Original vs Revival

[Luciaphile]

Mixed feelings about 1991.  That they were remaking it didn't bother me (not an original viewer) and I have to be honest most of the taped episodes I had seen of the original by then were not all that impressive with a few exceptions.

Loved Joanna Going.  She almost made the whole "girl on a train" cheesy Gothic heroine thing work, almost.  Moltke and KLS, Lord love them, simply aren't in her league.  But even the talented Ms Going couldn't turn back the clock to make this plot device work.  

Lysette Anthony's Angelique.  Hmmm.  Well, I never thought I would call Lara Parker's acting subtle, but in comparison it was very much so.  Ben Cross was okay, I guess.  Jim Fyfe--hammy doesn't begin to cover it.

Michael T. Weiss made a gorgeous Joe Haskell and I liked Joseph Gordon Levitt as Psycho David.  My personal favorite actor though was the gentleman who played Sheriff Patterson.

The directing with one or two exceptions (forgive the language) sucked.  Pedestrian, trite, hackneyed.  

The writing was less than stellar.  Hell, it was way less than stellar.  

When you have Jean Simmons in your cast, you do not just have her pouring tea.  Go hire someone without that kind of talent if that's all you're going to have her do.  It is an utter crime to waste Jean Simmons on wringing her hands.  

Mark wrote:

One of the show's most glaring faults was its scenery. The intricate miniature of Collinwood was interesting, but obviously a miniature, and inferior in design to either Seaview or Lyndhurst. Greystone simply didn't cut it -- especially doubling as the Old House. Everything about the locale screamed "California," and never succeeded in making me believe this was a small New England town.

I think part of the problem was that they were obviously never interested in making us believe it was a small New England town.  Which is probably a large part of my reaction--that was part of what I loved about the original show.

A couple years ago, I dragged out my tapes to see if memory was being too harsh.  Unfortunately, memory was pretty on target.

Two scenes that stick out still as being worth rewatching:

1. Ellen Wheeler as Phyllis Wick with the Sheriff and Elizabeth.  "Sir, this is not how things are in Connecticut."  (you have to see it to appreciate it).

2. Sarah's ghost leading Victoria through the house.  It's daylight and it's wonderfully creepy.  

Luciaphil

[Julia99]

Wellllll I'll put in my 2 cents. . . Joanna Goeing was good and i liked how they combined the Josette/Victoria character right away .. Maggie was someone else entirely.   The clothing and interiors were very nice too.  Jean Simmons as Elizabeth/Naomi was fine but Ben Cross as Barnabas did not engage me at all.  I thought he was horribly stiff and unsympathetic. . .. All I really remember though.. . .at the time of the revival series was when I first discovered "online communities" . . .there was a group of us from Ohio, New York City and WAsh D.C. talking about the series.  And all the guys (who I later met and they were "normal in every way") kept talking about was how "HOT" Dr. Hoffman was(Barbara Steele-even with the horrible poneytailed hair)!  They all loved Grayson but thought Barbara's rack and Grayson's lovely legs or awe inspriring cheekbones were of two separate universes, e.g. no comparision. . .

[Mark Rainey]

1. Ellen Wheeler as Phyllis Wick with the Sheriff and Elizabeth.  "Sir, this is not how things are in Connecticut."  (you have to see it to appreciate it).

2. Sarah's ghost leading Victoria through the house.  It's daylight and it's wonderfully creepy.

Luciaphil, yep, you nailed those, especially #1. I enjoyed Michael Cavanaugh as Sheriff Patterson, especially his initial appearance. "Where'd it all go?" he drones. "There's no blood. Where'd it all go?" Hokey to the point of actually being believable.

Veronica Lauren's Sarah was altogether less annoying than Sharon Smyth's; so sorry. I saw the original series' episodes with Sarah for the first time when DS went into syndication in 1976. Blessedly, I had missed those during its original run.

But since that year, the tune of "London Bridge" drives me to cover my head with a paper bag; then the local lads all have to stand in a fish tank and strike up a chorus of "Jerusalem" to get me to take it off.

[shadow=purple,right,200]--Mark[/shadow]

[VictoriaWintersRox]

I agree with Mr. Rainey that Joanna Going made a far better Victoria Winters; she was lovely, vulnerable, but still intelligent and spunky.  She was the only cast member of the '91 show who outdid her predecessor, at least IMHO.  I still have a soft spot for Alexandra Moltke, however, and don't hold her to blame for what happened to Vicki's character.  I think Dan Curtis had a chauvinistic and outdated concept of women, and it shows in just about all of his female characters at one time or another.

I agree with your point on Victoria could've been better on the original series. And I agree that she can't be blamed because I've read that she is a very intelligent women in real life. If Dan Curtis had let that element of Alexandra into Victoria, her character may have lasted longer and made Alexandra a little happier of the direction of her character.

IMO, no matter how good a revival is, the original is almost always the best known. Many people remember the 1970s Angels verus the 2000 Angels, etc.

[AllenCollins]

I find comparing the original DS with the revival series very Apples & Oranges,. Its like comparing the original show with the MGM movies. They were all made under very different environments and formats. The movie and revival lack character and scene development, they are both vert fast pace. Through the Original show we learn who each character is and motivates them. There is also more time to provide more details to the scenes.  

There is also the difference of how each show was made. The original had a very theatrical feel to it while the revival and movies have the Hollywood Motion Picture feel. I remember reading a post here from Julia99 about when she saw the HODS movie on TV and the scene where Barnabas attacks Carolyn got her attention. The scene was very intense fast paced and brutally graphic. The revival also has a number of very graphic and sesual scenes while the original show never had anything like that. However I always felt that the acting in the original show had to be stronger to compensate for lack of effects and the character development.

The revival also had a Dynasty feel to it, (who's screwing who) which the original show manged to avoid.

While I like all three versions, (the original being my favorite), I find comparing them difficult.

B  

[Dr. Eric Lang]

Wow I'm really enjoying all the intelligent discussion in this thread and on this board in general. So nice to be among people who are able to express their opinions so articulately! I almost don't feel worthy to be here with all the DS knowledge on this board.

Just my opinion, but I LOVED the revival series. Of course I agree that it could never be like the original series. With the original daytime soap you have the opportunity for character development through many episodes that you don't get in a one-hour prime time show.

But I loved many of the changes. I loved how they made Victoria the reincarnation of Josette instead of Maggie. This did, however, leave Maggie with very little to do, and her part as a psychic/Roger's mistress was pretty peripheral.

I loved Jim Fyfe as Willie Loomis/Ben Loomis - I guess I'm the only one! Julianna McCarthy was fantastic as both Mrs. Johnson and Abigail - but of course so was Clarice Blackburn.

Barbara Blackburn was interesting as Carolyn - a very different take on the character but still good. However, her Millicent wasn't nearly as good as Nancy Barrett's. By the same token Lysette Antony was good at making Angelique a different sort of character, but nobody can ever take Laura Parker's place. At least they had genuine French accents though!

I really liked Ben Cross as Barnabas and found him more believable as a love interest than Jonathan Frid, but then again what do I know? :-)

Roy Thinnes was OK as Roger/Trask but no one can compare to Louis Edmonds'  Roger. I thought it was interesting they changed Roger into Trask instead of Joshua but I liked it. Jerry Lacy was a different kind of Trask but equally good in his own way.

I really liked how they were able to switch back and forth between Victoria in 1790 and the Collins family in the present day. I agree with the comment that the miniature used for Collinwood looked cheap though - and the "new" house and "old" house were indiscernable from each other.

I was never so mad as when they cancelled this show without a fair chance. It aired on Friday nights and historically no show has ever done well on that night. We missed the chance to see what they could have done with some original material post-1790 and that's too bad.