I think everyone needs to step back and take a breath. I, too, was hoping for what "appeared" to be a loyal re-adaptation of the original and maybe this one is a more - shall we say - jocular version. But then again, you can't always go by trailers/previews.
But the more I watch the trailer and it's seemingly turn from the original, the more I like it. It appears to go into things more "real," such as Barnabas' attempt at fitting in with the early 1970's. To me, that makes much more sense than how Dan Curtis handled it in both the 60's/70's original and the '91 remake. We all know, that for the sake of moving things along, in the original logic and consistency were thrown under the bus. For viewers like me who grew up as kids watching it, it didn't seem very problematic (even though I, at that young age, had my many moments when I thought "hey, wait a minute..."). The '91 version, a pale imitation of the first mixed in with a remake of HoDS, was completely illogical. I appreciated the attempt at the update and hoped for its success, but I didn't appreciate how it just mashed things along without a thought to "what if this was really happening?" I never saw the 2004 attempted reboot, so I can't comment on that (although, from the few pics posted about it, it did seem to be more logical, such as Barnabas being a wasted-away corpse when first unearthed since he had been devoid of sustenance for 200 years).
I watched, almost consistenly when I could, the original series when it first premiered on that summer day in 1966 until it ended on that spring day in 1971. I loved it. I put up with its total lack of consistency which even, at that young age, I could see. I never missed an episode of the '91 prime-time remake, which I thought was overblown and totally illogical and I wished it had continued on (d*mn that Iraq war for ruining that possibility, and the owner of NBC who had a stick up his dupa over the show) and I thought that while everyone else had been miscast, Jean Simmons was perfect and held her own against the great Joan Bennett. I'm sure if I saw the 2004 version, I'd have my reservations (along with my acdolades).
Let's face it, folks. Our original DS, while a milestone in television history and unique amongst its kind (how many attempts have their been to try and duplicate what it did by other shows, both daytime, nighttime and on the silver screen?), had it's plethora of problems. Some of the plots stank. Some of the characters/performers did equally as well (how many Roger Davis Fan Club members are there here, as well as Donna McKechnia characters? [although I'm one among the few who thought Amanda Harris and Olivia Corey were simply fine]). And what about all the bloopers? One of my favorite scenes was during the 1967 seance that sent Vicki back and the stunned members of the current-day family stood there in shock, the camera panning back in what should've been a very dramatic scene that filled the whole screen showing the enormity of the drawing room and there it is, right at the top, ruining what should've been a classic moment, that microphone boom prancing about. And don't forget Barnabas and Julia looking through the barred door leading down to the Old House cellar in another dramatic moment, and Barnabas ends up picking his nose. Despite all that it did, with huge sets, a classic Hollywood movie star playing the lead role (Joan), the first-ever orchestrated musical score, exterior film shots, our beloved DS had lots to make fun of, including by us. We do it all the time and still love it, so why shouldn't someone else take what was absurd in our original and come up with something different? Why should we get upset when Barnabas, in this film, become unnerved by listening and watching the Carpenters perform on television? Doesn't that make more sense than having a Barnabas show up at Collinwood in 1967 and apparently, after a few days from being out of the grave, being able to comprehend Don't Sleep in the Subway by Petula Clark or the Barnabas of 1991 getting all flustered over I Wanna Sex You Up by Color Me Badd? Our much loved original DS would've been better if it had shown Barnabas going bonkers over watching a toilet flush and wondering what Angelique-inspired witchcraft had caused that. To have him show up a matter of days at the doors of Collinwood after his release wearing his Robert Hall suit and Thom McCann shoes was utterly preposterious. But leave it to Dan Curtis to come up with that stuff, and yet we loved it. So maybe we'll love this as well. Maybe we'll hate it. I still appreciate the '91 remake, but I can't get over how shoddily it was done (palm trees while it's suppose to be in Maine and all; one would think that the millions NBC gave DC he could've spent a few bucks on graphic deletion).
Dark Shadows, like everything else, evolves. So let's see what this movie does. It can't be any worse than DC's "vision" in his remake, and that, compared to the original, was a pale and multi-budgeted step down. And yet, we watched it, loved it, and wanted it to go on. If I can put up with having Willie Loomis turned into a Stan Laurel buffoon and my beloved Maggie Evans turned into a gin-slinging slattern in the '91 remake, all of it a far version from the original, I can put up with other stuff. Dan Curtis betrayed his original with the '91 remake and allowed opportunity to fly out the window.
So let's again take a deep breath and wait to see what happens. Our original DS was not perfect. The remake didn't improve on it. Yet, we all crave both. (Since the 2004 version is hidden from anyone who doesn't pay tons of money to travel to a festival, there's no point in bringing that one up - most of us ain't ever gonna see it.) Maybe we'll crave this one as well. Besides, I miss lava lamps as shown in the trailer. Now that was an era of tackiness and it made life fun. Hopefully this one will capitalize on that tackiness and we'll all have fun.
Gerard
Topic: Depp/Burton DARK SHADOWS Is In Production!! (Read 719808 times)