The New DARK SHADOWS?

My teenaged expert informs me that Mr. Depp is already 40 years old.  And somehow I doubt he'll be trading his family and home life in the south of France to do a weekly TV series. A film version, perhaps, but not TV.

Hey, I want to hear more about this possible Lost In Space remake.  Natch, as a kid, I never missed an episode of that.  While everyone later on wanted to be a Brady, I always wanted to be a Robinson.

Gerard (Who's Wondering If Maggie Evans Ever Considered Being The Governess to Penny And Will Robinson)

IMHO, there is no right or wrong here.  It's understandable to feel guarded about the whole thing.  After all, development deals for new shows fall apart every day, according to the entertainment press.  And of course none of us wants to see a new version of our favorite show that's total crap.

That aside, the WB would be a fine place to see a new Dark Shadows series.  I'm sure they could do a rendition that didn't dumb things down.  And so what if they retell some of the story we're already familiar with?  As long as it's good writing, good acting and compelling storytelling I'll be watching.

Well, I can't say I have high hopes - most of the stuff I love about the original is just not possible to recreate: the tension/excitement/gaffes of the "live" show, the cast of mostly stage actors and, of course, Jonathan Frid.

But, heck, I don't mind thinking positively: if they could get Alan Rickman to dye his hair, add some more humor and still give it a moody feel like Joss Whedon's "Ripper" was supposed to have, I'd be there.

Frankly after the 1991 version and knowing how youth oriented the WB is, I kind of hate to see how DS might be monkeyed with this time around.  The 1991 version was okay but differed greatly in the feel of the show from the original. I can see a WB version being even more different and it perhaps even baring little resemblence to the classic we all love watching so well.  I think guarded is how all fans should feel about this idea, especially until more info is released on the proposed project.

I wouldn't mind seeing a fresh face put on a new Dark Shadows. Don't entirely throw out all of the elements of the daytime DS and please, please don't Hollywoodize it with 'butt' kicking 14 yr old females or another glossy remake of the 1991 series. And for the love of macaroni and cheese, don't film it in California. Is that too much to ask?

I have to add my 2 cents worth about the 1991 version's demise:  I believe it was no fault of the production that NBC didn't renew it but rather that NBC's scheduling, and changing the Fridy night time without notice to the audience and lastly--please don't start beating me up about this--that unnecessary Gulf War started by a certain U.S. President's father.  That short war killed a lot of business, and more than one TV series.  (This is not to start a dialogue about the current war, but to point out that two Bushes don't make a right!)

Hey gang,

After the NBC Dark Shadows revival series was cancelled back during the early 1990s, I remember reading some comments at the time, by Dark Shadows fans on the advisability of resurrecting Dark Shadows on another network.

Said one apparently disgruntled, longtime fan: "No, Dan Curtis has already done enough damage with the NBC series."

However, the always wonderfully sardonic Louis Edmonds had, perhaps, the best comment on the short-live series.  In a 1991 TV Guide article, the late, great Mr. Edmonds commented: "I tuned in out of curiosity-and I almost made it through the first half-hour."

Dark Shadows was a magical and thoroughly unique television program that ran from the summer of 1966 through the early spring of 1971.  I doubt if anyone could ever recapture the sheer brilliance and absolute zaniness of that great and truly beloved television program.  As Thomas Wolfe once observed in the title of one of his novels: "You Can't Go Home Again."  And neither, apparently, can Dan Curtis and company.

I'd be pleased to see a new Dark Shadows done some kind of justice, but one simply can't go in expecting to find much, if any, of the original magic. Some folks figure that if it can't be recaptured, it's best not to bother. I don't go that far, but I know that a (second) revival would have to succeed in capturing a new audience--one that's more than a mere supplement to the existing fan base, which is considerable but insufficient to sustain the number of viewers WB, or any other network, would demand to justify the show's existence. That means it has to make its own magic and not merely attempt to draw upon the old, which is impossible anyway. The 91 series had a lot of problems, but it also had its own unique character that was shot in the foot, largely due to extenuating circumstances, before it could hit its stride. If it had been allowed to continue and develop, I think it might have conjured up a bit more magic than a lot of people give it credit for.

Yet another rehash of the original story would probably alienate a good many older viewers who are justifiably weary of a dead horse being thrashed. Personally, if that's what it was to be, I honestly don't know how inclined I'd be to stick with it. The people and places in DS have loads of potential for development beyond that narrow story arc, and I'd bet it could be done in such a way that both new and old viewers could find some magic to latch on to. Hell, for a buck, I'd be giving it a shot....

--Mark[/b][/color][/font]

I find myself agreeing with all of the views expressed here -- and I'm developing a split personality as a result!   

Miss Winthrop expresses what I fear most:

please, please don't Hollywoodize it with 'butt' kicking 14 yr old females or another glossy remake of the 1991 series. And for the love of macaroni and cheese, don't film it in California.

But I'm cautiously optimistic after reading comments like CassandraBlair's:

of course none of us wants to see a new version of our favorite show that's total crap.

That aside, the WB would be a fine place to see a new Dark Shadows series.  I'm sure they could do a rendition that didn't dumb things down.  And so what if they retell some of the story we're already familiar with?  As long as it's good writing, good acting and compelling storytelling I'll be watching.

Ms. Crisyde makes an excellent point about originality -- Shakespeare is a good example of someone whose work was almost entirely based on other works (old plays, literary works from Italy and France, legends, historical chronicles, etc.), but which he always transformed these into something new and original in their own rights.

Raholt, you've probably seen the brief writeup from "Variety" by now (since it's in the online Shadowgram announcement), but anyway, Dan Curtis is involved in the project -- as co-executive producer, I think it says.

  I think WB will have a hit with DS if they cast it properly.  That was something the original series had a lot of luck with.

  Depp is 40?  He looks a bit younger, but maybe I'm thinking of whatever I last saw him in.  He would still be a good Barnabas.  Even if he is "older" now, he's still younger than Jonathan Frid was in the 60s (of course, Frid would look younger, too, if her were 40 today with all the "help" you get!).   Depp could be the new DS' Heather Locklear.  Then, they could get younger dudes and dudettes for other roles.

  Shakespeare was kinda like the Dan Curtis of his time, if I follow the above correctly?
"Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing."
-- Macbeth, Act 5, Scene 5

  Maybe Mark Rainey could help write it!

  so, we have
starring KATE JACKSON as Elizabeth Collins Stoddard
also starring JOHNNY DEPP as Barnabas Collins
...
and ? as Victoria Winters
(please, NOT Paris Hilton...)

You can be fairly certain that if a pilot is filmed it will be shot either in California or Vancouver. The WB likes to maintain control of their shows by having them shot in their backyard. Also, Wells and Verheiden's other show commitments leaves them pretty certain on staying in LA.

I feel the show would have to stand on its own merit and do something different. All the slightly tweaked carbon copy approaches written after the 1991 series never got off the ground, and I get the feeling from the article that it's going to be quite a rethink. That could of course be a great thing or not. But do remember that this is the WB and they have a certain 20-something style that I'm sure will be part of the new approach.

As fun as he would be, we can pretty much rule out Johnny Depp. He's a huge movie star and I doubt he's going to take a step down in position and salary to star in the grind that is a weekly TV series...Now if they were to do a feature, my votes would be him or Hugh Jackman...

Excellent points, Criseyde.

My issue with the notion of a new DS is that I don't believe Mr. Curtis did all that well with the 1991 version.  I wasn't able to watch it past the fifth episode.

There are basically 36 Master Plots dramatists use over and over again reinventing a formula and adding a new twist or dimension to the newer mix.  Of course, the original DS borrowed liberally from many well known literary works too but the overall concept of the series was indeed original.  In my new Mr. Curtis did not do a good job in reimagining the original series in the 1991 attempt so I remain skeptical about yet another reincarnation.  Maybe it should be "Collinwood, the Next Generation" or some departure of that ilk.

Nancy

Shakespeare was kinda like the Dan Curtis of his time, if I follow the above correctly?

Umm, no. I was merely pointing out that one of the most culturally revered writers could easily be accused of being unoriginal if your criteria for originality involved new storylines and characters.

Curtis employed techniques that all writers/creators/producers, including Shakespeare use, which Nancy noted above in reference to the formulaic storylines that are reworked.

(This is obviously not the forum for it, but I generally take issue with the extremely high pedestal upon which WS has been placed based on reading other writers from the period whose work is as good, if not better. Same holds true with the notion that Chaucer is apparently the only Middle English poet for some people.)

I've never heard or read anyone else say this, but in my opinion "Othello" is basically and essentially a soap opera.  The academicians would probably be shocked by this assertion ... but that particular play, IMO, doesn't come close to the greater tragedies, like Lear or Hamlet.  Those two were based on older plays and/or legendary material.

I agree that Shakespeare has eclipsed scores of other worthy Elizabethan era poets and dramatists, some of whose works I enjoy more than some of WS's, but possibly none of these others matched the scope of Shakespeare's canon.     The medieval playing field has fewer names to choose from, but here I do tend to give Chaucer credit as "greatest" both for the vast scope of his work but also for the level of his poetry.  But some individual lyric works of the Middle Ages by other poets, often anonymous, are matchless.

Good for you, Criseyde.  I could not agree more with what you said on this subject.  I taught an undergraduate class some years ago called "Beowulf to the Beatles" and we discussed the great lyrical writing that exists beyond the noted "superstars" of literature.

I suppose it's not all that much different now since there are many lesser known writers who are equally (if not) better writers than the commercially successful ones of our day.

nancy