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

2131
Current Talk '08 I / Re: Discuss - Ep #0469
« on: February 01, 2008, 06:29:53 PM »
yes.

julia smiling...being coy.evasive.duplicitous.it's just grayson hall at her creamiest.

in some later storylines where julia simply functions as barnabas' assistant and time travel companion she's not that interesting.

some deviousness on her part brings out the best in the character.

2132
...and ryan seacrest as jeff clark?

i don't know.i was watching something with ryan seacrest on it and for some reason he was really giving me a 'roger davis as jeff clark' kind of vibe.

maybe it's the tan.or the hair.or the grin.

would jeff have been considered a "metrosexual" today with all that hair-fussing?

2133
Current Talk '08 I / Re: Discuss - Ep #0468
« on: January 30, 2008, 06:11:01 PM »
i love how conveniently carolyn and vicki  just "forget" that barnabas is a vampire and until two days ago both were under his control.that certainly was easy on the scriptwriters.this allows them to forge on with barnabas' repositioning as the show's guilt-ridden anti-hero without any messy loose ends.

spoiler...
we will see however that not everyone's memory banks are so easily wiped clean of this frightening fact.

the effect with the rain against the collinwood windows was cool.they should have gone for that more often.

yes vicki and julia arrive at the collins mausoleum bone-dry.as usual during "storms" on d.s. we don't want mascara running or hairdo's drooping.and what was with this show and wool coats.no matter what the season or weather the ladies are always wearing boxy wool coats.
jeff,if i recall however,is wearing a "wet" rainslicker and has weird fake drops of rain in his hair.i guess guys are allowed to get wet.

2134
Current Talk '07 II / Re: how $14 and a writers strike got me to 1991
« on: January 28, 2008, 05:57:47 PM »
one more minor detail...

in this version everyone called victoria "victoria" where as in the original everyone called her "vicki".

it sort of made the her sound more like a character from a romance novel.more "flowery" somehow.

i wonder why they made this decison. [snow_undecided]

2135
Current Talk '08 I / Re: Discuss - Ep #0465
« on: January 28, 2008, 05:51:00 PM »
yeah b. learns to drive at some point because...

Spoiler:
for reasons i do not recall remember how barnabas "accidently" drives right into "grant douglas" in front of the antique shop during the leviathan episodes.

2136
Current Talk '07 II / Re: how $14 and a writers strike got me to 1991
« on: January 28, 2008, 04:10:14 PM »
i finished this over the weekend.

as i believe lydia pointed out they were in this huge rush to get to the 1790 storyline(at the great expense of developing the present day characters and storyline)and then once there didn't do much to develop those characters either.it was just too much story to try and cover in six episodes.the original telling of the 1795 story was a rich tapestry with lots of colorful supporting characters and subplots to give it atmosphere.

if i cared more about this version of the show i think they would have been better off spending the first season in it's entirety developing the present day story and then having as a season-ending "cliff-hanger" the seance that sent vicki back to 1790 and then spending a good chunk of season two there.

something about the way the 1790 sequence was filmed and the costumes had the air of the old 1980's judith krantz "bodice ripper" mini-series.i half expected jane seymour to walk in at any minute.

poor jean simmons.her agent must have pitched this to her as a "starring" role but in both time periods she was little more than a bit player.

all that being said i cannot say that i disliked this version of the show.it had it's own vibe and made for an entertaing few nights worth of viewing.it would have been interesting to see where it went if it had been picked up for a second season.even though i vastly prefer the original series i can see where this developed it's own fanbase.

2137
Current Talk '08 I / Re: Discuss - Ep #0465
« on: January 25, 2008, 06:04:23 PM »
what can i say here.the 'car crash' episode.

i'm not doing the "watching project" but this episode left me speechless when i watched it.

first vicki is acting really,really weird.i know she's under barnabas' control but alexandra played the character in a way she never had before and never did again.she seemed strangely "in control" and actually bended barnabas to her wishes and was quite manipulative even.

then the sight of jonathan and alexandra squished into this tiny fake car was just too much! [snow_silly]

then the drama of the crash.a car crash on dark shadows.a show that had just sent it's heroine two hundred years into the past and the best they could come up with was a car crash.at the same time i loved the bizzare "ordinariness" of it.like everyone shopping at 'brewster's' during the leviathan storyline.

remember how i said the week or so of shows leading up to the 1795 storyline had been something of a "red herring"?they threw in alot of stuff that didn't really effect the storyline as a whole or the continuity of the show.this week of shows had the same quality for me.there was something in effect "false" about these episodes.

they're picking up threads of the moments leading to the seance but they're not really "real" because none of it is going to matter from this moment on.everything and everyone is going to change in their essential function on the show.julia's haircut is more monumental than one thinks.

the business with barnabas biting vicki in these episodes really bugs me.not only because his reluctance to bite her was a pivotal part of the storyline but more because ultimately it was unnecessary.it doesn't really go anywhere.nothing really interesting or permanent becomes of it.it's a big,fat red herring.

but i absolutely love this episode!


2138
Current Talk '08 I / Re: Discuss - Ep #0461
« on: January 22, 2008, 04:29:15 PM »
i am quite perceptive to subtle changes in the tone of the show and i recall that in this episode they introduce a new musical cue.

i think it's during the extended voiceover when carolyn is talking about how "two moments in time are one and suddenly the great clock starts again..." while they pan in the foyer clock.

it's more deliberately creepy and ominous than the cues they used before the storyline shifted in time.
i didn't know what to make of it at the time but it ended up signaling the overall change in tone and direction the show takes in 1968 when it becomes much more focused on the supernatural characters.

2139
Current Talk '08 I / Re: The Beginning DVD Collections 5 & 6
« on: January 21, 2008, 04:01:44 PM »
yes mysterious,

i've been watching the 1991 version of the series and trying to figure out that it was missing and then it hit me...

it's the PEN PLOT than's missing.it's so amazingly fascinating and complex that i think they should have devoted at least a full season to it before moving on the the barnabas plot.

in fact if viewers in 1991 had had the opportunity to get caught in the PEN PLOT'S sticky web of intrigue no doubt the show would have been a phenomenon and cultural touch-point in a way similar to the whole "who shot j.r.?" drama on 'dallas' or "who killed laura palmer?" mystery on 'twin peaks'.dan curtis made a huge mistake not including this masterpiece of storytelling in the 91' version.

2140
Current Talk '07 II / Re: how $14 and a writers strike got me to 1991
« on: January 21, 2008, 03:47:12 PM »
a few more observations...

this version of the series seems to exist in something of a void.some distant star in the d.s. galaxy.

it's 'dark shadows' but because of the huge changes to the storyline it doesn't mesh with "canon" and has to be viewed on it's own terms.

for whatever such things are worth the original actors seem to have the "clout" here.
if lysette anthony penned a novel based on the show it would not have the same cache as being written by "angelique" as the lara parker books do and that's even if she had the rights to do so.the original actors have been given the key to market their experience with the show in a way that these actors have not(even if they wanted to).the kathryn leigh scott books mention this version as a mere footnote when it's mentioned at all.these actors are not invloved in any of the "official" continuations of the series such as the "return to collinwood" presentation or the new "big finish" audiodramas.they do not attend the festivals.this version rarely comes up even here at this board.other "cult" show seem to be a more inclusive "world" involving all the various versions of the base show but both versions of d.s. seem to exist as separate entities.it's a bit like 'dan curtis productions' views this as something of a forgotten stepchild.

i did find a site devoted to this version run by a fellow who used to post here once in awhile.

it's 'd.s.' but it's not.that's not to say it's not a valid spin on the story and is sort of an interesting chapter in the show's history.

2141
Current Talk '08 I / today in collinsport set-dressing
« on: January 19, 2008, 04:37:58 PM »
today's slideshow reveals a few notable moments in the show's set-dressing.

in 1967 roger's former office at the cannery becomes suddenly...and without explanation...the office of collins family attourney frank garner.

the slideshow also features a shot of the nicely detailed 'kitchenette' part of burke's suite of rooms(a.k.a 'room twently four'/a.k.a 'the presidential suite')at the inn.

sadly this part of the set takes a powder during 'room twenty fours' subsequent use. [snow_sad]

2142
Current Talk '07 II / Re: how $14 and a writers strike got me to 1991
« on: January 19, 2008, 04:16:54 PM »
funny,

in watching the "present day" part of this show one can almost check-off the high points of the early part of the barnabas story on the original series...

vicki getting caught at the old house during a storm and spending the night in josette's room.CHECK.barnabas biting carolyn and placing her under his control.CHECK.sarah stopping barnabas from kiling julia.CHECK.costume party.CHECK.sceance.CHECK...

if one is familiar with the original one knows to look for these milestones.that might have been part of the problem with this version.dan curtis was trying to touch on all these points because they were part of the original "mythology" and he and the fans of the original series were expecting these plot developments and he tried to put too much in during the twelve episodes he knew for sure he was going to get.

this might have worked better as a deliberately self-contained mini-series.

2143
Current Talk '08 I / Re: Dark Shadows: Why Such a Huge Gay Following?
« on: January 19, 2008, 03:57:30 PM »
gerard,

i hear you.cute as some of them are i don't really have a "crush" on any of the male actors on the show but i'm totally smitten by alexandra moltke. [love10]

again,go figure.

2144
Current Talk '08 I / Re: Dark Shadows: Why Such a Huge Gay Following?
« on: January 14, 2008, 09:42:05 PM »
i had this very discussion with another cousin privately several months back so i'll throw my two cents in...

for starters we all hate the so called "camp" reputation our show gets but as a gross generalization i'll say the lavender set(present company very much included)goes for that sort of thing.the outsized drama,the overacting,the grand sweep of the whole thing.it's all good and it's all gay.

it's lumped in with the "sci-fi" crowd for those outside the know but it's truly gothic drama on an epic scale.
so i'm not surpised it has a larger gay following than,say,the x-files.

local handymen/hunks like joe haskell and chris jennings add a certain beefy charm.

the flips,falls and false eyelashes get a fashionista's heart thumping(caftans!gloves!minis!).

but i think a big part of it is the combined diva power of joan bennett/grayson hall/lara parker.it's that whole bitch thing.there is nothing bitchier on this earth than julia slapping cassandra and a good bitch-slap gets alot of mileage with the homos.

i remember watching a scene during 1795 that featured joan as naomi,grayson as the countess dupres and clarice blackburn as abigail.for a show that gets a somewhat "shlock" reputation that was some virtuoso stuff.talk about divas!

again gross generalizations all around but the diva-ness,the campiness and the theatricality of it all holds alot of charm for well,you know. [color] [color] [color]


2145
as a small child in the late 1970's and early 1980's i was hooked on soap operas(my parents should have guessed right then and there i played for the lavender team)and "all my children" was a fave.

this was during the phoebe and langley era(and monique!nina!liza!)so i was well aquainted with louis edmonds long before i had ever heard of dark shadows.

sorry i missed this. [snow_sad]