cursed...or charmed???

[michael c]

the film's mixed bag reception is food for thought...


the OS had a successful, if relatively brief, five year run. however all of the attempts at retelling the story since it's cancellation have fallen prey to some sort of misfortune or another.

NODS was edited with a buzzsaw and is a disjointed mess as a result. the 1991 revival series butted heads with a war in the persian gulf and was cancelled after just 12 episodes. the 2004 series imploded on the launching pad. and the depp/burton film was largely greeted within the fandom with wails of discontent and much of the mainstream entertainment media seems to want to portray it as a "flop" whether that's accurate or not.

true there are the audiodramas and comic series in current release but it's more than fair to say those are niche products that the public at large are unaware of(and IMO they're both dreadful).


so why is it so difficult to retell this tale in a successful way? it's a great story, but is it too colossal and unwieldy to reign into a digestable story to attract the attention of a new audience? after all the OS was a daily serialized drama that gradually unfolded over years.

at the same time the show boasts a fanbase as loyal as any series could ever expect or ask for. and someone always has their eye on it for revival. so what do we think?

[Gothick]

Not much to say beyond the fact that I have had similar thoughts to those you have voiced.

Yet to see Depp Shadows so I won't comment.  I have seen the 1991 series and the 04 pilot and neither was an artistic success, though for what it is worth, I do think the 1991 redaction had some wonderful moments, thanks in large part to Barbara Steele, Julianna McCarthy, and occasionally Ben Cross (miscast and poorly directed in his role, just my opinion).  Some of the others had good moments but these three performances were the main standouts in what rapidly slithered into an unwieldy mess.  Again, network interference in the plotlines and the production seems in part to blame.  I haven't followed the respective histories all that carefully but I have the impression that a "too many cooks" situation may also be to blame for the difficulties of the 04 WB thing and the Burton/Depp fandango.

I personally don't grok the concept of DS as a "franchise."  To me, the original series, a weird, underbudgeted, oddball little adventure, more or less ignored or misunderstood by network suits and much of the ABC publicity arm, busting out to become this huge cultural phenomenon that became part of the late Sixties countercultural scene, is way, way ahead of--and more interesting than--any of the attempts at a reboot.  Maybe part of the reason for that is the extraordinary calibre of the original cast, and the fact that some of the writing was so literate, with that Victorian gothic texture that made it all so memorable.

Just my thoughts.  I do think that fans of the various versions could give more accurate accountings since they are more familiar with the quirks of the situations involved in the production of each successive attempt at a revival.

G.

[Cousin_Barnabas]

To think that Depp Shadows was the final nail in the coffin would be a crime, but to think that we'll see another version of Dark Shadows in the very near future may be too much wishful thinking.  Personally, I think -- with the right talent, backing, and direction -- a new primetime effort could really take off.  But how long will we have to wait for that?  5?  10?  20 years?   I'm thinking a cable or premium channel would probably be the best fit given the current market.  I can see an HBO Dark Shadows working quite well.  But, as G said, we have to get the millions of cooks out of the kitchen.  And to add to that, possibly reorganize how matters involving "Dark Shadows" are handled. 

[dom]

"I don't understand?"

How much more more successful should we expect DS to be? How many other shows have ever been done twice on TV, had a third pilot and had three movies made?  A whole lot less than haven't.

I'm very proud of the show and all it's incarnations. I think if the fan base stopped overrating it and would accept it for the 'miracle' it was and is they wouldn't be so disappointed with it's success. It is a success, isn't it?

I think a Broadway musical would be an exciting next chapter. Hopefully it wouldn't be deemed a failure if it doesn't sweep the Tony's.

[KMR]

I think a Broadway musical would be an exciting next chapter. Hopefully it wouldn't be deemed a failure if it doesn't sweep the Tony's.

DS seems like it would be great material as the basis for an opera in the contemporary musical idiom (along the lines of the works of Lloyd Webber and Andersson/Ulvaeus).  The themes and plots certainly reach classic operatic heights!  Of course, even if it happened and were successful in the least, I'm quite sure that many critics would savage it and consider it on a par with the original productions of CARRIE...

[Uncle Roger]

Perhaps a revival of the Off Broadway incarnation from the late '80's might be in order.

[michael c]

"I don't understand?"

How much more more successful should we expect DS to be? How many other shows have ever been done twice on TV, had a third pilot and had three movies made?  A whole lot less than haven't.

I'm very proud of the show and all it's incarnations. I think if the fan base stopped overrating it and would accept it for the 'miracle' it was and is they wouldn't be so disappointed with it's success. It is a success, isn't it?

I think a Broadway musical would be an exciting next chapter. Hopefully it wouldn't be deemed a failure if it doesn't sweep the Tony's.

like i said...

the OS was a huge success and continues to have a tremendously loyal fanbase and a significant influence on the popular culture.


but it's various offshoots have not always been successful. so my question was as to why we think that is? there's really no need for defensiveness.

[Lydia]

Gothick pretty much hits the nail on the head, as far as I'm concerned.  When I try add anything, it seems superfluous.

[quentincollins]

Perhaps a revival of the Off Broadway incarnation from the late '80's might be in order.

I've never heard of this. Can anybody give any details on this, plot, characters, actors, etc?

[Mysterious Benefactor]

It was a stripped-down retelling of the 1795 storyline. And it starred basically unknown actors. But if anyone really wants all the details, I can scan an article about the play from Theater Week that was shared in ShadowGram back in 1988.

[quentincollins]

I'd be interested in reading the article if/when you get the time to scan it.
That does make sense to use that story, it's one of the best stories, and it's beuatiful in it's simplicity. Leave out the subplots with Vicki and the Nathan/Millicent story, and it's a love triangle with the twist of the lover spurned being a witch.

[MagnusTrask]

...so why is it so difficult to retell this tale in a successful way? it's a great story, but is it too colossal and unwieldy to reign into a digestable story to attract the attention of a new audience?

It seems to be taken as a given here that re-telling a story is a natural and desirable thing to do.   If the story was told really well, in an inspired way, the first time, why do it again?   It's a sort of miraculous thing, when the elements combine in just the right way, to create a unique phenomenon like DS.  Why would we expect to slog through redoing it all, and end up with something just as magical at the end of it?

Telling a new story is what's exciting, not re-telling stories.  I know there would be new viewers unfamiliar with DS, but they can pick up on the lack of inspiration and tiredness of show business soldiering their way through an old story yet again.

The only new DS I'd actually be interested in would be something with the spontaneity and freshness of the original, which is a sequel to original DS, where the events continue that story, despite the 40 year gap (unless we fool with time or youth some actors with CGI).

[Lydia]

Telling a new story is what's exciting, not re-telling stories.

That suggests that very little of the original series is exciting.

[MagnusTrask]

Telling a new story is what's exciting, not re-telling stories.

That suggests that very little of the original series is exciting.

Not at all.   For reasons I did my best to give, the problem is not with the story, but with re -telling.   There's no reason to expect the same excitement from any remake as from the original, fresh, unique DS that never existed before.

[michael c]

i could be wrong but what i think is being said here is that most of the plots of the OS were cribbed from other literary sources...


jane eyre, frankenstien, rebecca, the turn of the screw, the picture of dorian gray, the telltale heart...all of these stories were rewritten into the DS framework utilizing it's setting and characters but were not exactly "original" stories being told.

the end result felt very fresh and original but the writers heavily referenced other material.