4037
« on: September 29, 2008, 10:52:21 PM »
As I think MB commented in an earlier post, the pacing of the story in the early episodes of this show mirrors the pacing in some other DC ventures, notably hoDS and the Jack Palance Dracula movie. Not just the pacing, but in some cases whole stretches of dialogue and shot set-ups were copied near-verbatim from those earlier works.
I think by 1990-91, the vampire genre had reached a point where the old structure that was exploited so brilliantly in earlier shows--of having suspense building around a series of mysterious attacks and an undiagnosed "illness" suffered by a heroine--ultimately traced back to the chapters of Dracula about Lucy's "illness"--was perceived as no longer really working. Besides hoDS, in 1970 the feature film Count Yorga, Vampire quickly established that vampires were on the loose, and the "theme" of the movie was not so much one of suspense as horror created by a sequence of luridly constructed vampire set-pieces. This re-tooling of the genre had been pioneered by Hammer studios in their early films (Horror of) Dracula, Brides of Dracula, and Kiss of the Vampire.
Between the early 1970s and 1990, you had the explosion of the Anne Rice phenomenon, as well, which radically changed the face of the gothic vampire genre. So, bear that in mind when evaluating these shows.
From what little I have read about the behind the scenes stuff at NBC, when it came to the horror quotient in the story, the studio suits wanted more, faster, harder. Dan Curtis never needed much encouragement to up the ante in the "blood, carnage and fangs" department. (Or, as Grayson once said lovingly, "Dan has a real genius for SPOOK.")
I look forward to the critique of the next episode--if memory serves (my single viewing of it was on VHS ca. 1997), they REALLY let the blood spatter in that one.
G.