DARK SHADOWS FORUMS
General Discussions => Current Talk Archive => Current Talk '24 I => Current Talk '13 I => Topic started by: A.C. on May 09, 2013, 05:40:00 PM
-
If you look at the history of Dark Shadows it has had an amazing run TOS, the early 70's movies, 1991 revival, and attempt in 2004 for WB and finally the film.
With that said I truly believe it's used up its nine lives because of the film. Because the film was this bizarre hybrid between a drama and dark comedy I think it probably failed to please both camps. I can't imagine you would ever be able to get more than half of the viewers back for any type of sequel.
Sometype of TV revival is most likely the only hope and that would have to be a ways off to try and get people to gradually forget the film...probably the best place for a new DS would be on the AMC network. They choose their shows carefully and are generally very well crafted. It would be an excellent companion piece for The Walking Dead. Even so I think the mistep of the film has probably killed any chance for a resurrection for all time.
-
This is an interesting topic to consider. I think you may be right when you point out the various incarnations that DS has had in the television and film media. It does seem that the show's concept has likely run its course. Perhaps the newer audio series on CD is the best new format for keeping the concept alive, though I haven't listened to any of these myself.
Fortunately we have the entire original series available on DVD, and a forum like this to discuss DS in all of its aspects. The one I personally care the most about -- and the best -- will always be the original series. I'm not sure I care to see another revival or remake, frankly. No movie or remake can ever be done the same or capture the qualities of the original series.
-
I think for Dark Shadows to work in the modern era, it would have to be significantly re-worked. So much of the Dark Shadows mythos has been dispersed into our culture that it has lost a lot of its unique identity. Yes, it did all of it first, but new incarnations can't simply take that fact for granted. Modern audiences don't care. I think Dark Shadows has one more chance. I say this because of Batman. Many fans of Batman felt that the franchise lost its way with the Batman and Robin film. However, Christopher Nolan was able to turn that on its head. What Christopher Nolan did for Batman is what someone needs to do for DS. Tim Burton produced a "Batman and Robin movie" and now someone needs to reverse it. It's not going to make everyone happy. It may upset some fans of the original, but they will, at least, come to appreciate the fact that someone took the material seriously again. It can be done, but it will take the right people, people who understand the core of Dark Shadows and the needs of the modern-viewing public.
-
I didn't realize the Depp movie damaged anything. I thought it was just relatively unsuccessful, not considered awful. Doesn't the TV fandom continue as it did before?
I don't think I'd like anything that "works in the modern era". You have to spoil anything good to make it conform to modern priorities.
-
I understand where you're coming from Magnus, but I'm not talking about "sexing it up" or making it overly violent. I'm talking about not relying on the same tropes that DS has relied on since 1966.
-
I don't consider the Depp movie diasterous in any way. I love Dark Shadows enough to have run a fan club for 21 years - but really loved the movie as well. (The majority of our club members liked or loved the movie also). It was just a different but valid interpretation of Dark Shadows and won't hurt it any more than Young Frankenstein hurt the Frankenstein franchise.
-
Depp Shadows made money, which is what counts in Hollywood. It was a beautifully shot, sometimes fun, sometimes flawed tribute, but not a remake.
It was neither a blockbuster nor a failure.
of course the franchise will survive. Lara has a new DS novel out this summer. The audio dramas are flourishing. Dynamite Entertainment has just issued Dark Shadows Year One, it's third DS comic title.
DS is not going away.
-
david's assessment sounds pretty accurate...
a lighthearted take on the story. an homage of sorts but certainly not a remake or sequel or anything that needs to fit into any sort of continuity. a stand alone variation on the tale(even in the unlikely event of a sequel of it's own)that exists in it's own universe. as such doesn't do any damage to the "franchise" as it stands.
and realistically what kind of "franchise" are we really talking about? DS certainly doesn't have the brand recognition of a 'dracula' or 'star wars' type tale that the overall public is well versed in the basic story outline. to say it's a "niche" player, despite a highly loyal fanbase, would be an understatement. even people who watched the OS during it's run would be hard pressed to recall the storyline in any detail other than regaling tales of "running home from school" or their barnabas lunchbox. but plot specifics? forget it.
the comic books and audiodramas, "thriving" as they may be, are preaching to the choir. not really intended for the general public but existing DS fans or collectors of "graphic novels" again, niche products.
so as has already been stated a lighthearted or even comedic take on an established story that exists as it's own entity outside of any sort of "official" continuity doesn't necessarily "damage" the brand. new variations on the story are still possible to be sure.
and lots of fans, and even those who were initially quite hostile to the project, have warmed to it's offbeat sensibility. I for one was horrified upon my first viewing. I thought it was completely idiotic. and while I still have issues with it(it's cacophonous climactic scene being a major one)I've grown quite fond of it and the dvd is in frequent play. some performances in fact becoming favorites.
-
First as others have pointed out we have to rule out the possibility of a sequel. I would assume a decision on that will be made soon if it hasn't already. I just think at this point in time a new DS project will be a hard sell. How will the producers attempt to sell a "serious" DS project to a network for example when most people today only know it as a comedy?
-
Jimbo, I think you hit the nail on the head and really understood the concern of the OP.
Frankly, the only thing people will think of when they hear "DS" nowadays is the "goofy Tim Burton movie."
In fact, today I overheard a conversation about "Dark Shadows" and how it was a disappointment. Lo and behold, they were talking about the Burton film and didn't know of any other "Dark Shadows."
-
DS will bounce back at some point. It always does. After April 2, 1971, I never expected to see DS again. Even reruns seem unlikely. Since then, we've had many different takes on DS, some better than others. With the 50th anniversary approaching, another version of DS is probably in our future.
-
The truth of the matter is that we've all heard and have had our own conversations in which something about any and all versions of DS was disappointing. When it comes to disappointment about DS, it's hardly limited to what some might say with regard to the Depp/DS film - as a perusal of dozens upon dozens of topics here on the forum will attest.
And going back to the Batman analogy, just think of how practically a whole generation considered that franchise completely synonymous with the beyond goofy '60s Batman series. Yet, did that stop other more serious versions that came along, whether they were theatrical, animated, or what have you, from taking off? No. The truth is no one version of anything makes a franchise sink or swim. If someone makes a good new version, people will come, regardless of whether it be a humorous take or a serious take. And for more proof of that, just look at, say, how many serious as well as humorous takes there have been on the Dracula story. And the future is no doubt going to bring numerous more of each. And each will be their own thing, just like Francis Ford Coppola's serious Bram Stoker's Dracula (which I personally dislike but many people love) and the humorous Dracula: Dead and Loving It (which I personally love but some detest) were each their own thing.
-
The "soap opera" stigma has held DS back from becoming a Star Wars/Star Trek sized franchise, but it's name recognition is sizable.
If it were going to fade away it would have done so long ago.
-
And going back to the Batman analogy, just think of how practically a whole generation considered that franchise completely synonymous with the beyond goofy '60s Batman series. Yet, did that stop other more serious versions that came along, whether they were theatrical, animated, or what have you, from taking off? No.
And this is what gives me hope. But since other versions of DS are not as well known to the general public, I think it needs to come back in a big way to overcome the hurdles presented by the tone of the Depp film, which probably should not have just been billed as "Dark Shadows" without any modifiers. But that's an opinion for another day.
-
I am trying not to take sides because all the arguments presented here are all valid. The question remains is DS marketable as a movie or TV franchise as of today and is it more viable as a comedy or as a gothic horror? I think there is this stink, perceived or not, from the last movie. There are some cousins here who are in denial imo as that it is their belief that the majority of people and critics loved this movie. I believe that the majority did not like the movie on several levels and that the majority of the population see DS as a comedy (Cousin Barnabas put it better) and they have no frame of reference to go on (although they should). There are indeed hurdles to overcome. I would first try to distance itself from the last movie. How one does that I am not sure. But that has to be part of the pitch for a new project. I would say to a prospective buyer that the Depp movie was loosely based on the original DS as a starting point. I would take the project to FOX first. FOX is interested in limited series i.e. "The Following" (15) episodes and the "24" 13 episode new proposed series. I am not sure about AMC network as I don't go there. My second choice (not as a fan but as a seller) would be MTV as it is bringing the Scream movie franchise to its network. I think its audience may fall in love with DS. I would also pitch it to ABC and NBC as they could surely use a hit series. I am optimistic that there could be a new DS project in the near future. As DC used to say there was always a DS project in the works.
-
I also think there are a lot of fans in "denial" about how big a "franchise" or potential "franchise" DS was in the first place...
depp and burton took it on as a labor of love. for countless reasons it went in directions not everyone, probably including them, were happy with. i'm sure they, and the studio, hoped for a surprise hit but it was a longshot from the outset.
it's important to "us". not the general public. "we" had higher hopes for it than anyone. but the public has a very short attention span. i'm sure in five years this could, yet again, see some sort of revival without the offbeat sensibility of the depp film leaving a permanent "stain". and fans were the ones who were upset that it wasn't "serious". the general public had no preconceived ideas about it one way or the other. they likely just saw it as another cartoonish depp/burton romp.
-
I'm not sure why a new show called Dark Shadows is necessarily desirable. I think they way things worked out may be ideal. Like the 1991 series, a bit of interest was generated, people were reminded of the original show, video of it was marketable. Both weren't so successful that they took over how people saw DS, and the old show still dominates. The Depp film damaged nothing and made DS able to limp along in fandom a few more years at least.
The last thing I'd want is some new DS that distorts as badly as the new Dr Who and Star Trek do.
-
I also think there are a lot of fans in "denial" about how big a "franchise" or potential "franchise" DS was in the first place...
This is a valid point. It certainly does not have a "Star Wars" type following or even a "Star Trek" type following, but it has a cult following that is (most likely) larger than your average cult. It also appeals to a couple of other groups, Horror fans being one. The main thing about Dark Shadows is that it has the potential to become very big again, simply because there is a timelessness about the story and the characters. Given the right set of circumstances, Dark Shadows could take off again, but there are a lot of "ifs," as we have already seen.
-
I, of course, loved the Depp/Burton film. I thought it was a wonderful tribute to DS and that's what it was: a tribute. Maybe the comedic approach of Barnabas being a fish out of water, trying to comprehend life 200 years later was a bit whatever (I can't put the right thoughts or words to it), but it was far more realistic than the previous incarnations (the OS and '91) where Barnabas gets released and within 48 hours he's knocking at Collinwood, understanding zippers and the latest episodes of Green Acres or The Golden Girls. Depp/Burton's concept regarding this situation, in my view, more correct. Characters needed more fleshing out, and it appears they were before editing placed chunks on the cutting-room floor. And, as far as I'm concerned, a straight take on the Barnabas story, remade for the umpteenth-millionth time, would not have worked. The original was the original; it had been copied many times over, including in the banal Twilight thing. Doing it again as a strict drama would've appeared as nothing more than a rip-off of Twilight, a way of cashing in. Where the studio failed was in marketing.
So it was, and it wasn't, "our" DS. Neither was '91 in what it did with some of the characters. I never liked how '91 turned Maggie into a tart, or Willie into a bumbling sidekick. Nothing stays the same. The latest Star Trek films have taken the original material and placed it in an alternate universe. Lots of fans were outraged that Spock's mother, Amanda, was killed. You think irrate fans posting on message boards were upset with the D/B DS film? You should've seen what they posted about the ST film - they wanted Abrams arrested, tried and executed for heresy. But the first film was enough of a money-making success to bring about a second one, and I'm sure it'll also be filled with heresy. Simply redoing the same stories over and over and over again won't work. Would upset DS fans remained upset if the D/B DS film was basically a remake of HoDS? HoDS also strayed from the series (although it was closer in the original intent of the Barnabas story - monster kills, monster is caught, monster is killed; 13 weeks done and on to the next plot-line).
No, the DS "franchise" is alive and doing well. This year, there are three "festivals" scheduled: the one in San Diego that's already done, the cruise (the "official" one) and another at Lyndhurst (that, if I'm right, is more focused on '91). The D/B DS film pulled in nine figures in the box office. That hardly makes is a financial "dud." I'd love to see a sequel. Barnabas and Vicki now share the same lifestyle, as does Julia. David's spectral mother has returned. There's now a werewolf in their midst. Angelique has been defeated (or has she?) and the Collinses look to rebuild. So many juicy things! And it's still the 1970's, so we can have soundtracks from Bread and Elton John and people dealing with that new CBS series about a family living at 704 Hawser Street in Queens, NYC. It would be so much fun, like DS meets American Graffiti. Plus, you've got a bunch of monsters and spooks thrown in, just like the OS.
The D/B DS film had so many wonderful things in it. I will say that the opening credits was among the best. It set the tone.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRYy8poaJwg
Brilliant. Simply brilliant. It wasn't our Robert Cobert opening music, but it was brilliant. It was the train ride of Vicki just as it was in the OS and in '91, and done much better than DC did in both his versions. Brilliant.
Gerard
-
Well, I for one still love Vicki's original 1966 train ride the best, particularly her conversation with the gossipy old biddy. I wish I could remember the actress's name. What a hoot.
I thought having Nights in White Satin play over the 1972 "Victoria"'s journey was a stroke of genius, particularly in retrospect upon learning her backstory--though sadly I doubt there were any accoutrements of white satin in the place she was journeying from, but as a trope for a certain mental state... genius.
I only wish the remainder of the movie had lived up to that moment. For me it did not. The Liz/Julia deleted scene was a painful reminder of what this movie *could have been*--I'll stop here because it's all been said before.
I am glad there are fans out there like Gerard who worship every moment of the Depp/Burton movie. It's always nice to see folks taking joy in things.
G.
-
As far as critics' opinions of the Depp/DS film go, certainly a majority of critics didn't love it - but then, a majority didn't hate it either. As I've said before, the critics' opinions were pretty split with some liking much of the film and some not liking much of the film. But even within those reviews, those who liked much of the film had aspects they disliked, and those not liking much of the film had aspects they praised. There is a Web site that averages the critical opinions of films based on the reviews of the major critics, and according to that site, the Depp/DS film averaged 3.5 stars out of 5, which, while split, leans it somewhat more to the positive than to the negative (and even their audience response gives it 3.2 out of 5, which is also somewhat more to the positive than to the negative). So, anyone who says the majority of critics disliked the film is fooling him/herself as much as anyone who thinks the majority of critics liked the film is. [easter_wink]
-
And, fortunately or unfortunately, the pop cultural market is simply saturated with movies and television shows (mostly television shows) employing the same kinds of tropes that DS (mostly) pioneered. We're watching Hemlock Grove on Netflix, and while it's rather a romp, it -- and Vampire Diaries -- and True Blood -- and (ick) Twilight -- make a new DS series redundant. I'd love to see someone have a go at it (I still regret that the 2004 remake was yanked before it could even have a chance to flourish) ... who knows? Like Diana Millay ... er, Laura Collins ... DS has shown us all before how very phoenix-like it can be ...
-
david's assessment sounds pretty accurate...
even people who watched the OS during it's run would be hard pressed to recall the storyline in any detail other than regaling tales of "running home from school" or their barnabas lunchbox. but plot specifics? forget it.
Half of the people who watched in the 60s and have not gone back since can't even get his name right. "I remember BarnabUs", or "Who was it Barnaby?" I don't hear Barnaby much anymore because Barbaby Jones is a dim, almost forgotten memory, but when it was on or in frequent syndication I'd hear that name attached to Collins. Some remember Quentin but often forget the name. They'll ask who was the werewolf?
-
yeah my mom watched it during it's run and only remembers two characters: barnabas and quentin...
to her recollection it was "about" them and both charcaters were on it from the beginning. when I first started watching it on video sometimes she's watch it with me and when it was a 1966-1968 episode she'd always ask " where's quentin?". when I replied he wasn't on it yet she seemed disoriented.
and when the film was in it's early production stages even fans, who know the character was not even introduced until nearly three years into the run, seemed to be under the impression the quentin character would be on the canvas as if that would make any sense. [easter_huh]
-
(people )seemed to be under the impression the quentin character would be on the canvas as if that would make any sense. [easter_huh]
I can understand why people who saw the original series in the 60s would focus on Quentin as an integral part of DS. I too wondered where Quentin was when I saw it in syndication in '76. My memories of the original airings were of Barnabas and Quentin. I had a Quentin postcard a friend had given me; he had a double. I was reading the Ross novels which were about Barnabas, Quentin, and the Scooby Doo Villain of the Month. The Gold Key comic only regularly featured 7 characters from the show; Quentin was one of them. Frid was not available for NODS..who did they call to fill the lead? Many of the original fans were not watching from the beginning and a huge number came in after Quentin was on the show. Every time period from 1897 on featured a Quentin. I wondered why he was not in HODS. He's much more prominent probably, in the minds of people who saw it in the original run. Those who watched later would see Vicky (and eventually Barnabas) as the focus of the first half of the show and Barnabas and Quentin in the second.
-
The DS movie made money, which imo means it wasn't a complete failure.
I think there's a good chance for a new movie or tv series some day. Interest in vampires never really goes away, and the level of interest peaks every few years with a new re invention.
In the meantime, we have the old serieses, plus old and new ongoing spin off material, novels, audio drama, comics.
-
I didn't say Quentin wasn't an important character...
I said he was a relative latecomer. fans(not simply people who watched the show 40-odd years ago)are aware of that. so when the depp film was underway, and those fans knew it would focus on the barnabas storyline, I was confused that there were those who had expectations that Quentin we be featured and even expressed surprise and dismay that he would not.
the film was stuffed to the gills with underdeveloped characters and simply didn't have room for another male lead and completely different storyline.
-
I wondered why he was not in HODS.
Off-topic aside:
Now that would have been a stroke of genius... To have Quentin instead of Jeff. That would have made it a 5 star film, and we probably would have seen more of the artist backstory from the original script. Too bad they needed Selby for the TV show.
Okay... Back on topic. [easter_wink]
-
what was however extremely obvious to me was that revealing Carolyn to be a werewolf in the film's last five minutes was a crude setup for a Quentin themed sequel...
one that may not even feature Barnabas.
-
Superman Returns (2006) was considered a minor hit which underperformed. Yet here comes Man of Steel.
Dark Shadows will return to the screen as it always does.
-
what was however extremely obvious to me was that revealing Carolyn to be a werewolf in the film's last five minutes was a crude setup for a Quentin themed sequel...
one that may not even feature Barnabas.
Before I ever saw the movie, I was speculating that a Barnabas - free sequel focusing on Quentin would be an option, seeing as how Depp would be in demand and possibly unavailable for the sequel.
I also thought that with Victoria clearly to be paired with Barnabas and no Maggie cast, that perhaps Maggie could be brought into the sequel as a love intrest for Quentin.
Clearly I was wrong on the last part.
I'd still be all for a Quentin driven sequel. There's all kinds of potential for DS beyond Barnabas, but I'm not sure the studio would go for it.
-
No matter how well (and how long!) the Burton-Depp Shadows redaction performed at the box office, I would bet you dollars to doughnuts that there are a lot of individuals walking around Tinseltown who, if the topic even ever comes up, angle their noses into the air and sniff, "Oh yeah, Dark shadows--another flop for Tim and Johnny." As I've commented in a number of posts before (and I apologize for the repetition), there is a cabal in H'wood that wants Burton to fail. I don't know what people think about Depp at this point (I saw a tabloid in the grocery store two days ago with a screaming headline about Depp "marrying" a very young looking woman who I presume is somebody other than his current wife--but I haven't been keeping up). The Disney Lone Ranger thing looks as if it is already damaging Depp's credibility in certain circles even though the studio and Depp have done what they could to forestall such things.
I think a Shadows project focused around Quentin would be fabulous, particularly one set in the 1890s with a potential steampunk styling. Meryl Streep would make a fabou Magda (see post in another board about Streep's Graysonesque appearance in August: Osage County). My personal choice would be Tom Hiddleston for Quentin--he's playing a vampire in the new Jarmusch film...
cheers, G.
-
I didn't say Quentin wasn't an important character...
No you didn't, and I wasn't disagreeing with anything you said. What I meant was that the merchandising machine that was in place during the time of the OS made Quentin seem much more integral to DS than he was. In fact, "Quentin" was 5 different characters throughout the show and NODS, 6 if you count the ghost as another one. To people like me who saw the show once in a while when it was on and then read the books and comics, it didn't seem like DS wthout him. My opinion changed once I saw all of the series and realized he was not there in the begining and neither was BARNABAS?? That was a shock as well. I figured that out when I realized the first 5 books did not feature him. I got them irregularly through thrift shops and book sales. In 1976, Barnabas and Quentin were like Batman and Robin. You wouldn't do a Batman movie without Robin, would you? OK that's another story.
-
As Gerard has pointed out, director Tim Burton did an especially fine job in highlighting the difficulty that the 18th century Barnabas encountered in adjusting to modern life, circa 1972.
As I recall, the movie theater audience (including yours truly) roared with laughter as Barnabas fumbled his way in trying to deal with the advances of 20th century technology! [easter_smiley] (Something the late, great Dan Curtis did not explore in either of his two DS programs as Gerard also previously mentioned in this thread.)
Perhaps as a mild criticism of the DS film, I found the final, climactic confrontation between Barnabas and Angelique to be somewhat "formulaic fx," like one of those later, so-so Star Trek films.
By the way, do you think that Johnny Depp and Tim Burton would even want to reprise the Dark Shadows saga in another film? After all, we know how "well" the film "Night of Dark Shadows" was received after the release of the more successful "House of Dark Shadows."
Bob
-
First as others have pointed out we have to rule out the possibility of a sequel. I would assume a decision on that will be made soon if it hasn't already. I just think at this point in time a new DS project will be a hard sell. How will the producers attempt to sell a "serious" DS project to a network for example when most people today only know it as a comedy?
What if, since Angelique were killed in the Depp movie, they focused on the many other characters of DS?
Quentin
Stokes
Mr. CHiPs
et alllllllllll
Patti
PS...having just re-watched 2012 DS last night again, [spoiler]don't forget that Dr. Hoffman is still, uh, 'alive-ish'[/spoiler]
-
Superman Returns (2006) was considered a minor hit which underperformed. Yet here comes Man of Steel.
Dark Shadows will return to the screen as it always does.
Jeez, I'd forgotten about that movie! That movie just seemed like it was from some crazy alternate reality or something... And it definitely underwhelmed me at the time. I hadn't watched it since I saw it at the theater. But like you said, here comes the new one... Stranger things have happened I guess for Hollywood. Perhaps like the "U.S. Marshals" sequel to "The Fugitive" movie, DS could switch gears to its other cast to progress the story... (and maybe introduce some new ones!) Although I'm having a flashback of Three's Company when Chrissy calls back to the apartment to check on everybody (having already left the show)! Perhaps Barny could do the same in the sequel!!! [wiseguy] For the record, I'm sadly in the "no" camp for Depp Shadows.
-
after some of the scathing criticism they've received I very much doubt either burton or depp would want to dip their toes into this particular well again...
and even under more positive circumstances visually and creatively perhaps they've gotten it "out of their systems".
-
after some of the scathing criticism they've received I very much doubt either burton or depp would want to dip their toes into this particular well again...
An interesting thing there, though, is that both claim not to pay attention to reviews. But then, who knows if they're being completely truthful about that? And if they aren't, while it's true that many reviews savaged the film, there were also many that were very complimentary of it. And that's not just when it comes to the ones that had snippets quoted in the TV ads or in the DVD/Blu-ray promotional materials. There were many others (including ones like the review in Entertainment Weekly), so if they did get wind of any of those complimentary reviews, one would think they were pleased by them. (Though speaking of those quoted reviews, it's quite fascinating that some still have yet to show up on that certain Web site that shall continue to be unnamed here. Makes one wonder just what their criteria is to pick and choose which reviews to include on their site and which ones not to? And obviously if those reviews haven't shown up yet, they're not about to at this point.)
and even under more positive circumstances visually and creatively perhaps they've gotten it "out of their systems".
Quite possibly. Even before the film opened Burton was making remarks about how he wasn't planning on a sequel. And after the film came out and ended as it does, he still said that despite the ending, a sequel didn't really enter his mind. He looked at the ending more as a tribute to DS' soap roots in which the story is continuing. But who knows?
The one thing I do suspect, though, is that if there were to ever be a sequel, whether rightly or wrongly, Seth Grahame-Smith most likely wouldn't be asked to write it. It's fascinating how he was the anointed darling of the media back in 2010 and 2011, popping up all over the place, but ever since the savage reviews (far worse than DS' worst) and true box office failure of Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter, he seems to have virtually disappeared (we don't even hear much about the potential Beetlejuice sequel, though it's supposedly still a go). But then, if I was Grahame-Smith, I suppose I would be keeping a fairly low profile too. [easter_wink]
-
I saw where SGS will be penning the new "Gremlins" movie or reboot as it were. (Open hand, insert forehead...)
-
Traditionally, aren't sequels things that only get considered if there's a huge public clamoring for it? I know Hollywood relies on sequels and remakes now, but I thought it still applied to some extent. I mean, some people here seem to be saying a sequel might happen if there's just a moderate profit for the first one, as if they might go ahead with the second if it seems to be a just barely viable idea, something that they might profit in a small way with.
I think that if it's not a blockbuster, the executives count their blessings and move on quickly. Only DS fans would still expect a sequel.
-
Traditionally, aren't sequels things that only get considered if there's a huge public clamoring for it?
Nope. These days sequels get made even for barely successful films. In fact, sometimes sequels go into production even before the first film even comes out and even after that first film wasn't even a box office success. And the logic behind the later seems to be the hope that the franchise will be successful in the DVD/Blu-ray market - even though quite often the franchise falls flat on its face and isn't successful in any way, shape, or form. But that doesn't always stop the studios from still trying...
However, it's not likely that any of that currently applies to the DS film because ShadowGram has already reported that there are no plans for a sequel.
-
Thanks for explaining that, MB. I suppose the fact that they weren't already preparing for a sequel while making the first one should tell us something.
-
Well, Burton wasn't necessarily planning on a sequel - though there was talk of a possible sequel from producer Graham King. But who's to say who he'd spoken to before saying that or if it was purely his own speculation? [idontknow]
-
I saw where SGS will be penning the new "Gremlins" movie or reboot as it were. (Open hand, insert forehead...)
If SGS never wrote again, I would be content. I am convinced that all of the great lines in the movie were penned by August. Remember that SGS said there were certain parts of the script that he "couldn't touch" because they were so well-written? I'd imagine that those were the lines that we all truly enjoyed. After all, SGS earned his fame by taking the work of others and adding his own "touches," creating parodies more often than not. I'd rather he not go near any other serious stories, though Gremlins may suit his unique style. Who knows...
-
Well, Burton wasn't necessarily planning on a sequel - though there was talk of a possible sequel from producer Graham King. But who's to say who he'd spoken to before saying that or if it was purely his own speculation? [idontknow]
It does seem that all the talk of a possible franchise came people other than the creative team. Who knows what all Depp's contracts with the Dan Curtis estate and WB entail. I suppose it's quite possible that WB has the rights to any sequels, with Depp and/or Burton having first right of refusal regarding any participation in the sequel. I think these things are all very complicated, especially when it comes to big names like those involved in DS. All that being said, I really doubt we'll see a theatrical sequel. A future TV series seems more likely. (What I'd really be interested in seeing is an opera--in a contemporary musical idiom, a la the through-sung Broadway musicals we've seen in the last few decades.)
-
And in re the opera idea: Hey, if the infamous Carrie can make a prominent Off-Broadway comeback (and receive multiple award nominations!) then who's to say DS hasn't a chance on stage?
-
MB, to me Burton is so idiosyncratic that a non-Tim-Burton sequel to a Tim Burton movie seems insane and unworkable. That was why the 90s Batman movies got worse and worse.
-
Burton said from the beginning that he only wants to do one DS film.
-
it's true that it received some positive notices from critics. while many fans(present company included)whose initial reaction to it was quite negative have warmed to it's offbeat sensibility...
still depp and burton must have known(even if they don't read reviews or blogs)how many fans were apoplectic with rage the minute the first still of depp in whiteface was released. i'll certainly never forget it. while "we" number in the thousands, as opposed to the millions needed to make a film a financial success, they just might not want to involve themselves in it anymore.
even the very topic of this thread, operating under presumption that the film was a "disaster" that might have "ruined" permanently the "franchise", oozes with the sort of open hostility that has surrounded it from some camps from the get go.
-
even the very topic of this thread, operating under presumption that the film was a "disaster" that might have "ruined" permanently the "franchise", oozes with the sort of open hostility that has surrounded it from some camps from the get go.
Well, yeah, the title of the topic would presume that all of DS fandom feels the same with regard to the film. Though, of course, that isn't actually the case, as dozens of posts and at least one poll on the forum shows. And there are even positive groups on facebook nowadays, which is something that might have seemed impossible at one point. So, as you say, many people, including DS fans, who initially had a negative reaction to the film have warmed to it over the last year. And Midnite and I are certainly happy about that development because, well, it's no secret that we've been advocates for the film, particularly after seeing it and enjoying much of it as we do. [easter_smiley]
-
the film is a beautifully shot, well acted, fun tribute with a few brief comic bits that don't work. but it's still an enjoyable film.
the sheer number of dead on references the script has to the original series is impressive.
-
I'd say that there are as many great things about the film as there are lackluster, so it works as a mediocre (flawed) tribute. It certainly captures the DS spirit in parts, but the comic bits are not brief. For me, they really overshadow what is otherwise a fun film - save for the monster mash ending. I don't hold much against Burton except for his role (whatever it was) in driving the script in the direction it went.
I'd love to watch the film sans "comedy" and a certain doctor/patient scene and see how it would work. I think I'd love it. But, as it stands, I have mixed feelings and would really love the opportunity for a more serious project to come along and be successful. I think that the main inspiration for this film was 1968. If you really think about it, you'll see what I mean. 1968 is my least favorite year of the series, and, as such, it doesn't please me that it became the inspiration for the tone of the film when 1966, 1967, and 1969 are such better representations.
-
I'd love to watch the film sans "comedy" and a certain doctor/patient scene and see how it would work.
I suppose it's to each his own, but as I've said before, that certain doctor/patient scene is one the bits I've laughed at the most. Not only because I honestly do think it's funny, but also because there is that possibility that's been mentioned that somehow it may have been inspired by our very own MagnusTrask's post on the "Complete This Phrase / Fill In The Blank(s) - Blackmailing Liz-Intro to Barnabas-Kidnapping Maggie-Intro to Julia" game board:
Re: Episode #0284
It would certainly be a hoot and a half if it was. [easter_grin]
I think that the main inspiration for this film was 1968. If you really think about it, you'll see what I mean.
Honestly I don't. But I'd really love for you to explain further. [easter_smiley]
-
I thought that "certain" scene was hilarious because we all know that's what Julia has wanted to do for nearly 50 years! [easter_grin]
-
And the implications of that scene are a scream if one takes into consideration that Hoffman's the best man for the job! [easter_grin]
-
(I promise everyone to use my great power unwisely...)
-
It would certainly be a hoot and a half if it was. [easter_grin]
Honestly I don't. But I'd really love for you to explain further. [easter_smiley]
Now, if it was, I might like it more. [easter_grin]
If you think of the progression of the film, it parallels the evolution of the storyline in 1968. It begins in the 18th century and then fast-forwards to the modern day. Once it gets to the present, it introduces us all to characters with whom we are familiar. The plot begins soundly, seriously, much like the post-1795 proceedings. Then, when day-walking Barnabas comes on the scene, it begins to get a little whacky, much as 1968 did with the introduction of our day-walking Barnabas. Angelique is the next to arrive on the scene, as in 1968. Her arrival increases the zaniness of the proceedings. The family is eventually streamlined out of the script -- almost completely, with the exception of Liz who plays a more memorable role than the others, much like "I'm going to die" Liz in 1968. Soon the story devolves into an epic battle between Angelique and Barnabas, much like the end of 1968 (except that was between Barnabas/Julia and Angelique/Blair), and every monster imaginable is introduced in the process. It culminates with the introduction of a certain creature who also appears at the end of the 1968 madness. All throughout, there is a certain heightened, almost surreal atmosphere, the same kind that pervaded the 1968 storylines.
I have another theory about the Barnabas "smoke" scene, but I don't have time to expand on that one now. [easter_wink]
-
Good post, CB.
-
Thank you, MagnusTrask!
-
That is quite the fascinating analysis, Cousin_Barnabas. And as I said earlier, none of that ever occurred to me. And what's interesting about it is that it means the film is even more of a tribute to the original show than most of us ever realized. [easter_wink]
When one thinks about it, though, perhaps it's not a surprise that TPTB might have actually taken some pages from the 1968 playbook because, well, it was the second highest rated and viewed period on DS, so despite the derision if often gets nowadays, apparently back in the day many in the original audience, perhaps including Depp and Burton, saw quite a bit in it to keep them interested and coming back. And I have to confess that I do indeed enjoy much of it myself. About the only thing I don't like is the entire period with Adam once he falls under Nicholas' influence. But thank heavens that coincides with the whole Vampelique story, which is one of my all-time favorite plots. Plus, I love Eve, her relationship with Nicholas, and her disdain for Adam, which definitely mirrored my own disdain for him (and perhaps the disdain of a lot of others in the audience by that point). And once Quentin's Ghost comes on the scene and we get the intro to the werewolf, well, we're getting into much of what many would consider DS at its best. But at least one thing is very different when it comes to the film and to the 1968 storyline itself - sadly 1968 has Jeff Clark. [easter_sad] And the fact that the film doesn't should be something to be eternally grateful for!! [easter_cheesy]
Given that the Watching Project is now beginning 1968, it could prove very interesting to pay close attention to see if there are any other things about it that correlate with the Depp/DS film...
-
Given that the Watching Project is now beginning 1968, it could prove very interesting to pay close attention to see if there are any other things about it that correlate with the Depp/DS film...
I wish I could catch up with the WP!! I've only now just reached the Julia's-rushed-experiment-goes-awry point, on my way to 1795 in a couple weeks (I think)...
-
What's interesting about it is that it means the film is even more of a tribute to the original show than most of us ever realized.
There is no doubt in my mind that the film is a total tribute to one narrative of the original series. They wanted to capture the "tone" of that narrative, and they excelled.
The Barnabas "smoke" scene is one of the biggest tributes to said narrative. Prior to the scene, tension has been building. Arguably, the most dramatic moment in the film has just occurred and something bigger is about to happen, when, all of a sudden, Barnabas catches on fire. Everyone stands around, trying to pretend that nothing is wrong. It takes a bit for anyone to really react. The "tone" of the scene completely parallels the tone on the set of the original when an actor flubbed a line. All of this drama is occurring and then this totally random blooper takes place and pulls the viewer out of the moment, but all of the actors do their best to ignore it and continue on, sometimes unable to pull it off convincingly.
-
Also: Willie and the water bucket could be viewed as a tribute to other actors who tried to cover for the flub, but ended up causing more of a problem. [easter_wink]
-
Uh, oh...I just cured MB...he said he loved Eve.... [easter_evil]
On a different note, I don't think the 2012 movie is bad; it's just not the exact TV show we watched in late sixties (then again, if we were lucky, we saw it in the 80's, the re-do in 90s), then we all (I hope most) got to see the entire run on SciFy c. 1998-2004.
That's when alot of us became friends!!!
I just got through watching the 2012 movie the other night; it makes the 4th time I've seen it.
I own multiple copies (NEW) of it; it's the first movie/show/any DVD I ever pre-ordered.
Patti
-
Uh, oh...I just cured MB...he said he loved Eve.... [easter_evil]
Yes, I love Eve - and I'm willing to shout it from the rooftops because, not only is Marie Wallace an absolute hoot and a half in the role, she clearly had a field day playing her. [easter_grin]
it's just not the exact TV show we watched in late sixties
And it never could have been - not even if it had been 100% faithful to the original - and for one very good reason: the original can never be duplicated because it's completely a part of its time and place - just as the '91 DS can never be duplicated either because it's a part of its time and place. And no one should ever expect any new version of DS to be exactly like the original, or the '91 DS. Such hopes can't help but be doomed to great disappointment.
-
Tim Burton makes Tim Burton movies. He's not like Ron Howard, who's sort of anonymous and recedces into the background. There was never a chance it would be done in the same spirit as the series, except very loosely. It was always bound to have a very individual slant.
-
Tim Burton makes Tim Burton movies. There was never a chance it would be done in the same spirit as the series, except very loosely. It was always bound to have a very individual slant.
Very well stated Magnus!!!
-
Thanks, Patti.
-
Dark Shadows may end up having as many comebacks as Cher. '
-
I don't think there can be a 'come-back'. Dark Shadows is a TV show from the late-60s.
It is also a show (short-lived) from early 90s.
It is also a numerous movies franchise.
I love Dark Shadows. I don't think it's ever 'gone away', to come back.
Patti
-
No matter what we do, DS is never going to be as big as Star Trek or Star Wars--I've accepted that a long time ago.
But it has never gone away--the original is on DVD (where it sold rather well) and on Hulu.
Love it or hate it, the Burton film, outrageously over-budgeted, still turned a profit.
DS comic books, novels and audio dramas are now being issued regularly. They are also profitable.
DS is a regular winner at the annual Rondo Awards for excellence in horror entertainment.
DS is hardly a dead issue.
-
MB, I love Eve too. Marie is just so compulsively watchable as the character, and the idea of this artificially created woman whose personality is some 18th century mass murderess sashaying around the estate in an evening gown and high heels is just so outrageous. I would have liked the character better though [spoiler]had they not introduced that ghastly thing about her following Peter Bradford to the ends of the earth. UGH! [/spoiler]
I also don't agree with those who think of the entire 1968 storyline as a trainwreck. I think every storyline has its shining moments and its unsatisfying passages. 1968 WAS more extreme than anything that had gone before, but it also produced some elements that were IMO *better*--one some level--than anything that had gone before.
I'd still argue that the original 1967 Laura Collins storyline is probably THE narrative high point of the series--as STORYTELLING. 1897 was probably the best in terms of all the characters and different threads that were interwoven. Parallel Time 1970 had the fun of the murder mystery and some great roles for Edmonds, Hall, Thayer, etc. And so on and so forth...
anyhow I'm going WAYYY off thread here... expecting a wrist slap...
cheers, G.
-
1968 had some fun moments and characters(certainly Cassandra sashaying around Collinwood in a series if puke green shifts was always worth a look)but as an overall narrative I found it to be the most singularly poor period on the series until the whole enterprise starts to run out of steam in 1840.
with the boorish and boring adam as the period's set piece character I found it interminable and almost insufferable. to say nothing of the way the original cast was relegated to the hinterlands in his favor. and what was the whole plan...a "master race dedicated to serving satan"??? c'mon.
all that said and in spite of it eve was a fun byproduct of the period. until she hitched her wagon to peter bradford that it.
-
when the series starts to overreach, when it starts to go outside of the boundries of this particular town and family, as it did with the Adam/Nicholas plot and it's satanic "master race", or with the leviathans(although it too has some fun moments), to take on the entire earth, it quickly starts to derail for me. the magic and fun go out of it and it just starts to become nonsensical and silly.
and at the end of the day there's really no suspence either no matter how much it's implied. I mean angelique really did turn barnabas into a vampire. laura went up in flames. there were real stakes for these characters and the audience. but the leviathan people and the satanic master race were never really going to take over the world. the viewer knows that so there really aren't any emotional stakes.
the series was a gothic, and when it dipped it's toes into full blown sci-fi, it missed it's marks badly.
-
I thought Angelique as a vampire was a delicious twist!
-
Ron Sproat had written a story arc that would have revealed Victoria as Liz' daughter. They were about to script it for broadcast, but Alexandra's sudden departure killed it.
I'm most sorry about that RE: 1968.
-
well fans have certainly taken that almost as a given despite the fact that it never actually made it into the scripts. it's almost an established part of series' lore.
to keep liz a sympathetic figure in that scenario it would have been interesting to know why on god's green earth she would have sent her first born child to live in some god-forsaken orphanage somewhere. but we'll never know. [easter_huh]
-
The novels (Dreams of the Dark) and the audios (Return to Collinwood) have both established Liz as Vicki's mother, as did the Innovation comic series for the Revial Series, but neither went into much details on why Liz gave Viki away and didn't acknowledge her.
I think there's a good chance this may get explored in Lara Parker's upcoming novels, as Wolf Moon is supposed to have some flashbacks of a young Liz, and the in progress 4th novel focuses on Vicki. Maybe we'll finally get some answers (especially on the identity of her father) - as well as some closure to Vicki's fate.
I'm also still holding out hope that someday Alexandra Moltke Isles will do some audio plays.
It is kind of neat that the story of Vicki, and DS, is still unfolding :)
-
I tolerate a lot of nonsense in the 1968 era for the sake of such delicious moments as:
Cassandra's showdown with Liz: "Do you know what your problem is?" I still can't believe that that line was scripted AND delivered.
Any scene involving Nicholas and Julia.
Barnabas taunting Cassandra as "Angelique" and her inevitable response: "Don't call me that!"
Mrs. Johnson telling Nicholas she fears the Collins family is under a curse... and Mrs. Johnson reading Harry the riot act. LOL!
Tom and Julia.
Vampilique and her various schemes. (I really felt for her when Nicholas stopped her from goin' down on that hunky cop... CHOMP!)
I could go on, but these are just some of the gems that always make me look forward to visiting the 1968 period.
I also find the scene where Maggie tries to talk Joe into leaving town to be a surprisingly poignant moment... it definitely looks back to the period when Collinsport was just a troubled small town... not a Hellmouth-in-training.
G.
-
even though it's being written by a series' castmember Parker's upcoming novel on Vicki's backstory is still in essence elevated fan fiction...
no matter what theory Parker comes up with it doesn't really "answer" any of the questions about Vicki's parentage because it's just Parker's own interpretation. and no matter how many times it's "officially" sanctioned RTC was just a festival skit.
unfortunately because it never actually took place onscreen none of those questions can ever definitively be "answered".
-
We'll have to agree to disagree there.
I consider the DS novels by Parker and Rainey, and the comics and audios to be part of the same ongoing story as the tv series. They are offically licenced stories following the same storyline and that's not the same as fan fiction imo. The audios even use the original actors.
The Ross novels, the old comics and HODS and NODS are in the own seperate continuities because they weren't trying to fit into the original series continuity, just in case that comes up.
It's a familiar debate with any fandom with spin off media, as to what counts and what doesn't. I tend to embrace a larger world view of what counts as real DS, it makes for a richer more complex, and larger, experience. I understand not everyone's going to feel the same way and that's ok too.
-
According to the traditional definition, series canon consists *only* of material broadcast as part of the run of the show. *All* material not originally broadcast, including the Ken Bald and Gold Key comics, is its own canon, as are the redactions from 1991, 2004, and 2012.
I'm not even sure all the Big Finish stories are trying to fit into the same canon. Frankly, the only one I listened to in its entirety may have had the same actors, but the characters spoke and acted like people completely different from the ones I had gotten to know through original series canon.
Just providing the traditional view--of course you can choose to slice it as you prefer.
Best, Gothick
-
so then QC what happened if Lara's 'version' of Vicki's backstory reveals Liz not to be Vicki's mother. but someone else is???
doesn't that invalidate the "official" RTC theory? no ones read her story yet. she hasn't even written it. she could "reveal" Mrs. Johnson to be Vicki's mother if she felt like it. it's her party.
just because Lara appeared on the series and has been "licenced" by DCP doesn't her make story speculations any different than anybody else's. she didn't create Victoria Winters as a character. neither did mark rainey. Parker's previous books already go well outside established canon.
it's still just fan fiction. and my DS "experience" has been plenty "rich" as it stands.
-
I've got to say G, nearly every single one of the 1968 scenes that you mentioned is in my "favorites" list. But, I also have a "favorites" list of scenes in Depp Shadows. I think both show great potential, but never live up to "Haunting of Collinwood" (1969) or "I am Phoenix. Hear Me Roar" (1967) quality.
Yes, 1968 certainly did have some great moments. As did Depp Shadows. But, overall, they both strayed from my preferred original series "tone," Depp Shadows a little more so. [easter_wink]
-
Ron Sproat had written a story arc that would have revealed Victoria as Liz' daughter. They were about to script it for broadcast, but Alexandra's sudden departure killed it.
It's true that Sproat said at the earliest Fest that the writers intended to reveal this but AM left the show before it could happen. But I don't believe he'd written anything for it yet and the identity of Vicki's father was never finalized.
-
Cousin B, I honestly do not mean to be offensive--just giving my opinion--but to be frank, I found Jonny Depp's portrayal of Barnabas to be literally unwatchable. Somehow I got through it--once. Nothing in 1968 is on that level of dreadfulness (well, some of the Vicki/Jeff scenes come close).
Again, just my opinion. Glad you can enjoy it to the point of having "favorite moments." I really wish more of the Helena/Pfeiffer scenes had been kept in--the ones sans Barnabas and "Evalique" (rhymes with EEK! which is what her dye job does to me).
Going to my room to rest,
G.
-
We diehard fans seem to be the only ones who remember the whole Betty Hanscombe narrative. I really wish they had resolved that, but perhaps after Art Wallace left, DC decreed that it was "yesterday's headline." And if any of the writers protested, we know what the response from the golfclub-wielding exec was--"Are you writing the show--or not? There are a lot of people who would like to write this show."
sigh.
G.
-
Big Finish's audios all work togather in one continuity, and they also incorporate RtC into their continuity. They so far haven't done any audios set after RtC, but one of the original characters from RtC has made an appearance in one of their audios.
If Lara's new books seriously contradict the audios, then I may need to rethink my stance. Already I admit it could be considered a strech to reconcile The Salem Branch with the audios, but there is a 12 or so year gap between TSB and the full cast audio stories from Big Finish. Plenty of time for untold stories to sort out the continuity issue.
Since Big Finish did an abridged audiobook of Angelique's Descent read by Lara Parker, I think they have embraced the 18th century backstory as part of their canon anyways.
I already can see one way around the issues that could come up. Liz could have lied in her will about Viki's paternity to hide a different secret, or even to give Viki what she most wanted, a family and identity. I definitely prefer Liz to be Viki's mother, because it's what the writers intended, and because of the warm chemistry between the actors/characters. Watching the show I definitely feel that Liz was her mother,and I think there's subtext to support that, but of course, subtext is personal and subjective.
This is of course just my opinion. Of course others are free to feel differently. There are some good stories in the spin off media that are well worth any fan checking out.
For what it's worth, there's also some very very good fan fiction out there. Stories can be enjoyed without being "canon", and in DS, with Parallel Time, all realities can be real somewhere.
-
Cousin B, I honestly do not mean to be offensive--just giving my opinion--but to be frank, I found Jonny Depp's portrayal of Barnabas to be literally unwatchable. Somehow I got through it--once. Nothing in 1968 is on that level of dreadfulness (well, some of the Vicki/Jeff scenes come close).
Again, just my opinion. Glad you can enjoy it to the point of having "favorite moments." I really wish more of the Helena/Pfeiffer scenes had been kept in--the ones sans Barnabas and "Evalique" (rhymes with EEK! which is what her dye job does to me).
Interesting you should point that out, as none of my favorite moments have to do with Depp's Barnabas, except for his introduction to Vicki and one at the bitter end. No, most take place before his arrival and involve Pfeiffer and Heathcote. Like you, I have only seen it once. I will watch it again once the DVD ends up in the discount bin. [easter_wink] It's funny, though, as I actually would rather watch Depp's Barnabas than any of the Jeff and Vicki scenes in 1968. [easter_grin] I did not like Depp's Barnabas, but I prefer him to that horribly uncomfortable OS mash-up.
-
no matter how many times it's "officially" sanctioned RTC was just a festival skit.
unfortunately because it never actually took place onscreen none of those questions can ever definitively be "answered".
That's an interesting opinion, and you are entitled to it. However, since the cast was officially reunited to do a licensed full cast audio production, I consider it to be canon. You and I can argue until the cows come home (whenever that is) but in the end neither of us decides that, and the powers that be proablably don't care. But calling Return to Collinwood is certainly more than a "skit". It's a decently written(but not up to the level of the Big Finish stories), well acted, professionally produced audio drama. Like the rest of Big Finish, it's reasonably consistent with the original series. Any continuity gaffes are less appallng than what they got away with on the show. But as I said, in the end, it's all a matter of opinion because I don't hear anyone at Dan Curtis Productions making statements about what's canon and what's not.
-
For what it's worth, here's the Wikipedia entry on the concept of canon as being discussed here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_(fiction)
For Star Trek, they give a definition that contrasts with the one I have given for DS. I feel strongly that canon for Original Series DS consists of the episodes as aired, full stop. This is the case even though I really dislike some decisions that were made in canon about character fates, notably Victoria Winters' "final" fate. (Dale Clark's first DS fan novel was written specifically to give an alteration to this canon, which has disturbed so many fans over the years.) Another interesting example of this is in the 1980s TV series Beauty and the Beast, where TPTB provided an ending that many (perhaps most) fans regarded as outright character rape. I think this may have been the first instance where fannish writers provided an alternate season of episodes to what had been aired, a practice that has since become popular in Net fandom with many canceled series.
Cousin Barnabas, Roger Davis's "performances" as Jeff Clark in 1968 definitely rate as among the most hair-grippingly awful (lol) material he did on the show, so I feel your pain.
For a lot of us Ancient Blood fans (viewers during the time of the original airing), the 1968 period has its own nostalgic overlay because it was during this time that DS really hit big in mass media coverage and national awareness. Which was why the era was recalled by some cast members as "that year of insanity." lol!
G.
-
the high handed throwing around of the word "official" doesn't make something part of series canon no matter how many times you use it. it was never revealed, on the series, who Vicki's parents were. that's really the beginning and end of it.
as for RTC to me it was just a performance(perhaps "skit" is too diminutive)using that actors available that year. if others want to read more into it because it was "official" whatever.
as I recall the Ross novels were "official" too and they spent a lot of time talking about someone named "professor veno" who was I think Liz and Roger's creepy brother. what's he up to these days?
-
I have all of Dale Clark's fan novels, they are really excellent! My favorite DS fan fiction. He did a great job of continuing the story and making good use of all the characters.
Vicki's fate is the worst! I really hate what was done to her. I've always thought she could still be saved thru time travel, and I thought a window of opprotunity was opened with RtC, with Liz's will urging Carolyn to find Vicki. I figured that when conventional meathods of locating Vicki failed, they'd turn to the tried and true method of seeking help with a seance, and from there there would be a time travel rescue. I'm pretty psyched that we may finally get Vicki saved in novel form.
Canon is just as high handed a word as offical in my opinion.
The Ross novels were offical DS merchandise, but they never intended to follow the tv series continuity, as the modern novels, comics and audios do.
-
needless to say none of this is "real" anyways...
but i'm a fan of the series and it's unique atmosphere and attitude so that's what I watched and that's what my reference points and "realities" are for this tale.
i'm not a fan of comic books or fan fiction or action figures or audiodramas or viewmaster reels or any of the other tchokes associated with the series. they're ancillary and optional. so no matter what "official" stories they may tell they're not part of the OS which is what I come to the whole shebang for anyways.
-
QC, I identify with anyone who loves trying to expand a series he/she is a fan of outward as far as possible, making it into as large and complex a fictional world as possible, while at the same time keeping it consistent. It's silly for anyone to lay down rules for other people, as to what is or isn't "canon". Any one of us can become Mr. Technical about it, citing this or that valid reason for calling "this" canon, and "that" not canon. and we'd all probably be right. We've all got good reasons, that conflict. Therefore it's up to us as individuals (or groups in the case of a club, maybe) to decide for ourselves what works for us as "canon". This is probably what I've heard referred to as "fanon".
What ticks me off is when legalities, meaning who owns copyrights and what those copyright owners have done with a show, are treated as the only legitimate authority to go by. Corporations often take over shows and manhandle them for quick profits. A corporation never had a creative thought or feeling... a corporation isn't even a person. Creative people bucking the system to get real quality on TV, that's who "owns" the show, creatively, screw legalities. #2 below the creators are fans. In spirit, fans own these shows far more than the corporations who buy them. Fans care, and keep the flame going, and are driven to keep the show's integrity intact.
We're at a point in history now when the shows with the biggest, longest lasting fandoms, (fandoms who kept the shows alive, "underground", and finally made it profitable to bring them back...) are now being drastically "re-imagined" for a mass market, to one extent or another. (DS, Star Trek, Dr Who) They're making us as fans have to decide something we've never had to decide before... whether we can reject new versions of our shows as not "canon", even though they are made by the official owners of these shows. I say we can. There are no rules for "canon" anymore. We each have to decide that ourselves.
-
I have all of Dale Clark's fan novels, they are really excellent!
Did his latest novel end on a cliffhanger, or were the major plot points resolved?
-
Did his latest novel end on a cliffhanger, or were the major plot points resolved?
The big plots were resolved, but there was still a big cliffhanger. I exchanged a couple of emails with him a few years ago, and he did say he had ideas for another story or two to finish the series.
Dale also had a stand alone zine that was a sequel to the tv series besides the ongoing novel series.
For what it's worth the last time I found his site with ordering info for the zines the last book or two weren't in the list. I suspect the website was just never updated, so if anyone ever finds it, I recommend contacting Dale to get an updated zine list rather than just order what's shown. It's been a long long time though, so who knows for sure if he even sells the zines anymore.
-
I loved Resolutions in Time a standalone novel he wrote in the early 80s.
-
as I recall the Ross novels were "official" too and they spent a lot of time talking about someone named "professor veno" who was I think Liz and Roger's creepy brother. what's he up to these days?
The general rule of thumb for canonicity usually only involves spin-off series. The Star Trek sequel series are considered canon but the books, novels, etc are not. The new Doctor Who series references the original series. I'm not sure how to fit audio dramas. I don't see any reason why they are not considered a valid spin-off in the case of Doctor Who and all of the sequel series at Big Finish. They use the original actors, have high quality writers, and go to great lengths to remain consistent. In fact, they are often more consistent than the original series. Remember Barnabas' "elderly" Uncle Jeremiah and the events of the "early 1800s". 1795 erased all that and then 1897 got it wrong again! You don't have gaffes like that in the audio series!
-
well again, suffice to say none on this is "real". every single bit of it is fiction...
accordingly people can "believe" whatever they want to believe. there's no to way prove or disprove anybody because none of it is real. but for my purposes series continuity came to it's conclusion when the 0S did in 1971. that was the end of it. if it hadn't happened in the previous five years it wasn't part of the story in a conclusive way. every comic book or audiodrama that's hit the marketplace since is, to me, an offshoot.
and just because some suit as DCP accepted a licencing fee and deemed something "official" doesn't make it part of series continuity for me because the series is over.
so digressing no matter what offshoot products decide that Liz is Vicki's mother(which is after all the sentimental fan favorite so why mess with people's fantasies?)for me it's irrelevant. it didn't happen in the context of the actual series. Joan and Alexandra never played those scenes.
but it sounds like it's a create-your-own-canaon situation these day.
-
For what it's worth, when it comes to DS I also come down on the side that if it wasn't a part of the actual show, then it doesn't count as canon within the original show. I consider it to be separate canon within whatever alternate version of the show it's a part of.
-
So to answer the question of the OP... Yes. Dark Shadows is returning to television this fall in two different series. One is called "Dracula," and it's all about a vampire who travels across time to find the reincarnation of his lost love. The other is called "Sleepy Hollow," and this one is all about a man who has been buried for 200 years and is then resurrected in a small Northeastern town. Part of the plot shows how he adjusts to the changing times... [easter_rolleyes]
This is why, if the real Dark Shadows is ever to return, it needs to differentiate itself from all of these other shows that are "inspired" by it. Because they just keep coming...
-
it was never revealed, on the series, who Vicki's parents were. that's really the beginning and end of it.
Well..that's one way to look at it...but you don't own the rights, so really that's just an opinion. The actual beginning and end of it is, RTC exists, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not. Unlike other types of media before it, RTC fits into the continuity, it has the original actors reprising their roles, and it's licensed. So I don't see the problem. It's an official continuation of the show, that's really the beginning and end of it. The only question is whether or not a person wants to listen to it. If you don't that's fine, but for those of us who do, we have our answer.
-
gee...
if it's "licenced" and "official" than it must be true! [easter_rolleyes]
-
This is why, if the real Dark Shadows is ever to return, it needs to differentiate itself from all of these other shows that are "inspired" by it. Because they just keep coming...
I had the exact same thought. [easter_wink] Though properly differentiating itself in all likelihood means making significant changes - and we all know how many in fandom howl with great bale when the least little thing is changed (even as they make incongruous claims not to want to see the same thing all over again). So, if there ever is a new and revamped DS on TV in the future, it would be fascinating to see how many in fandom embrace it. Or would it be more of the same in those same corners that howled with great bale against the '91 DS and the '04 pilot?
-
Maybe in the next DS Quentin could be a vampire & Barnabas could be a werewolf!
Dr. Jules Hoffman, the best man for the job, falls in love with Barnabas as always!
-
gee...
if it's "licenced" and "official" than it must be true! [easter_rolleyes]
That's what I was complaining about. This is excessive rules-following, I think. It places abstract legalities over creative considerations. Some company may have the money to buy a program, but that doesn't make them responsible caretakers for it. Usually it's the exact opposite. Even Dan Curtis seemed more like a suit than a guardian of his own program.
Once these special programs were cancelled, fandoms became their caretakers. We "own" them, along with their creators, in any meaningful sense.
-
it's been awhile since i was last on here. so i hope this is the right area. but i watched the film for the 1st time last night. and i went in knowing it wasn't anything like show. and with pretty much had no expectations well they were pretty low. after watching a review on how a mix bag it is. and before i say it is. i do admit other than Liz who i thought kicked ass in the film. that at least stayed true to the show. her being the head of the house. well they Ruined Roger for one, and pretty much all the characters cept for Liz.
with our favourite Evil Witch they i think stayed true on how evil she is. though they made her even more evil which i liked. Johnny Depp did a far better job than i thought he would have done. i went in thinking he would have ruined him like he did with Willy Wonka where he pretty much played Michael Jackson. that's my take on it anyways. and he was pretty good and that i think was a plus. the film was beautiful to look at. everything about it was nice to look it. the cast looked really good. it stayed true to the show for that at least.
the downside. uh why the comedy route? WHY? the film didn't know weather to be a gothic film/horror film where they had Barnabas killing groups of people. not something he ever did on the show. him walking around with blood on him i didn't mind that. the CGI FX i didn't mind that. it didn't look like it used that to often.
some of the fx did look like standard FX. i actually liked the ending. cept what they did with Caroline. she was pretty useless. so was pretty much everyone else cept for barnabas. and Liz. of the family. and Maggie WTF ? so yes the film is all over the place. and oddly looking at it in the way where i knew ahead of time that it wasn't nothing like that and how Tim Burton is. leaving thoughts of the show behind and thinking of it as a stand alone film i enjoyed it. now if i had went in and expected it to be true to the show like many did when it came out i would i think have hated it.
that took me by surprise. if only the film would have kept the same tone as the start of the film and the end of it it would have been the perfect film.
-
and also yes i do think that IF given to the right writer and the right director who really do love the series and they are faithful to the show than yes it can be done. and don't make it a comedy either. if they want to say certain characters in the film if it's a villian of course and depending on who it is than if it's done right.
i can live with that. just as long as they give some of the original cast members from the show not just walk on roles but roles who actually speak. and are part of the film. i'm sure they'd love to come back to do another DS film. and even invite some cast that weren't in last years film.
-
i'm sure i'll catch some flack for bringing up a touchy subject but I think some(many)fans have somewhat unrealistic expectations for what level of participation the OS cast would have in any new version of the story other than small roles/cameos...
with the exception of the child actors the living cast members are now largely in their seventies and eighties. given the existing framework of the story and the established characters there isn't a lot of material for actors of that age. believe it or not even the story's "grand dame" character Elizabeth, a woman in her 50's with a teenage daughter, is now well out of reach for most of the OS actresses.
true new roles could be written. or a supporting character like doctor Woodard could be played by a man of any age. but in terms of the principal characters the OS cast is past that. we are talking about a show that premiered nearly half a century ago.
-
it is for similar reasons I can't really consider the RTC presentation or the audiodramas OS "continuity"...
the actors are 40+ years older than the characters they are supposed to be playing. they don't take that gap into account. to me it's a gaffe that's hard to overlook.
-
yes i know how old the cast ages are now. but a guy can dream can't he ? anyways, people always say how older actors don't get much work but some do. look at Christopher Lee he's 91 years old now. and though he doesn't take big roles anymore it isn't cause he doesn't want to it's that he physically can't do it anymore.
he tires to easily and even sitting down wears him out, in short i think after he fell 2 years ago i think it was? age it's affected him and that's why he takes cameo's now. anyways sorry for going off topic i just meant that we do have some older actors go still work.
-
Besides Dr. Woodard, Prof Stokes, Magda, Sandor, Count Petofi, Nick Blair, Evan Hanley, Dr. Eric Lang, Mrs. Johnson, Abigail, are among the roles OS actors could still play.
-
i agree and well said. if they go back and re-do those stories. or if they do something new as well i wouldn't mind that either. not everything has to be repeats of stuff already done. the film though had some nice ideas it was just pretty much Burke Devlin taking over Collinwood. and all they did change who it was and unlike Burke who never was able to take over the whole town. they just upped the ante where Angelique did.
i'd still love to see the guy who's name escapes me at the moment he play Barnabas in the unaired pilot and he plays him in the audio plays. he's fantastic. i loved him in the Dune films. i'd love to see him get a crack at playing him in a film. Barnabas never was given an age during the show's run. which i find rather funny if you think about it.
-
Let's not have expectations of original cast members. Let's have it be a wonderful unexpected bonus if one turns up in some new DS thing. They've done their bit. Fandom traditionally requires actors to make lots and lots of what are often token appearances, answering a few simple questions for the millionth time, for low pay, mainly for the novelty value of seeing them in the flesh. Wanting to see them in new DS in cameos is the same sort of thing, and I'll say we should value quality over quantity. As you get up in years, you want your time to be spent in a more meaningful way.
If their talents are being used well, that's perfect. Maybe the Dr Mabuse things are an example of good ways to please fans.
Good audios where the actors can sound like the characters they're supposed to be playing still, that would be great too.
Anyway, I don't think the Depp film helped or hurt, except for the fact that no one's going to mount a DS film project right now, just because someone just did that. It sent a ripple out there making it known that DS is "alive" still. It only got made because Depp's a fan, but there could be other pro fans out there.
-
well yeah and Tim Burton is a fan as well. though i looked up what his next film is, and i was shocked it's going to be an original idea. something he hasn't done in about 10 years! not counting his claymation films.
anyways, i just hope we don't have to wait another 40 years for the next film.
-
I would welcome a new DS project, although it might be a while before we see one. Did Warner Brothers or Burton/Depp get the rights for additional projects? They may or may not want to do more DS but anyone else who is interested would probably have to work with them.
-
So far as was reported, Depp is the only one who negotiated the rights with DC's heirs to do a DS film - Burton and WB have no rights to DS. And the way things tend to work, chances are Depp's deal only covered doing the film or possible films and not TV. And so far as his deal worked, it could have expired with the release of his film, it may have had an option to renew if he wanted to do a sequel, or it may expire after a set amount of years. But none of the expiration details were ever reported, so we really have no idea.
-
well at least when he made that deal, a DS film actually got made. i tire of hearing of various deals like this and no film or films EVER get made. at least with Depp he made a DS film. true it wasn't as good as we would have hoped it would be but it still got made. that is a good question though i wonder how long it lasts and how many films it pertains?