Discussion:
Dan Curtis would not approve of this trailer!
(too old to reply)
Mike S.
2012-04-07 05:27:12 UTC
Permalink
Dark Shadows may have been cheesy. It may have been corny. But it was
*NOT* a fucking comedy. It took itself very seriously. Dan Curtis
himself said that he took it seriously.

I can't believe I'm saying this but this new Dark Shadows movie needs
to be more like Twilight. Angst ridden vampires are in right now. News
flash for you Burton, Barnabas Collins is the original angst ridden
vampire! Duh!

I wish Peter Jackson was a Dark Shadows fan. That guy knows how to
handle a franchise. Oh well.
Z***@yahoo.com
2012-04-07 17:04:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike S.
Dark Shadows may have been cheesy. It may have been corny. But it was
*NOT* a fucking comedy. It took itself very seriously. Dan Curtis
himself said that he took it seriously.
As seriously as it can with a budget of < $0.00
As seriously as it can for a daily show in the late 60s.
Post by Mike S.
I can't believe I'm saying this but this new Dark Shadows movie needs
to be more like Twilight. Angst ridden vampires are in right now. News
flash for you Burton, Barnabas Collins is the original angst ridden
vampire! Duh!
I wish Peter Jackson was a Dark Shadows fan. That guy knows how to
handle a franchise. Oh well.
Oh come on. The movies isn't even in theaters yet, you're watching
a trailer that may or may not have what actually is in the film.

This wouldn't be the first trailer where everything in the trailer
ends up on the cutting room floor.

BTW, Jackson can't do Dark Shadows. He is tied up with the Hobbit,
before that he was tied up with a suit against the distributor.

Oh and Jackon is basing his movies on one book that
was published in 1931. Dark Shadows was made over the
course of 1200 episodes, it was on every day,
and had a budget of < $ 0.00.
Mike S.
2012-04-07 17:40:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Oh come on. The movies isn't even in theaters yet, you're watching
a trailer that may or may not have what actually is in the film.
If you think anyone is going to keep quiet and wait until the movie is
out before making comments, then DREAM ON. Welcome to Usenet. I will
be thrilled if the movie is nothing like that trailer, BTW.
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
BTW, Jackson can't do Dark Shadows. He is tied up with the Hobbit,
before that he was tied up with a suit against the distributor.
I know that. My comment was wishful thinking only.
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Oh and Jackon is basing his movies on one book that
was published in 1931. Dark Shadows was made over the
course of 1200 episodes, it was on every day,
and had a budget of < $ 0.00.
The Hobbit trailer has a comedic element in it. It is after all, based
on a children's book. But it is obvious that same trailer shows that
Jackson is taking it seriously, and has a respect for the source
material.

Do not confuse cheese with comedy. Dark Shadows was cheesy. No doubt
about it. The original Star Trek was also cheesy. But both Curtis and
Roddenberry, despite having no budget (as you pointed out with Curtis)
took their respective shows very seriously. And both shows were better
for it.
Kishin
2012-04-07 19:13:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike S.
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Oh come on. The movies isn't even in theaters yet, you're watching
a trailer that may or may not have what actually is in the film.
If you think anyone is going to keep quiet and wait until the movie is
out before making comments, then DREAM ON. Welcome to Usenet. I will
be thrilled if the movie is nothing like that trailer, BTW.
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
BTW, Jackson can't do Dark Shadows. He is tied up with the Hobbit,
before that he was tied up with a suit against the distributor.
I know that. My comment was wishful thinking only.
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Oh and Jackon is basing his movies on one book that
was published in 1931. Dark Shadows was made over the
course of 1200 episodes, it was on every day,
and had a budget of< $ 0.00.
The Hobbit trailer has a comedic element in it. It is after all, based
on a children's book. But it is obvious that same trailer shows that
Jackson is taking it seriously, and has a respect for the source
material.
Do not confuse cheese with comedy. Dark Shadows was cheesy. No doubt
about it. The original Star Trek was also cheesy. But both Curtis and
Roddenberry, despite having no budget (as you pointed out with Curtis)
took their respective shows very seriously. And both shows were better
for it.
Speaking only for myself, I mentally filter out the cheese most of the
time, and enjoy the series as a serious supernatural drama/thriller. I
don't laugh at it and I do take it seriously.
--
Kishin
Z***@yahoo.com
2012-04-08 20:06:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kishin
Post by Mike S.
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Oh come on. The movies isn't even in theaters yet, you're watching
a trailer that may or may not have what actually is in the film.
If you think anyone is going to keep quiet and wait until the movie is
out before making comments, then DREAM ON. Welcome to Usenet. I will
be thrilled if the movie is nothing like that trailer, BTW.
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
BTW, Jackson can't do Dark Shadows. He is tied up with the Hobbit,
before that he was tied up with a suit against the distributor.
I know that. My comment was wishful thinking only.
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Oh and Jackon is basing his movies on one book that
was published in 1931. Dark Shadows was made over the
course of 1200 episodes, it was on every day,
and had a budget of< $ 0.00.
The Hobbit trailer has a comedic element in it. It is after all, based
on a children's book. But it is obvious that same trailer shows that
Jackson is taking it seriously, and has a respect for the source
material.
Do not confuse cheese with comedy. Dark Shadows was cheesy. No doubt
about it. The original Star Trek was also cheesy. But both Curtis and
Roddenberry, despite having no budget (as you pointed out with Curtis)
took their respective shows very seriously. And both shows were better
for it.
Speaking only for myself, I mentally filter out the cheese most of the
time, and enjoy the series as a serious supernatural drama/thriller. I
don't laugh at it and I do take it seriously.
One of the points to bear in mind, if Dark Shadows was
made in the 1980s alot of the cheese would have been
gone since special effects were light years ahead, and
the show would have had budget equal to
ST: TNG ($1.5 million per episode.)
Mike S.
2012-04-08 22:30:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
One of the points to bear in mind, if Dark Shadows was
made in the 1980s alot of the cheese would have been
gone since special effects were light years ahead, and
the show would have had budget equal to
ST: TNG ($1.5 million per episode.)
Have you watched the first season of TNG recently? It hasn't aged
well. Its completely serious, but it comes off as a bit corny
nowadays.
Z***@yahoo.com
2012-04-09 16:44:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike S.
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
One of the points to bear in mind, if Dark Shadows was
made in the 1980s alot of the cheese would have been
gone since special effects were light years ahead, and
the show would have had budget equal to
ST: TNG ($1.5 million per episode.)
Have you watched the first season of TNG recently? It hasn't aged
well. Its completely serious, but it comes off as a bit corny
nowadays.
Have to disagree. It holds up well.
Wiseguy
2012-04-08 23:48:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
One of the points to bear in mind, if Dark Shadows was
made in the 1980s alot of the cheese would have been
gone since special effects were light years ahead, and
the show would have had budget equal to
ST: TNG ($1.5 million per episode.)
Are you saying that a half-hour soap opera episode would have had the same
budget as a prime-time science fiction series from a major studio?
I think not.
Z***@yahoo.com
2012-04-09 16:52:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wiseguy
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
One of the points to bear in mind, if Dark Shadows was
made in the 1980s alot of the cheese would have been
gone since special effects were light years ahead, and
the show would have had budget equal to
ST: TNG ($1.5 million per episode.)
Are you saying that a half-hour soap opera episode would have had the same
budget as a prime-time science fiction series from a major studio?
I think not.
First of all if Dark Shadows was made in the 80s it would have been a
syndicated one hour show not a soap opera with no budget. Or it would
have been National network one hour show. [Like the 90s
version......it would not be a soap opera.]


Being syndicated the time would vary by station.

[When did soap operas start dying off to be replaced by court shows,
etc?]

Bear in mind Xena/Hercules/ST:NG/DS9/etc. were all syndicated.
Wiseguy
2012-04-11 03:35:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Wiseguy
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
One of the points to bear in mind, if Dark Shadows was
made in the 1980s alot of the cheese would have been
gone since special effects were light years ahead, and
the show would have had budget equal to
ST: TNG ($1.5 million per episode.)
Are you saying that a half-hour soap opera episode would have had the
same budget as a prime-time science fiction series from a major
studio? I think not.
First of all if Dark Shadows was made in the 80s it would have been a
syndicated one hour show not a soap opera with no budget. Or it would
have been National network one hour show. [Like the 90s
version......it would not be a soap opera.]
Being syndicated the time would vary by station.
[When did soap operas start dying off to be replaced by court shows,
etc?]
Bear in mind Xena/Hercules/ST:NG/DS9/etc. were all syndicated.
What does syndication have to do with anything? All it means is that it
is off-network, shown locally. Has nothing to do with content.

The 90's Dark Shadows was indeed soap opera. Melodramatic and
continuing storylines. More like Dallas than As the World Turns but
still soap opera.

Even if Dark Shadows had been produced as an hour-long weekly series in
the 80's, it is still farfetched to say it would have had the same
budget as Paramount's Star Trek TNG.
Z***@yahoo.com
2012-04-11 18:31:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wiseguy
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Wiseguy
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
One of the points to bear in mind, if Dark Shadows was
made in the 1980s alot of the cheese would have been
gone since special effects were light years ahead, and
the show would have had budget equal to
ST: TNG ($1.5 million per episode.)
Are you saying that a half-hour soap opera episode would have had the
same budget as a prime-time science fiction series from a major
studio? I think not.
First of all if Dark Shadows was made in the 80s it would have been a
syndicated one hour show not a soap opera with no budget. Or it would
have been National network one hour show. [Like the 90s
version......it would not be a soap opera.]
Being syndicated the time would vary by station.
[When did soap operas start dying off to be replaced by court shows,
etc?]
Bear in mind Xena/Hercules/ST:NG/DS9/etc. were all syndicated.
What does syndication have to do with anything? All it means is that it
is off-network, shown locally. Has nothing to do with content.
Budget. ST:TNG had a budget of $1.5 million per epislode.
Comapre that to Dark Shadows which had a budget of $0.00
for the entire series. But then that budget comes with the
territory of being a soap opera.
Post by Wiseguy
The 90's Dark Shadows was indeed soap opera. Melodramatic and
continuing storylines. More like Dallas than As the World Turns but
still soap opera.
But it wasn't a daily show.
Post by Wiseguy
Even if Dark Shadows had been produced as an hour-long weekly series in
the 80's, it is still farfetched to say it would have had the same
budget as Paramount's Star Trek TNG.
But it would have had a budget that was much larger than
it got as a soap opera.

BTW, the 1991 series had a high budget.
Wiseguy
2012-04-12 03:17:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Wiseguy
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Wiseguy
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
One of the points to bear in mind, if Dark Shadows was
made in the 1980s alot of the cheese would have been
gone since special effects were light years ahead, and
the show would have had budget equal to
ST: TNG ($1.5 million per episode.)
Are you saying that a half-hour soap opera episode would have had the
same budget as a prime-time science fiction series from a major
studio? I think not.
First of all if Dark Shadows was made in the 80s it would have been a
syndicated one hour show not a soap opera with no budget. Or it would
have been National network one hour show. [Like the 90s
version......it would not be a soap opera.]
Being syndicated the time would vary by station.
[When did soap operas start dying off to be replaced by court shows,
etc?]
Bear in mind Xena/Hercules/ST:NG/DS9/etc. were all syndicated.
What does syndication have to do with anything? All it means is that it
is off-network, shown locally. Has nothing to do with content.
Budget. ST:TNG had a budget of $1.5 million per epislode.
Comapre that to Dark Shadows which had a budget of $0.00
for the entire series. But then that budget comes with the
territory of being a soap opera.
Post by Wiseguy
The 90's Dark Shadows was indeed soap opera. Melodramatic and
continuing storylines. More like Dallas than As the World Turns but
still soap opera.
But it wasn't a daily show.
Uh, so? You stated the 90's Dark Shadows wasn't a soap opera. Of course
it was. It doesn't have to be daily to be a soap opera. And syndication
has nothing to do with it.
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Wiseguy
Even if Dark Shadows had been produced as an hour-long weekly series in
the 80's, it is still farfetched to say it would have had the same
budget as Paramount's Star Trek TNG.
But it would have had a budget that was much larger than
it got as a soap opera.
BTW, the 1991 series had a high budget.
Higher than the original, of course. But no way anywhere near Star Trek.
It wouldn't have been any different in the 1980's. Paramount was behind
Star Trek.
Z***@yahoo.com
2012-04-12 17:05:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wiseguy
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Wiseguy
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Wiseguy
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
One of the points to bear in mind, if Dark Shadows was
made in the 1980s alot of the cheese would have been
gone since special effects were light years ahead, and
the show would have had budget equal to
ST: TNG ($1.5 million per episode.)
Are you saying that a half-hour soap opera episode would have had
the
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Wiseguy
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Wiseguy
same budget as a prime-time science fiction series from a major
studio? I think not.
First of all if Dark Shadows was made in the 80s it would have been
a
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Wiseguy
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
syndicated one hour show not a soap opera with no budget. Or it
would
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Wiseguy
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
have been National network one hour show. [Like the 90s
version......it would not be a soap opera.]
Being syndicated the time would vary by station.
[When did soap operas start dying off to be replaced by court shows,
etc?]
Bear in mind Xena/Hercules/ST:NG/DS9/etc. were all syndicated.
What does syndication have to do with anything? All it means is that
it
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Wiseguy
is off-network, shown locally. Has nothing to do with content.
Budget. ST:TNG had a budget of $1.5 million per epislode.
Comapre that to Dark Shadows which had a budget of $0.00
for the entire series. But then that budget comes with the
territory of being a soap opera.
Post by Wiseguy
The 90's Dark Shadows was indeed soap opera. Melodramatic and
continuing storylines. More like Dallas than As the World Turns but
still soap opera.
But it wasn't a daily show.
Uh, so? You stated the 90's Dark Shadows wasn't a soap opera. Of course
it was. It doesn't have to be daily to be a soap opera. And syndication
has nothing to do with it.
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Wiseguy
Even if Dark Shadows had been produced as an hour-long weekly series
in
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Wiseguy
the 80's, it is still farfetched to say it would have had the same
budget as Paramount's Star Trek TNG.
But it would have had a budget that was much larger than
it got as a soap opera.
BTW, the 1991 series had a high budget.
Higher than the original, of course. But no way anywhere near Star Trek.
It wouldn't have been any different in the 1980's. Paramount was behind
Star Trek.
Do you have a figure for this high budget?
I found no figures for it just the description
of a high budget.

(I would estimate the Dark Shadows revival was much more
expensive than ST: TNG just based on the actors they
had in the 1991 series.)
Wiseguy
2012-04-12 17:43:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Wiseguy
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Wiseguy
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Wiseguy
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
One of the points to bear in mind, if Dark Shadows was
made in the 1980s alot of the cheese would have been
gone since special effects were light years ahead, and
the show would have had budget equal to
ST: TNG ($1.5 million per episode.)
Are you saying that a half-hour soap opera episode would have had
the
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Wiseguy
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Wiseguy
same budget as a prime-time science fiction series from a major
studio? I think not.
First of all if Dark Shadows was made in the 80s it would have been
a
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Wiseguy
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
syndicated one hour show not a soap opera with no budget. Or it
would
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Wiseguy
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
have been National network one hour show. [Like the 90s
version......it would not be a soap opera.]
Being syndicated the time would vary by station.
[When did soap operas start dying off to be replaced by court shows,
etc?]
Bear in mind Xena/Hercules/ST:NG/DS9/etc. were all syndicated.
What does syndication have to do with anything? All it means is that
it
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Wiseguy
is off-network, shown locally. Has nothing to do with content.
Budget. ST:TNG had a budget of $1.5 million per epislode.
Comapre that to Dark Shadows which had a budget of $0.00
for the entire series. But then that budget comes with the
territory of being a soap opera.
Post by Wiseguy
The 90's Dark Shadows was indeed soap opera. Melodramatic and
continuing storylines. More like Dallas than As the World Turns but
still soap opera.
But it wasn't a daily show.
Uh, so? You stated the 90's Dark Shadows wasn't a soap opera. Of course
it was. It doesn't have to be daily to be a soap opera. And
syndication
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Wiseguy
has nothing to do with it.
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Wiseguy
Even if Dark Shadows had been produced as an hour-long weekly series
in
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Wiseguy
the 80's, it is still farfetched to say it would have had the same
budget as Paramount's Star Trek TNG.
But it would have had a budget that was much larger than
it got as a soap opera.
BTW, the 1991 series had a high budget.
Higher than the original, of course. But no way anywhere near Star Trek.
It wouldn't have been any different in the 1980's. Paramount was behind
Star Trek.
Do you have a figure for this high budget?
I found no figures for it just the description
of a high budget.
What high budget? You said the DS budget would have been as high as ST
and I disagreed.
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
(I would estimate the Dark Shadows revival was much more
expensive than ST: TNG just based on the actors they
had in the 1991 series.)
Most of whom were unknown to the general public, Even the movie stars
weren't exactly household names.
Z***@yahoo.com
2012-04-13 20:48:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Wiseguy
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Wiseguy
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Wiseguy
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
One of the points to bear in mind, if Dark Shadows was
made in the 1980s alot of the cheese would have been
gone since special effects were light years ahead, and
the show would have had budget equal to
ST: TNG ($1.5 million per episode.)
Are you saying that a half-hour soap opera episode would have had
the
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Wiseguy
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Wiseguy
same budget as a prime-time science fiction series from a major
studio? I think not.
First of all if Dark Shadows was made in the 80s it would have
been
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Wiseguy
a
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Wiseguy
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
syndicated one hour show not a soap opera with no budget. Or it
would
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Wiseguy
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
have been National network one hour show. [Like the 90s
version......it would not be a soap opera.]
Being syndicated the time would vary by station.
[When did soap operas start dying off to be replaced by court
shows,
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Wiseguy
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Wiseguy
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
etc?]
Bear in mind Xena/Hercules/ST:NG/DS9/etc. were all syndicated.
What does syndication have to do with anything? All it means is
that
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Wiseguy
it
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Wiseguy
is off-network, shown locally. Has nothing to do with content.
Budget. ST:TNG had a budget of $1.5 million per epislode.
Comapre that to Dark Shadows which had a budget of $0.00
for the entire series. But then that budget comes with the
territory of being a soap opera.
Post by Wiseguy
The 90's Dark Shadows was indeed soap opera. Melodramatic and
continuing storylines. More like Dallas than As the World Turns but
still soap opera.
But it wasn't a daily show.
Uh, so? You stated the 90's Dark Shadows wasn't a soap opera. Of
course
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Wiseguy
it was. It doesn't have to be daily to be a soap opera. And
syndication
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Wiseguy
has nothing to do with it.
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Wiseguy
Even if Dark Shadows had been produced as an hour-long weekly series
in
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Wiseguy
the 80's, it is still farfetched to say it would have had the same
budget as Paramount's Star Trek TNG.
But it would have had a budget that was much larger than
it got as a soap opera.
BTW, the 1991 series had a high budget.
Higher than the original, of course. But no way anywhere near Star
Trek.
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Wiseguy
It wouldn't have been any different in the 1980's. Paramount was
behind
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Wiseguy
Star Trek.
Do you have a figure for this high budget?
I found no figures for it just the description
of a high budget.
What high budget? You said the DS budget would have been as high as ST
and I disagreed.
The high budget that was often referred to in the descriptions of the
Dark Shadows 1991 series.
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
(I would estimate the Dark Shadows revival was much more
expensive than ST: TNG just based on the actors they
had in the 1991 series.)
Most of whom were unknown to the general public, Even the movie stars
weren't exactly household names.
Not all were unknown. And some of them would not have come cheap.
Jim Nason
2012-04-13 21:50:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Wiseguy
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Wiseguy
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Wiseguy
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
One of the points to bear in mind, if Dark Shadows was
made in the 1980s alot of the cheese would have been
gone since special effects were light years ahead, and
the show would have had budget equal to
ST: TNG ($1.5 million per episode.)
Are you saying that a half-hour soap opera episode would have had
the
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Wiseguy
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Wiseguy
same budget as a prime-time science fiction series from a major
studio? I think not.
First of all if Dark Shadows was made in the 80s it would have
been
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Wiseguy
a
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Wiseguy
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
syndicated one hour show not a soap opera with no budget. Or it
would
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Wiseguy
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
have been National network one hour show. [Like the 90s
version......it would not be a soap opera.]
Being syndicated the time would vary by station.
[When did soap operas start dying off to be replaced by court
shows,
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Wiseguy
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Wiseguy
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
etc?]
Bear in mind Xena/Hercules/ST:NG/DS9/etc. were all syndicated.
What does syndication have to do with anything? All it means is
that
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Wiseguy
it
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Wiseguy
is off-network, shown locally. Has nothing to do with content.
Budget. ST:TNG had a budget of $1.5 million per epislode.
Comapre that to Dark Shadows which had a budget of $0.00
for the entire series. But then that budget comes with the
territory of being a soap opera.
Post by Wiseguy
The 90's Dark Shadows was indeed soap opera. Melodramatic and
continuing storylines. More like Dallas than As the World Turns but
still soap opera.
But it wasn't a daily show.
Uh, so? You stated the 90's Dark Shadows wasn't a soap opera. Of
course
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Wiseguy
it was. It doesn't have to be daily to be a soap opera. And
syndication
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Wiseguy
has nothing to do with it.
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Wiseguy
Even if Dark Shadows had been produced as an hour-long weekly series
in
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Wiseguy
the 80's, it is still farfetched to say it would have had the same
budget as Paramount's Star Trek TNG.
But it would have had a budget that was much larger than
it got as a soap opera.
BTW, the 1991 series had a high budget.
Higher than the original, of course. But no way anywhere near Star
Trek.
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Wiseguy
It wouldn't have been any different in the 1980's. Paramount was
behind
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Wiseguy
Star Trek.
Do you have a figure for this high budget?
I found no figures for it just the description
of a high budget.
What high budget? You said the DS budget would have been as high as ST
and I disagreed.
The high budget that was often referred to in the descriptions of the
Dark Shadows 1991 series.
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
(I would estimate the Dark Shadows revival was much more
expensive than ST: TNG just based on the actors they
had in the 1991 series.)
Most of whom were unknown to the general public, Even the movie stars
weren't exactly household names.
Not all were unknown. And some of them would not have come cheap.

I seem to recall from the 1960s that the Original Star Trek series cost more
than $200,00.00 per episode, which was real money nigh onto forty years ago.
It was also filmed in 35mm full frame Eastman Color Negative, which explains
its photographic quality even in today's world.

For me, at least, both Star Trek and Dark Shadows were important to my
friends and I at the time, and I still enjoy both.

Jim Nason
Wiseguy
2012-04-14 08:38:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Wiseguy
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Wiseguy
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Wiseguy
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
One of the points to bear in mind, if Dark Shadows was
made in the 1980s alot of the cheese would have been
gone since special effects were light years ahead, and
the show would have had budget equal to
ST: TNG ($1.5 million per episode.)
Are you saying that a half-hour soap opera episode would have had
the
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Wiseguy
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Wiseguy
same budget as a prime-time science fiction series from a major
studio? I think not.
First of all if Dark Shadows was made in the 80s it would have
been
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Wiseguy
a
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Wiseguy
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
syndicated one hour show not a soap opera with no budget. Or it
would
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Wiseguy
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
have been National network one hour show. [Like the 90s
version......it would not be a soap opera.]
Being syndicated the time would vary by station.
[When did soap operas start dying off to be replaced by court
shows,
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Wiseguy
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Wiseguy
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
etc?]
Bear in mind Xena/Hercules/ST:NG/DS9/etc. were all syndicated.
What does syndication have to do with anything? All it means is
that
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Wiseguy
it
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Wiseguy
is off-network, shown locally. Has nothing to do with content.
Budget. ST:TNG had a budget of $1.5 million per epislode.
Comapre that to Dark Shadows which had a budget of $0.00
for the entire series. But then that budget comes with the
territory of being a soap opera.
Post by Wiseguy
The 90's Dark Shadows was indeed soap opera. Melodramatic and
continuing storylines. More like Dallas than As the World Turns but
still soap opera.
But it wasn't a daily show.
Uh, so? You stated the 90's Dark Shadows wasn't a soap opera. Of
course
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Wiseguy
it was. It doesn't have to be daily to be a soap opera. And
syndication
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Wiseguy
has nothing to do with it.
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Wiseguy
Even if Dark Shadows had been produced as an hour-long weekly series
in
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Wiseguy
the 80's, it is still farfetched to say it would have had the same
budget as Paramount's Star Trek TNG.
But it would have had a budget that was much larger than
it got as a soap opera.
BTW, the 1991 series had a high budget.
Higher than the original, of course. But no way anywhere near Star
Trek.
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Wiseguy
It wouldn't have been any different in the 1980's. Paramount was
behind
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Wiseguy
Star Trek.
Do you have a figure for this high budget?
I found no figures for it just the description
of a high budget.
What high budget? You said the DS budget would have been as high as ST
and I disagreed.
The high budget that was often referred to in the descriptions of the
Dark Shadows 1991 series.
But not as high as Star Trek which was your original comment.
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
(I would estimate the Dark Shadows revival was much more
expensive than ST: TNG just based on the actors they
had in the 1991 series.)
Most of whom were unknown to the general public, Even the movie stars
weren't exactly household names.
Not all were unknown. And some of them would not have come cheap.
That's what most means...not all.
Z***@yahoo.com
2012-04-14 14:50:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kishin
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Wiseguy
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Wiseguy
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Wiseguy
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
One of the points to bear in mind, if Dark Shadows was
made in the 1980s alot of the cheese would have been
gone since special effects were light years ahead, and
the show would have had budget equal to
ST: TNG ($1.5 million per episode.)
Are you saying that a half-hour soap opera episode would have
had
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Wiseguy
the
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Wiseguy
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Wiseguy
same budget as a prime-time science fiction series from a major
studio? I think not.
First of all if Dark Shadows was made in the 80s it would have
been
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Wiseguy
a
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Wiseguy
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
syndicated one hour show not a soap opera with no budget. Or it
would
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Wiseguy
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
have been National network one hour show. [Like the 90s
version......it would not be a soap opera.]
Being syndicated the time would vary by station.
[When did soap operas start dying off to be replaced by court
shows,
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Wiseguy
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Wiseguy
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
etc?]
Bear in mind Xena/Hercules/ST:NG/DS9/etc. were all syndicated.
What does syndication have to do with anything? All it means is
that
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Wiseguy
it
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Wiseguy
is off-network, shown locally. Has nothing to do with content.
Budget. ST:TNG had a budget of $1.5 million per epislode.
Comapre that to Dark Shadows which had a budget of $0.00
for the entire series. But then that budget comes with the
territory of being a soap opera.
Post by Wiseguy
The 90's Dark Shadows was indeed soap opera. Melodramatic and
continuing storylines. More like Dallas than As the World Turns
but
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Wiseguy
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Wiseguy
still soap opera.
But it wasn't a daily show.
Uh, so? You stated the 90's Dark Shadows wasn't a soap opera. Of
course
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Wiseguy
it was. It doesn't have to be daily to be a soap opera. And
syndication
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Wiseguy
has nothing to do with it.
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Wiseguy
Even if Dark Shadows had been produced as an hour-long weekly
series
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Wiseguy
in
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Wiseguy
the 80's, it is still farfetched to say it would have had the same
budget as Paramount's Star Trek TNG.
But it would have had a budget that was much larger than
it got as a soap opera.
BTW, the 1991 series had a high budget.
Higher than the original, of course. But no way anywhere near Star
Trek.
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Wiseguy
It wouldn't have been any different in the 1980's. Paramount was
behind
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Wiseguy
Star Trek.
Do you have a figure for this high budget?
I found no figures for it just the description
of a high budget.
What high budget? You said the DS budget would have been as high as
ST
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
and I disagreed.
The high budget that was often referred to in the descriptions of the
Dark Shadows 1991 series.
But not as high as Star Trek which was your original comment.
And you know this how since I was unable to find any actual figures
for the 1991 Dark Shadows series?
Post by Kishin
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
(I would estimate the Dark Shadows revival was much more
expensive than ST: TNG just based on the actors they
had in the 1991 series.)
Most of whom were unknown to the general public, Even the movie stars
weren't exactly household names.
Not all were unknown. And some of them would not have come cheap.
That's what most means...not all.
Wiseguy
2012-04-15 06:41:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Kishin
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Wiseguy
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Wiseguy
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Wiseguy
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
One of the points to bear in mind, if Dark Shadows was
made in the 1980s alot of the cheese would have been
gone since special effects were light years ahead, and
the show would have had budget equal to
ST: TNG ($1.5 million per episode.)
Are you saying that a half-hour soap opera episode would have
had
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Wiseguy
the
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Wiseguy
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Wiseguy
same budget as a prime-time science fiction series from a major
studio? I think not.
First of all if Dark Shadows was made in the 80s it would have
been
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Wiseguy
a
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Wiseguy
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
syndicated one hour show not a soap opera with no budget. Or it
would
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Wiseguy
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
have been National network one hour show. [Like the 90s
version......it would not be a soap opera.]
Being syndicated the time would vary by station.
[When did soap operas start dying off to be replaced by court
shows,
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Wiseguy
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Wiseguy
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
etc?]
Bear in mind Xena/Hercules/ST:NG/DS9/etc. were all syndicated.
What does syndication have to do with anything? All it means is
that
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Wiseguy
it
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Wiseguy
is off-network, shown locally. Has nothing to do with content.
Budget. ST:TNG had a budget of $1.5 million per epislode.
Comapre that to Dark Shadows which had a budget of $0.00
for the entire series. But then that budget comes with the
territory of being a soap opera.
Post by Wiseguy
The 90's Dark Shadows was indeed soap opera. Melodramatic and
continuing storylines. More like Dallas than As the World Turns
but
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Wiseguy
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Wiseguy
still soap opera.
But it wasn't a daily show.
Uh, so? You stated the 90's Dark Shadows wasn't a soap opera. Of
course
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Wiseguy
it was. It doesn't have to be daily to be a soap opera. And
syndication
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Wiseguy
has nothing to do with it.
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Wiseguy
Even if Dark Shadows had been produced as an hour-long weekly
series
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Wiseguy
in
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Wiseguy
the 80's, it is still farfetched to say it would have had the same
budget as Paramount's Star Trek TNG.
But it would have had a budget that was much larger than
it got as a soap opera.
BTW, the 1991 series had a high budget.
Higher than the original, of course. But no way anywhere near Star
Trek.
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Wiseguy
It wouldn't have been any different in the 1980's. Paramount was
behind
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Wiseguy
Star Trek.
Do you have a figure for this high budget?
I found no figures for it just the description
of a high budget.
What high budget? You said the DS budget would have been as high as
ST
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
and I disagreed.
The high budget that was often referred to in the descriptions of the
Dark Shadows 1991 series.
But not as high as Star Trek which was your original comment.
And you know this how since I was unable to find any actual figures
for the 1991 Dark Shadows series?
Common sense. They shot nighttime scenes during the day and didn't use
a real house for Collinwood.


Where did you get any facts to make your original assumption that an
80's DS would have the same budget as Paramount's big money-maker Star
Trek? Instead of asking me the same question over and over why don't
you answer one yourself?
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Kishin
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Wiseguy
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Wiseguy
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Wiseguy
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
One of the points to bear in mind, if Dark Shadows was
made in the 1980s alot of the cheese would have been
gone since special effects were light years ahead, and
the show would have had budget equal to
ST: TNG ($1.5 million per episode.)
Z***@yahoo.com
2012-04-15 16:59:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wiseguy
Common sense. They shot nighttime scenes during the day and didn't use
a real house for Collinwood.
They stilll had very high paid actors.
Post by Wiseguy
Where did you get any facts to make your original assumption that an
80's DS would have the same budget as Paramount's big money-maker Star
Trek?
It would havce been a prime time series not a day time soap opera with
a zero budget.

Times change when it comes to Tv shows, ST:TOS had a very low budget,
So Roddenberry had things like a salt shaker as a prop. It wasn't
until the 1980s that ST:TNG had a budet of $1.5 million per episode.
It would be logical to think Dark Shadows would have followed a
similar path. (Remember the 1991 series was a prime time
show, not a daily soap opera)

Of course this is all conjecture since Dark Shadows was not done in
the 1980s. We only have the orignnal and the 1991 series to compare.

As far as budget for the 1991 series, actors don't come cheap.
(Especially if you're name is Ben Cross or Roy Thinnis.) Those
two probably killed off the majority of the budget for the 1991
series.
Wiseguy
2012-04-16 06:37:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Wiseguy
Common sense. They shot nighttime scenes during the day and didn't use
a real house for Collinwood.
They stilll had very high paid actors.
Post by Wiseguy
Where did you get any facts to make your original assumption that an
80's DS would have the same budget as Paramount's big money-maker Star
Trek?
It would havce been a prime time series not a day time soap opera with
a zero budget.
Times change when it comes to Tv shows, ST:TOS had a very low budget,
So Roddenberry had things like a salt shaker as a prop. It wasn't
until the 1980s that ST:TNG had a budet of $1.5 million per episode.
It would be logical to think Dark Shadows would have followed a
similar path.
One last time: MGM or whoever would not have budgeted a remake of a
daily soap opera at the same price as Paramount's mighty proven Star
Trek. Sorry if you can't understand that.

(Remember the 1991 series was a prime time
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
show, not a daily soap opera)
No shit, really?
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Of course this is all conjecture since Dark Shadows was not done in
the 1980s. We only have the orignnal and the 1991 series to compare.
But you're the one who made the original claim about budgets. I
disagreed then. I disagree now. For the last time, this is getting
tiring.
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
As far as budget for the 1991 series, actors don't come cheap.
(Especially if you're name is Ben Cross or Roy Thinnis.) Those
two probably killed off the majority of the budget for the 1991
series.
And Star Trek had more special effects to pay for, unless you call
lighting and a phony model of a house to be expensive effects.
Z***@yahoo.com
2012-04-16 17:29:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wiseguy
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Wiseguy
Common sense. They shot nighttime scenes during the day and didn't
use
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Wiseguy
a real house for Collinwood.
They stilll had very high paid actors.
Post by Wiseguy
Where did you get any facts to make your original assumption that an
80's DS would have the same budget as Paramount's big money-maker Star
Trek?
It would havce been a prime time series not a day time soap opera with
a zero budget.
Times change when it comes to Tv shows, ST:TOS had a very low budget,
So Roddenberry had things like a salt shaker as a prop. It wasn't
until the 1980s that ST:TNG had a budet of $1.5 million per episode.
It would be logical to think Dark Shadows would have followed a
similar path.
One last time: MGM or whoever would not have budgeted a remake of a
daily soap opera at the same price as Paramount's mighty proven Star
Trek. Sorry if you can't understand that.
Actually they would have. Remember Trek did not do as well as
Star Wars. Also 2 and 4 were the only good ones, the rest
sucked big time. (Except 11)

Also during the 80s covered alot of years.
Post by Wiseguy
(Remember the 1991 series was a prime time
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
show, not a daily soap opera)
No shit, really?
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Of course this is all conjecture since Dark Shadows was not done in
the 1980s. We only have the orignnal and the 1991 series to compare.
But you're the one who made the original claim about budgets. I
disagreed then. I disagree now. For the last time, this is getting
tiring.
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
As far as budget for the 1991 series, actors don't come cheap.
(Especially if you're name is Ben Cross or Roy Thinnis.) Those
two probably killed off the majority of the budget for the 1991
series.
And Star Trek had more special effects to pay for, unless you call
lighting and a phony model of a house to be expensive effects.
Mike S.
2012-04-16 19:29:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Actually they would have. Remember Trek did not do as well as
Star Wars. Also 2 and 4 were the only good ones, the rest
sucked big time. (Except 11)
2, 4 and 8 were really good. 6 and 11 were pretty good. Not great, but
good. The rest, as you say, sucked big time for sure.
Z***@yahoo.com
2012-04-17 00:04:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike S.
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Actually they would have. Remember Trek did not do as well as
Star Wars. Also 2 and 4 were the only good ones, the rest
sucked big time. (Except 11)
2, 4 and 8 were really good. 6 and 11 were pretty good. Not great, but
good. The rest, as you say, sucked big time for sure.
6 and 8 sucked big time, 11 it should be pointed out was the newest
one from JJ Abrams and I loved it.

But the important point is Trek's box office take was far below the
take for Star Wars.
Wiseguy
2012-04-17 07:52:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Wiseguy
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Wiseguy
Common sense. They shot nighttime scenes during the day and didn't
use
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Wiseguy
a real house for Collinwood.
They stilll had very high paid actors.
Post by Wiseguy
Where did you get any facts to make your original assumption that an
80's DS would have the same budget as Paramount's big money-maker Star
Trek?
It would havce been a prime time series not a day time soap opera with
a zero budget.
Times change when it comes to Tv shows, ST:TOS had a very low budget,
So Roddenberry had things like a salt shaker as a prop. It wasn't
until the 1980s that ST:TNG had a budet of $1.5 million per episode.
It would be logical to think Dark Shadows would have followed a
similar path.
One last time: MGM or whoever would not have budgeted a remake of a
daily soap opera at the same price as Paramount's mighty proven Star
Trek. Sorry if you can't understand that.
Actually they would have. Remember Trek did not do as well as
Star Wars. Also 2 and 4 were the only good ones, the rest
sucked big time. (Except 11)
You were talking about TV series. Now you're talking movies.
You can't focus. This discussion is pointless. And finished.
Kishin
2012-04-17 13:44:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Wiseguy
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Wiseguy
Common sense. They shot nighttime scenes during the day and didn't
use
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Wiseguy
a real house for Collinwood.
They stilll had very high paid actors.
Post by Wiseguy
Where did you get any facts to make your original assumption that an
80's DS would have the same budget as Paramount's big money-maker
Star
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Wiseguy
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Wiseguy
Trek?
It would havce been a prime time series not a day time soap opera
with
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Wiseguy
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
a zero budget.
Times change when it comes to Tv shows, ST:TOS had a very low
budget,
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Wiseguy
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
So Roddenberry had things like a salt shaker as a prop. It wasn't
until the 1980s that ST:TNG had a budet of $1.5 million per episode.
It would be logical to think Dark Shadows would have followed a
similar path.
One last time: MGM or whoever would not have budgeted a remake of a
daily soap opera at the same price as Paramount's mighty proven Star
Trek. Sorry if you can't understand that.
Actually they would have. Remember Trek did not do as well as
Star Wars. Also 2 and 4 were the only good ones, the rest
sucked big time. (Except 11)
You were talking about TV series. Now you're talking movies.
You can't focus. This discussion is pointless. And finished.
Yes, please.
--
Kishin
Z***@yahoo.com
2012-04-08 20:03:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike S.
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Oh come on. The movies isn't even in theaters yet, you're watching
a trailer that may or may not have what actually is in the film.
If you think anyone is going to keep quiet and wait until the movie is
out before making comments, then DREAM ON. Welcome to Usenet. I will
be thrilled if the movie is nothing like that trailer, BTW.
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
BTW, Jackson can't do Dark Shadows. He is tied up with the Hobbit,
before that he was tied up with a suit against the distributor.
I know that. My comment was wishful thinking only.
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Oh and Jackon is basing his movies on one book that
was published in 1931. Dark Shadows was made over the
course of 1200 episodes, it was on every day,
and had a budget of < $ 0.00.
The Hobbit trailer has a comedic element in it. It is after all, based
on a children's book. But it is obvious that same trailer shows that
Jackson is taking it seriously, and has a respect for the source
material.
Do not confuse cheese with comedy. Dark Shadows was cheesy. No doubt
about it. The original Star Trek was also cheesy. But both Curtis and
Roddenberry, despite having no budget (as you pointed out with Curtis)
took their respective shows very seriously. And both shows were better
for it.
And you're assuming from a short trialer that Burton is not taking the
original source seriously.

A trailer that may or may not reflect the final product.
Kishin
2012-04-07 19:10:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike S.
Dark Shadows may have been cheesy. It may have been corny. But it was
*NOT* a fucking comedy. It took itself very seriously. Dan Curtis
himself said that he took it seriously.
As seriously as it can with a budget of< $0.00
As seriously as it can for a daily show in the late 60s.
Post by Mike S.
I can't believe I'm saying this but this new Dark Shadows movie needs
to be more like Twilight. Angst ridden vampires are in right now. News
flash for you Burton, Barnabas Collins is the original angst ridden
vampire! Duh!
I wish Peter Jackson was a Dark Shadows fan. That guy knows how to
handle a franchise. Oh well.
Oh come on. The movies isn't even in theaters yet, you're watching
a trailer that may or may not have what actually is in the film.
This wouldn't be the first trailer where everything in the trailer
ends up on the cutting room floor.
Would you care to cite such a trailer? And I don't mean a teaser which
was shot before the movie. I would be willing to bet you that everything
we see in this trailer will be in the movie (and I only bet on sure things).
--
Kishin
Wiseguy
2012-04-08 04:45:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Mike S.
Dark Shadows may have been cheesy. It may have been corny. But it was
*NOT* a fucking comedy. It took itself very seriously. Dan Curtis
himself said that he took it seriously.
As seriously as it can with a budget of < $0.00
As seriously as it can for a daily show in the late 60s.
Post by Mike S.
I can't believe I'm saying this but this new Dark Shadows movie needs
to be more like Twilight. Angst ridden vampires are in right now. News
flash for you Burton, Barnabas Collins is the original angst ridden
vampire! Duh!
I wish Peter Jackson was a Dark Shadows fan. That guy knows how to
handle a franchise. Oh well.
Oh come on. The movies isn't even in theaters yet, you're watching
a trailer that may or may not have what actually is in the film.
This wouldn't be the first trailer where everything in the trailer
ends up on the cutting room floor.
BTW, Jackson can't do Dark Shadows. He is tied up with the Hobbit,
before that he was tied up with a suit against the distributor.
Oh and Jackon is basing his movies on one book that
was published in 1931. Dark Shadows was made over the
course of 1200 episodes, it was on every day,
and had a budget of < $ 0.00.
The trailer for "House of Dark Shadows" had an announcer belting out the
words "A story of blood relations. Barnabas Collins, vampire, takes a
bride in a bizarre act of unnatural lust. Come see how the vampires do
it."

Sounds like incest porn.
m***@comcast.net
2012-04-08 06:30:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wiseguy
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Mike S.
Dark Shadows may have been cheesy. It may have been corny. But it was
*NOT* a fucking comedy. It took itself very seriously. Dan Curtis
himself said that he took it seriously.
As seriously as it can with a budget of < $0.00
As seriously as it can for a daily show in the late 60s.
Post by Mike S.
I can't believe I'm saying this but this new Dark Shadows movie needs
to be more like Twilight. Angst ridden vampires are in right now. News
flash for you Burton, Barnabas Collins is the original angst ridden
vampire! Duh!
I wish Peter Jackson was a Dark Shadows fan. That guy knows how to
handle a franchise. Oh well.
Oh come on.  The movies isn't even in theaters yet, you're watching
a trailer that may or may not have what actually is in the film.
This wouldn't be the first trailer where everything in the trailer
ends up on the cutting room floor.
BTW, Jackson can't do Dark Shadows.  He is tied up with the Hobbit,
before that he was tied up with a suit against the distributor.
Oh and Jackon is basing his movies on one book that
was published in 1931.  Dark Shadows was made over the
course of 1200 episodes, it was on every day,
and had a budget of < $ 0.00.
The trailer for "House of Dark Shadows" had an announcer belting out the
words "A story of blood relations. Barnabas Collins, vampire, takes a
bride in a bizarre act of unnatural lust. Come see how the vampires do
it."
Sounds like incest porn.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Case in point! Ridiculous.
Tim
2012-04-07 19:38:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike S.
Dark Shadows may have been cheesy. It may have been corny. But it was
*NOT* a fucking comedy. It took itself very seriously. Dan Curtis
himself said that he took it seriously.
Dan Curtis also said: "Our shows should be historical as well as
hysterical."


Tim
Post by Mike S.
I can't believe I'm saying this but this new Dark Shadows movie needs
to be more like Twilight. Angst ridden vampires are in right now. News
flash for you Burton, Barnabas Collins is the original angst ridden
vampire! Duh!
I wish Peter Jackson was a Dark Shadows fan. That guy knows how to
handle a franchise. Oh well.
--
"That's the problem with goals. They become
the thing you talk about instead of the thing
you do."
~ Cherry Darling
Mike S.
2012-04-07 20:39:06 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 07 Apr 2012 14:38:10 -0500, Tim
Post by Tim
Dan Curtis also said: "Our shows should be historical as well as
hysterical."
I remember it. Was he thinking of Dark Shadows when he said it or
something else? DS is neither.
Mike S.
2012-04-07 20:54:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike S.
I remember it. Was he thinking of Dark Shadows when he said it or
something else? DS is neither.
Actually I take that back. Some would consider DS hysterical. <g>

My brother saw the scene where Nicholas made
Angelique-now-Cassandra's hand turn skeletal. I swear as god as my
witness my brother could not stop laughing.
Tim
2012-04-08 02:06:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike S.
Post by Mike S.
I remember it. Was he thinking of Dark Shadows when he said it or
something else?
DS. He was referring to the time travel aspect of the show.
Post by Mike S.
Post by Mike S.
DS is neither.
You don't consider years like 1795, 1692, or 1840 "historical"?
Post by Mike S.
Actually I take that back. Some would consider DS hysterical. <g>
My brother saw the scene where Nicholas made
Angelique-now-Cassandra's hand turn skeletal. I swear as god as my
witness my brother could not stop laughing.
Did your brother ever see the episode where Willie teases Adam with the
chicken leg? Rib-cracking material, that.

Tim
--
"That's the problem with goals. They become
the thing you talk about instead of the thing
you do."
~ Cherry Darling
Mike S.
2012-04-08 02:47:39 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 07 Apr 2012 21:06:52 -0500, Tim
Post by Tim
You don't consider years like 1795, 1692, or 1840 "historical"?
Heh. :)

I was using this definition of the word -->

'having once existed or lived in the real world, as opposed to being
part of legend or fiction'

Think 'historical truth'. I watch a lot of history documentaries so
that is the definition I think of. But I got you now.
Post by Tim
Did your brother ever see the episode where Willie teases Adam with the
chicken leg? Rib-cracking material, that.
Tim
Hahaha. I think even that scene was taken seriously! LOL!

You just bought back a memory. No, my brother never saw that. I mean,
he doesn't watch the show, he just happened to see that one scene with
Cassandra.

BUT

He once called me as a joke and said 'BARNABAS!' and 'MUSIC!' in his
best Adam voice and then hung up! That was another one that used to
get my brother laughing. Hearing Adam say those words sounded funny to
him.

Poor Adam. Now I feel bad for him.
m***@comcast.net
2012-04-08 06:28:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim
Post by Mike S.
Dark Shadows may have been cheesy. It may have been corny. But it was
*NOT* a fucking comedy. It took itself very seriously. Dan Curtis
himself said that he took it seriously.
Dan Curtis also said: "Our shows should be historical as well as
hysterical."
Tim
Post by Mike S.
 I can't believe I'm saying this but this new Dark Shadows movie needs
to be more like Twilight. Angst ridden vampires are in right now. News
flash for you Burton, Barnabas Collins is the original angst ridden
vampire! Duh!
I wish Peter Jackson was a Dark Shadows fan. That guy knows how to
handle a franchise. Oh well.
--
"That's the problem with goals. They become
the thing you talk about instead of the thing
you do."
~ Cherry Darling
EVERY single time i watch DS i find something to laugh out loud about
and i adore it for that.
Jeez- it isn't so serious, people. High camp... untentional- but camp
nonetheless. Chil out.
Mike S.
2012-04-08 13:33:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@comcast.net
EVERY single time i watch DS i find something to laugh out loud about
and i adore it for that.
Jeez- it isn't so serious, people.
Yes, actually, Dark Shadows *WAS* a serious soap opera. The fact that
it was extremely campy, sometimes to the point of absurdity, does not
change that fact. The TONE of the original DS was NOT comedy bordering
on slapstick, even farce, like this trailer.

If this trailer got the TONE of the movie wrong, well, that's the
trailer's fault, not mine.
m***@comcast.net
2012-04-08 19:46:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike S.
Post by m***@comcast.net
EVERY single time i watch DS i find something to laugh out loud about
and i adore it for that.
Jeez- it isn't so serious, people.
Yes, actually, Dark Shadows *WAS* a serious soap opera. The fact that
it was extremely campy, sometimes to the point of  absurdity, does not
change that fact. The TONE of the original DS was NOT comedy bordering
on slapstick, even farce,  like this trailer.
If this trailer got the TONE of the movie wrong, well, that's the
trailer's fault, not mine.
I think they just have a BIG problem figuring out how to market it.
I've seen a less comeic trailer that looked a tad more true to the
story. Still tho- i shall be an optomistic pessimist until i actually
see it LOL
m***@comcast.net
2012-04-08 19:49:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@comcast.net
Post by Mike S.
Post by m***@comcast.net
EVERY single time i watch DS i find something to laugh out loud about
and i adore it for that.
Jeez- it isn't so serious, people.
Yes, actually, Dark Shadows *WAS* a serious soap opera. The fact that
it was extremely campy, sometimes to the point of  absurdity, does not
change that fact. The TONE of the original DS was NOT comedy bordering
on slapstick, even farce,  like this trailer.
If this trailer got the TONE of the movie wrong, well, that's the
trailer's fault, not mine.
I think they just have a BIG problem figuring out how to market it.
I've seen a less comeic trailer that looked a tad more true to the
story. Still tho- i shall be an optomistic pessimist until i actually
see it LOL
oops.. "comedic". TypoMonkey
Mike S.
2012-04-08 22:31:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@comcast.net
I think they just have a BIG problem figuring out how to market it.
I've seen a less comeic trailer that looked a tad more true to the
story. Still tho- i shall be an optomistic pessimist until i actually
see it LOL
Heh. :)

Make sure to tell us about it because I am going to be a pessimistic
pessimist and wait for the reviews.
m***@comcast.net
2012-04-09 05:53:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike S.
Post by m***@comcast.net
I think they just have a BIG problem figuring out how to market it.
I've seen a less comeic trailer that looked a tad more true to the
story. Still tho- i shall be an optomistic pessimist until i actually
see it LOL
Heh. :)
Make sure to tell us about it because I am going to be a pessimistic
pessimist and wait for the reviews.
i shall not bother. Thanks tho.
Glad to see not much has changed around here.
Cheers!
Mike S.
2012-04-09 12:38:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@comcast.net
i shall not bother. Thanks tho.
Glad to see not much has changed around here.
Other then the total number of posts dropping, Usenet as a whole
hasn't changed. It isn't just this newsgroup.
m***@comcast.net
2012-04-10 05:48:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike S.
Post by m***@comcast.net
i shall not bother. Thanks tho.
Glad to see not much has changed around here.
Other then the total number of posts dropping, Usenet as a whole
hasn't changed. It isn't just this newsgroup.
one of the snarkiest ass ones as always.....
Z***@yahoo.com
2012-04-09 16:54:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@comcast.net
Post by Mike S.
Post by m***@comcast.net
EVERY single time i watch DS i find something to laugh out loud about
and i adore it for that.
Jeez- it isn't so serious, people.
Yes, actually, Dark Shadows *WAS* a serious soap opera. The fact that
it was extremely campy, sometimes to the point of  absurdity, does not
change that fact. The TONE of the original DS was NOT comedy bordering
on slapstick, even farce,  like this trailer.
If this trailer got the TONE of the movie wrong, well, that's the
trailer's fault, not mine.
I think they just have a BIG problem figuring out how to market it.
I've seen a less comeic trailer that looked a tad more true to the
story. Still tho- i shall be an optomistic pessimist until i actually
see it LOL
Hollywood doesn't know how to market most movies.
Especially fiilms/shows like Firefly/Serenity/etc.
Z***@yahoo.com
2012-04-08 20:14:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike S.
Post by m***@comcast.net
EVERY single time i watch DS i find something to laugh out loud about
and i adore it for that.
Jeez- it isn't so serious, people.
Yes, actually, Dark Shadows *WAS* a serious soap opera. The fact that
it was extremely campy, sometimes to the point of absurdity, does not
change that fact. The TONE of the original DS was NOT comedy bordering
on slapstick, even farce, like this trailer.
But it was campy becaue 1. it had a budget of zero, 2. it had to air
every day and 3. special effects were very primative comaperd to
today.

it was not intended to be campy.
Post by Mike S.
If this trailer got the TONE of the movie wrong, well, that's the
trailer's fault, not mine.
Will Dockery
2012-04-24 18:19:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike S.
Dark Shadows may have been cheesy. It may have been corny. But it was
*NOT* a fucking comedy. It took itself very seriously. Dan Curtis
himself said that he took it seriously.
 I can't believe I'm saying this but this new Dark Shadows movie needs
to be more like Twilight. Angst ridden vampires are in right now. News
flash for you Burton, Barnabas Collins is the original angst ridden
vampire! Duh!
I wish Peter Jackson was a Dark Shadows fan. That guy knows how to
handle a franchise. Oh well.
I've only seen a photo or two but this is not the Dark Shadows any of
us wanted, I'll wager.

A shame, since I envisioned Burton & Depp doing a great, creepy &
eccentric version.

--
Music & poetry of Will Dockery:
http://www.reverbnation.com/willdockery
Z***@yahoo.com
2012-04-25 17:15:45 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 11:19:02 -0700 (PDT), Will Dockery
Post by Will Dockery
Post by Mike S.
Dark Shadows may have been cheesy. It may have been corny. But it was
*NOT* a fucking comedy. It took itself very seriously. Dan Curtis
himself said that he took it seriously.
 I can't believe I'm saying this but this new Dark Shadows movie needs
to be more like Twilight. Angst ridden vampires are in right now. News
flash for you Burton, Barnabas Collins is the original angst ridden
vampire! Duh!
I wish Peter Jackson was a Dark Shadows fan. That guy knows how to
handle a franchise. Oh well.
I've only seen a photo or two but this is not the Dark Shadows any of
us wanted, I'll wager.
A shame, since I envisioned Burton & Depp doing a great, creepy &
eccentric version.
Agaibn i'm going to wait until I see the movie before deciding if this
is what I wanted.

I'm not willing to go by a trailer to determine if I like the movie.
Loading...