541
Calendar Events / Announcements '03 II / Re:Celebrating 50 Years of Life...
« on: December 03, 2003, 06:11:40 AM »M E T H U S E L A H !
I mean Connie, uh, oops.
News:
by a streaming service? KLS thinks so!
Be sure to check out: KLS talks to Soaps.com
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.
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 »
I mean Connie, uh, oops.
542
Calendar Events / Announcements '03 II / 2003 Dark Shadows Christmas Round Robin
« on: December 03, 2003, 01:09:01 AM »
Most of y'all know that Bobubas's famous round-robin Christmas saga is a regular attraction, and the 2003 adventure has just begun. It's titled Dark Shadows: Through the Eye of Madness, and my prologue has been posted at http://bboard.scifi.com/bboard/browse.cgi/1/1/2169?pnum=1.
Enjoy...
[/b][/color]
Enjoy...
[/b][/color]
543
Current Talk '03 II / Re:Thoughts on a new DS and the '91 series
« on: December 02, 2003, 04:58:03 AM »Quote
Um - you were only paying $7.00/mo for digital cable, but soon it'll be $15? I WOULD KILL FOR A PRICE THAT CHEEAP!!!! Oh, excuse me - I lost control there for awhile. But the average cable bills around here are well over $30/mo. By those standards, it seems to me like you're practically getting cable for free.
Digital Cable plus Road Runner here... $106.00/month. That's with no HBO, Showtime, or other premium movie channels.
While the 91 DS gives me a lot to complain about, it was also very entertaining in its own right, and there were occasional moments that were really, honest-to-God, authentic, no-shit-Sherlock DARK SHADOWS.
Victoria's trial was classic stuff; easily as intense as any of the "serious" TV dramas of its day. In fact, the whole journey to 1790 was quite good, and the Collins counterparts of that period were easily as good or better than in the original. (Yeah, yeah, don't start the trial for heresy without me.) I had no problem with the pacing, either. It eliminated so much of the tedium of the soap-opera format, yet still provided full-bodied characters. In my book, the good outweighed the bad two to one. Sometimes the bad was just so bad, though...[/color]
[/b][/color]
544
Calendar Events / Announcements '03 II / Re:New David Selby Film Project
« on: November 29, 2003, 11:10:12 PM »
Wow, if David's gonna do this movie, he might as well star in the Sci Fi Channel non-production of my old story, "Slime Bug," about walking stick insects that make telephone calls, recite poetry, and melt people, not necessarily in that order.
545
Current Talk '03 II / Re:Thoughts on a new DS and the '91 series
« on: November 29, 2003, 11:04:21 PM »Quote
Really, Kathryn Leigh Scott and Ely Pouget played different characters.
Wes -- You hit it on the head. To me, she failed as Maggie for this very reason. She wasn't Maggie Evans; I might disagree, too, that she played Maggie as she was first presented in the original show. Working class, somewhat hardboiled, but that's pretty much where the similarity ended. KLS's Maggie, in any phase, could never have been a convincing psychic or mistress for Roger. They could've named Ely Pouget's character Hazel Honeycutt or some such, and it might have been more palatable to those of us who anticipated a reasonable facsimile of the "real" Maggie.
Ely Pouget stands out to me because the other characters tended to have more in common with their original counterparts. They were often played differently, but their origins were at least comparable.
Still, in a new show, I'd much rather see next-generation characters than yet another re-interpretation of existing characters -- except for those that can make for some distinct continuity, such as Barnabas, Quentin, et. al. Time will tell.
546
Current Talk '03 II / Re:Thoughts on a new DS and the '91 series
« on: November 29, 2003, 07:59:44 PM »Quote
I'm usually in the minority, but I actually liked what the '91 series did with Maggie and Roger. To this day I wonder if daytime David was an early experiment in artificial insemination because I have an amazingly hard time picturing daytime Roger being in love with anyone but himself. But '91 series Roger was definitely sexual. And Ely Pouget's Maggie...well, let's just say I enjoyed her quite a bit. In fact, I still try to catch Pouget whenever I notice that she's guesting on a series (as she did on ER just a few weeks back - and which I videotaped). (The tape is around here somewhere - perhaps I'll post a screen cap or two for any of her other fans to enjoy.)
I'll be the first to plead guilty to having expectations based on preconceived notions when it came to Maggie in the '91 show. KLS spoiled me to the core, and I simply never accepted Ely Pouget as Maggie. I could handle Ben Cross as Barnabas, Jim Fyfe as Willie (after much initial difficulty), Jean Simmons as Elizabeth and BOY, I EVER-SO-SLIGHTLY TOOK TO JOANNA GOING AS VICTORIA! Ooops, sorry.
But never Pouget as Maggie, alas.Roy Thinnes was excellent as Roger, by the way; and his Trask was first rate.
547
Current Talk '03 II / Re:Thoughts on a new DS and the '91 series
« on: November 29, 2003, 04:14:06 PM »Fans can say what they will about it, but I honestly think the '91 series did pretty well when it came to character development. Certainly they packed in about as much as the dizzying pacing of network nighttime TV seems to allow for these days...
You're quite right about this. One must consider the audience at the time, and the expectations of character. The 91 DS did pretty well with character development considering it was a one-hour weekly show. One of my problems with it, though, was what they did with some of the characters -- such as having Roger and Maggie (psychic, at that!) in the middle of an affair. Yeah, okay, right.
I think some fans of the original show tend to confuse character development with endless character reinforcement. The daily soap opera format was such that if you missed a few episodes here and there, you actually missed very little of what was happening, plot-wise and character-wise. That's no longer an option, and characters can be well-drawn in a one-hour weekly show. It's done all the time with decent television drama, i.e., Buffy, ER, Law & Order, CSI; the key is the job the writers and the actors do, not the allotted running time.
548
Calendar Events / Announcements '03 II / Re:HAPPY THANKSGIVING EVERYONE/OT
« on: November 27, 2003, 05:55:49 AM »
Indeed!
to Everyone!
549
Current Talk '03 II / Re:The New DARK SHADOWS?
« on: November 24, 2003, 04:04:19 PM »Quote
You know, where Barnabas jumps out of the coffin and sings, "Some Enchanted Evening, you will meet a stranger..."
<Whap!>
[/b][/color]
550
Calendar Events / Announcements '03 II / Re:Happy Birthday Professor 1985!
« on: November 21, 2003, 01:41:29 AM »Prof85!
551
Calendar Events / Announcements '03 II / Re:Happy Birthday to VictoriaWintersFan
« on: November 18, 2003, 01:54:55 AM »V W F!
552
Current Talk '03 II / Re:The New DARK SHADOWS?
« on: November 16, 2003, 09:15:07 PM »Quote
This makes me think of how much I enjoyed the early Elizabeth Stoddard. While watching the pre-Barn eps for the first time in the 90s, I was so impressed with Liz's dialogue, and how dead-on perfect it was for a woman of her station. Especially in contrast to Roger whom you could tell was raised with equal privilege but had ever so slightly let it go by the wayside. It helped distinguish him from his sister as being less than trustworthy. I think that the pre-Barn writing was very good and extremelly well thought out. You could tell a great deal about the characters just from their grammar and vocabulary.
I very much agree with this. Although the pacing of some of the pre-Barnabas episodes (ah, what the hell...the pacing at various points all through the show) leaves something to be desired, the characterizations were strong enough to really carry the program for all those months. Roger and Elizabeth in particular were at their best, but Vicki, too, came off far from the ditz they eventually made her out to be. Mitch Ryan became a personal folk hero during this period and showed how painfully unworthy a replacement Anthony George would turn out to be.
Also -- although I am a diehard fan of Thayer David, George Mitchell made such an excellent Matthew Morgan, I wish he'd stayed in the role. (He's one hell of a character in The Andromeda Strain, too, one of my favorite movies).
[/color][/b]
[/font]
553
Current Talk '03 II / Re:The New DARK SHADOWS?
« on: November 15, 2003, 10:12:33 PM »Quote
"...plotline for the updated Shadows is being kept under wraps."
http://www.filmstew.com/Content/DailyNews/DetailsPrinter.asp?ContentID=7248
Crimey, even these maroons can't spell "Barnabas" correctly...
Hooooold the bus!
[/b][/color]
554
Current Talk '03 II / Re:The New DARK SHADOWS?
« on: November 13, 2003, 05:58:44 AM »
I'd be pleased to see a new Dark Shadows done some kind of justice, but one simply can't go in expecting to find much, if any, of the original magic. Some folks figure that if it can't be recaptured, it's best not to bother. I don't go that far, but I know that a (second) revival would have to succeed in capturing a new audience--one that's more than a mere supplement to the existing fan base, which is considerable but insufficient to sustain the number of viewers WB, or any other network, would demand to justify the show's existence. That means it has to make its own magic and not merely attempt to draw upon the old, which is impossible anyway. The 91 series had a lot of problems, but it also had its own unique character that was shot in the foot, largely due to extenuating circumstances, before it could hit its stride. If it had been allowed to continue and develop, I think it might have conjured up a bit more magic than a lot of people give it credit for.
Yet another rehash of the original story would probably alienate a good many older viewers who are justifiably weary of a dead horse being thrashed. Personally, if that's what it was to be, I honestly don't know how inclined I'd be to stick with it. The people and places in DS have loads of potential for development beyond that narrow story arc, and I'd bet it could be done in such a way that both new and old viewers could find some magic to latch on to. Hell, for a buck, I'd be giving it a shot....
[/b][/color][/font]
Yet another rehash of the original story would probably alienate a good many older viewers who are justifiably weary of a dead horse being thrashed. Personally, if that's what it was to be, I honestly don't know how inclined I'd be to stick with it. The people and places in DS have loads of potential for development beyond that narrow story arc, and I'd bet it could be done in such a way that both new and old viewers could find some magic to latch on to. Hell, for a buck, I'd be giving it a shot....
[/b][/color][/font]
555
Current Talk '03 II / Re:Dreams of the Dark Sig
« on: November 11, 2003, 04:06:34 PM »Quote
Whoa, Mark - that new animated sig is enough to give anyone nightmares! But then, that's probably why you like it.
Heh... The quick, almost subliminal cuts of the demonic face in THE EXORCIST are far more frightening to me than any of Regan's most grotesque makeup. So I figured, why not have a little fun with it?
[/color][/b]
[/font]