Posted by Fergie on January 30, 2002 at 07:17:42:
In Reply to: Re: DVDs and a New DS posted by Julia99 on January 27, 2002 at 11:49:43:
One of the earmarks of a "classic" is that it's worth retelling. All great artists do have their obsessions, so it's no wonder that Dan Curtis' obsession is to retell the most successful storyline he's had until he gets it "right."
That said, though, I have to agree!
A completely new storyline would be great, so long as it isn't like "Passions" or Buffy Visits Collinsport.
One of DC's problems is that the ingredients in his stews are a certain portion of retelling and a certain portion of tangents from the original. Hey, he ripped off countless classics for a long time before he started ripping off his OWN DS writers (what do you think parallel time really was? or HODS or NODS?). Inventive retelling of Twilight Zone? No, it was writer's block.
I don't really think that he can do anything completely original, and certainly not if he's writing it himself. I wonder if, after all these remakes where he's writing the pilots himself, if he's convinced himself that he wrote the original scripts too?
I don't really think another retelling of Barnabas/Vicky&Maggie & 1795 would be bad for another MINIseries, or even the beginning of a new series, if it were a tightly constructed storyline JUST about that one plot and not so obviously geared (or pleading) for an extenuation into a longer series like the NBC version was.
But it would have to be very complelling and well made. You don't create a good series by stirring up a boiling soup of troubles at the very beginning. That is just bewildering to an audience. You make a really good storyline with a strong focus that is compelling. If it is pregnant with possibilities, it's a subtle pregnancy that shouldn't show yet.
Then you go off on your wild new storylines.
I would bet that DC is going to start off with the tried and true, hoping to branch off from that.
Take a look at "Dynasty," for example. Find somebody with a tape of that old '80s series and watch the first couple of episodes. Then watch some episodes from the final seasons.
DC thinks a nighttime series should start like the last season of Dynasty rather than the first season. But you can't have a good series full of chaos unless it follows that first season or two spent establishing characters and evoking audience caring. (And I'm not saying you have to be boring or actionless; just have more compelling characterizations and situations to set the stage).
Part of DC's problem is that his idea has always been to rip off a classic and then add a few "twists" and that's all. It was never the twists or the changed endings that made any of his shows, films or TV movies successful, though. He obviously never knew what made anything he did successful or not and I doubt he's spent anytime analyzing it either. We all watch these old episodes again and again, so it should be obvious that we don't watch because we don't know what's coming.
A mini series about Barnabas could be very, very good if it followed the old series nearly verbatim, cutting out the deadwood and the mistakes. Some of the scripts by Ron Sproat and Malcom Marmorstein are among the best monologues ever written for TV. Period. And I doubt any actor will ever deliver them the way Frid did.
The cat-and-mouse between Julia & Barnabas as she investigates him only lasted a few days, yet little old ladies still talk fondly about it four decades later as though that was the best storyline ever. Indeed, it is among the best original part of the show and that in itself really is enough for a TV pilot or for the major part of a motion picture. But what does DC do with it? He cuts it down to like 2 seconds in HODS and only a few seconds more in the NBC version. DC doesn't realize that the "getting there" is half the fun; he just wants to rush it & get there & get it overwith. Poor Mrs. Curtis.
It would be extremely tough to cast something that tries to copy the original, and not a good idea to fill it up with California-looking actors or palm trees either.
There simply is not another Jonathan Frid, such a vastly underrated actor.
Ben Cross couldn't come close.
I would say the same for Grayson Hall and her chemestry with Frid. Cross and Steele were good but the chemestry did not quite work as well. Steele has a different sort of class than Grayson, too, and lacks her NY shrewishness.
Of course no one has Jonathan Frid's voice. It truly is or was a wonderful voice. And I don't think anyone else ever will be found who could come close to his speeches.
Because of those casting problems with the main characters, it would be much easier surely to go with an entirely new story.
Speaking of animation, I've often thought that an animated cartoon series of DS would be the best way to remake the old series, using recordings/soundtracks of the original series but animating it in 30-minute daily installments for kids or adults or both. Pretty much verbatim, cutting out what didn't work, correcting the flubs and generally just "doing it right this time." Which is what Dan's obsessed with anyway.
If you've ever LISTENED to tapes of the show while not distracted by watching it, you know that the sound is really much more compelling than the visual.
In fact, the visual is rather distracting.
I imagine a computer-animated version of the old version, darker and creepier, and with Dr. Woodard completely replaced with anybody -- Homer Simpson or Bugs Bunny or anybody else would be better.
And Betsy Durkin or that 3rd Vicky whatshername and anybody else offensive.
How well I remember the '60s when people would stop what they were doing and watch DS because it was the most unusual thing available anywhere, especially on TV and especially during the day.
When it went from B&W to color, it lost a certain creepiness and instead went from B&W to BEAUTIFUL. People tuned in for the clothes & hairstyles and the sets which were unlike any other on TV, even better than "Peyton Place" most said (which was the "Dynasty"-type thing of those days). Even Jackie Kennedy was quoted discussing the authenticity of the sets and the classiness of the virgins (of course, she knew Alexandra von Moltke, so she probably got hooked when tuning in to see her).
It's hard for most younger people to remember those days when there were only 3 major networks, and the entire country's perceptions could pretty easily be focused on one of the three channels.
(And DS was really much more influential than most people today realize!) How many times have I run across some young person named Quentin or Angelique -- I even met a Barnabas once, believe it or not -- and I knew before I asked who they were named for. Yet when you look in those mass-produced "Names for Children" type books written by the so-called experts, they say things like "Barnabas: A name for boys revived in America in the 1970s by a popular TV show Barnaby Cobb starring Buddy Ebson.") I'm not kidding. It really says that.
Well, I'm rambling too much. Sorry.
