I see what you mean.  Look at those worthless no-talents like William Shakespeare or Aeschyllus.  Went around killing characters.  Phhhhttt!  Everyone knows no good storyteller ever does that.  Only "destroyers" like Arthur Miller, Dennis Potter, Caryl Churchill, J.R.R.Tolkien, etc.  What do they know about writing?  Just a bunch of Hollywood hacks right?

Or...

Maybe calling something a formula doesn't make it one.  Maybe genuine storytellers actually know what they're doing.

And maybe, just maybe, styles of storytelling do indeed change over time.

Oh, crap.  You didn't honestly think I was saying that anyone who's ever killed off a character is a hack did you?    I don't think present-day American television is filled to bursting point with "genuine storytellers" who "know what they're doing".   There are hacks.  There are formulas.    And many TV writers take short-cuts to try to appear "edgy".   It happens.  A lot.   If you don't think so, then you're probably spellbound by the new television season.

It's easier to destroy than to create.    Killing off a character to seem "edgy" is a quick-fix for uncreative Hollywood types with no ideas, no patience, and no souls.

Brandon.... I'm saying the same thing really.    No one complains about the backstory in Lost, because it's written to be self-explanatory, and compelling.    DS could do it the same way.

I think that caution over not alienating people kills shows.   Being very afraid not to take the wrong step results in bland, safe, superficial "entertainment".   But some go way too far in the other direction, and ride roughshod (sp?) over the original program, whatever it is, to show how "edgy", bold, and original they can be.    People who do this may be distracting from the fact that they have no good, original ideas.    You look original for five minutes, and look good for not being a slave to continuity, but you're not being creative then, you're just being a bull in a china shop.

Happy belated, retzev!!

The skulls are all really cakes, albeit rather unappetizing ones.   I'd take a bite myself.   But that's just me.

 

Brandon, question.... what if original DS had been able to spend a bit more and do retakes, to eliminate bloopers and things such as wobbly tombstones...as of course they wished they could do, at the time.... would DS have lost "charm" to you, and would it have been of less interest to you?   Not trying to be a smartass, just wondering.

The idea of retelling the story is jarring to me, and undermines my suspension of disbelief, even in original DS.    Retelling it in a way that doesn't follow the original but alters the original personalities and events is even more jarring.    It's also unnecessary.    Both are a sort of tacit (sp?) admission that they have to lean on the original, like a crutch.    The second option admits the need for new ideas somewhat, but is timid about it.   They would try to dazzle us with new expensive visuals, looking "new" superficially, depending on that rather than genuine enthusiasm for the story they were telling.    I'm not getting to my point very well, sorry.

I'm for using original characters but not as a crutch, but because there's just so much more to explore in them... the originals, not new people with the old names.     Don't lean on them, just shaking up their story a bit so it doesn't seem exsumed from the dead even though it is, but keep the old story we love and that others will love given a chance.... and add to it.    A sequel with an intriguing backstory, not a remake.

Some characters could appear only in flashbacks, but they'd be there.   So we wouldn't lose them.    Aggressive storytelling.... win us over with new characters that deserve to be there because they were invented by people who love DS, love writing, and are driven to tell their story.    That's what I see in 1795 as opposed to the Leviathans, say.     In the 1795 storyline, they were hell-bent on telling that story.  They loved it.  Nothing could stop them.   In Leviathans, they were too busy just trying to stay afloat.

Creative people can solve the problems people have brought up.    New DS doesn't deserve to exist if it has to lean on Barnabas like a crutch.    If it can't create new characters and situations, it'll die.   But use Barnabas, not because you have to, but wait to figure out an exciting viable way for him to be there.  Only flashbacks maybe.   Maybe the story picks up ten years after the original ended.    Maybe time travel.

Now I know the expression "Gilded Age" and when it was.   I wish I knew more about architecture.    In the last year or two I've looked at fronts of buildings and the details, because I wanted to use them in drawings.    I guess Collinwood should have been fairly new when Quentin was born.   It did look wrong in 1795 somehow.     Then, in PT 1692 (?)... !!    Brutus just looked ridiculous sitting there in the Drawing Room.

The Collinses had their business in Maine.    No airplanes, no freeways.     You don't get to be bi-coastal or to even speed down to Boston whenever you like in... whenever the Old House was originally built, or even Collinwood.   They had to be there to make their money.

The size of Collinwood is a mystery... I wonder if Maine has any mansions going back that far.    Come to think of it, that's the biggest damn house i've ever seen in my life, and in any era, only a handful of people live there, and they all hang out in one small room right next to the front door.   They keep both wings closed and just use the middle bit.

I say bring in Thirdspace from Babylon Five, say people live in it, and come up with a whole new parallel history for DS in it.

I'm not a typical audience, but I'd really be interested in fanfic for cleverly tying and tidying up those loose ends.   We're not in the kind of rush the writers were, and we're not getting paid in the first place, and Dan can't fire us.