NoDS

[Patti Feinberg]

I am going to watch
Night of Dark Shadows
I have never seen this before.
As a matter of fact, I had never seen the trailer before, so, I just watched it. What a hoot!! Qu'elle 70's!!

Patti

thanks Darren!

[Uncle Roger]

Please post your comments after you've watched it.

[Patti Feinberg]

Well, it wasn't the way I imagined it.
It was good on it's own merits; slightly NOT "DSish".
Two production items: first, the sound was badly done (specifically during 1st half, often hard to hear Grayson).
Second, the makeup was phenomenal! Everyone looked about 10 years younger!!
Not soon, but I probably will watch again, just to see my own 'takes' on it.
I was so wonderful to hear music by R. Colbert!!!

So, who here has seen NoDS?
Please tell me your takes/opinions.

Patti

[dom]

I saw it when first released to theaters and when it was released on VHS. I thought is was very creepy both times and the scene with the car filling up with ectoplasm really got to me. I liked the film but it holds no sentimental value for me like house does.

[KMR]

I saw it on the very first day of release. Sat through it twice! At the time, I considered it to be far inferior to HODS, but since then my opinion has changed drastically. The story in NODS has better flow (even considering the story problems due to the overnight edit done to satisfy the MGM suits). HODS just jumps around from scene to scene, scarcely giving the audience time to pause and take some breaths. (Although, I have to say the final section of HODS, starting with Jeff on St. Eustance Island after his encounter with Stokes and on to the credits, is overall my absolute favorite part of DS overall. It is such a classic piece of vampire storytelling.)

I'm dying to see the "complete" version of NODS, should that ever happen. But until then, I'll keep enjoying the version we have, and dreaming of being able to sit in the gallery (my favorite room in the world) on a sunny winter day...

[David]

NODS is Dan Curtis' Ingmar Bergman film, beautifully shot, very well acted, creepy, atmospheric, etc.
What the MGM suits forced Dan & Sam to do to it is a shame.

[Patti Feinberg]

NODS is Dan Curtis' Ingmar Bergman film, beautifully shot, very well acted, creepy, atmospheric, etc.
What the MGM suits forced Dan & Sam to do to it is a shame.

Wholeheartedly agree!

The story in NODS has better flow (even considering the story problems due to the overnight edit done to satisfy the MGM suits). HODS just jumps around from scene to scene, scarcely giving the audience time to pause and take some breaths.

I couldn't agree with you more. The first time I saw HoDS, I was 12ish and therefore, 'scared' (especially of a certain character who aged alot).

Perhaps it's my age now, but, I too agree that in story plot and continuity, it's superior.

Patti

[tragic bat]

I just watched the NODS DVD after not seeing the film in about fourteen years.  At the time I had a good impression of it, but today I couldn't even sit through the picture.  It really doesn't have anything to do with DS, and that is cemented through the constant use of (often very dim) natural lighting to highlight the seemingly minimal use of makeup on set and the dingy, dated, horribly decorated interiors.  Quentin and Tracy are supposed to go home to this mansion on a great estate, but the main house is cramped, claustrophobic, and ugly.  The film seems to be inspired by The Shining. 

The disrepair on the rest of the estate is highly disturbing.  I don't know if the 129 minute cut is supposed to have more character development and buildup, but it's sorely needed.  Because I don't beleive and I don't care about these characters when we're suddenly jolted into the dreams, flashbacks, and domestic violence.  I want to hear them have a conversation like "it's really too bad we don't have the money to restore this place..." or at least something to justify their extremely laid back view of their real-estate. 

Despite reading all of Darren Gross' material and knowing what the story is supposed to be, I still only see what the film implies, like that James Storm's character (and what a waste of the actor to have to stutter in that horrible accent through the script) was the lover of Angelique's ghost before Quentin shows up.  The editing is so damn bad.  If Tracy could actually be given proper CPR and not that ridiculous (soundtracked) version in a new edit, that would be great too.  It's too bad that the DS TV sets couldn't be used for this movie, but I guess they were destroyed by that point. 

[michael c]

despite it's buzz saw editing job the film has some merits to me. it has distinct gloom and atmosphere...


but, as you say, it is DS in name only. it has nothing whatsoever to do with OS story continuity and stands alone in the "canon". despite it's name, location and OS cast to me it feels more like any early 1970's horror movie. without stalwarts like frid, bennett and edmonds the true DS "flavor" is not achieved which is what curtis might have been going for anyways. a new mood.


even with the putative "luxury" of the lyndhusrt setting it has the distinct look of a drive-in "b" movie. or even made for television. and for me, like greystone, lyndhurst is decidedly not collinwood. seaview is. so I have no emotional or visual connection to the location.

[Gerard]

I saw it in its original theatrical release (double-billed with HoDS; remember the days of double-features, cartoons, maybe a documentary, and all for less than fifty cents?).  I found it creepy as well, with edge-of-the-seat suspense.  Some of it confused me and now I know it's because of the horrible re-editing and shortening ordered by the MGM PTB's. 

There were some people in the audience totally unfamiliar with DS.  HoDS played first, followed by NoDS and those audience members were thrown off by seeing several of the same actors/actresses from HoDS in NoDS and got all discombobulated by it.  Those of us who were familiar with DS, of course, fully understood how the same performers would play completely different characters in various plots (and sometimes the same plot) as was done on the show.

Gerard

[MagnusTrask]

I haven't seen NODS.  I was starting to get interested, and had started to wonder if the two movies at least shared a "universe"... I thought, well everybody seemed to get killed off during HODS, so maybe that's why Quentin came in and took possession.    DC might have become addicted to pressing the reset button every five minutes.   That's what threw people with 1840/1841 PT I think (it did me).

It sounds as if NODS went into its own past, which is total DS.  While making things even more confusing for casual viewers, or for everyone, all the crazed indiscriminate reality-jumping in dimensions and time is fun in its own way.

[michael c]

true that most of the main cast was killed off in HODS. but then they all showed up on everyone's television sets the next day. so in that one has to conclude that the films are meant to stand alone outside series continuity.


in that situation is NODS a "sequel" to HODS(with it's attendant characters killed off)or another stand alone story? it certainly in no way squares with anything that ever happened on the series. Selby plays yet another generic "Quentin" but otherwise the film is populated with characters named "Carlotta" and "Claire" and "Tracy". Elizabeth is mentioned as an establishing touchpoint but nothing else from the OS seems to be part of this universe.


in classic DS storytelling this would have to fall into a "parallel-time" world.

[dom]

I don't remember - was Cobert's 'standard' DS music used for NoDS?

[michael c]

if I recall they employed a few of the classic musical cues but it also had it's own separate score.

[Cousin_Barnabas]

"Joanna" and "Shadows of the Night" were the only real standards, though both had a couple of new arrangements, especially "Joanna."  That being said, I believe the rest of the "mood" music was completely new.