DS Redux: Your Vision?

[Zahir]

I'm wondering how different folks might like to see DS redone as a weekly series?  Specifically, how might the show be updated?  What changes would you make in character and plotline?  What opportunities might a modern remake offer that should be explored?

My own ideas...

Victoria should have a spine, and preferably some fire.  Growing up an orphan probably has put a bit of a chip on her shoulder and she might have her eye on opportunities to improve her lot in life.

Rather than moping around that huge mansion, Elizabeth should be a strong businesswoman--devoted to helping "her" town grow, but with a tendency to see everyone else (including her family) as tools.  Honestly, I rather see Marcia Cross in the role.  Imagine her with Mrs. Johnson playing Mrs. Danvers to her Rebecca!

Instead of a son, I'd give Roger Collins a daughter--Daphne Collins, trapped in a wheelchair (the result of the car accident that killed her mother) at least for now.  Roger in a weird way is trying to provide for her, in the scheming way that he learned growing up in that house.  Left a pittance in his father's will, Roger is the one seeking to discover the lost Collins jewels.  Dr. Julia Hoffman is Daphne's personal physician, and almost certainly a love interest of Roger's.

Eventually, the secret room in the Collins mausoleum is discovered--and within is an open coffin, broken chains on the floor, and beside them the dessicated corpse of a man identified via dental records as one William Loomis.  He was a handyman at Collinwood twenty years ago, who vanished without a trace.  Yet Reverend Gregory Trask, oldest friend of the late Jamison Collins, keeps hinting to his niece (Maggie) and nephew (Todd) that he knows some terrible secret about two decades ago.

He becomes even more agitated when Roger announces that he's finally rented the Old House (which is his) to a hitherto-unknown cousin named Barnabas Collins.  He'll be arriving soon from England along with his personal secretary, Roxanne Drew.

All this takes the basic elements of DS and shakes them up into a new--and hopefully fresh--shape.  David Collins would turn out to be Roger and Elizabeth's younger brother, a ne're do well in the Quentin vein.  Barnabas is returning to Collinwood in an effort to learn precisely the nature of what happened to him, to perhaps seeks a cure for this eternal living death.  Roxanne is less than pleased at this, because she frankly hopes to become a vampire herself, forever young.  It would turn out Jamison Collins had spent much of his life studying the occult and how it had impacted his family history.  He discovered all kinds of secrets, including the truth of what happened back in 1795.  Or at least some of it, including things Barnabas himself never knew.

That would be my take.  What about others?  How would you like to see DS redone for the small screen?

[GooberCollins]

Personally, I hope that, in the event of a new series, we don't get Barnabas until Season 2 and get the first season dedicated to a storyline to ease us into the new versions of the characters. That was one of my big problems with the '91 show. I've actually thought about this to the extent where I've figured out how several plot points would be done, including the introduction of Julia, not through Maggie's kidnapping, but through Bill Malloy's murder. I've been considering typing it up into a fanfiction piece, so I don't want to reveal any more than that.

[MagnusTrask]

As interesting as people's ideas here are, there should absolutely be no more retellings of the same story, even with the characters mixed up and rearranged.    It still baffles me why anyone would want the straight retelling.   We've seen it, and it happened with the Barnabas, Julia, Roger etc. that we all know.   The re-arranged reality Zahir talks about could be great as some PT fan fiction.

I like the idea of a daily soap opera again.   Bigger budget prime time horror or supernatural shows get weighed down and smothered by all the... I don't know, the seriousness, the effects, the pretension... I need the urgency, life, energy, and seeming spontaneity you get from a daily videotaped show.

I also would need a well-done sequel series, set 37 years later, and don't tell me it couldn't be written so that it was completely new-viewer friendly.   An alternative might be setting it just a few years after 1971 so that more original characters could be used and recast.    I don't like recasting, I prefer new characters to that, but I'll take recasting if I get an original story that continues and doesn't conflict with the original story.

If the makers of a new DS aren't creative and talented enough to come up with their own new and compelling story within the existing fictional world of DS, then the whole thing's doomed to failure anyway.    Re-using the old story is like giving up and admitting you don't have new ideas.

[Miss_Winthrop]

I'm very impressed by Zahir's ideas for a daily DS.  I especially like the Barnabas and Roxanne Drew angle.  I can see the pressure put on Barnabas to make Roxanne's dreams come true.  As far as Vicki goes, I still like the attraction Barnabas feels for her as an important part of the story.

[Taeylor Collins]

I really like your story idea's Zahir they are great!!!  At this point I have nothing in my brain to offer.

[GooberCollins]

I basically agree with MagnusTrask. I wouldn't mind a straight retelling in the film, but should another TV series emerge, I want a new version of the story, not something done exactly the same way.

[Zahir]

Well, if you're going to do DS again, there are pretty much three ways to go about it.

One is the way of the 1991 Revival, i.e. to essentially tell exactly the same story updated.  The pitfall here is--why?  Sure, individual actors will bring their own interpretations and by necessity some details will change (Willie being Mrs. Johnson's nephew for example), but you are pretty much telling the exact some story in serial format all over again.  This, imho, can work very well with a single story but in terms of series becomes more problematical.  Offhand, I cannot think of a single example of this working in terms of a t.v. series.  Films and plays, yes.  But not a t.v. series.

Second is what I call The Next Generation option, rather like that of ST:TNG, which Magnus and Goober are advocating.  Quite simply, you make a sequel.  The problem there lies in creating a continuity that the non-fan can follow.  This is far from insurmountable, however.  One need only look at the new series of Doctor Who to see a success story in that respect.  In particular, the series' producers went with the decision to use a new character from whom fresh audience members could be re-introduced to the mythology.  Could this work for DS?  I say "Yes!  And again, Yes!"  I might even start a thread about how to do precisely that...hmmmmm... 

Third is what I've already offered, the same approach with which Battlestar: Galactica was remade, along with the numerous t.v. series dealing with Superman, including everything from Lois and Clarke to today's Smallville.  You re-imagine them, shuffling the elements into something fresh.  Herein lies my own suggestion.  Not, with respect, a carbon copy or simple retelling but a genuine creation of something new from old elements.  To use an analogy, this would be akin to comparing the motion picture Bram Stoker's Dracula to the Bela Lugosi version.  Yeah, they're both based on the same material, have many of the same characters and a very similar plot, but fundamentally they are very different versions.

[GooberCollins]

Yes, whenever I do think about my own reimagining, I do everything I possibly can to make it different, but still DS. I would still start out with the murder of Bill Malloy, but with a completely different culprit. I was also combining quite a few characters into one. Should I write it, it wouldn't be as drastically different as what Zahir wrote in his first post, but it'd be quite different from the original series, too; actually, it would deviate very wildly in some parts.

[Lydia]

What would be the minimum that it would take to make a new Dark Shadows be recognizably Dark Shadows both to the already existing fans and also to those who have heard of it but never watched it?

[MagnusTrask]

Someone with the same sensibilities and priorities making it would give it the spirit of DS.   I should clarify, Goober, that I'm really against the idea of retelling the original story at all, whether the whole thing is retooled or not.   I want the sequel series.   I don't put forward the new Dr Who as the ideal way to do that, but it certainly shows that it can be done with a great deal of public acceptance.   

Recently, Sky Television in the UK announced that it's doing at least two 60-minute new Blakes Seven episodes, as a relaunch of the immortal 1978-82 SF series.   It's a retelling though, reintroducing Blake and crew from the beginning of the story.  I'm utterly uninterested.  That kind of series I see as being in competition with the original, a sort of attempt at a replacement (with those glitzier effects that people think are so important), and I like the B7 I have.   I'm that way with DS too.  Give me a sequel... reboots are evil.

[retzev]

I have to agree. A well done sequel can be appreciated apart from the original, and for it's own merits. A re-make/re-telling will beg too much comparison to the original, and no one will be completely satisfied.

[Pansity]

Recently, Sky Television in the UK announced that it's doing at least two 60-minute new Blakes Seven episodes, as a relaunch of the immortal 1978-82 SF series.   It's a retelling though, reintroducing Blake and crew from the beginning of the story.  I'm utterly uninterested.  That kind of series I see as being in competition with the original, a sort of attempt at a replacement (with those glitzier effects that people think are so important), and I like the B7 I have.

Ah, another Blakes 7 fan.  I've managed to hook a few Dark Shadows fans on it courtesy of my 20 + year old off PBS tapes.  Interesting that Sky TV is now planning something.  Last I heard was that the attempt a few years back fell apart shortly after Darrow was no longer associated with the project.  I wonder whether TPTB will appreciate that, like DS, the strength of the show wasn't in the whiz bang special effects, but in the strong storytelling.

Jeannie

[GooberCollins]

Yes, telling the original story again isn't very interesting, no matter how many tweaks there are, which is why that story of mine is not worth writing. If something relies too heavily on the source material, there's an overwhelming sense of deja vu; that's one of the reasons I dislike the revival; I don't feel they changed enough from the original to truly warrant making the series. As I said, on film, I'm fine with an adaptation of the original series. But on TV, I'd probably want a sequel series, as well; something set in the same continuity as the original series and featuring some of the same characters, but telling a completely new story that we've never seen before.

[Cousin_Barnabas]

In order for Dark Shadows to still be Dark Shadows, it needs the same heart.  That heart is really the love of Barnabas and Josette.  The character of Barnabas is really who he is because of Josette and her death.  He constantly tries to re-create her; he wants to find her again desperately.  If you don't have that crucial story element, you don't have Dark Shadows.  No matter how many bizarre things happened during the original series, the main element that tied them all together was Barnabas and his search for his lost love (from his introduction onward):  The kidnapping of Maggie, 1795, Adam, 1897 (Parts 1 and 2), the Leviathans.  In 1970PT, Josette played a crucial role, because one of the main reasons Barnabas was so intrigued with this alternate world was because he learned from the book that he married Josette in that time band.  Josette was even instrumental after KLS left the show.  It was because of Josette that the Angelique/Barnabas story of 1840 happened. The love of Barnabas and Josette even carried over into 1841PT, even though one character was dead and the other was played by a different actress. 

If you don't have the love of Barnabas and Josette, you don't have original conflict, without original conflict you don't really have an original story.  You can have a sequel to Dark Shadows, but if it doesn't have the same heart, it won't be the Dark Shadows we know.  No matter how hard the writers could try to carry over the same feeling and ambiance of the original, if they don't carry over Barnabas and Josette, it will be a different show, even though it shares some story elements with Dark Shadows. 

Let's take Night of Dark Shadows for example.  I love the film.  I think it is a great new story for the Collins family.  However, if Night of Dark Shadows was to be made today with completely different actors, it wouldn't really be recognized as being "Dark Shadows."  It's a whole new story that takes place in the same setting as "Dark Shadows," has some of the same character names, but it's different.  What made Night of Dark Shadows work in 1971 was the fact that we knew all of the actors as being part of Dark Shadows.  There was a gothic atmosphere and storyline, but without the actors, it could have been "just another Horror movie."  It wasn't though, because it used the actors we knew, and that is how we identify that film as being Dark Shadows.  Because we can't have the same wonderful actors or the truly awesome production style of the original show today, the way you have to look at it is this:  What parts of the story can you remove, change the names of the characters, and make a new story for, and still clearly recognize iit as Dark Shadows? 

There are two.  The first is the arrival of Victoria Winters, primarily because this was a truly original storyline.  You can change all the names of these characters and toss them in a different series, while keeping the same storyline, but it would still be recognized as the story of Art Wallace, the first story of Dark Shadows:  An orphan arrives in a small fishing town to become governess to the heir of a mysterious estate, a mansion filled with the secrets of those who live there.   That's Dark Shadows no matter how you look at it.  The second is Barnabas's search for Josette.  Certainly the story of searching for and trying to re-create a lost love has been done before, but never in the fashion of Dark Shadows.  Never before did a vampire have the depth Barnabas Collins had.  Never before had the search for lost love been so unique.  Cursed by a witch, a vampire finds himself trapped in a world 200 years from the one he knew.  Yet, even though 200 years have past from the time he was chained in his coffin, he still loves one woman, the woman the same witch who cursed him took away.  He vows to find her again, to make her the bride in death that he could never have in life.  (While adding Frid's "reluctant vampire" to the mix, of course.) Distinctly Barnabas and Josette, clearly Dark Shadows. 

Let's see what other stories there are...  Dr. Hoffman trying to cure Barnabas?  Nope, not original; done before in House of Dracula.  Adam and Eve?  Nope.  Also done before by (Shelley and) Universal:  Frankenstein and the Bride of Frankenstein.  How about the werewolf and the search for a cure...  Again, Universal did it first.  The haunting of Collinwood in 1969?  Turn of the Screw.  My point is Dark Shadows itself relied so heavily on material that has been done before that the only elements that are uniquely Dark Shadows are the original characters, the two main original stories, and the original cast/production/music.  Someone could carry over "non-Barnabas and Josette"/"non-Victoria arrival" elements of Dark Shadows, but those elements would be carried over from an earlier source.  There could never be a new Dark Shadows that didn't have Barnabas and Josette, because it wouldn't be the Dark Shadows we have come to know.  You can have a sequel to the series, but if it didn't have Barnabas and Josette, you could give it a new name altogether:  The House Where Death Walks, Shadows on the Hill.  You could even give it an old name:  Frankenstein, Turn of the Screw, The Wolf Man...  There can be a new series that carries over elements of Dark Shadows and not be named Dark Shadows.  Likewise, a new series named Dark Shadows wouldn't necessarily be the Dark Shadows we know without the crucial elements, without Barnabas and Josette.

[Midnite]

The first is the arrival of Victoria Winters, primarily because this was a truly original storyline.  You can change all the names of these characters and toss them in a different series, while keeping the same storyline, but it would still be recognized as the story of Art Wallace, the first story of Dark Shadows:  An orphan arrives in a small fishing town to become governess to the heir of a mysterious estate, a mansion filled with the secrets of those who live there.   That's Dark Shadows no matter how you look at it.

An important element of DS, yes, but I wouldn't say that Victoria's story is original-- the frank but dependable orphan turned governess, hired to teach the sweet but spoiled heir at his mysterious mansion while attracting the wealthy older man she meets has long been attributed to Jane Eyre.