First Impressions of the Remix

For those of you who don't know, which I'm going to assume is most because I haven't seen a post made about it, Target has a special two pack of DVD sets--one is Dark Angel Season 1, and the other is our very own Dark Shadows Revival Series. All this for just $20. So, natch, I grabbed it up. That's much cheaper than I've been able to find the DSR by itself, anywhere online. And if I don't want Dark Angel, I can get rid of it and have DSR practically for free!

Anywho, I popped the first disc in to watch the first episode last night. Luckily for me, my DVD player has an option under the Setup menu for the player where I can select how the DVD's content is presented (full or widescreen) even if it's supposed to be in one or the other on the DVD. Since the DSR is on DVD as widescreen, people have complained that it cuts off some of the picture, but for me it doesn't.

I found the first episode to be enjoyable overall, despite being a rehash of HODS. I don't know some of the actors names, so I'm just going to refer to the characters. Roger was missing something for sure. I think Louis Edmonds accent was one of the things that made Roger's character so memorable, and without this Roger having that, he seems a little off to me. I think Liz is perfectly cast, and the actress is wonderful, despite some of the crappy lines that she's given. Vicki, Carolyn, and Daphne are fine by me. David gets on my nerves. This kid has nothing on our original David, period. Julia (Barbara Steele, yes?) is decent, but I didn't know the actress had a British-tinged accent, so that was a little off putting at first. Sometimes her delievery makes her sound more like Lara Parker's Angelique.

Willie (Jim Fyfe I believe) goes in and out of my good column pretty regularly, and with every scene he is in my opinion of him changes. Sometimes he's great, other times he's very whiny. Part of the appeal of John Karlen's Willie, compared to the updated one anyway, was that he seemed much more traveled, and although maybe somewhat naive, he could take care of himself. This Willie seems like nothing but a bumbling idiot, that he couldn't exist except for being a sidekick to someone, and that's just not cool.

We didn't really see much of Maggie, Sam, and Joe, but I can say that the lines that Sam had in this first episode either were really bad, or he just can't act, or probably both.

Ben Cross as Barnabas is odd. I like him but I don't. Some of his scenes are pitch perfect (when he's talking to Vicki in Josette's room, when he says that "Almost 200 years ago" line, he sound eerily like Jon Frid), while others are very flat, or off the mark. That hissing when he gets ready to bite people, or when he bears his fangs is just LUDICROUS, and I cannot take it seriously whatsoever.

Overall, with most of the characters, but especially in this episode in exchanges with Julia, Barnabas, Carolyn, and Elizabeth, I feel like the CHARACTERS, not the actors, have been here, done this, all before, and that they know that and are just going through the motions. And it's not because I'm familiar with the storyline. Several of Julia's lines, especially the one where she tells Barnabas that she almost made progress by hypnotizing Daphne to figure out who attacked her, are delivered with a "Hmph, I know it was you and I'm just saying this to make other people think I don't know," tone, when she couldn't possibly know it is him who is attacking people this early in the show.

Several things that I noticed in terms of production bloopers:

When Daphne is walking from the Blue Whale to pick up her car, we see her from a frontal long shot, with her shadow behind her. We see a hint of another shadow to her right (from out perspective), then we cut to a side long shot of her, where her shadow is now extending from her left side, and we can see the shadow of the camera crane and the camera operator on the crane. The camera crane is obviously a mess up, but Daphne's two shadows is a severe lighting error. You also see palm frons coming into the top of the screen from a palm tree, but this was really the only instance I noticed a palm tree during this episode.

Also, the last scene where Barnabas is outside of Vicki's window, is so obviously shot during the daytime that it's rediculous. The lighting on Cross' face doesn't even look right, because you can tell that they've painted him to be pale, and sunlight doesn't so it justice. It looks like they just said screw it and decided to shoot during the daytime, and put up large black sheets on the light deflectors to mute the sunlight. But in the background, through the trees you can see that the sky is definitely blue. And the fog along the ground does nothing to help.

Now, I'm sure that the final scene is meant to be taken in stride with the storyline, but I think that I'd prefer to assume that after Barnabas leaves Vicki at the front door of Collinwood, he returns to his coffin, and that everything after that, beginning with Vicki brushing her hair, is all part of a dream Barnabs is having.

Perhaps the best part of this initial episode is the cinematography. The thing looks like a movie. And television almost never looks like a movie. Ever. Especially these days. So I really think that's a big plus. The camera angles are numerous, and the dutch angles that are employed work very well to tell us so much about the characters that the characters aren't telling us themselves. The mise-en-scene is also great, within and around Collinwood for the most part. Big props to the DP for the series for pulling that one out, and having to work during the DAY to make a night scene. Even though it didn't come out right, at least they tried. And that had to be hard as heck.

Brandon, you may want to check out this post (and the links provided therein):

so far as the butchering of the original aspect ratio and the use of day for night shots go on the DVD. 

Brandon, good comments, though I had to bail out partway through because of the eye thing.    I like your observations and the thought behind them.

I don't like the revival as much as the original, not by a long shot. Elizabeth and Julia being inexplicably British annoyed me, but what annoyed me more was the fact that Roger wasn't. If you're going to make Elizabeth inexplicably British, then why not her own brother? I didn't like Ben Cross or Adrian Paul. Barbara Blackburn, Lysette Anthony, and Joanna Going were good. Ely Pouget and Micheal T. Weiss were passable. I really liked Jim Fyfe and Mrs. Johnson (can't remember the actress's name). Joseph Gordon-Levitt was good, but not as good as early Henesy. [spoiler]I thought Roger and Maggie sleeping together was a bit dumb, as well.[/spoiler]

If you're going to make Elizabeth inexplicably British, then why not her own brother?

The thinking of the writers was that Liz had been educated in English boarding schools from an early age (hence the accent) but Roger had not (hence no English accent). The issues of their very different educations and the grooming of Liz by their parents was intended to be yet another of Roger's resentments against Liz - but the series ended before that could actually be explored...

And welcome to the forum! It's great to see you jumping right into several discussions. 

I got the Dark Shadows Revival Series from a Canadian Wal-Mart for cheep. 
Since this was what first introduced be to Dark Shadows (when it was on tv) I have to say I love it. 

The way the plot was reworked was excellent and compelling. 
I've since fallen in love with the original, but the original sometimes doesn't move fast enough for me.
I know that is because it was a soap opera, but the fact can't be denied especially when you hit the slower moving plots.

Most of the Revival characters weren't very memorable compared to the the original version.  BUT, the most important characters like Barnabas and Victoria were portrayed and scripted wonderfully.  Now this might have made it tough to move on to other story lines had it continued, but at least the part we saw worked well. 

Oh and I loved the lady from the past that came to the future.  I don't remember the exact lines, but there was some real laugh out loud moments there. 

Talking about it makes me want to marathon it again.   

Several weeks ago, I saw the remake on DVD at FYE (Formly Camelot Music) for $30. Next time I go to
Target, I will check it out.

@Mysterious Benefactor: That does make sense. I did think about that possibility, but decided not to include it, as I haven't researched the revival anywhere near as much as the original and thought it just seemed like semi-off topic speculation; I had no idea the writers had actually discussed it. Thanks for letting me know. Basically lets you know who Jamison's favorite was, doesn't it? And thanks, everyone here's been really nice and welcoming, so it would have been difficult not to jump right in.

Another gripe I have with the revival is the fact that... well, too much happened. It felt like a really long movie as opposed to a TV series, because they zoomed through, what, 400+ episodes in one season, from Vicki's arrival in Collinsport to her return from 1795? And they cut out basically everything from the early storylines. Despite what some of the writers seem to think, the Malloy and Laura arcs (the latter of which I'm watching now, or will be watching when the next Beginning DVD comes out) were really, really good. I know that it's entirely possible that the show would have gotten canceled without Barnabas, but it got canceled with him, anyway. It just seemed like, if I didn't know these people from the original, I don't think I'd really care about them that much because I haven't been given the time to actually get to know them. They've rushed through the first few story arcs that the show took several months on in 12 45-minute episodes. Oh, and I forgot to comment on Jean Simmons, Roy Thinnes, and Barbara Steele. I liked Simmons and Thinnes, but I found Steele to be kind of... well, creepy in comparison to Grayson Hall.

A Laura storyline was planned for the second season. In the first season they simply wanted to build the mystery surrounding her by introducing the portrait, Maggie's remarks about her, and David's, uh, "fascination" with fire.

Yes, that I did know, but it just seems like the original order was better. Or maybe I'm just an old man on the inside who refuses to acknowledge that anything's as good as the original, I don't know. Although maybe that is a better order. Which is more impressive, a vampire, seen everywhere, or a phoenix, seen nowhere? Which one's the opening act and which one's the show? Although I heard that they were going to combine Laura and Cassandralique, but that has a few holes in it considering the fact that witches are supposed to have fire as their greatest weakness. Then again, it didn't stop Angelique after Ben gave her a good torch-whacking.

Since beginning this post I've finished the series, but due to finals and graduation, I haven't been able to say anything about it.

I stand by what I said earlier about the "night time" scenes that were shot during the day time. Fortunately for me, as the series progressed, those were featured less and less, and when one scene appeared in an episode, I could suspend my logic for those two minutes.

Also, I agree with what Goober said about the plot moving to fast. I thought the present day stuff moved along nicely, but when we flashed back to 1795, that really was a fast-forward. It began nicely, but soon became so quickly paced that it felt like months were passing between the beginning of the episode and the end of it.

[spoiler]The one episode where Barnabas and Jeremiah duel, if I remember right, began with Josette and Jeremiah running away, then Barnabas found out they went away and went to find them, and then they all returned home and dueled, then Jeremiah was buried and Josette swore she'd never talk to Barnabas again.[/spoiler]

I mean come on!

Where the writers missed the mark, especially with the 1795 storyline, was not giving us enough time to relish the trip to the past. I thought it was well done, but it would've been much, much better had they allowed the events to unfold a little more slowly, and allowed Victoria to get involved in the secrets and intrigue of the Collins family a little more deeply.

That said, I loved the guy that played Joshua. He was a hoot, and his uppercrust, at times flighty accent was too much! And Roy Thinnes as Rev. Trask truly gave me chills. That hair! Those teeth! The eyebrows!!!

Where the writers missed the mark, especially with the 1795 storyline, was not giving us enough time to relish the trip to the past.

I don't know if one can say they missed the mark because they were severely handicapped by the fact that they only had 6 episodes to deal with a lot of story. And blame NBC for the limitation because the 1790 storyline was originally supposed to last 10 eps, but before production even began NBC cut the show's order back to 13 hours total.

Incidentally, there's an episode outline in Kathy Resch's SHADOWS IN THE '90S: The Dark Shadows Concordance 1991 for one of the originally planned 1790 eps which, among other things, reveals that Bathia Mapes [spoiler](in what might please you to know was originally intended to be an episode that partly dealt with the aftermath of the duel, instead of having all that dealt with in the one ep)[/spoiler] was to arrive on the scene long before Barnabas' "death" with an offer of help to Ben, whose conscience was greatly weighed down by the fact that everyone believed Vicki was the witch, but he knew otherwise and couldn't do anything about it. It was intended that Ely Pouget would play Bathia, and IMO THAT would have been quite interesting - and certainly a major departure from the original Bathia.    But alas... (Another big twist: Angelique was to be pregnant with Barnabas' child!!  )

I agree with Brandon about the rushing of the 1790 story.  One reason for it that I had also read about, which I know most fans here are well aware of, is that the NBC suits demanded that the 1790 episodes include segments that showed what was happening in 1990, I suppose on the theory that otherwise, viewers would forget that the main story was set in the present day!  This resulted in the 1790 storyline being even MORE compressed than might otherwise have been the case.

G.

thirteen episodes simply was not nearly enough to try and cover they amount of storyline they tried to cram in.

one can blame the "suits" at nbc ad nauseum but it since most of them were probably not familiar with the story dan curtis and company are in part to blame for even trying to get into the 1790 period during the time allotted.

they would have been better served by devoting the first season in it's entirety to establishing the present time situation and devoting much of season two to the 1790 segment.

Actually, we can thank DC for the 1790 storyline being done during the first season. Most of the writers believed as you do, mscbryk, that the first season should have stuck to the present day storyline - but DC absolutely insisted that 1790 had to be covered as well. And we all know that when DC insisted... 

As the for the storytelling being rushed, I think that's actually a hard call given the realities of TV in the past few decades. Yes, it's totally true that a huge amount of story - basically an entire year's worth on the daytime show - was condensed into 13 hours - practically a month's worth of story per hour. And quite sadly, a lot of the original plotting had to be jettisoned along the way to manage it. And more than anyone, fans of the daytime DS are the ones who notice the difference. However, as has been discussed on the forum before, the luxury of daytime pacing that DS originally enjoyed will never be duplicated again - not even if DS was to ever be revived as a daytime show. TV and audiences have changed drastically since the '60s, particularly in primetime. Most members of today's primetime audience demand quick pacing, and that was the type of audience NBC and DC were going after. The world that embraced the pacing of DS' heyday is gone - and it's been gone for decades. Would that it wasn't the case, but it's a reality - one that has provoked countless articles in the entertainment trades and magazines, one that countless producers, directors, writers and actors have lamented over, and one that is oh so evident if anyone checks out the blogs and message boards devoted to any of today's hit dramas. As big a fan of the '91 series as I am, do I sometimes wish it had moved at least a bit slower? Yes. I wish a lot of what was never included in the '91 series had been. But again, I'm a fan of the daytime DS, and original fans or even people who became fans of the original were not the audience NBC and DC were going for with the show. (I'm also someone who wholeheartedly believes that when it comes to a show like Lost. it's not about the answers, it's all about the journey it takes to get to the answers, and I love sitting back and taking that journey much more than I need to get answers. But millions of Lost fans completely disagree with me. Those of us who think that way are a dying breed in this day and age. It's basically me, TV Guide's Matt Roush, Entertainment Weekly's Ken Tucker, and possibly many of the people who post here and on other '60s (and earlier) classic TV boards because we grew up with storytelling at a slower pace and/or we have an appreciation for it.) The interesting thing, though, is that for the most part, DS fans whose first exposure to DS was the primetime series rarely if ever complain that it was too fast paced or rushed - not even after they've come to appreciate the original. If anything, many of them seem to think the original was all too often paced too slowly...