New DS series???

[Linda]

Posted by Linda on January 29, 2002 at 10:21:05:
In Reply to: Re: Rose Red posted by RingoCollins on January 29, 2002 at 08:58:55:

Sorry to butt in here.
I nearly fell out of my chair when I read that Dan Curtis wrote a spec script "with a collaborator" and sent it over to Fox!
Didn't he learn ANYTHING at all from his mistakes with the 1990 NBC series? or with the MGM movies?
He is a great director and always good at putting some energy into even some lifeless scripts, but one thing he is NOT, and that's a good writer.
The problem with the 1990 series: borrowed too much from HOUSE OF DS, which he apparently STILL thought was a clever synopses of the first years of the series but punched up better (which it WAS NOT).
A new series should do what the 1990 series failed to do: get good writers in on the BEGINNING, not drag them in at the very end.
If you want to get old fans, put some of the old stars in cameo roles at least.
I always thought it would be good to do the '90 series set back in the '60s, with the cars, the hair, the clothes, Beatles music, etc. Pretty much the original show but with better effects! Also, lots of virgins running around. Sure, there could be some sex, but
not '90s sex, please!
Roger and Maggie in bed together? That was the most disgusting thing in the entire '90s show.
Dan Curtis made a mistake trying to make it an "Adult" TV show with older actors yet using the same child's mentality script.
There was a purity in the old series that made it OK for children.
The '90s show was sleezy, like NODS. Hardly any redeeming features in either of those movies either, except that the sets are pretty to look at and nice to see old faces when they were young.

[Birdie]

Posted by Birdie on January 29, 2002 at 10:52:57:
In Reply to: New DS series??? posted by Linda on January 29, 2002 at 10:21:05:

I have to say I would like to see a new generation story line. Yes, using some of the stars from the original run. There are so many possiblities. Maybe even finally putting a end to the Vicki story line.

Birdie

[Gerard]

Posted by Gerard on January 29, 2002 at 15:08:21:
In Reply to: New DS series??? posted by Linda on January 29, 2002 at 10:21:05:

Linda, I just gotta agree with you. I did NOT enjoy the 1990 prime-time remake (save for Jean Simmons, who made an Elizabeth Collins Stoddard as classy and regal as Joan Bennett). It was, for the most part, poorly written and lacked the subtlety of the original. And thinking of Maggie having an affair with Roger, well, I can't even think about it because I'll become verklempfed. And while the original could be excused for its many bloopers, there simply was no excuse for a series with a multi-million dollar budget, supposedly set in Maine, having palm trees swing into scenes (I know that's a small thing, but it irked me to no end). If there is the chance for a new series, and I hope so, you are so right ----- please, Mr. Curtis, leave the writing to the writers, use what worked in the way of approach from the original, and definitely learn from the mistakes of the first prime-time repeat attempt.

Gerard

[Trace]

Posted by Trace on January 29, 2002 at 16:15:59:
In Reply to: New DS series??? posted by Linda on January 29, 2002 at 10:21:05:

Hey folks,
I don't post much, but I would like to weigh in on this subject! I agree with Linda 100%! I always thought the mistake with the 1991 version was the fact that it was set in 1991!!! I DON'T like the idea of a "new generation" of Collinses. I want to see my old faves--Maggie, Carolyn, Liz, Roger, Julia, Vicki, Chris Jennings, Joe, etc. BUT--set the series in 1971, bring back those great hairstyles, clothes, the music, etc. It should have new stories, true, but let it be a continuation of the original storyline. Updating it for the times has failed, not once, but twice--remember the "DS" comic books series, by Innovation comics?
The new should could have new actors playing all the old roles, with the great suggestion of cameos (or new roles) for some of the original stars. I just pray it's not set in 2002!
Now, if it's set in 1971, there would be nothing wrong with a time travel storyline to the future--2002! No one does time travel better than DS!
Just my opinions!
Trace

[Philippe Cordier]

Posted by Vlad on January 29, 2002 at 17:59:32:
In Reply to: Re: New DS series??? posted by Birdie on January 29, 2002 at 10:52:57:

Hi, everyone - just had to make a post here - this month marks my three-year anniversary posting on this board (or its VantageNet board incarnation). Glad to see so many familiar faces are still around - as well as so many new posters! Guess I'm in it for the long haul, going on year number four!

It was so exciting to read about the possibility of a new DS series. It's good that we've been cautioned not to expect too much, though - there have been several attempts to revive DS since the 1991 series, from what I understand - most recently the proposed Broadway musical that seems to have died. Even if plans proceed, I think it would be overly optimistic to think that a new series would air next fall. Many shows for next fall have already been in production for some time, and a new DS series would have to be written, cast, locations found, etc. I don't see how that could possibly be done by next fall and have a quality production. Of course I could be wrong here.

Like other posters, I would like to see Jean Simmons return - she's an actress of grace and dignity who apparently has said in the past that she would be interested in doing DS again. Like others, I dread the thought that the show could be aimed at the "Buffy" crowd - even though the original series' most ardent followers were kids, I think DS was far more sophisticated and thoughtful (with notable exceptions, to be sure), than a lot of the junk that's on TV today. The '91 revival series had its moments, but somehow lacked the depth and mystery of the original, IMO. If only a new series would also use the talents of original cast members - they'd have to find young actors, too - if only they go with interesting talent rather than teen show fresh-faced bimbos. I don't know what Fox's demographics are, but from what some have said, it seems they aim for the teen set.

I never saw "Twin Peaks," but if a new series could stir up that kind of broad-based interest and atmosphere - someone mentioned an edginess, and that would be important to capture. There were many, many unsettling things in the original series.

An authentic setting would also be crucial if the series were to be done, today, IMO. That fake model house looked so cheesy in the opening credits of the '91 series, and everything was so obviously California.

So many good ideas among posters here - if only DC Productions would seriously consider what fans have said in the past and currently. Not that people are in any way unanimous, but at least the majority seem to feel that we don't need a fourth rehash of the Barnabas-released-from-the-coffin story. And the troubled David has been done to death, too, though that seems to be one of DC's special interests. (And I cringe at the thought of American child actors for the most part).

At first I didn't like the idea of a "next generation" storyline for a new series, but the more I think about it, the more that seems like the way to go. A sort of "Return to Collinwood," with the new generation of Collinses probing the family secrets of the past. Perhaps a descendant of Quentin Collins arrives at Collinwood and confronts the original Quentin, who lives as a recluse on the estate. Jean Simmons was superb as the unhinged old crone Miss Havisham in a cable remake of "Great Expecations"; it would be great to see her sink her acting chops into something like that. For the most part it's hard to see new actors step into the roles so impressed in our minds by the original cast members (e.g., Angelique), that's partly why it seems to me that there should be new characters, with the old ones played only by original cast members. An exception might be Ben Cross, who I thought was a chilling yet sensual Barnabas. But it would be hard to see yet a third Barnabas, unless he were relegated to a minor character.

So either a "next generation," or else a parallel DS world, like they did with "Night of DS." Those would be my ideas of what might work.

- Vlad

[Midnite]

Posted by Midnite on January 29, 2002 at 22:24:17:
In Reply to: New DS series??? posted by Linda on January 29, 2002 at 10:21:05:

The previous message was not written by the regular Linda.

• To the poster-- This author name is already in use. I'm glad you chose to join in our discussions but I must ask you to please post under a name that's available. The author name you used prior to posting this message is fine.
• For all posters-- The search feature on the board's main page can be very helpful in determining if a name has been taken, or you can email me if you have a question about the availability of user names or any other matter about the board. Thanks!

[VAM]

Posted by VAM on January 30, 2002 at 16:48:14:
In Reply to: Re: New DS series??? posted by Vlad on January 29, 2002 at 17:59:32:

Yes, Vald I feel strongly that it would be a MAJOR mistake to recast the origional characters. It would be another failed attempt and sort of like the remake of "Gone With the WIND". By the same token, I hope the new series (if it gets the green light) does not turn into a Buffy meets Barnabas! VAM

P.S. Hope the original cast is used in cameo roles. This was something not done in 1991 and definitely would have helped it have a longer existence.

[Stuart]

Posted by Stuart Manning on February 01, 2002 at 07:50:07:
In Reply to: Re: New DS series??? posted by VAM on January 30, 2002 at 16:48:14:

I'll go out on a limb here and say that I think the less lip service any DS revival pays to the original series, the better. It's simply too late to do a "Next Generation" type show -- the majority of the senior cast are dead and frankly most of the survivors would need to have their characters drastically overhauled to work as older people.

If an opportunity to cast an old face comes up, and they are the best possible choice for the role, then fine, but otherwise, I'd say that "nostalgia" casting is a big mistake. A new series will have to succeed on its own merits and find its own audience -- in the broader context, that is what will ensure its success, not pandering to a tiny minority of viewers who would probably watch it regardless.

Cheers

Stuart

[Darren Gross]

Posted by Darren Gross on February 01, 2002 at 14:38:17:
In Reply to: Re: New DS series??? posted by Stuart Manning on February 01, 2002 at 07:50:07:

I second that, Stuart.

[Linda]

Posted by Linda on February 01, 2002 at 16:40:52:
In Reply to: Re: New DS series??? posted by Stuart Manning on February 01, 2002 at 07:50:07:

I'll go out on a limb here and say that I think the less lip service any DS revival pays to the original series, the better. It's simply too late to do a "Next Generation" type show -- the majority of the senior cast are dead and frankly most of the survivors would need to have their characters drastically overhauled to work as older people.

Well, it's not like Dan Curtis has had great luck in recent years getting ANY of his Dark Shadows ideas off the ground but for what it's worth, the makers of Star Trek managed to produce a wildly successful "next generation" show, with a couple of decent spin-offs, as well, and they used a primary original character exactly ONCE, that I know of -- a very aged Dr. McCoy in one of the very first episodes.

With a next generation concept -- especially if its actually over 30 years later -- DC wouldn't need to feature the original actors because he could get away with a whole new cast of characters, and he could easily explain away the absence of the 1966-1971 people by revealing them in the storylines as either dead (hardly inconceivable, since a good many of the original series actors ARE dead), or having just moved on. However, the younger characters of the original series WOULD still be young enough, 30+ years later, for the actors who played them (e.g., KLS, Lara Parker, Alexandra Moltke, John Karlen, Christopher Pennock, and Nancy Barrett) to believably reprise their roles in a 2002 setting, if they wanted to do that. Since we never knew THAT many of the fine citizens of Collinsport, he could also make up some brand new townspeople and just pretend that they were around all along, and he could pick anyone in the 40+ age range to play David Collins.

Frankly, I really don't want to see him redo the original story ONE MORE TIME, and if he's not going to do a next generation-type show, why bother to do Dark Shadows at all? He could come up with a gothic-type show that's entirely new.

Cheers,

Linda

[Trace]

Posted by Trace on February 01, 2002 at 18:20:40:
In Reply to: Re: New DS series??? posted by Darren Gross on February 01, 2002 at 14:38:17:

I agree that a new series should not be a "re-hash", like I said in my earlier post--but frankly, rather than "DS-The Next Generation", what would be wrong with picking up where the original left off--in 1971?? Then, you have the benefit of new storylines, but you also get the same characters that we know and love. And, Vicki and Burke could come back to Collinsport too. Also, the new series could touch on some of the storylines that never got realized in the original--like Seaview, for example. I personally have no problem with new actors, as long as they don't update the series to the present day.

Of course, this whole discussion is moot, because they are going to end up doing (or not doing) whatever they want. But, it sure has been fun floating theories around!
Trace

[Twila]

Posted by Twila on February 05, 2002 at 20:58:34:
In Reply to: Re: New DS series??? posted by Twila on February 05, 2002 at 20:24:03:

Sorry, I didn't mean to double-post what you'd written, Trace. Your ideas for a followup to the 1971 storyline are similar to my own. I always liked that idea, rather than a rehash. However, I enjoy anything DS, and would probably tune in, nevertheless. Going back and picking up with the '71 theme in clothes, music, and the whole atmosphere would simply be groovy. Then, the show could progress at its own pace in and out of time, from then until now, but never lingering too long in any given time period during the thirty-odd year span. Somehow, "2002, A Collins Odyssey" kind of prickles the brain. I mean, here we are, survivors of 1995 (and the Amazing Barnabas's theory of a nuclear holocaust, he, he, he). I'm still waiting for the moving sidewalks and the airplane in every garage they promised us at previous World Fairs. Yes, I think that '71 concept would be just dandy, Trace. Barnabas might install some electricity and some running water. Now, wouldn't that be a scream? Would we then launch immediately into '72? Then, where? 1975? Picture this: Barnabas in a maroon plaid suit with lapels out to his armpits, a white belt, cuffed bell-bottoms, and eeek! WHITE shoes!
The thought is too horrifying for words, but, there, I did it! Feel better, already.
Cameos would be OK: much like a book-marker to remind us of where we had been, and where we might be headed.