The Original, the Revival, and You -

The slick production values make the plot seem corny in contrast. It doesn't have that shoestring-budget quirkiness which made the original work.

I have to disagree. I found the plot [and characters] incredibly fascinating and they're what drew me to DS. The original worked for me because of the plot [and characters], not the shoe string budget.

Misa - I hated the way Angelique appeared/floated as well. I honestly thought that was horrible. The way it looked....it just didn't work for me at all.

The slick production values make the plot seem corny in contrast. It doesn't have that shoestring-budget quirkiness which made the original work.

I have to disagree....The original worked for me because of the plot [and characters], not the shoe string budget.

Notice I said "shoestring-budget quirkiness."

I've never been drawn into a cheap production simply because it was cheap, but certain productions do benefit from a lack of big dollars. In the case of the original DS, the the inability to shoot retakes, the relatively cheap sets, primitive special effects, etc. helped to create a certain kind of immediacy and heightened sense of surreality(is that a word? ).

 Of course it all would have added up to nothing without the great plots, the fascinating characters and actors...

Cross's Barnabas was bland (except for that ridiculous pompadour)

I agree. He didn't do a thing for me as Barnabas and I've seen Cross on other projects and liked him well enough. I honestly believe Frid gave everything he had into Barnabas (initially anyway). I didn't respond to Frid as much on the big screen for the DS movies but, for some reason, he just glowed with those original 60's video-like cameras and within those close moody spaces. His smoky hurt eyes dominated the environment.

The revival did a lot of things right, which made its shortcomings appear all the more glaring. Ben Cross was at his best when not in vampire makeup. I always looked forward to the times Frid's fangs came out because he was impressive as a vampire. Cross came off silly.

I didn't have any problem with the House of Dark Shadows scenario opening the series; it set things in motion well enough and then the story took off on its own momentum, striking a balance between events from the original series and new imaginings. The 1790 scenes were often among the high points in the show, especially Vicki's trial. It had an intense quality that rivaled the contemporary courtroom dramas of the time.

Anyone who's read a post of mine before knows that I'm a big fan of Joanna Going; she was everything Vicki was supposed to be. I didn't mind her being Josette's reincarnation; given the characterizations of the revival, she was far more appropriate than Maggie. And I distinctly did not care for Ely Pouget's portrayal of Maggie. The whole psychic thing rang false, as did her relationship with Roger.

Joseph Gordon Levitt as David frequently made me want to find a set of goalposts, set him on a tee, and kick his young ass up for a field goal, if not something worse.

The show should have been given its chance to continue; it was near the end of its run that it was actually hitting its stride, and I think it would have proven a winner in the long haul.

And I distinctly did not care for Ely Pouget's portrayal of Maggie. The whole psychic thing rang false, as did her relationship with Roger.

The relationship with Roger was really disturbing to me too, maybe we didn't have enough backstory yet between them, but seeing it again after become such a huge fan of the original series I found it highly disturbing. I'd like to have seen where they went though, Mrs. Collins came back, that would have been an interesting storyline I think.

They did such an incredible job with the ghosts too. (Except maybe that banshee-version of Angelique. Hokey!) It would have been great to see what they would have done with any other ghosts that might have been conjured up later.

I love the original, hate the NBC revival and loved the WB pilot.  Figure THAT one out kids. 

While I was watching, I found myself daydreaming about what it would've been like to see her act with some of the original series cast, like Frid, Karlen, Bennett, etc... Quick! Somebody build a stairway through time!

General guffaw on that one. 

Frid's portrayal of Barnabas was great! If he had, had the luxury of retakes his Barnabas would have been perfect. When the performance is good he is excellent.

You know, for all my kidding about how often Jon looked at the teleprompter, when he was on, he was ON!  Case in point, well, two, 1) The scene where Barnabas is telling Vickie and Carolyn about the night Josette threw herself off Widow's Hill.  Ol' Jonny-boy must have painstakingly studied that soliloquoy because it was SPOT ON!  No flubs, no hesitations that weren't supposed to be there (for dramatic effect) and NO searching for the teleprompter!   Second case, the tower room scene early in the 1897 plotline, I think it's even the very first time he encounters Angelique in that time period (it's been a while since I've seen it but am on 1897 now w/my DVD's).  Both Lara and Jonathan had great dialogue and they were both perfect in their deliverances of it. 

His smoky hurt eyes dominated the environment.

I've said from the beginning, that man's EYES are the key!    My favorite, sad, puppy-eyed look was when Joshua tells him Jeremiah and Josette are married!  He is DEVASTATED and you see it in his eyes even before he opens his mouth.  I cry every time I see that scene.

Jonathan Frid is a great actor! The people who say they don't understand how anyone found him sexy can't have watched much of the show. Ben Cross, from some of the articles I've read, didn't seem to want to play Barnabas this could be one of the reasons some people didn't like him as Barnabas and why his portrayal wasn't that good.

The writer's missed lots of the things that made the original great, but the show was getting better. I also wonder would people have been okay with Roger and the actress who played Maggie having an affair if she wasn't playing Maggie but a different, new character instead. I don't know the ages of the actresses who played Carolyn and Maggie at the time, but they didn't appear to be very close in age. Maggie looked about ten years older than Carolyn, so their being friends didn't seem likely, and they never showed them being friends on the show either, they just mentioned that Sam thought she was going to visit Carolyn when Roger picked her up. They let you know that Sam didn't like Roger, but then they didn't tell you why.

Carolyn was such a tramp, and her pursuing Joe after her cousin's death made her really icky.

Elizabeth was written as a nonentity. She never did anything. The costume party was just inappropriate with the death of Daphne Collins just a short time before it. If the writers wanted the party in the show they should have had it before they killed Daphne. I also didn't like that they killed her in the first place. She was the only person that they had developed on the show other than Barnabas and Vicki, and I didn't like that whole House of Dark Shadows scene at all anyway.

The show also failed in not developing the other actor's characters. The show could just as well been called Barnabas Collins, vampire.

I thought that David was creepy, but at the same time he seemed so vulnerable and sad.

Does anyone else think that if Sony released this show with a better DVD, and put extras and commentary, and advertised it well that it might help get a new version on television, and perhaps get the original back on TV too?

Misa

i wasn't going to reply to this topic since i haven't seen the revival series but when i read 'videoscope's' review of it i was reminded of why i've always had some resistance to it.

the original was "cheesy",johnathan wasn't "sexy" enough,grayson was "frumpy and over the top",alexandra was a "dummy".one hears similar comments alot when the revival is under discussion.

i just don't think that slagging the original does the revival any favors.any interest i might have ever had in the revival series was long ago squelched.

p.s. i'm home from work today sick as a dog so maybe i'm just crabby.

i wasn't going to reply to this topic since i haven't seen the revival series but when i read 'videoscope's' review of it I was reminded of why I've always had some resistance to it.

"the original was "cheesy", Jonathan wasn't "sexy" enough, Grayson was "frumpy and over the top", Alexandra was "a dummy". One hears similar comments a lot when the revival is under discussion.

I just don't think that slagging the original does the revival any favors. Any interest I might have ever had in the revival series was long ago squelched.

p.s. I'm home from work today sick as a dog so maybe I'm just crabby.

I agree. I hate when people say things like this, but I think they must not have watched the original show, and are simply repeating what some twit wrote about the original (not doing their homework).

I mean come on; Jonathan was scary, sexy, ominous, and sad. Most people felt sorry for his Barnabas. I really never felt sorry for Barnabas the way Ben Cross played him. As to Grayson Hall she was superb! Sometimes, yes, she was a bit over-the-top, but so what.  Barbara Steele didn't quite make it as Dr. Hoffman, but then she was sort of playing the Dr. Hoffman from the movie, who I also didn't like that much. There was never any chemistry between Steele's Julia and Cross' Barnabas either.

Alexandra was great as Vicki, but unfortunately the way the writers wrote Vicki she was getting to be dumber all the time, but then they wrote the other characters rather stupid sometimes too. It seems to me that everybody at Collinwood took stupid pills while Vicki was in the past. Wait, maybe they all took them right before the seance. This would explain why Vicki was pretty stupid in 1795.

I still love the original show, but I especially love it when the writing is good. Sometimes everything was just perfect.

As to being cheesy, I think the Revival was pretty cheesy. Cross' Barnabas with his bad contacts snarling up at the window of his victim was dumb, and over done. Angelique's ghost crying like a Banshee and floating around wasn't scary, it was laughable, but this version of Dark Shadows still had possibilities, and I wish it had been renewed.

mscbryk, I hope you feel better soon!  I don't think David Nahmod's intent in his review (on the current Calendar/Events board) was to ridicule the original series for the sake of comparison to the revival, though I do think those are annoying labels for our show when taken out of context.  Anyway, he's a nice guy and I'm sure would be happy to explain his comments, though he's probably more likely to see replies to his article.  It's just a suggestion. 

I hate when people say things like this, but I think they must not have watched the original show, and are simply repeating what some twit wrote about the original (not doing their homework).

The author is actually a long-time, loyal fan.

"the original was "cheesy", Jonathan wasn't "sexy" enough, Grayson was "frumpy and over the top", Alexandra was "a dummy". One hears similar comments a lot when the revival is under discussion.

My own take on many TV dramas is that the productions values are more important than the acting, the writing and ultimately the audience.  I love to watch gorgeous cinemotography (I know I misspelled that but I'm sneezing too much to look the word up) as much as anyone but it gets old real fast.  Frankly, I did not like the revival and could not stay with it.  It did not draw me in.  The dynamics were totally different but even so, if the dynamics worked in my mind, I had no problem seeing other actors playing characters long familiar to me.  In the revival, Steele's Julia was far creepier than Barnabas and the whole glowing eye thing TPTB gave Barnabas was a major turn-off.  As long as I live I will never forget sitting in a hotel room in Boston with Jonathan Frid (just did a few one man shows across the street of the hotel) watching the "pilot" and we sat there in silence for the first half.  By then Barnabas had killed about a dozen people and had these glowing eyeballs which make me laugh (it works on Christopher Lee but no one else for some reason).   JF turned to me and said, "Think they wanna make sure we all know Barnabas is dangerous?"  He shared this experience at some Q&As he did during one man show performance the time when the revival was getting off the ground.

The production values were gorgeous but as a writer, I see a critical dynamic from early show being overlooked: the relationship between Barnabas, Julia and Willie.  Willie was basically an idiot in the revival, Julia was spookier than Barnabas and the emotional core was lacking, and Cross' Barnabas gave me the impression he was an over-aged frat brat who found the vampire Halloween costume in the basement of the fraternity house.  The three shared a very special relationship - a secret but no relationship between the three was ever really developed.

But I prefer the original DS and the sloppy production values.  The hectic, by the seat of your pants rehearsals and then shooting the show made the actors focus on the emotional value of each scene as there was little time to think about anything else.  The introduction of Barnabas would not have taken off the way it did without that core relationship of Barnabas, Julia and Willie.  The original lacked that.

Dan Curtis never understood why DS became what it did to its audience.  That's one reason HODS was so awful.

For those who did not grow up when the original was on, they do not understand how widely popular DS was.  It was something like what General Hospital and Luke and Lara were to pop culture during the early 1980s.  Millions of people watched it and thought Barnabas and Julia were just fine the way they were.

Nancy

But I prefer the original DS and the sloppy production values.  The hectic, by the seat of your pants rehearsals and then shooting the show made the actors focus on the emotional value of each scene as there was little time to think about anything else.

Me too.