What are the chances of a new Dark Shadows?

I thought (geez! can't think of his name) that played Barnabas in the 04 pilot

Alex Newman was his name, and what a HOTTIE he was!  WAY sexier than Ben or Jonathan.  Although I still like Jonathan the best, to me, he IS Barnabas. 

Although I still like Jonathan the best, to me, he IS Barnabas.

I totally agree! The stammering-nervousness that JF gave to Barnabas can never be matched! And whether or not that was because of his own nervousness (of course it was!) doesn't matter, it made the character 100 times better!!! Plus it doesn't hurt to have your face on all that merchandise and two dolls--oops, sorry action figures--of your very own to cement the fact that you ARE Barnabas Collins, forever our cousin from England.

Not to mention the fact that I believe that JF as Barnabas does long for Josette, while as I said before, Alex Newman as Barnabas longs for cheese. Red wine to go with that?

This to me is a terribly exciting question, because I think the odds of a third DS are actually pretty good.

A trend in recent years has been to re-invent a dramatic franchise or genre.  Buffy certainly did that by making the stereotypical "victim" of monsters into their natural enemy.  Smallville takes one of the best known fictional characters in the world and show a totally different perspective on him.  Probably the most obvious example of this is Battlestar: Galactica.

Dark Shadows is a mine of stories proven to be able to attract an audience.  More, it has an automatica name recognition.  That it is a dark fantasy only makes it more attractive in the wake of such successes as Supernatural and Lost.

But what I don't want to see is just another retread.  That is what I did not like at all about the 1991 effort.  No one can do that version of Barnabas Collins as well as Jonathan Frid, at least not in many peoples' eyes, and why should anyone try?  Much better, IMO, to genuinely re-imagine the whole series, looking at the whole corpus of DS for inspiration.  All the storylines, all the movies, all the books even!  And change things, shake them up!  The old series told that version of the tale in its way.  Let new producers and writers make a new Dark Shadows their own!

What if Barnabas was a genuinely young man, rather than forty-something?  And he was less a victim of circumstances than someone who lost control of his own plans?  Perhaps he tried to curse Josette for her infideilty (and btw--wouldn't it be interesting if Josette never loved Barnabas at all, but Jeremiah?) and when she rose as a vampire she turned him into one as well?

What if Victoria Winters was a totally charming golddigger with a heart of gold, a la Lady Kitty Hampshire?  She might be trying to prove (i.e. fake) a familial relationship with the Collins family (and who knows--what if she just happens to be right?)

What if Roger Collins resembled Gabriel in 1840--wheelchair bound, bitter, manipulative--and his personal physician was Dr. Julia Hoffman?  They are having an affair, and seeking to find the fabled Collins jewels so as to escape out from under Elizabeth's thumb!

Elizabeth--wouldn't it be more fun if she murdered her husband, cut him up into little pieces with the help of Mrs. Johnson?

That's MHO anyway.  I want to see a new Dark Shadows but a seriously re-imagined one, not a retread.  If I want to see the same story as before, all I need to do is pop in the appropriate DVD.  Let us see something new and interesting, so we can compare and discuss, and enjoy in a whole new way!  

I want to see a new Dark Shadows but a seriously re-imagined one, not a retread.  If I want to see the same story as before, all I need to do is pop in the appropriate DVD.  Let us see something new and interesting, so we can compare and discuss, and enjoy in a whole new way!   

This is basically what I and others have been saying. We want something new and fresh. We don't want to see the same ol' junk that we just have to pop in a DVD for, as you put it.

I'm currently (on and off really between other writing projects) working on a DS Pilot in script form for my own amusement, and I seriously doubt if I'll ever persue it becoming a series partly because I think it would be a waste of my time as I would fight and fight and fight and nothing would ever be known of it. I'm taking the idea of David being middle-aged and master of Collinwood and running with it, as I see this as being the most logical starting point for a new series, if we are to have similar aspects of the old as far as the characters.

I said before that DS can very well be recreated in some form, but what it will lack is the original charm in the form of mishaps and mess ups that we all just love to watch!

Now, you see--this has got me thinking.

I just came up with a whole scenario to re-imagine Dark Shadows almost completely.  

Brandon, question.... what if original DS had been able to spend a bit more and do retakes, to eliminate bloopers and things such as wobbly tombstones...as of course they wished they could do, at the time.... would DS have lost "charm" to you, and would it have been of less interest to you?   Not trying to be a smartass, just wondering.

The idea of retelling the story is jarring to me, and undermines my suspension of disbelief, even in original DS.    Retelling it in a way that doesn't follow the original but alters the original personalities and events is even more jarring.    It's also unnecessary.    Both are a sort of tacit (sp?) admission that they have to lean on the original, like a crutch.    The second option admits the need for new ideas somewhat, but is timid about it.   They would try to dazzle us with new expensive visuals, looking "new" superficially, depending on that rather than genuine enthusiasm for the story they were telling.    I'm not getting to my point very well, sorry.

I'm for using original characters but not as a crutch, but because there's just so much more to explore in them... the originals, not new people with the old names.     Don't lean on them, just shaking up their story a bit so it doesn't seem exsumed from the dead even though it is, but keep the old story we love and that others will love given a chance.... and add to it.    A sequel with an intriguing backstory, not a remake.

Some characters could appear only in flashbacks, but they'd be there.   So we wouldn't lose them.    Aggressive storytelling.... win us over with new characters that deserve to be there because they were invented by people who love DS, love writing, and are driven to tell their story.    That's what I see in 1795 as opposed to the Leviathans, say.     In the 1795 storyline, they were hell-bent on telling that story.  They loved it.  Nothing could stop them.   In Leviathans, they were too busy just trying to stay afloat.

Creative people can solve the problems people have brought up.    New DS doesn't deserve to exist if it has to lean on Barnabas like a crutch.    If it can't create new characters and situations, it'll die.   But use Barnabas, not because you have to, but wait to figure out an exciting viable way for him to be there.  Only flashbacks maybe.   Maybe the story picks up ten years after the original ended.    Maybe time travel.

Brandon, question.... what if original DS had been able to spend a bit more and do retakes, to eliminate bloopers and things such as wobbly tombstones...as of course they wished they could do, at the time.... would DS have lost "charm" to you, and would it have been of less interest to you?   Not trying to be a smartass, just wondering.   

No, it wouldn't lose it's original charm, but this is what gives it part of its charm. I'm not sure if anyone was around when I first burst onto the online DS scene, but I was very defensive about people laughing and poking fun at the mishaps and bloopers that occured in DS. I couldn't believe that people were taking this wonderful program and completely shredding it to pieces by making fun of the actors mess ups. Soon I came to realize that it was part of DS, that it is what drives the fans to be so passionite about it. It reminds us of a time when things were simple, when they could be laughed at (well, except for all that war and rights and liberation stuff etc). DS provided an escape from real life, all that stuff listed previously in the parenthesis. This is what made DS what it was. Of course you have the occasional good story telling and the wonderful actors, that's a given.

As far as the rest of your post about retelling the same old story, or remaking DS--I agree with you as far as what you said about not using the original characters as a "crutch" to carry the show. This may or may not grab the original viewers, and probably would confuse the newer viewers if it weren't explained in a good way, because the new people wouldn't get these characters because they didn't see the original series.

As I talked about in another post, I've been working on a DS Pilot script for my own amusement, and David is master of Collinwood. Roger is VERY OLD, and a number of characters are dead, and some I haven't decided what to do with yet, in terms of the story. I have Barnabas (in my plan, though not yet in the script because I haven't gotten past the first act) involved, but by no means does he carry the show like the character did originally and in subsequent remakes. He does have a very interesting storyline, IMO, which involves a mysterious new relative that happens to be Barnabas' son. Introducing this new character has allowed me to plan to not involve Barnabas too heavily, but to keep him on deck should he be needed, and this also eliminates the need to completely write him out of the show.

I think perhaps the biggest problem with doing a new DS is alienation. The original viewers are a big audience, though not that large when considered with the masses that this new version would have to reach in order to stay afloat. Still, they are not small enough to be ignored. The outcry against the show should it take a wrong step would be enormous, as we have seen with other issues that have popped up here recently. With this pressure, as well as considering a new audience and how to draw them in without making them go "WTF is up with this show?" is a daunting thing. Sure, some may say that a writer shouldn't worry about the audience, either new or old, because they you just open yourself up to catering to the audience and what they want. But this is something that can't be ignored because if you kill a major character you might upset people. Here I fear I'm not getting my point across well enough. My point is that you can't take an audience's wants from a show into consideration, but you can't ignore them either, at least not with this particular audience. To snub all the original fans would be like saying "Yea, we know you watched when it was on in the 60s, but that's too bad because if you don't like this one then don't watch it and screw you." And that is something that would not be good.

In all honesty, you can't try to cater to them because you're going to end up offending someone anyway. The way to go about a new DS IMO is to age the younger characters from the show--like David, Amy, Hallie, etc, because you don't know what their personalities would be like when they are 40. You can make assumptions, yes, but you don't know. Not only that but it also provides many years to have passed that you can explain backstory with, and open up interesting plot points. Some of the original older characters--Roger, Liz, Maggie, Quentin, Barnabas, Julia, etc will have aged or even died, but they could also be changed by what has happened in the years since we last saw them, though they can't be changed as much as the original children were.

Basically I'm just prattling on here about something that I can't seem to find my way through the fog to. Hopefully you all will see my point and get what I'm trying to say. Basically it is this:

No matter what you do, people will be critical of you. In recreating DS there is no way to capture the allure of the original for the old fans, so you have to create something new and risk alienating some of them in order to gain a newer, younger, bigger audience. And you can't have too much confusing backstory based on the original becaues then the new viewers won't be able to pick up what you are talking about. Like you couldn't have Barnabas and Julia in the opening scene talking about their trip to PT in 1970 and all their time travels, throwing in random nods to the previous series, because the new viewers would just not get it.

So, there is definitely a challenge here. Maybe when I get my "fun" pilot (lol) finished, I'll post it somewhere so you guys can judge what you think. Hell, maybe I'll just put the teaser up somewhere if anyone is interested. Just let me know in a PM and I could send it to you.

You see, I look upon Dark Shadows much the same as I look upon King Arthur.  Yes, there was an original version from which everything else derives, but to carp over the fact Camelot doesn't follow Geoffrey of Monmouth seems beside the point.

I admire the re-imaginating of Battlestar: Galactica very much.  The show even makes a hint that perhaps the story has been lived again and again, with countless variations.  Likewise DS has a built-in excuse for changing virtually anything--PARALLEL TIME!     Who's to say there are only two timelines?  Why not another one, where things were very different indeed?

Brandon.... I'm saying the same thing really.    No one complains about the backstory in Lost, because it's written to be self-explanatory, and compelling.    DS could do it the same way.

I think that caution over not alienating people kills shows.   Being very afraid not to take the wrong step results in bland, safe, superficial "entertainment".   But some go way too far in the other direction, and ride roughshod (sp?) over the original program, whatever it is, to show how "edgy", bold, and original they can be.    People who do this may be distracting from the fact that they have no good, original ideas.    You look original for five minutes, and look good for not being a slave to continuity, but you're not being creative then, you're just being a bull in a china shop.

But some go way too far in the other direction, and ride roughshod (sp?) over the original program, whatever it is, to show how "edgy", bold, and original they can be.    People who do this may be distracting from the fact that they have no good, original ideas.    You look original for five minutes, and look good for not being a slave to continuity, but you're not being creative then, you're just being a bull in a china shop.

Exactly! This can be most clearly defined by shows that are on television today who try to show how "edgy" or "unafraid" to take risks they are by killing off a major cast member. Buffy did it several times--Buffy, Tara, Spike, Joyce, Jenny, Jesse, Angel, etc etc. Last year The O.C. did it by killing Marissa. Someone got offed on NCIS as well. And I'm sure there are tons out there that I'm not mentioned. Oh, how about Jack Bauer's wife on the first season of 24? That fits here too. The first few to do this, before it became common, Buffy counting as one of those in my book, were originals, in this sense, but this rip-off factor that keeps occuring is getting old. It's tempting to kill off a major character for a shock factor, and let's face it, there's not much out there that hasn't already been tried--drug problems, murder, car crashes, etc etc--so that tempting thing looks pretty good. I've stopped myself from doing it a number of times.

I put out there--Let all screenwriters refrain from killing off a major character as a shock factor for a couple of years, because now audiences are just expecting it. The only way to make this new again would be to make it seem like one cast member is going to die and then killing another. That might work in some cases.

It's easier to destroy than to create.    Killing off a character to seem "edgy" is a quick-fix for uncreative Hollywood types with no ideas, no patience, and no souls.

I see what you mean.  Look at those worthless no-talents like William Shakespeare or Aeschyllus.  Went around killing characters.  Phhhhttt!  Everyone knows no good storyteller ever does that.  Only "destroyers" like Arthur Miller, Dennis Potter, Caryl Churchill, J.R.R.Tolkien, etc.  What do they know about writing?  Just a bunch of Hollywood hacks right?

Or...

Maybe calling something a formula doesn't make it one.  Maybe genuine storytellers actually know what they're doing.

And maybe, just maybe, styles of storytelling do indeed change over time.

I see what you mean.  Look at those worthless no-talents like William Shakespeare or Aeschyllus.  Went around killing characters.  Phhhhttt!  Everyone knows no good storyteller ever does that.  Only "destroyers" like Arthur Miller, Dennis Potter, Caryl Churchill, J.R.R.Tolkien, etc.  What do they know about writing?  Just a bunch of Hollywood hacks right?

Or...

Maybe calling something a formula doesn't make it one.  Maybe genuine storytellers actually know what they're doing.

And maybe, just maybe, styles of storytelling do indeed change over time.

Oh, crap.  You didn't honestly think I was saying that anyone who's ever killed off a character is a hack did you?    I don't think present-day American television is filled to bursting point with "genuine storytellers" who "know what they're doing".   There are hacks.  There are formulas.    And many TV writers take short-cuts to try to appear "edgy".   It happens.  A lot.   If you don't think so, then you're probably spellbound by the new television season.

Exactly! This can be most clearly defined by shows that are on television today who try to show how "edgy" or "unafraid" to take risks they are by killing off a major cast member. Buffy did it several times--Buffy, Tara, Spike, Joyce, Jenny, Jesse, Angel, etc etc. Last year The O.C. did it by killing Marissa. Someone got offed on NCIS as well.

They killed off the ADA on Law & Order at the end of last season, and then wrote out one of the detectives at the beginning of this season (he retired) so this is no longer anything new on TV.  Hell, they kill someone off once or twice a season on Rescue Me!  Lost does this a lot too.

I think killing characters is a perfectly legitimate aspect of developing a plot.  It can be done badly or well.  But I didn't make a sweeping claim about every single televison program on the air nor about most of the professionals making their living as writers.  Nor did I make any claim--or hint--that enjoying any t.v. currently in production somehow means anyone's judgment is impaired.

Dark Shadows was an unusually violent show, btw.  It killed quite a huge number of characters, many--like [spoiler]Sarah, Rachel, Carl, etc.[/spoiler]--completely innocent.  Among the methods used were pneumonia, burning to death, gunfiret, strangulation, falling from the top of a building, jumping off a cliff, poison, mauling, beheading, and being buried alive.

And for the record--the kind of "edginess" I personally would like to see in a new Dark Shadows is not that of increased death of violence.  One could hardly exceed the original for that.  But switching the traditional, expected roles of characters would make for something genuinely interesting.  Barnabas and Angelique--probably the most popular individual characters on the show--were perfect examples of how characters can switch roles from Villain to Victim to Rescuer.  One of the reasons Victoria and later Maggie tended to be so bland is because they never really switched roles at all.  Another kind of "edginess" I'd like to see is simply an increase in drama by exploring ideas or possibilities that never really were done with this story before.  Methinks, for example, the lack of sexuality in a program produced in the 1960s simply would not work for a show produced four decades later.  Victoria Winters could not remain curiously asexual and have that work.  I would opt in general for drama rather than melodrama--not least because it was when DS was dramatic that it also proved most compelling.  Class would simply not be so vividly defined.

I am not a fan of Smallville but I have some friends who are and I've seen a few episodes.  Purists may whine, but that show certainly has done a good job of redefining its plots and the like--much as the different film versions of Dracula have each tried to find their own mythology, their own unique slant.  The result has been success, measured in the only way that really matters--the stories are welcomed by the audience.  Not every single detail by every single viewer, but as a whole.  Grown-ups know better than to expect everyone to agree with them.

Now, I am quite a fan of Battlestar: Galactica and that seems to me a good example of how a dated concept can be re-imagined very well.  They of course had far more to play around with because theirs was a near-totally made-up world.

The idea of a "sequel" series sounds good, but in practice has proven problematical.  Star Trek: The Next Generation was pretty much a slave to its past, a retread in all but name for the first three seasons.  Without a very large, built-in fanbase I don't believe the show would have lasted to find itself.  That there was nothing else like it on the air at the time helped also, because the fans of science fiction were an untapped audience.  Certainly the spinoffs were more successful in terms of story-telling, characters and overall popularity until they too started to succumb to formula.  Other attempts at "sequel" series have not been as successful, as in Tabitha or Return to Peyton Place.

Methinks the fanbase for a new Dark Shadows is pretty much the same as that of Buffy and Supernatural and Heroes, with some spillover with the audience for shows like Charmed.  A new, re-imagined Dark Shadows would need to adapt for the current era, and that would include certain styles of storytelling.  To be good, this doesn't mean resorting to formula, but simply an awareness of how the modern audience sees things.  The isolation of Collinwood, for example, would have to be explored in a very different way in a world of cellphones and the internet.  I doubt long storylines set in the past would work for modern audiences--they would probably prefer flashbacks.  We don't want our ingenues so waif-like, nor our villains so overtly villainous.  And people today are far more conversant with the occult, so the "play it by ear" magic of the old series needs replacing by something that at least pays some lip service to genuine occult traditions.

IMHO