The Original, the Revival, and You -

aside from the monumental task of just getting from begining to end of the original series i have for various reason been somewhat resistant to the 1991 revival...

i'm afraid that one of them,and this is going to sound really stupid and superficial,is that part of what first attracted me to the show was the awsome 1960's fashions and hairstyles.i love them.

but i just don't like fashions from the early 1990's.bush 1,recession-era styles that i find somewhat depressing.even when i see stills from the 91' show the clothes look dumpy.

give me a mini and a fall over a perm and a drop waist any day.

I watched the first episode of the revival back when it aired.  Was it a two-hour deal?  Anyway, there was too much blood.  I was surprised; a show involving a vampire should have a lot of blood, and it wasn't until I watched the revival that I realized how little blood there was in the original.  I don't like blood.  The only time I tried to give blood, I fainted dead away when they told me they were going to stab my ear to find out my blood type.  So after the first episode of the revival, I didn't watch any more.

I loved the original, hated the revival.  The biggest mistake that was made was the rehashing of the original Barnabas storyline with the additions of blood and violence.  I agree with others that have stated that the revival was more akin to HoDS than the original series.  I remember reading what Matt Hall wrote in The Dark Shadows Companion that Dan Curtis continually ran HoDS in his office which was next door to Matt's. 

Love the original (though I wouldn't call it my favorite show ever, if I'm willing to watch 1,225 episodes of a show, it's fairly likely that I love it), lukewarm towards the revival.

I LOVE the revival and I don't really know what the problem with blood is. Last time I checked this WAS a vampire/fantasy/horror show?  I will always hold a special place in my heart for it as it introduced me to The World of Dark Shadows!!  And personally, I thought it improved on some things though I am SURE most of the board will not agree with me.  That being said.  I LOVE the original almost equally.  When I started watching the original I looked upon it as never having watched any Dark Shadows!! I pretended that the 1991 version didn't exist and took to it immediately.

I can understand original viewers though. The 1991 version will always be just A BIT more special to me than the original because it was my first SHADOWS experience!!

RE BLOOD.  I can handle horror blood but cannot handle Grey's Anatomy/ER type blood, so maybe I can identify.  I don't believe in vampires so the blood doesn't bother me because I don't believe it can really happen.  ER/Greys blood makes me ill because I know the stuff on those shows can really happen.  It must be a psychological thing.

I have my gripes with the revival, but the blood didn't bother me, either.

I loved the Original (as I have nearly completed the entire series from beginning to end with countless reruns of the 1795 storyline since January).  I totally disliked the revival.  Maybe its because I was expecting my first child when it aired and I was still in the " morning sickness mode" at night.  All the fanging and blood was so out of character from the original ( and maybe it had to be that way) that I just couldn't sit there long enough to stay interested.  Now that 17 years have passed, maybe I'll try to give the revival a try but I'm not sure.  I still love watching that Gothic Soap Opera that is over 40 years old.  I love Julia, Barn amd Mags and the revival doesn't hold that mystique for me.

I have watched both versions many times.  To each his own.  I tell you one thing though I like better is the Revival Maggie and really could care less about the Maggie on the original.  I liked her the first year but then they ruined her character.  She said something so snotty the other day on The Collectors Series and I nearly fell in the floor.  She basically told someone to go to hell without saying the words. I couldn't beleive this was the same Maggie. 

It may have been out of character from the original, but why would one want it to be like the original?  That is what I cannot for the life of me understand!!  Yes they rehashed a lot of storylines but they also changed it in a lot of ways making it fresh and new.

Victoria/Josette reincarnation, i stll thought it should have been done by the Maggie or the actress who had played the late Daphne Collins

I respectfully disagree. I think this was one of the best improvements made to the show.  It gave Victoria the past she longed for and the connection she so desired.  And Joanna Going was amazing as both Victoria and Josette! 

PS. Sorry MB and Midnite for the double post!

Roy Thinnes:  His Roger was bland, but he was absolutely killer as Trask. Probably the best reinterpretation of the revival series.  The eyebrows were a great touch.

Roy Thinnes was Trask?  Great!   I was pulling for him, having known him from The Invaders.  That I have to see.

I'm a fan of both series and there are things about the revival that are a big improvement over the original. Namely Victoria was made into a stronger character and only said that stupid "I don't understand" phrase once and it was legit that she said it when she did! Having Victoria the reincarnation of Josette was also a smart move. I'm a fan of Joanna Going, Ben Cross, Lysette Anthony, and Veronica Lauren's interpretations of their characters.

Roy Thinnes as Trask was ok but I do prefer Jerry Lacey. I also didn't care for the Roger/Maggie relationship. I found that a bit creepy. And they could have rehashed HODS a little less but other than that, they did a remarkable job and I wish it would have had more than one season. Oh and the fact that in the revival series, the present wasn't just completely forgotten while Victoria was stuck in 1790...good job with that.

I've never seen the failed pilot but I don't really care to. A short blond-haired Victoria Winters? How dare they! Joanna Going will always be Victoria/Josette for me and I started out watching the original first. I also like the fact they made Maggie different (other than the stupid Roger relationship). She needed to be her own person and in the original after AM left, they just changed her character to a Victoria clone. Since when is a waitress qualified to be a governess? Stupid.

~Rachel

I LOVE the original and I'm lukewarm to the Revival. I don't dislike it, but I'm not a big fan either. However, I will say that in a couple of points they did improve on the story a tad....
[spoiler]... Victoria as Josette's reincarnation, namely because I always preferred Vicki to Maggie anyway.
Also, when they went back in time to get Barnabas' full story I thought they went into more detail about his relationship with Josette, which could have been done with the original, but I guess they were too busy with other things... To me their relationship in 1795 (in the original) didn't live up to what I'd hoped for after seeing Barnabas pining for her all this time. And not just because they changed the story about five times before going back in time. I prefer the story the way it was told in 1795, I just wish they'd given more detail.[/spoiler]

Other than that, the Revival just didn't impress me. As far as the vampire element, it was a bit too modern for my personal taste. But I could be alone there.

I've never seen the failed pilot but I don't really care to. A short blond-haired Victoria Winters? How dare they! Joanna Going will always be Victoria/Josette for me and I started out watching the original first. I also like the fact they made Maggie different (other than the stupid Roger relationship). She needed to be her own person and in the original after AM left, they just changed her character to a Victoria clone. Since when is a waitress qualified to be a governess? Stupid.

While I disagree about having a short blond haired Victoria I do agree with you on Joanna Going.  She IS Victoria Winters to me and will always be.  I think the casting of Joanna was "MAGIC" pure and simple.  I am not gonna judge the pilot because I haven't watched it.  I am open person when it comes to DS.   I would probably love the pilot as well on it's own merit.  I do like Alexandra as Victoria in all of the early eps but they assassinated her character and ruined her.  While I will also accept a new Victoria (if there is one) in the Depp film I think my love for Joanna Going will never be matched.  She was PERFECT! 

As far as my opinions on the cast go, I liked Joanna Going, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Roy Thinnes as Trask, both of the Barbaras (Blackburn and Steele), and Jim Fyfe. Michael T. Weiss was okay. I'm lukewarm on Thinnes as Roger, as well as Jean Simmons, who I thought was a bit old for the part. I did not like Ely Pouget's version of Maggie, I found Lysette Anthony to be a very mediocre Angelique, and don't even get me started on Ben Cross.

As for the 2004 pilot, I can't really say, having never seen it. I can't really picture Alec Newman as Barnabas, and I fully agree that it was a mistake for a "traditional" DS retelling to toss out the hair colors, as silly as it may sound. I always found it interesting how Curtis cast a blonde woman as the villain and a girl with black hair as the heroine. Casting Kelly Hu as Julia was also a mistake in my opinion - if Barnabas had an exotic beauty like her lusting after him, why would he bother with the girls who have no interest in him, and after at least one failed attempt at converting one of them to Josette?

I have heard Marley was a great Victoria so I think I could have gotten pass the hair.  I actually loved Lysette though and thought she was a VERY different Angie but a wonderful one.  I loved MAGGIE and I cannot stress that enough.