It's Official!

There are no longer many, if any, DS fans working at Entertainment Weekly these days. Next week's issue is "Your Ultimate Guide to Vampires," but does DS rate a mention? Well, barely - only that DS: The Haunting of Collinwood DVD comes out September 15th. Inexplicably, Barnabas doesn't rate a mention as one of the 20 Greatest Vampires - or even on the Honorable Mentions list!   (Even a vampire puppet in Forgetting Sarah Marshall makes the HM list.  ) And the Depp/DS film is nowhere to be seen.

On the plus side, though, at least Barbara Steele's Asa Vajda from Black Sunday makes the 20GV list at #6.

I don't know what to say at this point. The Dark Shadows fandom could use a bit of momentum. Most in in the media seem to be excited about the Dark Shadows movie project. When this project gets off the ground then perhaps publications like EW will give Dark Shadows its deserved respect and recognition. Although we could certainly use a friend at EW today.

We just found one friend.

http://www.bostonherald.com/blogs/entertainment/love_that_tv/?p=134&srvc=home&position=recent

I just looked at EW's website concerning the article, along with its pics of what it considers the "greatest" film/TV vampires and it's obvious why Barnabas and DS was overlooked:  EW is only looking at the teenybopper audience that wants young hunks for the swooning teen girls, and big-bazoomed fang-yielding chicks for the teen boys who only know Twilight, Twilight, Twilight, Twilight, Twilight (and a few other very contemporary shows/movies/books).  EW is pandering to a fad for magazine sales; don't forget, it's called Entertainment Weekly.  Last week's news is old and gone; next week's news will have forgotten this week's news.  As one poster stated in the on-line comments section where he criticized the article, these "greatest" pecs-and-boobs twenty-something vampires don't hold a candle to even Grandpa Munster, let alone all the other truly great vampires of film and screen.

Gerard

Actually, those lists on the Web site are very different from the one in the print issue. More than half of the vamps on the Web site are nowhere to be seen on the print issue's list, whereas vamps like Klaus Kinski's Dracula (#11), Gary Oldman's Dracula (#10), Salem's Lot's Mr. Barlow (#8), Bela Lugosi's Dracula (#3), and Christopher Lee's Dracula (#2) are. Not exactly young hunks - especially Klaus Kinski's Dracula and Mr. Barlow. 

Dark Shadows didn't even get honorable mention in EW's new issue out on stands this week.  Grandpa Munster and the Count from Sesame Street even got shout outs.  Crazeeeeeeee

http://popwatch.ew.com/2009/07/31/this-weeks-cover-vampires/

Yeah, I mean, Elvira got an honorable mention?  I didn't even realize that the character was supposed to be a vampire.  (Is she?)

The thing that got me about the DS snub is their choice of Lestat as the greatest vampire of all time.  The article reads that if it weren't for Interview with the Vampire, there wouldn't be a Twilight.  My response is that if it weren't for DS, there wouldn't be an IWTV.  (1970 Parallel Time, anyone?)  Besides, if that's their argument for choosing Lestat, then shouldn't Dracula be #1?  After all, there probably wouldn't be so many vampires in fiction if not for Dracula.

In fairness, EW has mentioned DS in other vampire features on their website, and Yahoo! recently had a fun article about the Burton/Depp project, with a photo of Johnny Depp alongside a picture of Frid as Barnabas.  I think Gerard is correct in his assertion that the article was designed to cash in on the current crop of vampire projects.  Had the new DS movie been closer to release, then it definitely would have been mentioned.

Oh, EW's feature is definitely designed to cash in on the current explosion of the vampire genre. And if the lists that are on their Web site were the ones included in the print issue, I'd wholehearted agree EW is simply pandering to a supposed fad by focusing mainly on the current crop of "hot" vamps. (Read "hot" however you will. ) But the list in the print issue focuses on much more than what currently may be appealing to hormonal teens. It spans a good 70+ years, with nearly every decade in those years well represented - and by doing so they're aiming to give their list actual legitimacy. But what sort of legitimacy can a list without Barn actually have? That he is overlooked is at the very least bizarre - especially considering that several of the vamps on the list owe their very existence to Barn in one way or another.    (And I agree that the criteria/logic for their rankings - particularly placing Lestat at #1 for the reasons they did - is definitely a bit skewed.) Though it's not that I think in any way that EW is intentionally slighting Barn/DS. What it is is that the compilers of EW's list quite obviously didn't do adequate enough research...

All I have to say is that EW is going to feel pretty stupid when Johnny's DS movie comes out.  It's just mind-boggling that EW managed to overlook the one vampire who changed the genre for all who followed...

Yes, wasn't Barnabas the first at least semi-sympathetic, more complex vampire character ever done, or at least the first exposed to a mass audience?   As opposed to a simple evil monster?   The vampire as a subject would have died out without having been reinvigorated by DS... right?

I think Entertainment Tonight is in the business of being stupid, superficial, and getting things wrong.

I'm far from an expert MagnusTrask, but AFAIK, I agree with your assessment of DS's Barnabas being an iconic character, one who changed the nature of the vampire for many works of fiction that followed.  To miss something as monumental as that (as ET did) is embarrassing for them, to say the least, and smacks of an incompetent, incomplete job. 

Yes, indeed, Magnus -- Frid's interpretation of the vampire's angst and self-loathing was the first such characterization. It was certainly ground-breaking. Of course, a lot of credit also has to go to Dan Curtis who had to scramble to change the storylines when it was obvious Barnabas Collins drove the ratings through the roof. He had to be redeemed in some way. All in all, it was brilliant and changed the map for the vampire genre all the way around. EW really dropped the ball here, but what can you expect from a bunch of green kids? Really -- kinda reminds me of the TMZ crowd.

Why do I always end up feeling that DS is the Rodney Dangerfield of vampire stories?   Answer - it was daytime TV, that's the only thing I can come up with.

Of course, a lot of credit also has to go to Dan Curtis who had to scramble to change the storylines when it was obvious Barnabas Collins drove the ratings through the roof.

I know that DC often claimed credit for the whole reluctant vampire thing, but isn't the truth that he had to be convinced and it was a damn hard sell?

DC had nothing to do with the evolution of Barnabas.  Frid and Ron Sproat have gone on record stating that Frid was cast while DC was in Europe and the writers invited the newly hired actor to come in and talk to them about ways to go with Barnabas.  Sproat went to Yale with Frid and the actor's reputation for finding good and bad in his characters made a lasting impression on the writer.  The writers want to talk about exploiting that trait for the role of Barnabas.  

nancy

I know that DC often claimed credit for the whole reluctant vampire thing, but isn't the truth that he had to be convinced and it was a damn hard sell?