Minor Quibbles

[ProfStokes]

Yes, a lot of things on this show make no sense whatsoever, but there were a few things in today's episodes that particularly got to me.

1) The bracelet: I realize that Joe brought it to Vicki so that she could experience more confusion about the reality of her trip to the past, but are we really to believe that after her trial the judges simply tossed Vicki's charm bracelet on the floor and allowed it to collect dust for 170 years?

2) Daniel: He was present when Vicki killed Noah.  He's capable of acting as a supporting witness to her confession.  He identified Noah's body as that of his attacker, and he was presumably honest enough for Trask to want him to testify against Vicki. Why did he never come forward on Peter's behalf?  Instead of wasting her time on Nathan, why didn't Vicki try to tell anybody about Daniel?

3) Vicki's conversation with Barnabas: Can anybody be convicted of witchcraft and found innocent?

4) Dr. Eric Lang: He may not have been clever enough to operate a tape recorder, but he unraveled Barnabas's secret in one night while Vicki and the rest of the family have noticed nothing strange about him for months.  I think that he deserves some credit for that.

ProfStokes  

[ROBINV]

DARK SHADOWS was never meant to be seen more than once, and that's the God's honest truth.  If the writers realized that we'd be watching every episode a dozen times apiece, analyzing every word, dissecting each scene, they would probably have been a lot more careful, insisting things made sense.  In truth, knowing how Dan Curtis breathed down their collective necks, I'm amazed the show made sense as often as it did.  I don't think Curtis much cared for continuity, or law, or what made sense.  He just wanted us to keep tuning in the next day, and for a long time, millions of us did just that!

Believe me, I had some major quibbles with certain plots and concepts, but I came to just accept the unacceptable, because I knew that, warts and all, I loved this insane show, it called to something depraved in me, and that it still has a hold on me even though I know all its shortcomings says a great deal for DS, Curtis (or perhaps it says very little good about me).  

Love, Robin

[Dr. Eric Lang]

1) The bracelet: I realize that Joe brought it to Vicki so that she could experience more confusion about the reality of her trip to the past, but are we really to believe that after her trial the judges simply tossed Vicki's charm bracelet on the floor and allowed it to collect dust for 170 years?

Perhaps the bracelet had been kept in some sort of storage bin for evidence, and over the years of decay and vandalism it simply wound up on the floor.

2) Daniel: He was present when Vicki killed Noah.  He's capable of acting as a supporting witness to her confession.  He identified Noah's body as that of his attacker, and he was presumably honest enough for Trask to want him to testify against Vicki. Why did he never come forward on Peter's behalf?  Instead of wasting her time on Nathan, why didn't Vicki try to tell anybody about Daniel?

Vicki probably did tell Naomi about Daniel - but did Naomi have a chance to tell Joshua about it before she killed herself? Even if Daniel had gone to Joshua and told him what he knew of Noah's death, it's unlikely Joshua would have allowed to boy to become involved in the case. Joshua probably didn't give a hang whether Peter Bradford hanged at that point. Also, since Vicki vanished and Phyllis Wick was hanged, probably everyone assumed Vicki WAS a witch at that point, and even corroboration from a little boy would do nothing to convince anyone otherwise.

4) Dr. Eric Lang: He may not have been clever enough to operate a tape recorder, but he unraveled Barnabas's secret in one night while Vicki and the rest of the family have noticed nothing strange about him for months.  I think that he deserves some credit for that.
 

All it took was a standard hospital emergency room admission to find out Barnabas wasn't quite human. His body temperature is probably well below 98.9, and his heartbeat might also be non-existant.

[Gerard]

The most unbelievable thing is the fact that when Barnabas awoke he should not have seen Dr. Lang - he should've seen an administrator standing there, clipboard in hand, asking:  "Who's your insurance provider?"

Gerard

[Birdie]

Sad but true. Gerard.  

[Luciaphile]

DARK SHADOWS was never meant to be seen more than once, and that's the God's honest truth.  If the writers realized that we'd be watching every episode a dozen times apiece, analyzing every word, dissecting each scene, they would probably have been a lot more careful, insisting things made sense.

I understand what you're saying, but the thing is that a good many people watched (and watch) movies/tv shows that were not meant to be seen more than once.  They think about them, dissect them, analyze them, etc.  Maybe that's not the intended purpose, but it happens--personally, professionally, and academically.  

The people who worked on DS and on other disposable shows like them were professionals.  This counted as a part of their body of work.  I don't care who was breathing down their necks--they would have a reputation from the show.  So what they did would count particularly when they went to find other work.  And let's not forget critics.  They're out there.  They write review.  They don't give a flying fig if a show is meant to be seen only once--they still watch it with a critical eye.

As for what we do here today, there are plenty of academics who spend their time reading, watching, and then writing about whole genres that were considered "disposable."  There is plenty of legitimate and apt criticism being produced about things that you might consider fluff.

Luciaphil

[Nancy]

The people who worked on DS and on other disposable shows like them were professionals.  This counted as a part of their body of work.  I don't care who was breathing down their necks--they would have a reputation from the show.  So what they did would count particularly when they went to find other work.  And let's not forget critics.  They're out there.  They write review.  They don't give a flying fig if a show is meant to be seen only once--they still watch it with a critical eye.



Luciaphil

You hit that on the head, Luciaphil. Other professionals in the industry judge a program by how successful it was with the public - not it's quality or even if professionalism sad to say.  If you are a frequent watcher of Academy Awards or most award shows, you can see the truth of my statement.   A story can be vapid and the acting not so good but if the people loves it, that's all that counts for most producers and advertisers.   Did people watch it? Did it make money?  That's all the industry cares about.  "Dark Shadows" did.

Nancy

[Cassandra]

Yes, a lot of things on this show make no sense whatsoever, but there were a few things in today's episodes that particularly got to me.

1) The bracelet: I realize that Joe brought it to Vicki so that she could experience more confusion about the reality of her trip to the past, but are we really to believe that after her trial the judges simply tossed Vicki's charm bracelet on the floor and allowed it to collect dust for 170 years?



ProfStokes  

Hi Prof. Stokes, I can certainly understand where you're coming from. I thought the same thing regarding the bracelet. Judging from the way it looked when Joe gave it to Vicky today, I'd say it looked exactley the same as it did back then in 1795. It must have been an acceptional piece of jewelry to survive all those years and still look brand new. Also, I can see the judges wanting nothing more to do with it, since they thought Vicky was a witch. I wonder why they didn't burn it then?  I can only speculate that finding this bracelet now was the added proof that Vicky needed to believe that she really was in the past and not dreaming.

[Daphne]

Didn't they send Daniel away anyway? Maybe he just wasn't back in time for the hanging 2 tell the judges about Peter being innocent -- but then again, if he did, in his mind, he'd betray Vicki, and I don't think he'd do that.....

But DR LANG must have had himself a LOOOOOT of fish as a child......sheesh like 1/2 an hour it took him 2 figure out ol' Barney was one of them living dead folks! SHEESH!!!! *shakes head*

[DSWayne]

Nancy wrote:
Did people watch it? Did it make money?  That's all the industry cares about. (sorry I do not know how to do those blocks) someone can teach me they want to.

That is usually the case. But actually not always. As I watched a documentary on A&E (I think on A&E). They said that shows like Beverly Hillbillies and Green Acres were canceled even thought they were still doing okay in the ratings. They were canceled because the network top dogs wanted to shed the reputation of a hick network (or something like that).

It has been a while since I saw that documentary. I think I got the two shows names correct. In fact I think they mention three such shows... oh well Could it have been Gilligan's Island? Not hick type.  Well either way just my input here is all.

[Joeytrom]

I think the same would go for other soaps if they were rerun.  If, for example, General Hospital's oldest episodes were to be rerun, I am sure there would be a lot of bloopers, plot holes, bad acting, etc.

DS is scrutinized because it is the only soap opera with reruns of these 60's episodes.  the same thing would happen for any soap if we were to watch their early episodes.

I even see mistakes in continuity on shows like All in the Family, Happy Days, Dallas, General Hospital, etc.

..and yes, CBS did cancel all their rural themed oriented shows (which were geting high ratings but among older, midwestern viewers) to concentrate on a younger, city living population.

Joey

[Luciaphile]

I think the same would go for other soaps if they were rerun.  If, for example, General Hospital's oldest episodes were to be rerun, I am sure there would be a lot of bloopers, plot holes, bad acting, etc.

Soaps today which are aired without the intent of being repeated get scrutinized.

I've watched soaps since before the days of VCRs and I can recall plenty of conversations where people tore them apart--so and so couldn't act; where did they get that dress?  Heck, I remember huge numbers of my classmates who stopped watching GH when they did that dorky Ice Princess storyline.

As far as DS goes, didn't someone on the Vantagenet board reproduce letters to the soap opera magazines critiquing the show during the Leviathan plot?  So there were obviously viewers back then who made judgment calls about acting and plots.

Luciaphil

[Midnite]

DSWayne,

Since you already know how to use the tags for italics, learning to quote should be a breeze.

Starting with this--
Nancy wrote:
Did people watch it? Did it make money?  That's all the industry cares about.

type this (ignore "Code:")--
Nancy wrote:

Code: [Select]

[quote]Did people watch it? Did it make money?  That's all the industry cares about.[/quote]
to get this--
Nancy wrote:

Did people watch it? Did it make money?  That's all the industry cares about.

[VictoriaWintersRox]

It seems to me that much of the continuity on Dark Shadows depended on whether it could work with a scene. Say, if Person X has been dead for 112 years but someone has seen him before his age might have been changed to 70 years ago so it could be plausible.

BTW, those rural sitcoms that were cancelled in 1971 were "The Beverly Hillbillies", "Green Acres", and "Mayberry RFD". RFD did the best that year, ranking #15 in the Nielson ratings. The other two did not place in the top 30 though they were probably somewhere in the top 45. "Gilligan's Island" was cancelled in 1967.

[Dr. Eric Lang]

DS is scrutinized because it is the only soap opera with reruns of these 60's episodes.  the same thing would happen for any soap if we were to watch their early episodes.

I can testify that soaps TODAY are full of bad writing. I have been an avid daytime drama fan since birth - literally - and the soaps today are worse than ever before. Very little attempt is made at good writing - it's all young, pretty people in sex scenes and that's about it. There is little if any regard for the history of the show and in fact most long-running shows have all but discarded their histories and established characters in search of younger, new viewers. It's sad. I've been driven away from many favorites over the years.

I watch DS - especially the first three years - and marvel at the writing. Even with inconsistencies the dialogue is often wonderful and the acting is usually exceptional. It is far more entertaining than anything on daytime today, as far as I'm concerned.