but they didn't appear to be very close in age. Maggie looked about ten years older than Carolyn, so their being friends didn't seem likely, and they never showed them being friends on the show either, they just mentioned that Sam thought she was going to visit Carolyn when Roger picked her up. They let you know that Sam didn't like Roger, but then they didn't tell you why.
Carolyn was such a tramp, and her pursuing Joe after her cousin's death made her really icky.
Elizabeth was written as a nonentity. She never did anything. The costume party was just inappropriate with the death of Daphne Collins just a short time before it. If the writers wanted the party in the show they should have had it before they killed Daphne. I also didn't like that they killed her in the first place. She was the only person that they had developed on the show other than Barnabas and Vicki, and I didn't like that whole House of Dark Shadows scene at all anyway.
The show also failed in not developing the other actor's characters. The show could just as well been called Barnabas Collins, vampire.
I thought that David was creepy, but at the same time he seemed so vulnerable and sad.
Does anyone else think that if Sony released this show with a better DVD, and put extras and commentary, and advertised it well that it might help get a new version on television, and perhaps get the original back on TV too?
Misa
-
i wasn't going to reply to this topic since i haven't seen the revival series but when i read 'videoscope's' review of it i was reminded of why i've always had some resistance to it.
the original was "cheesy",johnathan wasn't "sexy" enough,grayson was "frumpy and over the top",alexandra was a "dummy".one hears similar comments alot when the revival is under discussion.
i just don't think that slagging the original does the revival any favors.any interest i might have ever had in the revival series was long ago squelched.
p.s. i'm home from work today sick as a dog so maybe i'm just crabby. [sick2]
-
i wasn't going to reply to this topic since i haven't seen the revival series but when i read 'videoscope's' review of it I was reminded of why I've always had some resistance to it.
"the original was "cheesy", Jonathan wasn't "sexy" enough, Grayson was "frumpy and over the top", Alexandra was "a dummy". One hears similar comments a lot when the revival is under discussion.
I just don't think that slagging the original does the revival any favors. Any interest I might have ever had in the revival series was long ago squelched.
p.s. I'm home from work today sick as a dog so maybe I'm just crabby. [sick2]
I agree. I hate when people say things like this, but I think they must not have watched the original show, and are simply repeating what some twit wrote about the original (not doing their homework).
I mean come on; Jonathan was scary, sexy, ominous, and sad. Most people felt sorry for his Barnabas. I really never felt sorry for Barnabas the way Ben Cross played him. As to Grayson Hall she was superb! Sometimes, yes, she was a bit over-the-top, but so what. Barbara Steele didn't quite make it as Dr. Hoffman, but then she was sort of playing the Dr. Hoffman from the movie, who I also didn't like that much. There was never any chemistry between Steele's Julia and Cross' Barnabas either.
Alexandra was great as Vicki, but unfortunately the way the writers wrote Vicki she was getting to be dumber all the time, but then they wrote the other characters rather stupid sometimes too. It seems to me that everybody at Collinwood took stupid pills while Vicki was in the past. Wait, maybe they all took them right before the seance. This would explain why Vicki was pretty stupid in 1795.
I still love the original show, but I especially love it when the writing is good. Sometimes everything was just perfect.
As to being cheesy, I think the Revival was pretty cheesy. Cross' Barnabas with his bad contacts snarling up at the window of his victim was dumb, and over done. Angelique's ghost crying like a Banshee and floating around wasn't scary, it was laughable, but this version of Dark Shadows still had possibilities, and I wish it had been renewed.
-
mscbryk, I hope you feel better soon! I don't think David Nahmod's intent in his review (on the current Calendar/Events board) was to ridicule the original series for the sake of comparison to the revival, though I do think those are annoying labels for our show when taken out of context. Anyway, he's a nice guy and I'm sure would be happy to explain his comments, though he's probably more likely to see replies to his article. It's just a suggestion. :)
I hate when people say things like this, but I think they must not have watched the original show, and are simply repeating what some twit wrote about the original (not doing their homework).
The author is actually a long-time, loyal fan.
-
"the original was "cheesy", Jonathan wasn't "sexy" enough, Grayson was "frumpy and over the top", Alexandra was "a dummy". One hears similar comments a lot when the revival is under discussion.
My own take on many TV dramas is that the productions values are more important than the acting, the writing and ultimately the audience. I love to watch gorgeous cinemotography (I know I misspelled that but I'm sneezing too much to look the word up) as much as anyone but it gets old real fast. Frankly, I did not like the revival and could not stay with it. It did not draw me in. The dynamics were totally different but even so, if the dynamics worked in my mind, I had no problem seeing other actors playing characters long familiar to me. In the revival, Steele's Julia was far creepier than Barnabas and the whole glowing eye thing TPTB gave Barnabas was a major turn-off. As long as I live I will never forget sitting in a hotel room in Boston with Jonathan Frid (just did a few one man shows across the street of the hotel) watching the "pilot" and we sat there in silence for the first half. By then Barnabas had killed about a dozen people and had these glowing eyeballs which make me laugh (it works on Christopher Lee but no one else for some reason). JF turned to me and said, "Think they wanna make sure we all know Barnabas is dangerous?" He shared this experience at some Q&As he did during one man show performance the time when the revival was getting off the ground.
The production values were gorgeous but as a writer, I see a critical dynamic from early show being overlooked: the relationship between Barnabas, Julia and Willie. Willie was basically an idiot in the revival, Julia was spookier than Barnabas and the emotional core was lacking, and Cross' Barnabas gave me the impression he was an over-aged frat brat who found the vampire Halloween costume in the basement of the fraternity house. The three shared a very special relationship - a secret but no relationship between the three was ever really developed.
But I prefer the original DS and the sloppy production values. The hectic, by the seat of your pants rehearsals and then shooting the show made the actors focus on the emotional value of each scene as there was little time to think about anything else. The introduction of Barnabas would not have taken off the way it did without that core relationship of Barnabas, Julia and Willie. The original lacked that.
Dan Curtis never understood why DS became what it did to its audience. That's one reason HODS was so awful.
For those who did not grow up when the original was on, they do not understand how widely popular DS was. It was something like what General Hospital and Luke and Lara were to pop culture during the early 1980s. Millions of people watched it and thought Barnabas and Julia were just fine the way they were.
Nancy
-
But I prefer the original DS and the sloppy production values. The hectic, by the seat of your pants rehearsals and then shooting the show made the actors focus on the emotional value of each scene as there was little time to think about anything else.
Me too.
-
I hate when people say things like this, but I think they must not have watched the original show, and are simply repeating what some twit wrote about the original (not doing their homework).
The author is actually a long-time, loyal fan.
The author who bashed Jonathan Frid, Grayson Hall, and Alexandra's performances on the original is actually a fan of the show? Could have fooled me. I have been a fan of the original for about five years now and never once thought they were bad during their performances. The problem I have with the Revival series is still the stiffed acting. None of them are as great as the original actors. They come in, give their lines and walk out. At least in the original we saw them smiling or getting angry. We saw emotion, something you'll never get from the Revival series. If I would have seen the Revival series before the original, I don't think I would have gotten into the original series like I am now. I think I would have judged it like I do the Revival series and think it was a show with bad acting and writing. I really hope Dan leaves DS alone. Now a days, actors and actresses are awful. I see newcomers on Passions and All My Children and they aren't as great as the ones DS picked that were new to showbiz at the time. Shows right now go for the looks instead of the talent. I'm glad DS wasn't like that.
-
I bailed after an episode or so. I think that "these days" (90s thru now) the result of Hollywood money tends to be ponderous, self-conscious, expensive scenes without freshness spontaneity or life to them. Maybe once they have the money they start fixating on the money too much, and on the expensive aspects. the result is cookie-cutter "serious" moody "gothic" productions... look at the American Dr Who movie on Fox in 1996. A lot of "gothic" blue-and-gold visuals, mist, dry leaves.... it looked pretty similar considering it was an SF show about an alien in a time machine.
I remember the characters being, acting, and looking "harsh" and removed. I hardly expect warmth and niceness from all DS characters, but icy detachment doesn't draw you in.
I hated the fact that they were taking us through the old story from 1967 all over again. I saw it already.
-
I mean come on; Jonathan was scary, sexy, ominous, and sad. Most people felt sorry for his Barnabas. I really never felt sorry for Barnabas the way Ben Cross played him. As to Grayson Hall she was superb! Sometimes, yes, she was a bit over-the-top, but so what. Barbara Steele didn't quite make it as Dr. Hoffman, but then she was sort of playing the Dr. Hoffman from the movie, who I also didn't like that much. There was never any chemistry between Steele's Julia and Cross' Barnabas either.
I agree, Jonathan's B was WAY better than Cross'. His was just ridiculous. I feel that Grayson deliberatley overacted, but it worked! ;) And she and Jon had some of the best 'buddy' chemistry going, unlike Cross and Steele who had zilch! :P
-
The author who bashed Jonathan Frid, Grayson Hall, and Alexandra's performances on the original is actually a fan of the show? Could have fooled me. I have been a fan of the original for about five years now and never once thought they were bad during their performances.
Apparently I had a completely different interpretation of the comments in the DVD review. (It's on the board mentioned above.) I can't see that the author mentioned anything that hasn't been said many times here before, even in this topic-- Grayson Hall's Hoffman often dressed dowdily, directors demanded over-the-top performances, Victoria's character was dumbed down, Frid's vampire portrayal was scrutinized by the censors at the time, and the production values (not intellectual value) of the original series were sometimes cheesy. But as I said before, I think that when you take words like "dummy," "cheesy," "over the top" and "[not] sexier" out of context they can initiate a knee jerk response in any fan, which is why I suggested a difficulty in not only extracting words out of context but also discussing comments that reside in a different section of the boards.
As for defending the writer's loyalty as a fan, that's best left to him. ;)
-
Apparently I had a completely different interpretation of the comments in the DVD review. (It's on the board mentioned above.) I can't see that the author mentioned anything that hasn't been said many times here before, even in this topic-- Grayson Hall's Hoffman often dressed dowdily, directors demanded over-the-top performances,
I never though GH outfits were particularly awful. I've been told by stage dressers of that era that professional women frequently dressed "down" and not sexy so as to be taken more seriously. Even as a straight woman, I can see where some men found find GH attractive and sexy, especially in Julia's more compassionate and vunerable moments. She had a striking, almost handsome face and unfortunately if you have strong facial features and voice, it doesn't take much for you to sound over-the-top in a role. You are already powerful to begin with just to look at or for the camera to look at. I think calling her a drag queen is just plain mean but that's me.
As for anyone criticizing the appeal of the lead actors or Jonathan Frid, well, the argument falls flat if for no other reason here were are forty years after the fact talking about the show which has been in syndication since 1975. The better looking men or traditional dream boats starred on daytime soaps but people still talk about Frid. It couldn't just be the fangs; that was a novelty not able to sustain forty years of discussion. There was much more to it, the original series and the actors involved. Otherwise, the show would not have sustained syndication (which the tv studios paid through the nose for) for decades.
That's really proof enough of the show's validity. No amount of negative reviews or opinions can change what the show has accomplished and the genre it opened up for TV audiences. I guess my overall response to any such article is "who cares?"
Nancy
-
I wrote the DS Revival review in Videoscope Mag.
I contribute regularly to Videoscope & Scary Monsters Mags, plus three other publications.
I write about DS as often as I can, because I love it in ALL it's incarnations.
I also write truthfully, as I take my work quite seriously.
I'm 50 years old. 2006 marks 39 years since I first watched DS. I've watched the original series 4 times over.
I know of what I speak.
And I never bashed the original cast.
My first episode, in 1967, was Grayson running through the house screaming: "was it you Dave, was it??? WAS IT???"
Wonderfully camp, over the top episode.
Typical Grayson.
I LOVE Grayson.
She was a campy drag queen type, and this has been acknowledged by many.
She was not known for her onscreen sex appeal, which is EXACTLY what Barbara Steele was known for.
And that's the truth.
Frid?
Great classical actor.
He's in the mold of Gielgud/Olivier.
He played Barnabas as dark, brooding, sad & scary, and did so brilliantly.
I'm watching the B & W eps on DVD right now, and I still find his early appearences to be quite creepy.
But NOT sexy.
Because Frid did not play the role for sex appeal.
Ben Cross played the role with unabashed erotic fervor.
Frid, though handsome, was not that kind of actor, and could not have pulled that off.
But then, I don't think Cross could do Shakesperian monologues as well as Frid could.
Two different actors, each with their own unique abilities.
So where's the bashing?
Gimme a break!!!
Alexandra Moltke:
bet you younger fans don't know that she, too, was a stage trained actress.
According to John Willis' Theatre World, she worked on the New York stage until 1978.
I believe she studied at the American Academy of Dramatic Arts.
She herself complained about how poorly Victoria was written.
When asked to return to Dark Shadows in 1970, she declined.
BY HER OWN ADMISSION, she did not want to play a character that did nothing more that cry for help day after day.
Victoria needed spunk, which the 1960s writers refused to give her, an error corrected in the 1990s.
I think Maggie, as the Governess, was a much better character as written.
She had no qualms about running into the deserted Collinwood to face off with Quentin's ghost.
Carolyn was also a strong character, who gave Jason quite a run for his money.
But Victoria, as written, was a jellyfish, to Moltke's personal dismay.
So where's the bashing?
Now, folks, if you want to see the Dark Shadows franchise survive & expand, I suggest you stop acting like the 1960s version is the only version worth watching.
Watch & support all incarnations of the show, including book & CD versions, or eventually, you can kiss DS goodbye.
It's the SUPPORT of fans that caused Star Trek to become such a huge phenomenom.
"Trekkies" support ALL incarnations of Trek, not just the 60s original, and that's why they've had 10 feature films, five series and more than 100 books.
If we follow their example, we can have the same.
Peace and Love to All.
David N
-
this topic always seems to get sticky so i'll take myself out of it except to add this...because you know the d.s. costuming is a subject that i can never shut up about. ::)
i really never saw grayson hall as dowdy.back when the show was filmed people dressed differently from the way they do today in two profound ways.
a.)in general people dressed more formally.
b.)they dressed in an 'age-appropriate' way.
so we didn't have people who run around in sweatpants.and middle-aged women(like ms.hall)didn't try to show up their teenage daughters with fake tans,breast enhancements and "juicy couture" track suits.
what was she supposed to wear?i always think that julia's cloths(with a few exceptions)look expensive and chic.
well-tailored suits,coats and dresses(which by the end of the show's run get quite short)finished with a proper handbag and gloves.what's not to love? :P
-
I started with the original DS series late in the show. I was in high school and heard about this soap opera from a friend. She insisted I would love it and all I could think about is "It's a soap opera. Blah :P" But she insisted I see it and I did. Well, let history speak for itself. After it went off the air, I thought I'd never see Dark Shadows and my favorite characters again. Never knew it went into syndication in the mid 70's or had festivals every year; never knew it was on the Sci-fi Channel until 2002!! I was channel surfing and BOOM!! There were familiar characters. I couldn't believe it and thought it was just one episode so I ignored it. I was wrong, found out a few months later they were running the entire series so I tuned in and have been hooked again.
When I heard about the 1991 DS revival, I personally boycotted it because IMO Barnabas could only be played by Jonathan Frid. He WAS "Barnabas". I was very narrowminded back then about DS so I didn't watch any of the revival. After I found the original on the Sci-Fi channel, and newsgroups online where people were ... believe it or not... talking about it, I decided it was time to take a look at the revival. I've seen the first seven episodes and I feel lukewarm about it. It has it's good points I guess. Some of the actors are very good but I continue to compare it with the original. I know that's not fair but I have a hard time ignoring the series' storylines and the revival just rehashing the old story of Barnabas' arrive and Vicki's trip to the past. IMO the original series did a superb job on the "evil" Barnabas and the trip to the past, 1795 storyline. They can't improve among it!!!
Now a few comments about JF's portrayal of Barnabas. He didn't play this character as sexy but making a vampire seem vulnerable and "sorry" for his actions, makes him sexy to many people. Having good looks isn't the only quality that makes a man sexy. ::)
Oh and one P.S., as far as campy and some actors overacting, i.e. Grayson Hall. Well, I have two words for why she and others "overacted". SOAP OPERA... it was suppose to be that way. Exaggeration, overempathize ... just look at John Karlen. The director asked him to "ham"it up! I'm guessing they asked GH also. If not, they didn't stop her so it must have been what they were looking for.
-
Now, folks, if you want to see the Dark Shadows franchise survive & expand, I suggest you stop acting like the 1960s version is the only version worth watching.
Watch & support all incarnations of the show, including book & CD versions, or eventually, you can kiss DS goodbye.
In my thinking, by saying that there can only be one interpretation of Dark Shadows is analogous to stating that we can no longer have new productions of Shakespere plays. After all, there was only one true Lord Chamberlain's Men that provided the correct interpretation of all Shakespere plays. New editions, new thoughts, new actors could and would have no meaning whatsoever and should be forever banned. Of course, in reality, this is not the case. Thus, it should be the same case with Dark Shadows. Each actor, production or new situation giving their unique perspective to the vehicle.
-
I address that "camp" argument on another thread. I doubt Julia would have been written and acted as "camp" while the rest was done seriously, which it was. They had GH go through a period of exaggerated fear, weakening the character and making her look silly, probably out of sexism. The backhanded compliment of calling DS or bits of DS "camp" counts as "bashing" to me.
-
what was she supposed to wear?i always think that julia's cloths(with a few exceptions)look expensive and chic. Well-tailored suits,coats and dresses(which by the end of the show's run get quite short)finished with a proper handbag and gloves.what's not to love? :P
I agree whole-heartedly! I saw nothing wrong w/the clothes Grayson wore as Julia, or any other character she played. I especially loved the suit she wore in 1968 that was, I think, blue crushed velvet w/the large ascotty like thing, she sorta looked like a female Austin Powers in that suit, and all the outfits she wore in 1897. ;) And the hand-bag and gloves? THOSE were her 'trademark'! ;)
-
Thus, it should be the same case with Dark Shadows. Each actor, production or new situation giving their unique perspective to the vehicle.
I will admit, although I did *not* like the '91 revival--mostly because it rehashed the original and HODS--the second time I watched it, I pretended that the original and HODS did not exist, and as such, because I wasn't comparing it to the original, I liked it better. On it's own, w/nothing to compare it too, it wasn't that bad. But, since it did rip off the original and HODS, scene by scene, line by line, it's not something I'll buy on DVD. But I'll keep my original tapes from when it was aired.
-
The author who bashed Jonathan Frid, Grayson Hall, and Alexandra's performances on the original is actually a fan of the show? Could have fooled me. I have been a fan of the original for about five years now and never once thought they were bad during their performances. The problem I have with the Revival series is still the stiffed acting. None of them are as great as the original actors. They come in, give their lines and walk out. At least in the original we saw them smiling or getting angry. We saw emotion, something you'll never get from the Revival series. If I would have seen the Revival series before the original, I don't think I would have gotten into the original series like I am now. I think I would have judged it like I do the Revival series and think it was a show with bad acting and writing. I really hope Dan leaves DS alone. Now a days, actors and actresses are awful. I see newcomers on Passions and All My Children and they aren't as great as the ones DS picked that were new to showbiz at the time. Shows right now go for the looks instead of the talent. I'm glad DS wasn't like that.
This is a great post that i somehow managed to ignore the first time around. Now those Goths worshipping Satan don't seem so dumb after all!
-
Ben Cross performance as Barnabas I felt was a little more powerful and his character a bit more emotional than that of Frid's.
I couldn't disagree more. Cross did okay as Barnabas but I think it's way too much of a stretch to say he was a better Barnabas than Frid considering Cross portrayed Barnabas for only twelve episodes whereas Frid played the role for four years and had more time and opportunities to make Barnabas a fully complex and fascinating character.
So I am more of a fan of the original and lukewarm towards the revival. Not saying the newer show didn't have its good points (I thought Jean Simmons and Joanna Going in particular were excellent) but all in all I will always have a preference to the original show.
-
Well, I've got some new thoughts on the revival series. The first time I tried to watch it was when the DVD set came out. I think I made it to the seance episode when Vicki disappears into 1790, but I was so displeased by so much of it, and so bored with the whole thing that I didn't make it any further. It's too bad, because after giving it another go and making it all the way through this time, I've realized that a couple of episodes into 1790 is when the revival really kicks into gear and starts getting pretty good.
So, some thoughts on the cast -
Ben Cross: He was ok as Barnabas, merely competent.
Joanna Going: Ever since I tried to watch this the first time, I've wondered why she was so highly praised. I think that's because I hadn't seen her as Josette yet. She was fine as Vicki, but excellent as Josette. And (SPOILER) Victoria and Josette meeting face to face? Fantastic. One of my favorite moments in the series.
Barbara Steele: I liked her as Julia, she played her pretty straight, and played her well. She was even better as Natalie du Pres (a bit of Magda in there?)
Jim Fyfe: Fyfe's Willie Loomis was one of my biggest issues the first time around. Willie Loomis is a complex, sympathetic character. Fyfe played him as a partially-retarded buffoon. A truly cringe-worthy performance, and probably the worst directorial misstep of the revival. But, he was tolerable as Ben Loomis. Actually, he was pretty good as Ben, I liked that character.
Lysette Anthony: Lysette was a good-looking woman, but Angelique should have been drop-dead gorgeous. But she did a good enough job, there were a couple of scenes where she impressed me.
Roy Thinnes: His Roger was bland, but he was absolutely killer as Trask. Probably the best reinterpretation of the revival series. The eyebrows were a great touch.
Nothing will ever replace the classic series. But watching the revival was pretty fun, I might do it again sometime.
-
aside from the monumental task of just getting from begining to end of the original series i have for various reason been somewhat resistant to the 1991 revival...
i'm afraid that one of them,and this is going to sound really stupid and superficial,is that part of what first attracted me to the show was the awsome 1960's fashions and hairstyles.i love them.
but i just don't like fashions from the early 1990's.bush 1,recession-era styles that i find somewhat depressing.even when i see stills from the 91' show the clothes look dumpy.
give me a mini and a fall over a perm and a drop waist any day. :P
-
I watched the first episode of the revival back when it aired. Was it a two-hour deal? Anyway, there was too much blood. I was surprised; a show involving a vampire should have a lot of blood, and it wasn't until I watched the revival that I realized how little blood there was in the original. I don't like blood. The only time I tried to give blood, I fainted dead away when they told me they were going to stab my ear to find out my blood type. So after the first episode of the revival, I didn't watch any more.
-
I loved the original, hated the revival. The biggest mistake that was made was the rehashing of the original Barnabas storyline with the additions of blood and violence. I agree with others that have stated that the revival was more akin to HoDS than the original series. I remember reading what Matt Hall wrote in The Dark Shadows Companion that Dan Curtis continually ran HoDS in his office which was next door to Matt's.
-
Love the original (though I wouldn't call it my favorite show ever, if I'm willing to watch 1,225 episodes of a show, it's fairly likely that I love it), lukewarm towards the revival.
-
I LOVE the revival and I don't really know what the problem with blood is. Last time I checked this WAS a vampire/fantasy/horror show? I will always hold a special place in my heart for it as it introduced me to The World of Dark Shadows!! And personally, I thought it improved on some things though I am SURE most of the board will not agree with me. That being said. I LOVE the original almost equally. When I started watching the original I looked upon it as never having watched any Dark Shadows!! I pretended that the 1991 version didn't exist and took to it immediately.
I can understand original viewers though. The 1991 version will always be just A BIT more special to me than the original because it was my first SHADOWS experience!!
RE BLOOD. I can handle horror blood but cannot handle Grey's Anatomy/ER type blood, so maybe I can identify. I don't believe in vampires so the blood doesn't bother me because I don't believe it can really happen. ER/Greys blood makes me ill because I know the stuff on those shows can really happen. It must be a psychological thing.
-
I have my gripes with the revival, but the blood didn't bother me, either.
-
I loved the Original (as I have nearly completed the entire series from beginning to end with countless reruns of the 1795 storyline since January). I totally disliked the revival. Maybe its because I was expecting my first child when it aired and I was still in the " morning sickness mode" at night. All the fanging and blood was so out of character from the original ( and maybe it had to be that way) that I just couldn't sit there long enough to stay interested. Now that 17 years have passed, maybe I'll try to give the revival a try but I'm not sure. I still love watching that Gothic Soap Opera that is over 40 years old. I love Julia, Barn amd Mags and the revival doesn't hold that mystique for me.
-
I have watched both versions many times. To each his own. I tell you one thing though I like better is the Revival Maggie and really could care less about the Maggie on the original. I liked her the first year but then they ruined her character. She said something so snotty the other day on The Collectors Series and I nearly fell in the floor. She basically told someone to go to hell without saying the words. I couldn't beleive this was the same Maggie.
It may have been out of character from the original, but why would one want it to be like the original? That is what I cannot for the life of me understand!! Yes they rehashed a lot of storylines but they also changed it in a lot of ways making it fresh and new.
-
Victoria/Josette reincarnation, i stll thought it should have been done by the Maggie or the actress who had played the late Daphne Collins
I respectfully disagree. I think this was one of the best improvements made to the show. It gave Victoria the past she longed for and the connection she so desired. And Joanna Going was amazing as both Victoria and Josette!
PS. Sorry MB and Midnite for the double post!
-
Roy Thinnes: His Roger was bland, but he was absolutely killer as Trask. Probably the best reinterpretation of the revival series. The eyebrows were a great touch.
Roy Thinnes was Trask? Great! I was pulling for him, having known him from The Invaders. That I have to see.
-
I'm a fan of both series and there are things about the revival that are a big improvement over the original. Namely Victoria was made into a stronger character and only said that stupid "I don't understand" phrase once and it was legit that she said it when she did! Having Victoria the reincarnation of Josette was also a smart move. I'm a fan of Joanna Going, Ben Cross, Lysette Anthony, and Veronica Lauren's interpretations of their characters.
Roy Thinnes as Trask was ok but I do prefer Jerry Lacey. I also didn't care for the Roger/Maggie relationship. I found that a bit creepy. And they could have rehashed HODS a little less but other than that, they did a remarkable job and I wish it would have had more than one season. Oh and the fact that in the revival series, the present wasn't just completely forgotten while Victoria was stuck in 1790...good job with that.
I've never seen the failed pilot but I don't really care to. A short blond-haired Victoria Winters? How dare they! Joanna Going will always be Victoria/Josette for me and I started out watching the original first. :) I also like the fact they made Maggie different (other than the stupid Roger relationship). She needed to be her own person and in the original after AM left, they just changed her character to a Victoria clone. Since when is a waitress qualified to be a governess? Stupid.
~Rachel
-
I LOVE the original and I'm lukewarm to the Revival. I don't dislike it, but I'm not a big fan either. However, I will say that in a couple of points they did improve on the story a tad....
[spoiler]... Victoria as Josette's reincarnation, namely because I always preferred Vicki to Maggie anyway.
Also, when they went back in time to get Barnabas' full story I thought they went into more detail about his relationship with Josette, which could have been done with the original, but I guess they were too busy with other things... To me their relationship in 1795 (in the original) didn't live up to what I'd hoped for after seeing Barnabas pining for her all this time. And not just because they changed the story about five times before going back in time. I prefer the story the way it was told in 1795, I just wish they'd given more detail.[/spoiler]
Other than that, the Revival just didn't impress me. As far as the vampire element, it was a bit too modern for my personal taste. But I could be alone there.
-
I've never seen the failed pilot but I don't really care to. A short blond-haired Victoria Winters? How dare they! Joanna Going will always be Victoria/Josette for me and I started out watching the original first. :) I also like the fact they made Maggie different (other than the stupid Roger relationship). She needed to be her own person and in the original after AM left, they just changed her character to a Victoria clone. Since when is a waitress qualified to be a governess? Stupid.
While I disagree about having a short blond haired Victoria I do agree with you on Joanna Going. She IS Victoria Winters to me and will always be. I think the casting of Joanna was "MAGIC" pure and simple. I am not gonna judge the pilot because I haven't watched it. I am open person when it comes to DS. I would probably love the pilot as well on it's own merit. I do like Alexandra as Victoria in all of the early eps but they assassinated her character and ruined her. While I will also accept a new Victoria (if there is one) in the Depp film I think my love for Joanna Going will never be matched. She was PERFECT!
-
As far as my opinions on the cast go, I liked Joanna Going, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Roy Thinnes as Trask, both of the Barbaras (Blackburn and Steele), and Jim Fyfe. Michael T. Weiss was okay. I'm lukewarm on Thinnes as Roger, as well as Jean Simmons, who I thought was a bit old for the part. I did not like Ely Pouget's version of Maggie, I found Lysette Anthony to be a very mediocre Angelique, and don't even get me started on Ben Cross.
As for the 2004 pilot, I can't really say, having never seen it. I can't really picture Alec Newman as Barnabas, and I fully agree that it was a mistake for a "traditional" DS retelling to toss out the hair colors, as silly as it may sound. I always found it interesting how Curtis cast a blonde woman as the villain and a girl with black hair as the heroine. Casting Kelly Hu as Julia was also a mistake in my opinion - if Barnabas had an exotic beauty like her lusting after him, why would he bother with the girls who have no interest in him, and after at least one failed attempt at converting one of them to Josette?
-
I have heard Marley was a great Victoria so I think I could have gotten pass the hair. I actually loved Lysette though and thought she was a VERY different Angie but a wonderful one. I loved MAGGIE and I cannot stress that enough.