DARK SHADOWS FORUMS
General Discussions => Current Talk Archive => Current Talk '24 I => Current Talk '06 II => Topic started by: Ryan Collins on September 08, 2006, 08:58:17 AM
-
Do you think that there is any chance that a new DS primetime show will happen? After the 2004 debacle and Dan's death what do you think the chances are that they will try to bring DS back to television?
-
I know that I'm probably in the minority, but I hope that Dark Shadows is not resurrected again. I admit that I got a little excited with news of the 2004 WB pilot, but I really would like for Dark Shadows to remain the classic that it is. The 1991 remake did not add anything to the legacy of Dark Shadows. I say let a classic remain a classic.
-
I have reason to believe that the reason we have not seen a new DS anything since 1990 has more to do with Dan Curtis' involvement. The proposed DS musical bit the dust after years of back and forth and the scuttlebutt was that DC was being a pain. While he created the series, DC never understood the charm of DS (take a look at HODS) for its fans so his not being involved in a future DS project would bode well for it, not be against it. That's my opinion anyway. I think DS projects have a better chance now of succeeding. I hope I'm right.
Nancy
-
I think you are right, Nancy.
DC turned down an offer from NBC to do a series of DS movies after the 91 series ende because he was so "offended" by the cancellation of the weekly series.
He battled with the WB a lot, I hear.
I understand that he wanted to protect his baby, but he never learned how to compromise.
The difference between the 1960s DS & the 1990s version is like comparing Universal Horror to Hammer Horror.
You can't compare them, yet each works as different entities for different reasons.
A new DS would be grand.
David
-
I know that I'm probably in the minority, but I hope that Dark Shadows is not resurrected again.
I agree w/this IF they do a version like that drek NBC came up w/in 1990!
A new DS would be grand.
But agree w/this if they were to 'fix' the WB pilot and run it w/that cast as I loved this version! ;) I too heard that DC was a pain in the keester about the WB pilot and if true, w/his death we might actually get an updated version of DS, not a retread!
-
As I understand it, the majority of the artistic decisions regarding DS were not made by DC. He certainly had the vision and determination to carry out new ideas and that makes a great executive producer. But he had no role in the development of the Barnabas character, for example. Frid and the writers met on that issue before Frid made his first appearance as the vampire. DC had the drive and force of personality to get his way and that was good in some ways but not so good in other ways. If there is any doubt of his lack of understanding what made Dark Shadows so beloved to fans, HODS is a living example of how far off the mark he was on that score.
Nancy
DC turned down an offer from NBC to do a series of DS movies after the 91 series ende because he was so "offended" by the cancellation of the weekly series.
He battled with the WB a lot, I hear.
I understand that he wanted to protect his baby, but he never learned how to compromise.
-
And yet, many classic horror fans who HATE the TV show LOVE that film!
Go figure!!
David
-
Yes, it seems that way. I've noticed that.
Most of my friends dislike the TV series and the movie too! ^-^
Nancy
And yet, many classic horror fans who HATE the TV show LOVE that film!
Go figure!!
-
I know that I'm probably in the minority, but I hope that Dark Shadows is not resurrected again.
I feel the same way. I love the show because of a certain magic that was created by that specific group of actors, writers, set decorators, etc. all working together in the era of late '60s and early '70s. You can't just recreate that by borrowing the title and a few character names and sticking them into something else. I watched the first few episodes of that revival series and lost interest immediately.
-
sometimes it's a matter of what they saw of it.
I've known people who heard about how magical
the show is, so they checked it out.
If they're first exposure was a pre-Frid episode or Parallel Time, instant turn off!
But then I'd show them stuff from 1795, 1897, the Quentin/Beth haunting, 1995, and they then had a much more favorable view of the show.
David
-
Those are always options, thanks David, but I don't care if one or all of my friends don't share an interest or hobby that I have. Their lack of interest doesn't affect me one way or ther other.
nancy
sometimes it's a matter of what they saw of it.
I've known people who heard about how magical
the show is, so they checked it out.
If they're first exposure was a pre-Frid episode or Parallel Time, instant turn off!
But then I'd show them stuff from 1795, 1897, the Quentin/Beth haunting, 1995, and they then had a much more favorable view of the show.
-
The difference between a new concept and a re-make of a pre-existing work is like the difference between a new born baby and Frankenstein's Monster. Especially when the baby was particularly beautiful and delightful.
DS is a victim of its own success. If the original show had been a short-lived, barely acknowledged series with few fans, it would actually be easier to create a new version with new people and new ideas. But it's been kept alive for 40 years and the first fans are still devoted to the original the way it was. How does a new creative team get around that? How do they choose between what was, and what could be?
Why would anyone try it at all?
-
I think the best option is a new feature film- after all, Johnny Depp has gone on records as saying that he would love to play Barnabas. If Tim Burton directs, that alone would give a new widespread interest in "Dark Shadows" worldwide- a win-win proposition.
-
anyone who's seen Ed Wood and/or Sleepy Hollow knows how divine & sublime a DS by those two would be!
Let's write them letters & suggest it!
David
-
I think the chances of a new Dark Shadows tv project have definitely increased. I don't mean to say bad things about its creator Dan Curtis. I was told by a news writer that the networks simply turned a deaf ear every time Dan pitched a new DS idea to the networks in recent years. DC probably presented story lines similar to the 91 series. Networks also like to go with the hot hand so to speak. So a producer like John Wells could easily pitch a new DS project to the networks (if he wanted to) and the networks will absolutely listen to him especially if they have a development deal in place. I have to admit that I was angry and puzzled when John Wells subsequently turned his back on the 2004 pilot. I am sure there were things his company could have done. But it seems he too lost faith in that project for whatever reason. I think the networks will be more open to the new DS management. I guess all we can do is to keep the dream alive.
-
The difference between a new concept and a re-make of a pre-existing work is like the difference between a new born baby and Frankenstein's Monster. Especially when the baby was is particularly beautiful and delightful.
DS is a victim of its own success. If the original show had been a short-lived, barely acknowledged series with few fans, it would actually be easier to create a new version with new people and new ideas. But it's been kept alive for 40 years and the first fans are still devoted to the original the way it was. How does a new creative team get around that? How do they choose between what was, and what could be?
Why would anyone try it at all?
Well put, Rainey! Although I never watched DS when it originally aired, I prefer it over any newer versions, and that particular set of actors who played and defined how we view their characters, is something that can be captured only once, IMHO.
That's not to say a new DS wouldn't be successful, but it still wouldn't have that charm and ambiance of the original.
As for me, I don't want the characters to be reinvented. I like them the way they are. :)
-
I would enjoy watching a re-imagining if it was done well, so a new tv series would interest me. I didn't care much for the revival as a whole because it was too much like an exact remake of HoDS, but I was highly interested in the WB pilot.
Though I must say that I'd love to see a major motion picture made out of the 1795 storyline starring Depp as Barnabas and with Burton as the director.
-
A producer like John Wells could easily pitch a new DS project to the networks (if he wanted to) and the networks will absolutely listen to him especially if they have a development deal in place. I have to admit that I was angry and puzzled when John Wells subsequently turned his back on the 2004 pilot.
Me too Jimbo! Now, I'll admit, given my loathing of the 91 series, I wasn't jumping for joy over the prospect of a new Dark Shadows, UNTIL I heard that John Wells was involved! I love/d his shows (ER & Third Watch to name just 2). So I was scratching my head when he didn't seem to fight harder for the WB pilot.
-
I'm sorry, but I just can't see Johnny Depp playing Barnabas. Just my opinion though.
-
I think the best option is a new feature film- after all, Johnny Depp has gone on records as saying that he would love to play Barnabas. If Tim Burton directs, that alone would give a new widespread interest in "Dark Shadows" worldwide- a win-win proposition.
I'm with you Charles. A new film via the Depp/Burton connection could be the springboard for more projects down the road. :)
-
Me too Jimbo! Now, I'll admit, given my loathing of the 91 series, I wasn't jumping for joy over the prospect of a new Dark Shadows, UNTIL I heard that John Wells was involved! I love/d his shows (ER & Third Watch to name just 2). So I was scratching my head when he didn't seem to fight harder for the WB pilot.
Thanks. I really did not know what to expect when I first heard the news back in 2003/04 that the WB gave the greenlight for a new reimagination of DS. I think the filmed pilot lived up to my expectations. I like the idea that they kept the opening story line. I think they could have had someone else discover Barnabas. Why is the Willie character somehow always involved in finding and releasing Barnabas? The Barnabas discovery/release story line is too tired. A little more imagination there may help. Oh I am getting off course a bit.
John Wells could have and arguably should have gone back to the WB and ask them to reconsider. From what I have heard, he did not do that. He did not present any ideas to the WB on fixing the pilot. Maybe he truly believed that the entire casting was wrong and that there was no hope for the project. Maybe because he was not even a fan of Dark Shadows and decided to go on with a new project that he actually believed in. We have to be realistic here. I think a big time producer is going to have to come forward in order for a new DS project to get off the ground. I don't think the networks are knocking on the doors of DCP (or whatever the name) asking it for new ideas for a new DS project. I think we are in for a long wait if anyone expects that to happen. But you never know. I think someone is eventually going to come up with the idea of making a new DS tv series or movie.
-
Myself. I hate remakes. There are so many aspiring writers out there with fresh ideas. However! I thought the new Shadows had potential. The scene where Victoria Winters is riding on the train is so powerful. A blonde Vicky? Why the heck not?
Anyway, I thought the preview trailer thing was exceptional. This from a chick that tunes to TCM on a daily basis and hates remakes.
My goodness, if you look at the crap Hollywood is churning out these days. Who wants to see a remake of every sixties show - wait...Did they do a remake of Mister Ed? Yeah, I think they did. And it flopped.
Anyhow, I think Warners(or whomever it was) did a nice job with the new Dark Shadows and I would have watched it. I am not a primetime TV person, but I would have tuned into the new DS. I thought the premise was fresh and up to date. I also think it's pretty darn neat that Dan Curtis' work lives on. Way to go, Dan! Woo hoo!!!
-
With John Wells involved in the production of the WB series, I was looking forward to it. I think the WB series would've possibly been more of a re-imagining instead of a remake due to his influence. I think he would've brought something to the table, and it's a shame it fell through. I've had a couple of shows get cancelled on me and hearing that the pilot didn't get picked up for fall of '04 definitely ranked at the top of those disappointments.
A Depp/Burton collaboration would be brilliant, IMO, even though it will likely never happen. Anything Depp touches these days turns to gold now that everyone sees what kind of talent the man has. It would certainly get the world into DS again.
-
Personally I would LOVE the idea of a new show. I love the classic, and I always will. But seriously, the only way to keep the series alive is to inject new blood into it.
-
I wanted to see the '04 series succeed, but only for the sake of Darren Gross's restorations of the theatrical films, and I'll support any future projects for the same reason. Otherwise, the 1,225 episodes of the classic are more than enough for me.
-
I have heard the Johny Depp rumours for a long time now. I would love if HBO decided to do a Dark Shadows one hour show with Depp in the lead.... i think that would be huge..I just feel that their are a good amount of Angel and Buffy fans who have no idea about Dark Shadows and it's influence on those two shows. Their is a huge market out their for DS, not only for the older generation of fans, but younger fans of gothic drama as well.....And DS is the Father of the gothic drama.
-
Though I must say that I'd love to see a major motion picture made out of the 1795 storyline starring Depp as Barnabas and with Burton as the director.
Whoo Hoo!!! You and me both. Wouldn't it be fun? Johnny D and Burton would bring in the viewers that haven't got much clue on DS, and, I know I'd pay to watch that : ).
-
I'd pay regular evening prices at the theater - quite expensive these days - to watch that, and I'd even pay it multiple times. ;)
Ryan - If Depp were to play Barnabas, it would only be in a theatrical film. They could never afford to get Depp for an on going television show, and with the success of Pirates of the Caribbean he's proven box office revenue. A big screen movie would be the only way they could go. But I do agree with you that there is a market out there for DS.
-
i'm in two minds about a new d.s..while i'd welcome it,as retvez pointed out,the 1225 original episodes are more than satisfying.
i don't know much about other "cult" shows(like star trek)but i do know that versions spun-off from the original were populated with new characters.that doesn't appear to be the case as much as with d.s..i can't think of any other show that is so hidebound in which characters simply have to be there!
for instance i remember when the 2004 pilot was in production and there was alot of chatter about who was going to play quentin.now of course on the original series quentin didn't even appear until late in the show's third year and after nearly seven hundred episodes.so his inclusion was not so much that it would make any sense storywise in the first season(and it would take at least that to get barnabas' storyline off the ground)but because he's one of the hidebound characters that fans remember and were expecting.
a similar thing happens with liz when new versions are in discusion.elizabeth was an extremely important "presence" on the original for two key reasons.one being that she was the grand dame of this whole thing who was with the show from it's first episode.the second being that she was portrayed by silver screen legend joan bennett.the sad truth was that after the barnabas character took off and the show became increasingly supernatural liz got very little in terms of character develepment or her own storyline.so her inclusion in any future version would not be so much that they were going to give liz this huge platform but simply because you absolutely cannot tell this story without elizabeth collins stoddard.
as it was introducing victoria,barnabas,julia and angelique(who were all introduced on the original show over a period of several months in gradually unfolding storylines)in a one hour pilot was pushing it but those are the characters fans expect to see so they had to put them all in there right off the bat.
this is of course for "us" the fans more than anybody.the general public doesn't know who these characters are.even people who casually watched the show when it first aired remember very little of it.barnabas collins seems to be the one everyone recalls and of course he became the official "face" of the marketing juggernaught the show produced.
for a new version to succeed it would have to appeal to several million people and hearty bunch that we are we don't number in those volumes so it would be interesting to see how they approached it.
-
Otherwise, the 1,225 episodes of the classic are more than enough for me.
I agree with that as well. I can understand people wanting a remake/re-imagining of a show that was on once a week and got cancelled after a season or two, it leaves you wanting more. But with 1,225 episodes of Dark Shadows, you can watch two episodes a night, 365 days a year, and it takes almost two years to see them all. That's plenty for me :) Besides, it's like ten different shows anyway. Every time they switch to a different time period or new plot line, it's like a whole new show.
-
I'd venture a guess that by-and-large those of us who don't like the re-makes are the ones who watched and remember Dark Shadows's original run. Those who are more favorable to a re-make are more likely younger. Anyone want to do a scientific survey?
-
I'd venture a guess that by-and-large those of us who don't like the re-makes are the ones who watched and remember Dark Shadows's original run. Those who are more favorable to a re-make are more likely younger. Anyone want to do a scientific survey?
I watched and remember the original run. Actually, to say I was obssessed with DS during it would probably be an understatement. ;D However, I really enjoyed the '91 series. In fact, I've often said that in many ways it improved on the original. And I also really liked the WB pilot. And quite truthfully I would be thrilled by the possibility of another version of DS coming along.
-
I'd venture a guess that by-and-large those of us who don't like the re-makes are the ones who watched and remember Dark Shadows's original run. Those who are more favorable to a re-make are more likely younger. Anyone want to do a scientific survey?
That would be an interesting study. For my part, I'm probably one of the most intensely anti-remake fans around, and I didn't see the show until a few years ago on Sci-Fi.
ProfStokes
-
The worst thing about re-makes is the implied criticism. "The original was good, we're going to do it better." Obviously, no one would attempt a re-make that was simply "as good"....what would be the point?
-
I'd venture a guess that by-and-large those of us who don't like the re-makes are the ones who watched and remember Dark Shadows's original run. Those who are more favorable to a re-make are more likely younger. Anyone want to do a scientific survey?
Actually, I first watched Dark Shadows when it aired on the Sci-fi channel, and I'm not too thrilled about a remake. :)
-
Hi Sunny! She's on both DS boards I'm on.
I'd define a remake as what they did in 1991; retelling the same story. A third time for that? I thought it was a self-indulgence and waste of a massive opportunity to do that in 1991.
A sequel series would be incredible, done right. The events of the original DS could be the fascinating backstory that many great shows have. It could be written so that you didn't need to know all about 1960s Collinwood to understand the present day stories, but if you do, there's a whole extra level to it.
-
A sequel series would be incredible, done right.
I agree. They could pick up the story w/an adult David dealing w/some of the issues his father had to deal with (rebellious son who explores the closed off west wing etc...) and show us some of his antics in flashbacks to give any new viewers the back story. They should do this ala Lost, their flashbacks are the best part of their show IMHO. ;D
-
Hi Sunny! She's on both DS boards I'm on.
I'd define a remake as what they did in 1991; retelling the same story. A third time for that? I thought it was a self-indulgence and waste of a massive opportunity to do that in 1991.
A sequel series would be incredible, done right. The events of the original DS could be the fascinating backstory that many great shows have. It could be written so that you didn't need to know all about 1960s Collinwood to understand the present day stories, but if you do, there's a whole extra level to it.
Hi, Magnus!! :) 8)
I think a sequel thought out well and done right would be great. They have already attempted two remakes now of the same story, but IMHO nothing can top the original.
Now if they did a sequel, they could incorporate some of the past history in to the new show, but keep it fresh and interesting with familiar characters such as David and Amy when they're grown or something.
It could be called Dark Shadows the Next Generation. :D ;D
-
I'd venture a guess that by-and-large those of us who don't like the re-makes are the ones who watched and remember Dark Shadows's original run. Those who are more favorable to a re-make are more likely younger. Anyone want to do a scientific survey?
I can't figure out how to quote an old thread in a new thread, but hopefully this'll work - Here's the link (http://www.dsboards.com/SMF/index.php?topic=8406.0) :D
edit: Ah hell, I can't get it done, maybe one of our ever-vigilant mods can. Anyway, search for a thread titled "The Original, the Revival, and You" and you'll find the survey.
-
retzev,
Just quote a post from the older topic, and then copy/paste it into the new post in the newer topic:
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 -
(Then people can click on the "Quote from: (poster) on (date/time)" link to reach the older topic. :))
Normally we just quote a small portion of the original post or replace the post's text with the title of the topic. ;)
-
Gracias :)
-
I think that a new DS would be absolutely great. As I've said in another thread, I really liked the 2004 pilot, except for the ending.
I love the idea of the Depp/Burton motion picture! That would definitely be something all DS fans could probably get behind in one way or the other!
Remaking the same story is something that just gets old after a time. I have never seen the 1991 series, and don't really care to, because I can just watch the original. While the 04 pilot was introducing the same old story, it was doing this in a completely new way. Angelique was there from the beginning, along with the other core characters. This was interesting to me. The only problem with this would be that the writers would have to tread lightly in order to circumvent the problem of retelling the same story, in the same way. Maybe if they found some writers who hadn't seen the original, but then again, this may also mean that they can't capture "DS".
I think that trying to recapture the original charm of the original series is something that is just not possible. The original series' charm was in the fall-down tombstones, the actors hiding in a dark corner, the stagehands walking into the frame, and the cheesy effects and writing. All these things would be simply UNACCEPTABLE on a television show today. So, anyone who would attempt to capture the original DS for an updated version and still have the charm, would fail miserably.
I really like the "Next Generation" idea. As others can tell you, I've been saying this for years now. There would be some difficult problems to overcome. For instance--what do you do with Barnabas? Make him a vampire and try to explain away his not-aging? But then you'd be left with trying to do it in a way that the Collins family would believe without making the audience think they are total idiots (we don't want another "I don't understand" fiasco!) Or do you make Barnabas old and gray? But then how would you explain this to the old fans and still make it interesting and easy to follow for the new audience--meaning that they don't have to see the old series in order to know what's being explained? Or do you just leave Barnabas out completely and risk alienating an audience of original fans?
All these questions and more may be why they haven't tried this, even though many fans are barking for them too. Then again, maybe it was just DC's obsession with retelling the same story over and over (sighs) and over and over and over (sighs again).....
-
What do you do with Barnabas? Make him a vampire and try to explain away his not-aging? But then you'd be left with trying to do it in a way that the Collins family would believe without making the audience think they are total idiots.
You could say that Barnabas left Collinsport in the late 70's/mid 80's (as a vampire) then have him come back and claim to be his own son. ;D
-
Well they did try to revive it once and it turned out to be a disaster.
I suppose a new Dark Shadows COULD work if they got the right cast of actors. Except for Jean Simmons and Joanna Going, the actors in 1991 were barely (or in a few cases hardly) adequate.
-
I suppose a new Dark Shadows COULD work if they got the right cast of actors.
I think all the actors in the 04 Pilot were very well cast, and portrayed the characters true-to-form of the script. Some even were able to capture some of the nuances that the original actors brought to the roles. I thought (geez! can't think of his name) that played Barnabas in the 04 pilot was very good. The only reservation I had about him was that when he said "Josette, Josette, you've come back to me.....Josette...." etc etc, he made is sound kind of cheesy. I'm not sure if anyone else who has seen the pilot got this impression, but I did.
-
I thought (geez! can't think of his name) that played Barnabas in the 04 pilot
Alex Newman was his name, and what a HOTTIE he was! WAY sexier than Ben or Jonathan. Although I still like Jonathan the best, to me, he IS Barnabas. ;)
-
Although I still like Jonathan the best, to me, he IS Barnabas. ;)
I totally agree! The stammering-nervousness that JF gave to Barnabas can never be matched! And whether or not that was because of his own nervousness (of course it was!) doesn't matter, it made the character 100 times better!!! Plus it doesn't hurt to have your face on all that merchandise and two dolls--oops, sorry action figures--of your very own to cement the fact that you ARE Barnabas Collins, forever our cousin from England.
Not to mention the fact that I believe that JF as Barnabas does long for Josette, while as I said before, Alex Newman as Barnabas longs for cheese. Red wine to go with that?
-
This to me is a terribly exciting question, because I think the odds of a third DS are actually pretty good.
A trend in recent years has been to re-invent a dramatic franchise or genre. Buffy certainly did that by making the stereotypical "victim" of monsters into their natural enemy. Smallville takes one of the best known fictional characters in the world and show a totally different perspective on him. Probably the most obvious example of this is Battlestar: Galactica.
Dark Shadows is a mine of stories proven to be able to attract an audience. More, it has an automatica name recognition. That it is a dark fantasy only makes it more attractive in the wake of such successes as Supernatural and Lost.
But what I don't want to see is just another retread. That is what I did not like at all about the 1991 effort. No one can do that version of Barnabas Collins as well as Jonathan Frid, at least not in many peoples' eyes, and why should anyone try? Much better, IMO, to genuinely re-imagine the whole series, looking at the whole corpus of DS for inspiration. All the storylines, all the movies, all the books even! And change things, shake them up! The old series told that version of the tale in its way. Let new producers and writers make a new Dark Shadows their own!
What if Barnabas was a genuinely young man, rather than forty-something? And he was less a victim of circumstances than someone who lost control of his own plans? Perhaps he tried to curse Josette for her infideilty (and btw--wouldn't it be interesting if Josette never loved Barnabas at all, but Jeremiah?) and when she rose as a vampire she turned him into one as well?
What if Victoria Winters was a totally charming golddigger with a heart of gold, a la Lady Kitty Hampshire? She might be trying to prove (i.e. fake) a familial relationship with the Collins family (and who knows--what if she just happens to be right?)
What if Roger Collins resembled Gabriel in 1840--wheelchair bound, bitter, manipulative--and his personal physician was Dr. Julia Hoffman? They are having an affair, and seeking to find the fabled Collins jewels so as to escape out from under Elizabeth's thumb!
Elizabeth--wouldn't it be more fun if she murdered her husband, cut him up into little pieces with the help of Mrs. Johnson?
That's MHO anyway. I want to see a new Dark Shadows but a seriously re-imagined one, not a retread. If I want to see the same story as before, all I need to do is pop in the appropriate DVD. Let us see something new and interesting, so we can compare and discuss, and enjoy in a whole new way! [hall2_grin]
-
I want to see a new Dark Shadows but a seriously re-imagined one, not a retread. If I want to see the same story as before, all I need to do is pop in the appropriate DVD. Let us see something new and interesting, so we can compare and discuss, and enjoy in a whole new way! [hall2_grin]
This is basically what I and others have been saying. We want something new and fresh. We don't want to see the same ol' junk that we just have to pop in a DVD for, as you put it.
I'm currently (on and off really between other writing projects) working on a DS Pilot in script form for my own amusement, and I seriously doubt if I'll ever persue it becoming a series partly because I think it would be a waste of my time as I would fight and fight and fight and nothing would ever be known of it. I'm taking the idea of David being middle-aged and master of Collinwood and running with it, as I see this as being the most logical starting point for a new series, if we are to have similar aspects of the old as far as the characters.
I said before that DS can very well be recreated in some form, but what it will lack is the original charm in the form of mishaps and mess ups that we all just love to watch! [female_skull]
-
Now, you see--this has got me thinking.
I just came up with a whole scenario to re-imagine Dark Shadows almost completely. [skull_winks]
-
Brandon, question.... what if original DS had been able to spend a bit more and do retakes, to eliminate bloopers and things such as wobbly tombstones...as of course they wished they could do, at the time.... would DS have lost "charm" to you, and would it have been of less interest to you? Not trying to be a smartass, just wondering.
The idea of retelling the story is jarring to me, and undermines my suspension of disbelief, even in original DS. Retelling it in a way that doesn't follow the original but alters the original personalities and events is even more jarring. It's also unnecessary. Both are a sort of tacit (sp?) admission that they have to lean on the original, like a crutch. The second option admits the need for new ideas somewhat, but is timid about it. They would try to dazzle us with new expensive visuals, looking "new" superficially, depending on that rather than genuine enthusiasm for the story they were telling. I'm not getting to my point very well, sorry.
I'm for using original characters but not as a crutch, but because there's just so much more to explore in them... the originals, not new people with the old names. Don't lean on them, just shaking up their story a bit so it doesn't seem exsumed from the dead even though it is, but keep the old story we love and that others will love given a chance.... and add to it. A sequel with an intriguing backstory, not a remake.
Some characters could appear only in flashbacks, but they'd be there. So we wouldn't lose them. Aggressive storytelling.... win us over with new characters that deserve to be there because they were invented by people who love DS, love writing, and are driven to tell their story. That's what I see in 1795 as opposed to the Leviathans, say. In the 1795 storyline, they were hell-bent on telling that story. They loved it. Nothing could stop them. In Leviathans, they were too busy just trying to stay afloat.
Creative people can solve the problems people have brought up. New DS doesn't deserve to exist if it has to lean on Barnabas like a crutch. If it can't create new characters and situations, it'll die. But use Barnabas, not because you have to, but wait to figure out an exciting viable way for him to be there. Only flashbacks maybe. Maybe the story picks up ten years after the original ended. Maybe time travel.
-
Brandon, question.... what if original DS had been able to spend a bit more and do retakes, to eliminate bloopers and things such as wobbly tombstones...as of course they wished they could do, at the time.... would DS have lost "charm" to you, and would it have been of less interest to you? Not trying to be a smartass, just wondering.
No, it wouldn't lose it's original charm, but this is what gives it part of its charm. I'm not sure if anyone was around when I first burst onto the online DS scene, but I was very defensive about people laughing and poking fun at the mishaps and bloopers that occured in DS. I couldn't believe that people were taking this wonderful program and completely shredding it to pieces by making fun of the actors mess ups. Soon I came to realize that it was part of DS, that it is what drives the fans to be so passionite about it. It reminds us of a time when things were simple, when they could be laughed at (well, except for all that war and rights and liberation stuff etc). DS provided an escape from real life, all that stuff listed previously in the parenthesis. This is what made DS what it was. Of course you have the occasional good story telling and the wonderful actors, that's a given.
As far as the rest of your post about retelling the same old story, or remaking DS--I agree with you as far as what you said about not using the original characters as a "crutch" to carry the show. This may or may not grab the original viewers, and probably would confuse the newer viewers if it weren't explained in a good way, because the new people wouldn't get these characters because they didn't see the original series.
As I talked about in another post, I've been working on a DS Pilot script for my own amusement, and David is master of Collinwood. Roger is VERY OLD, and a number of characters are dead, and some I haven't decided what to do with yet, in terms of the story. I have Barnabas (in my plan, though not yet in the script because I haven't gotten past the first act) involved, but by no means does he carry the show like the character did originally and in subsequent remakes. He does have a very interesting storyline, IMO, which involves a mysterious new relative that happens to be Barnabas' son. Introducing this new character has allowed me to plan to not involve Barnabas too heavily, but to keep him on deck should he be needed, and this also eliminates the need to completely write him out of the show.
I think perhaps the biggest problem with doing a new DS is alienation. The original viewers are a big audience, though not that large when considered with the masses that this new version would have to reach in order to stay afloat. Still, they are not small enough to be ignored. The outcry against the show should it take a wrong step would be enormous, as we have seen with other issues that have popped up here recently. With this pressure, as well as considering a new audience and how to draw them in without making them go "WTF is up with this show?" is a daunting thing. Sure, some may say that a writer shouldn't worry about the audience, either new or old, because they you just open yourself up to catering to the audience and what they want. But this is something that can't be ignored because if you kill a major character you might upset people. Here I fear I'm not getting my point across well enough. My point is that you can't take an audience's wants from a show into consideration, but you can't ignore them either, at least not with this particular audience. To snub all the original fans would be like saying "Yea, we know you watched when it was on in the 60s, but that's too bad because if you don't like this one then don't watch it and screw you." And that is something that would not be good.
In all honesty, you can't try to cater to them because you're going to end up offending someone anyway. The way to go about a new DS IMO is to age the younger characters from the show--like David, Amy, Hallie, etc, because you don't know what their personalities would be like when they are 40. You can make assumptions, yes, but you don't know. Not only that but it also provides many years to have passed that you can explain backstory with, and open up interesting plot points. Some of the original older characters--Roger, Liz, Maggie, Quentin, Barnabas, Julia, etc will have aged or even died, but they could also be changed by what has happened in the years since we last saw them, though they can't be changed as much as the original children were.
Basically I'm just prattling on here about something that I can't seem to find my way through the fog to. Hopefully you all will see my point and get what I'm trying to say. Basically it is this:
No matter what you do, people will be critical of you. In recreating DS there is no way to capture the allure of the original for the old fans, so you have to create something new and risk alienating some of them in order to gain a newer, younger, bigger audience. And you can't have too much confusing backstory based on the original becaues then the new viewers won't be able to pick up what you are talking about. Like you couldn't have Barnabas and Julia in the opening scene talking about their trip to PT in 1970 and all their time travels, throwing in random nods to the previous series, because the new viewers would just not get it.
So, there is definitely a challenge here. Maybe when I get my "fun" pilot (lol) finished, I'll post it somewhere so you guys can judge what you think. Hell, maybe I'll just put the teaser up somewhere if anyone is interested. Just let me know in a PM and I could send it to you.
-
You see, I look upon Dark Shadows much the same as I look upon King Arthur. Yes, there was an original version from which everything else derives, but to carp over the fact Camelot doesn't follow Geoffrey of Monmouth seems beside the point.
I admire the re-imaginating of Battlestar: Galactica very much. The show even makes a hint that perhaps the story has been lived again and again, with countless variations. Likewise DS has a built-in excuse for changing virtually anything--PARALLEL TIME! [hall2_grin] Who's to say there are only two timelines? Why not another one, where things were very different indeed?
-
Brandon.... I'm saying the same thing really. No one complains about the backstory in Lost, because it's written to be self-explanatory, and compelling. DS could do it the same way.
I think that caution over not alienating people kills shows. Being very afraid not to take the wrong step results in bland, safe, superficial "entertainment". But some go way too far in the other direction, and ride roughshod (sp?) over the original program, whatever it is, to show how "edgy", bold, and original they can be. People who do this may be distracting from the fact that they have no good, original ideas. You look original for five minutes, and look good for not being a slave to continuity, but you're not being creative then, you're just being a bull in a china shop.
-
But some go way too far in the other direction, and ride roughshod (sp?) over the original program, whatever it is, to show how "edgy", bold, and original they can be. People who do this may be distracting from the fact that they have no good, original ideas. You look original for five minutes, and look good for not being a slave to continuity, but you're not being creative then, you're just being a bull in a china shop.
Exactly! This can be most clearly defined by shows that are on television today who try to show how "edgy" or "unafraid" to take risks they are by killing off a major cast member. Buffy did it several times--Buffy, Tara, Spike, Joyce, Jenny, Jesse, Angel, etc etc. Last year The O.C. did it by killing Marissa. Someone got offed on NCIS as well. And I'm sure there are tons out there that I'm not mentioned. Oh, how about Jack Bauer's wife on the first season of 24? That fits here too. The first few to do this, before it became common, Buffy counting as one of those in my book, were originals, in this sense, but this rip-off factor that keeps occuring is getting old. It's tempting to kill off a major character for a shock factor, and let's face it, there's not much out there that hasn't already been tried--drug problems, murder, car crashes, etc etc--so that tempting thing looks pretty good. I've stopped myself from doing it a number of times.
I put out there--Let all screenwriters refrain from killing off a major character as a shock factor for a couple of years, because now audiences are just expecting it. The only way to make this new again would be to make it seem like one cast member is going to die and then killing another. That might work in some cases.
-
It's easier to destroy than to create. Killing off a character to seem "edgy" is a quick-fix for uncreative Hollywood types with no ideas, no patience, and no souls.
-
I see what you mean. Look at those worthless no-talents like William Shakespeare or Aeschyllus. Went around killing characters. Phhhhttt! Everyone knows no good storyteller ever does that. Only "destroyers" like Arthur Miller, Dennis Potter, Caryl Churchill, J.R.R.Tolkien, etc. What do they know about writing? Just a bunch of Hollywood hacks right?
Or...
Maybe calling something a formula doesn't make it one. Maybe genuine storytellers actually know what they're doing.
And maybe, just maybe, styles of storytelling do indeed change over time.
-
I see what you mean. Look at those worthless no-talents like William Shakespeare or Aeschyllus. Went around killing characters. Phhhhttt! Everyone knows no good storyteller ever does that. Only "destroyers" like Arthur Miller, Dennis Potter, Caryl Churchill, J.R.R.Tolkien, etc. What do they know about writing? Just a bunch of Hollywood hacks right?
Or...
Maybe calling something a formula doesn't make it one. Maybe genuine storytellers actually know what they're doing.
And maybe, just maybe, styles of storytelling do indeed change over time.
Oh, crap. You didn't honestly think I was saying that anyone who's ever killed off a character is a hack did you? I don't think present-day American television is filled to bursting point with "genuine storytellers" who "know what they're doing". There are hacks. There are formulas. And many TV writers take short-cuts to try to appear "edgy". It happens. A lot. If you don't think so, then you're probably spellbound by the new television season.
-
Exactly! This can be most clearly defined by shows that are on television today who try to show how "edgy" or "unafraid" to take risks they are by killing off a major cast member. Buffy did it several times--Buffy, Tara, Spike, Joyce, Jenny, Jesse, Angel, etc etc. Last year The O.C. did it by killing Marissa. Someone got offed on NCIS as well.
They killed off the ADA on Law & Order at the end of last season, and then wrote out one of the detectives at the beginning of this season (he retired) so this is no longer anything new on TV. Hell, they kill someone off once or twice a season on Rescue Me! Lost does this a lot too.
-
I think killing characters is a perfectly legitimate aspect of developing a plot. It can be done badly or well. But I didn't make a sweeping claim about every single televison program on the air nor about most of the professionals making their living as writers. Nor did I make any claim--or hint--that enjoying any t.v. currently in production somehow means anyone's judgment is impaired.
Dark Shadows was an unusually violent show, btw. It killed quite a huge number of characters, many--like [spoiler]Sarah, Rachel, Carl, etc.[/spoiler]--completely innocent. Among the methods used were pneumonia, burning to death, gunfiret, strangulation, falling from the top of a building, jumping off a cliff, poison, mauling, beheading, and being buried alive.
And for the record--the kind of "edginess" I personally would like to see in a new Dark Shadows is not that of increased death of violence. One could hardly exceed the original for that. But switching the traditional, expected roles of characters would make for something genuinely interesting. Barnabas and Angelique--probably the most popular individual characters on the show--were perfect examples of how characters can switch roles from Villain to Victim to Rescuer. One of the reasons Victoria and later Maggie tended to be so bland is because they never really switched roles at all. Another kind of "edginess" I'd like to see is simply an increase in drama by exploring ideas or possibilities that never really were done with this story before. Methinks, for example, the lack of sexuality in a program produced in the 1960s simply would not work for a show produced four decades later. Victoria Winters could not remain curiously asexual and have that work. I would opt in general for drama rather than melodrama--not least because it was when DS was dramatic that it also proved most compelling. Class would simply not be so vividly defined.
I am not a fan of Smallville but I have some friends who are and I've seen a few episodes. Purists may whine, but that show certainly has done a good job of redefining its plots and the like--much as the different film versions of Dracula have each tried to find their own mythology, their own unique slant. The result has been success, measured in the only way that really matters--the stories are welcomed by the audience. Not every single detail by every single viewer, but as a whole. Grown-ups know better than to expect everyone to agree with them.
Now, I am quite a fan of Battlestar: Galactica and that seems to me a good example of how a dated concept can be re-imagined very well. They of course had far more to play around with because theirs was a near-totally made-up world.
The idea of a "sequel" series sounds good, but in practice has proven problematical. Star Trek: The Next Generation was pretty much a slave to its past, a retread in all but name for the first three seasons. Without a very large, built-in fanbase I don't believe the show would have lasted to find itself. That there was nothing else like it on the air at the time helped also, because the fans of science fiction were an untapped audience. Certainly the spinoffs were more successful in terms of story-telling, characters and overall popularity until they too started to succumb to formula. Other attempts at "sequel" series have not been as successful, as in Tabitha or Return to Peyton Place.
Methinks the fanbase for a new Dark Shadows is pretty much the same as that of Buffy and Supernatural and Heroes, with some spillover with the audience for shows like Charmed. A new, re-imagined Dark Shadows would need to adapt for the current era, and that would include certain styles of storytelling. To be good, this doesn't mean resorting to formula, but simply an awareness of how the modern audience sees things. The isolation of Collinwood, for example, would have to be explored in a very different way in a world of cellphones and the internet. I doubt long storylines set in the past would work for modern audiences--they would probably prefer flashbacks. We don't want our ingenues so waif-like, nor our villains so overtly villainous. And people today are far more conversant with the occult, so the "play it by ear" magic of the old series needs replacing by something that at least pays some lip service to genuine occult traditions.
IMHO
-
I think killing characters is a perfectly legitimate aspect of developing a plot. It can be done badly or well.
I agree!
But I didn't make a sweeping claim about every single televison program on the air nor about most of the professionals making their living as writers.
Neither did I! Except if you mean a great many, but not all, TV writers. I really didn't expect to hear any disagreement on that one. "90% of everything is crud."-- Theodore Sturgeon.
Nor did I make any claim--or hint--that enjoying any t.v. currently in production somehow means anyone's judgment is impaired.
Neither did I!
The idea of a "sequel" series sounds good, but in practice has proven problematical. Star Trek: The Next Generation was pretty much a slave to its past, a retread in all but name for the first three seasons.
Just my opinion, but for me, by the end of season one, Next Gen was a great example of how this can be done. Unfortunately, it got stale and mechanical early in season four and stayed that way. Fortunately, Deep Space Nine then came along, and got better and better every year, honoring and respecting the original Trek, but forging its own way, and becoming its own special story.
-
the kind of "edginess" I personally would like to see in a new Dark Shadows is not that of increased death of violence. One could hardly exceed the original for that.
It's hard to imagine that they could. It certainly seems as if at least half the characters in almost any given storyline were wiped out by the time it concluded.
Victoria Winters could not remain curiously asexual and have that work.
One of the things I liked most about the '91 series was the change they'd made to Vicki in that regard. She was just as passionate about Barnabas as he was about her.
I would opt in general for drama rather than melodrama--not least because it was when DS was dramatic that it also proved most compelling.
Exactly. For me, DS was always its most interesting when it dealt with the truer-to-life conflicts between the characters as opposed to a predominance of plot over characterization. Of course the supernatural elements were great, too - but to me they were most effective whenever they sprang from the characters' relationships rather than when they were being imposed upon them.
I am not a fan of Smallville but I have some friends who are and I've seen a few episodes. Purists may whine, but that show certainly has done a good job of redefining its plots and the like--much as the different film versions of Dracula have each tried to find their own mythology, their own unique slant. The result has been success, measured in the only way that really matters--the stories are welcomed by the audience. Not every single detail by every single viewer, but as a whole. Grown-ups know better than to expect everyone to agree with them.
Again we agree. And one of the things I most enjoyed about the 2004 WB DS pilot was how it was a mix of both old and new twists. And perhaps that was due in no small part to the fact that Mark Verheiden, who has been heavily involed in the evolution of Smallville, was also involved in the DS pilot.
Just my opinion, but for me, by the end of season one, Next Gen was a great example of how this can be done. Unfortunately, it got stale and mechanical early in season four and stayed that way. Fortunately, Deep Space Nine then came along, and got better and better every year, honoring and respecting the original Trek, but forging its own way, and becoming its own special story.
I was a big fan of ST:DS9 myself, but the interesting or perhaps disappointing thing about it is that it was the least successful ST spin-off in terms of ratings, and from what I read, in general, it seems to be the one that's held in least regard by a good many ST fans. I'm not quite sure why that is because it ranks quite high for me. [idontknow] But, of course, that's not a discussion for this forum. [hall2_wink]
-
I agree with some what what both Zahir and Magnus have said.
I don't think that killing off a TV (because that's what I'll be talking about here) character is a bad thing, but like Zahir said, it could go either way. For me, it largely depends on what the reason behind the "offing" was, and whether or not it will resonate with the other characters in the show.
I do think it is rather formulaic in that when series need a jump, they kill someone, and the TV ads basically say "Oh look, one of these TEN people is going to die," and then it's up to you to guess and guess about it until it finally happens and you hate what happened. Let's look at some examples:
1. As Buzz said, Rescue Me kills someone at least every season. The death toll has been inching up and up each year, and I'm getting tired of it. They killed Tommy's son, his brother, his cousin (dead before the show started really) and left him and his cousin's widow (who he is dating) in a burning house at the end of last year. Do I expect someone to die? Maybe. But do I think they will? No. Why? Because Tommy is the star of the show, and Denis Leary, who plays him, is the creator and a writer for the show. That would be stupid. And the girl in the house is part of an on-going plotline involving several characters, so that won't happen.
2. ER premiered this year with HUGE buzz about the fact that someone was going to die. I swore up and down that if it were Abby I would hate the show because I really like her character. Was I worried? A little, but not much, because she is one of the MAIN characters of the show, and has a lot of story left to tell. Who ended up dying? Sam's ex-husband who I didn't, and I suspect many didn't, give a crap about in the first place. But this may present challenges for Sam and her son since she murdered the man. We'll see.
3. Nip/Tuck killed this blonde-headed nanny that Sean McNamara was cheating on his wife with. I really HATED this. Why? Because while I was shocked at her literal SUDDEN departure, I knew it was coming. I knew when she walked out in the street that SOMETHING was going to hit her. I was more shocked at how mangled she was than by the fact that she actually died. And why did I hate the death of this character? It wasn't because I liked her, but it was because in the following week's episode, it was completely forgotten about as if nothing ever happened, nobody was grieving or anything. Tsk tsk.
Those are three bad examples. A good example, I think, is Buffy the Vampire Slayer. With this show Joss Whedon only killed people off when it tied into a storyline and when it would resonate with the characters. I can't think of any character that died, that I cared about, that didn't affect the story somehow. Maybe Anya, but that's only because they didn't have time to show effects of her death because it was the last episode. Buffy, Tara, Joyce, Angel, Jenny, Kendra, and others I may have forgotten--all these characters who died had some sort of affect on at least one, if not all of the characters, and it wasn't simply thrown away.
MY POINT is that killing a character simply for shock value and to get viewers is something that I really HATE. I don't mind when characters are killed off as long as there is a good story to go along with it. If it's not tied in to a good story, then what is the point in doing it in the first place? You don't just haul off and have Barnabas walk out into the sunlight one morning and die, with no story supporting it.
So, if a new DS truly did need to kill off characters, great! Go ahead! I can live without some characters. I've done it before and I can do it again. You just have to get used to them being gone. But what I can't get used to, and what I can't accept is if the writers of this new DS were to just kill off Barnabas or Julia or Roger or David or Vicki or anyone just for the sake of saying "Hey, we're edgy, so throw some ratings our way!"
And, at the risk of making myself look like a fool and discrediting myself in this series post, I give you this: [female_skull]
-
A good example, I think, is Buffy the Vampire Slayer. With this show Joss Whedon only killed people off when it tied into a storyline and when it would resonate with the characters. I can't think of any character that died, that I cared about, that didn't affect the story somehow. Maybe Anya, but that's only because they didn't have time to show effects of her death because it was the last episode. Buffy, Tara, Joyce, Angel, Jenny, Kendra, and others I may have forgotten--all these characters who died had some sort of affect on at least one, if not all of the characters, and it wasn't simply thrown away.
It's interesting that you make this point because it most certainly wasn't always the case with DS. Sure, there were some characters whose deaths impacted certain storylines from the moment their deaths took place to quite a bit afterward (Bill and Jeremiah come to mind), but in a great many cases characters were killed off simply to tie up loose ends (can you say Sky?). And even in the cases where there was a character whose death impacted future story, it wasn't often that a character's death was truly lamented by the audience long afterward. I mean, I still haven't gotten over Jenny Calendar's death in season two of Buffy, and even though many deaths on DS have been tragic (Sarah, Josette, Rachel, just to name a few) it's very hard to come up with many deaths on DS that have affected me as much. But then Buffy's Joss Whedon is a master at making his audience care and then pulling the rug out from under them. But that's not a discussion for this forum.
-
Ahh... Jenny's death on Buffy. I remember that so vividly. That episode, "Passion", and the two part finale that season, "Becoming"....two powerful episodes that dealt with death and loss, and no other episode on any other tv show has ever moved me the way those did. I remember crying, and I never cry.
DS rarely had that level of drama, especially in the later years of the show because the stories moved so quickly that character development was tossed out of the window. If there's a major character death, the impact of that death should be felt and dealt with. For example: [spoiler]Victoria being killed off during the Leviathan storyline[/spoiler]...that should've been a huge deal. That should've greatly affected other characters on the show, and instead they didn't even realize it. If Whedon would've been behind the wheel...imagine the hell that would've broken loose....and the great drama that we would've gotten from it.
I'm another one who doesn't mind characters getting killed off - if the story and characters benefits from it. Like Jenny's death on Buffy, as much as I loved her....that really upped the stakes at the end of the season. I don't like senseless offing of characters when it has little to no impact on the story or other characters.
-
I've just come across a thought:
Perhaps the reason why DS offed characters so easily is because it was soap opera, and soap's tend to just kill a character without much story after that. I mean, today soaps seemingly don't to this as much, but how many times have we heard of a particular soap character being killed off because the actor's contract is up, or the actor and the studio can't agree on a dollar amount, or the actor is leaving the show period? A LOT. And let me just add a FREAKING in the middle of those two words. It seems to me that soaps will kill a character and then by the end of that week (5 episodes or so) the thing is done and over with. The character is buried and forgotten about, unless of course they are going to be bringing them back in some miraculous recovery or something.
So, I suppose it is sort of unfair to compare a primetime series, which is EXPECTED (at least by me) to be more careful with this, with a soap, which, in the course of a week, may have not even gone through one entire day.
-
A new DS might not get the message that we fans don't want capricious, contrived character deaths for the sake of ratings, etc., if the original has a history of it. Too bad we don't have some unified voice to speak with.
-
If you don't want capricious, poor story-telling, then get good producers and writers. If you don't have those, then it doesn't matter what the fans say or do. If you do have them, then odds are you'll have really good stories.
-
If you don't want capricious, poor story-telling, then get good producers and writers. If you don't have those, then it doesn't matter what the fans say or do. If you do have them, then odds are you'll have really good stories.
Even the best shows and the best writers are subject to mistakes and lapses. And I'd venture to say that if you didn't have good producers first, you're show wouldn't even be on. [female_skull]
-
The '91 revival didn't connect with a lot of fans who felt it was a tired/uninspired retread of the original series and HODS. But it had very strong ratings and its failure has been attributed mainly to scheduling changes and pre-emptions caused by the war in the middle-east. Could the ratings have been even stronger if they had leaned more towards sequal storylines combined with explanatory flash-backs? As other Cousins have alluded to, long-time fans would likely be impressed by a series involving new angles and new plots involving a combination of fresh and older/aged characters, and newbies could be roped in not only by the new plots, but with flashbacks explaining/exploring back-story (which the old-timers would appreciate as well, if done properly.)
Wasn't only one script for the '04 series written, the pilot episode? Maybe the money-bags weren't able to see the opportunities available in a new DS? It's hard to imagine anyone who hasn't watched a significant portion of the original series understanding the possibilities inherent in the back-stories alone. (What about new characters or aged originals transported back to the 1960s to meddle with the classic storylines, inadvertantly creating even scarier outcomes for future generations of the Collins clan?)
Combining all of what came before with new stories involving classic and contemporary characters...the potential seems endless, but producers needs to be made to see that potential. I don't think a script for one episode will do it, a season of scripts needs to be written. A strong pilot that will grab the attention of someone unfamiliar with the series, and successively stronger episodes that will keep their attention while revealing the complexities of the back-stories (the first couple seasons of LOST are a great example of this.)
I think it needs a collaborative effort.
[bonny_hand]
-
The '91 revival didn't connect with a lot of fans who felt it was a tired/uninspired retread of the original series and HODS. But it had very strong ratings and its failure has been attributed mainly to scheduling changes and pre-emptions caused by the war in the middle-east. Could the ratings have been even stronger if they had leaned more towards sequal storylines combined with explanatory flash-backs? As other Cousins have alluded to, long-time fans would likely be impressed by a series involving new angles and new plots involving a combination of fresh and older/aged characters, and newbies could be roped in not only by the new plots, but with flashbacks explaining/exploring back-story (which the old-timers would appreciate as well, if done properly.)
Wasn't only one script for the '04 series written, the pilot episode? Maybe the money-bags weren't able to see the opportunities available in a new DS? It's hard to imagine anyone who hasn't watched a significant portion of the original series understanding the possibilities inherent in the back-stories alone. (What about new characters or aged originals transported back to the 1960s to meddle with the classic storylines, inadvertantly creating even scarier outcomes for future generations of the Collins clan?)
Combining all of what came before with new stories involving classic and contemporary characters...the potential seems endless, but producers needs to be made to see that potential. I don't think a script for one episode will do it, a season of scripts needs to be written. A strong pilot that will grab the attention of someone unfamiliar with the series, and successively stronger episodes that will keep their attention while revealing the complexities of the back-stories (the first couple seasons of LOST are a great example of this.)
I have a copy of the 04 Pilot script and I have read it, of course. It is somewhat different from the actual produced result, and in some ways is much better. It is truly a shame that the WB didn't pick this up because I think it realized what all fans here are talking about.
In regards to an entire season of scripts being written--
The fact of the matter is that would probably never happen. The script-writing world is structured so that a pitch is made, then a pilot ordered, a script written (if it hadn't been before, most of the time it has) or altered, the pilot shot, presented to the network execs and then subsequent episodes are ordered. What they SHOULD do it order the Pilot and then if they are remotely interested in that they should order scripts to be written for the next 2 or 3 shows to show how the story would progress somewhat. These scripts would be presented for reading, not produced as actual episodes. This way if the pilot was good but not stellar, the execs could see how the story is going to progress, even though they usually ask about that in the pitch session anyway. But it would illustrate the point further, I think.
Script was good, production was okay, and in the end, it was the produced thing that gave it the dump. If the pilot had've stayed true to the script, I think we might just be talking about the latest episode of the week.
-
Well, what about pitching the potential of the combination of back-stories, new plots, and an established fan-base? I know this might be stretching it, but what about a 2-hour pilot to set the whole thing up? How do 2-hour pilots get made?
-
Also, what about LOST? It's gotta be one of the most expensive series ever produced, and one of the most complex in terms of back-story and plot development. How does an untried something like that get greenlighted on the basis of a simple pitch and pilot script/episode?
-
Lost got on the air largely because a proven production team sold it to the network. Keep in mind that JJ Abrams had just had a big hit with Alias and he had allies within the network as well as an excellent track record. This is also largely how Aaron Sorkin got both The West Wing and Studio 60 on the air.
I do believe that a new Dark Shadows would benefit froma series "bible" that would spell out lots of backstory--the exact nature of magic, what vampires can and cannot do, when was Collinwood built, etc.
-
Lost got on the air largely because a proven production team sold it to the network. Keep in mind that JJ Abrams had just had a big hit with Alias and he had allies within the network as well as an excellent track record. This is also largely how Aaron Sorkin got both The West Wing and Studio 60 on the air.
I was just gonna say, Lost got on the air, and probably effortlessly, because of JJ Abrams. And Aaron Sorkin is a big player too w/lots of clout in Hollywood, but so is John Wells who produced the WB pilot, and what excited me about the prospect of not only a new show, but a GOOD one, not like that crap NBC rolled out a dozen or so years ago. Don't know why his clout wasn't enough for the WB to give it a shot, maybe because DC was still around? I hate to say this, but his death MIGHT be what we needed to actually get a new show.
-
You might be right. Gene Roddenberry actually got in the way when it came to putting TNG on the air. He was the one who mandated no internal conflicts among the crew (in other words no drama of any kind) and he evidently kept insisting the Ferengi should have sex organs growing out of their heads. I'm not kidding.
From the interviews I've read of those involved with the 1991 series, Dan Curtis was the one who insisted on a pretty straightforward retread rather than telling anything like original stories.
-
Well, what about pitching the potential of the combination of back-stories, new plots, and an established fan-base? I know this might be stretching it, but what about a 2-hour pilot to set the whole thing up? How do 2-hour pilots get made?
Well I don't know about all pilots, but I can and will use Buffy as an example, as I'm pretty knowledge on some stuff in that area. If my facts are correct (sometimes they are, sometimes they get confuzzled lol) then what happened was that Joss Whedon made the movie (puke puke puke) which was awful--he blames it on the director. I believe that when he wanted it to be reimaged as a TV show that either he went to the exec at FOX who ran the new entertainment division (whatever it's called) and said hey, I have this idea. I also remember something about maybe that exec, who was a woman but I don't remember her name, came up with the idea of remaking it as a TV show. Whatever...
What happened was that the script was written and it was shopped around to all the nets, CBS, NBC, ABC, FOX, and when none of them bit, they took it to WB. The WB was new then, and looking for a fanbase, so I believe they were more willing to take risks back then. They liked the script and and the pitch (obviously) and ordered the Pilot to be made. Now, the finished pilot that aired on TV for people to watch was 2 hours long. But, what was originally produced for both Buffy and Angel (when it hit the air) was a half hour pilot to just present to the network execs. This is just a rough copy of the pilot--they basically took 2 hours of material and cut all the stuff that was absolutely essential and then made it into a half hour. Casting and all that happens, and they shoot it. Then it was presented to the execs, who at this stage either love it or hate it, and order more or say hell no. They liked it, gave the Jossman some notes, and they recast a couple people, and went into full production on the real Pilot, which viewers eventually saw.
I'm not saying that this happens with all shows, but that is what happened with that show. And I can infer that the same thing probably happened with DS except the pilot produced was an hour instead of a half hour. [female_skull]
-
I was just gonna say, Lost got on the air, and probably effortlessly, because of JJ Abrams. And Aaron Sorkin is a big player too w/lots of clout in Hollywood, but so is John Wells who produced the WB pilot, and what excited me about the prospect of not only a new show, but a GOOD one, not like that crap NBC rolled out a dozen or so years ago. Don't know why his clout wasn't enough for the WB to give it a shot, maybe because DC was still around? I hate to say this, but his death MIGHT be what we needed to actually get a new show.
Didn't John Wells back out towards the end of the production? I heard that somewhere. It could have been because Dan Curtis was too controlling about it, or it could be just because they had creative differences. I mean, hey, if I was creating a show, I would be protective as hell over it too, but I would still listen to suggestions. Joss is protective of Buffy, which is why any TV movies etc that have been talked about haven't happened--because he and FOX can't agree on the terms. So I'd imagine that DC was much the same way.
Or John Wells could've backed out because the pilot the shot wasn't what the script was (it was in large part, but was still very different), and the ending just plain sucked. If you were a network and the MAJOR producer on the project backed out, would you still feel confident about it? I sure wouldn't. [female_skull]
-
The last several posts have been great, and informative. I think it would be a gruelling thing to put writers through though, to write several scripts ahead of time, for a series that might get turned down, possibly on a whim. Also, network executives aren't the best guardians of quality. They don't have much patience, either-- I doubt they'd read several test scripts for new unbought shows. Some shows have had pilots lasting only ten minutes or so... there's a low attention span for you.
Abrams... I think it's he who's been put in charge of an 11th Star Trek movie?? I wonder if Wells might have less pulll at the moment, with his version of West Wing losing ratings, though that doesn't affect the 2004 DS pilot, I know, unless he were to try to exhume it now.
The example of Lost is there now, and can be pointed to. Better pitches need to be made.
-
Wells remained faithful to the pilot to the bitter end. After Garth Ancier had claimed that the pilot was "unsalvageable," Wells publicly defended it, declaring they liked the way it turned out but the WB didn't, mostly because the WB's concept for the show was different from that of Wells, Mark Verheiden and DC.
There are a few topics on the forum that deal with the war of words between the WB and Wells in the aftermath of the WB passing on the pilot, this being but one:
Well, here's a very interesting article about the WB pilot. It repeats the same line that we've gotten from Garth Ancier - that the project "just didn't quite gel the way we hoped." However, what's much more interesting is that John Wells lays the blame on the WB. In part, the article says: The problem, Wells said, was the network wanted to WB-ize the concept. "We liked it and they didn't. ...
Unfortunately, though, the current link in the topic no longer brings up the article, and one has to pay to read it now. [hall2_sad]
-
I think it would be a gruelling thing to put writers through though, to write several scripts ahead of time, for a series that might get turned down, possibly on a whim.
I don't think so, fans write reams and reams of fanfic that few if any people will ever read.
-
fans write reams and reams of fanfic that few if any people will ever read.
True. But fans are doing it out of a pure love for whatever genre of entertainment they're devoted to and expanding upon (TV show, movie, book, etc.). TV writing is a business and its writers don't get paid to write reams of material that may never be used. That's simply just the unfortunate fact. [hall2_undecided]
-
They have to budget their time and do work that will feed themselves and their families. Also, the work of a real writer is not to be treated with disrespect... having it demanded of them that they wrack their brains and souls to come up with several special, inspired scripts just in case the series is picked up, scripts that have no use anywhere other than in that TV show, would be insulting.
-
I'm not talking about paid hacks, I'm talking about someone who has a love for DS and an emotional investment in the series. Maybe y'all [hall2_grin] are right, maybe I'm way off-base, but I don't think so. I'm keeping the hope alive [hall_smiley]
-
I think it would be a gruelling thing to put writers through though, to write several scripts ahead of time, for a series that might get turned down, possibly on a whim.
I don't think so, fans write reams and reams of fanfic that few if any people will ever read.
Many people don't realize that it's actually not too difficult to get your writing into the hands of someone in the TV business. It's called 'spec'ing a show. (speck, that's how it's pronounced) I've been researching this a great deal because I'm thinking about doing this. All one needs to do is write a script that is really good and send it to the network, or to the tv show, if you can find the address. It is hard, and you're not guaranteed to get a response, but many TV writers have gotten jobs this way. It helps if you can get your hands on a script from the show your specing, because then you can write your script the same way they write there's, with the correct number of act breaks etc etc.
It's difficult, but not impossible. [female_skull]<~~~~I wish I could look that pretty everyday. lol
-
In practical terms, an hour-long weekly series must be produced within a certain number of days. At any given time, the staff is approving future script concepts, giving a final edit to another script, doing preproduction (design, building, casting) for another script, shooting a fourth script, and doing post-production (ADR, music, editting, etc.) for a fifth episode. This is all on the SAME DAY.
[hall_shocked]