Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - michael c

1621
Current Talk '10 II / Re: Humorous moments in 1795
« on: December 03, 2010, 07:40:36 PM »
yes there's a scene where josette's starting to go off the deep end toward the end of the storyline and natalie goes on about a fictitious tea party for the servants where ben pays her embarrassing attentions to see if josette is really listening to her.

it's actually a serious scene/moment in the plot but again grayson's delivery makes it quite entertaining.

1622
Current Talk '10 II / Re: Humorous moments in 1795
« on: December 03, 2010, 04:19:57 PM »
as andres dupres david ford does get in a few zingers before the character inexplicably departs mid-storyline.

he has a few choice words for abigail in one scene when he tells that all he expects from her are the "narrow opinions of a lonely and fanatical old woman". OUCH!

needless to say miss collins(the exquisite clarice blackburn)"clutches her pearls" so to speak.

1623
even more obscure DS connection...

neilson starred opposite julie haggarty in "airplane" who made an unbilled cameo appearance as alexandra isles in "reversal of fortune".

flimsy, i know. [hall2_rolleyes]

1624
Current Talk '10 II / the lara parker collection six interview
« on: November 28, 2010, 05:34:33 PM »
last night i was watching dvd collection six that has an interview with lara parker.

in this particular interview she's really hamming it up. she's on a set complete with red satin drapery and burning candles and she's wearing some sort of long black dress and choker that i think is supposed to come across as "witch-like".

here she goes on about vampires and witches and death and sexuality and the metaphysical and all of this mumbo-jumbo strikes me as very disingenuous.

in other interviews i've seen parker dresses and acts normally and admits to knowing nothing about witchcraft, never studying it and was simply reading the dialogue written for her on the series. in fact she seems to me more like a very well kept and expensively maintained trophy wife than anyone actively involved in the occult.

this was obviously done several years ago so i wonder if it was produced as some sort of promotional tool for one of her books. to give her more "street cred" so to speak among people involved in this type of thing. it's really fake and cheesy and the set is awful.

diana millay can pull off this "i really am the pheonix" routine but here parker just looks silly.

1625
Current Talk '10 II / Re: Lamar Trask's motivation?
« on: November 26, 2010, 07:55:21 PM »
i don't doubt for a minute that alot of lacey's overacting as trask came from his direction...

but still lacey himself said on one of the dvd interviews trask was pure melodrama and "mustache twirling at it's best"(his words not mine). it's almost like that classic villain from the silent movie era(broad,over-the-top gestures)except that we could hear trask and to say his voice was abrasive would be an understatement.

and not all DS villians behaved in such a ham-handed fashion...certainly not frid even at his worst. not parker. not selby. and as someone mentioned not james storm either.

i haven't seen any of his other work but just in terms of DS lacey was not exactly subtle. even his early tony peterson was such an obvious riff on "bogey" it was almost laughable.

1626
love it!

i wish they'd have included a picture of bell. i'm trying to picture the 'do.

we really only saw ringlets during the time travel storylines...josette,angelique,samantha...so i wonder who inspired the comment?

1627
"dark shadows-the first year" was published by a company called blue whale books.

the address given on the book is p.o.box 480726 los angeles, ca 90048.

contact them they might still have copies available. it's very well done and a must for first year newbies as well as aficionados.

i absolutely adore the first year. as i'm sure you're aware it's not overtly supernatural until the pheonix storyline starts at the end of 1966. it's more an atmosphere of implied mystery that's quite wonderful. i hope you enjoy it.

1628
Current Talk '10 II / Re: Roger Davis as Ned Stuart?
« on: November 23, 2010, 04:50:39 AM »
on another note...

over the series' five year run only about two dozen actors dominated with each generally playing numerous roles.

sometimes it mattered that two characters looked exactly alike(jeff clark/peter bradford,cassandra/angelique)and sometimes it didn't(jeff clark/ned stuart,jeb hawkes/sebastian shaw). how the writers decided when it meant something and when it didn't is anyone's guess. sometimes the resemblance was noted by everyone(ned)and other times not given a second thought by anyone(eve/megan todd)and again who knows why it was decided it wasn't important.

it should be noted too that last time this subject came up it was pointed out that had davis not left the series a romantic role opposite kathryn leigh scott was planned for 1970. yikes! [hall2_shocked]

1629
Current Talk '10 II / Re: Roger Davis as Ned Stuart?
« on: November 23, 2010, 04:16:09 AM »
claude...

this subject has come up here several times recently. i've always been a proponent of the RD-had-a-two-year-contract theory(he appears on the series from early 1968-early 1970)but others more knowledgable(as magnus pointed out)will insist DC liked him so much he had him written into every storyline possible whether it made sense or not thus RD'S absurd preponderance of roles.

yes the ned stuart casting seems to be the most ridiculous given jeff clark's recent departure and so close to the upcoming 1897 parts. unlike chameleon thayer david's immersion in each of his numerous characterizations davis looks and acts virtually the same with each simmering performance. if anything he seems to grow more belligerent over time but that could be in part due to the overheated acting style that typifies the program after 1795. i actually think he's sort of sweet as peter bradford in 1795 and him and alexandra sort of cute together(his only role i can take)but as soon as he shows up as jeff clark in 1968 he drives me insane. across that year the sense of dissonance between his and alexandra's acting styles(her placidness contrasted to his abrasiveness)becomes palpable. hasn't the DS rumor mill always churned out that she disliked working with him intensely?

but yeah i think ned was the worst. [hall2_rolleyes]

1630
Current Talk '10 II / Re: Lamar Trask's motivation?
« on: November 18, 2010, 03:59:06 AM »
sort of OT but i've been watching 1795 again and noticing that reverand trask is sort of ground zero for a new and different type of character on the series...

as portrayed by jerry lacey he is for me the first character played so broadly,so over-the-top,that he inaugurates the era where DS perhaps acquires it's (whisper it!)"camp" reputation.

before trask,even as ghosts as monsters began to overtake the series,the actors played at a certain pitch. it could be a bit flamboyant,a bit on-the-edge(think diana millay and grayson hall),but it never came close to the type of energy lacey brought to the proceedings.it's almost comical.

it's a type of acting/character that continues with doctor lang,adam,tom jennings and others for the remainder of the show's run but for me trask is the first.

1631
Current Talk '10 II / Re: Today's Robservations Slideshow
« on: November 11, 2010, 06:31:32 AM »
i'll bet we're the only fanbase in the world that could spend days quite enjoyably discussing the minutiae of a fictitious group of people's dinnertime attire.

love it! [hall2_kiss]

1632
Current Talk '10 II / Re: Today's Robservations Slideshow
« on: November 09, 2010, 05:00:39 AM »
for this storyline nancy barrett got a series of A-line dresses...

combined with the scarves tied around her neck,her platinum halo of hair,her stiffened gait and odd monotone way of speaking she reminds me of some strange doll or android.

i forget if this confrontation was before or after carolyn was told by her mother to be polite to julia but i think the whole "dressing for dinner" line of conversation was supposed to be social niceties disguising the diabolical nature of the relationship during this period.

1633
Current Talk '10 II / Re: Today's Robservations Slideshow
« on: November 09, 2010, 02:47:54 AM »
gothick...

of course today's showdown is the "better than heroin" catfight between "miss" hoffman and carolyn in the collinwood foyer. it's this scrumptious little subplot at it's "how dare you!" best. meow!

please, please don't forget that the collins family DRESSES for dinner and the cocktail hour and don't be late.

and by all means control yourself. YOU MUST.

1634
Current Talk '10 II / Re: Today's Robservations Slideshow
« on: November 07, 2010, 04:34:28 PM »
"plastics".

that was the name of the game in the 1960's. so the fabrics were thick. and heavy. and synthetic. not an organic nor breathable fabric in sight.

this certainly lent the DS fashions a "boxy" look. come of the coats and dresses looked like they'd stand up on their own.

considering that a retailer was the credited supplier of the clothing i'm always surprised how much wear these garments got. some lasted the full five year run. i mean would have killed ohrbach's to send over new things now and then? [hall2_rolleyes]

1635
Current Talk '10 II / Re: Today's Robservations Slideshow
« on: November 07, 2010, 02:39:36 PM »
did julia get a few new frocks for 1970? as i recall some of the duds were starting to get pretty threadbare by this point. i seem to remember the green tweed suit from 1967 still getting a frequent outing. someone from ABC costuming just kept shortening the hems.

as our "junior sophisticate" kathryn leigh scott seemed to get the most frequent wardrobe replenishment. she and nancy barrett got a couple of MAXISKIRTS around this time. [hall2_shocked]

needless to say liz's insane chartrues caftan thing from 1966 was still in heavy rotation. DCP was obviously determined to get every penny out of that thing.