Discussion:
[TV Party] The 1970's Dark Shadows Movies
(too old to reply)
Ubiquitous
2012-04-22 18:06:16 UTC
Permalink
by Billy Ingram

It's a foregone conclusion that whenever a big screen adaptation of a TV
show happens it's a disaster. Over and over we see the examples. But
there was a string of motion pictures based on television shows that
were as good or better than the originals.

They tended to be the very first adaptations - McHale's Navy (1964),
McHale's Navy Joins the Air Force (1965), Munster Go Home! (1964),
Batman (1966), and House of Dark Shadows (1970).

The first McHale's Navy film was pretty good, the second not so great,
but I would say they were on par with the sitcom. That's not really
saying much but they were movies for kids.

Munster Go Home! was a dumbed down, stretched thin episode of the CBS
show (that had just been cancelled), relying too much on bad puns and
childish slapstick. It might actually play better if you've never seen
The Munsters before, the best gags were all too familiar from the TV
version. The first season of The Munsters represented some of the
funniest television ever but the motion picture never aspired to that
level of quality, in terms of the writing anyway. But it does sport the
original cast (with a new Marilyn) in vivid color for the first time and
featured a cool new dragster created by George Barris.

http://youtube/Vf2v5uvt-Hk

Say what you will about the primetime portrayal of the Dark Knight but
if you liked the 1966 show you'd love the movie of the same year.

http://youtube/osrA1tQsAS8

But for me, House of Dark Shadows stands as the most effective TV
adaptation to the big screen until Star Trek II the Wrath of Khan came
along in 1982.


The daytime soap opera Dark Shadows struggled to find an audience before
Jonathan Frid joined the cast as Barnabas Collins. This happened in 1967
just after Batman ignited in primetime; both Frid and Adam West became
instant pop icons. Perhaps it was the success of the Batman movie that
prompted MGM to green light a film version of Dark Shadows four years
later.

The motion pictures House of Dark Shadows from 1970 and the sequel Night
of Dark Shadows from 1971 have never appeared on DVD - but a release is
promised for 2012. Interest in the upcoming Johnny Depp film version of
Dark Shadows has made the series super hot again. Who would have thought
this soap opera could rise again after the failed primetime revival in
1991?

House of Dark Shadows is a faithful re-telling of the origin of Barnabas
Collins straight from the soap opera plotline, only far more gruesome
and bloody. Creator and producer Dan Curtis constructed a rock solid
scenario so a blood curdling time was had by all.

There are many creepy moments and genuine chills in this gothic tale of
a vampire released after more than a century in captivity, consumed with
a longing to romantically reconnect with his long-buried past.

http://youtube/zjovb6UQgyA

The music by Robert Cobert was a major contributor to the overall
creepiness of Dark Shadows and it is carried over nicely to the motion
picture version. Some of the dialogue and camera set-ups are identical
to the first Barnabas TV story arc but the house was different, by
necessity. You can't shoot a motion picture on a TV soap opera set so
the Lyndhurst Estate in Tarrytown, New York and the Lockwood-Mathews
Mansion in Connecticut became the new Collins' mansions.

The feature film broke with the TV show's continuity in another key area
in that almost everyone was left dead by the end credits.

Night of Dark Shadows I remember being schlocky and seemingly meant to
go straight to the Drive-In circuit, the equivalent in 1971 of going
direct to DVD.

Like the television series, part of the film takes place in the past but
there's no Barnabas - instead Quentin Collins (David Selby) is the
center of attention, a silly prat possessed and in love with the ghost
of Angelique.

Most of the cast of House of Dark Shadows returned except Jonathan Frid
and Joan Bennett as Elizabeth Collins Stoddard. I guess she stayed dead
after the last movie.

Actors who played supporting characters that were offed in the first
film were reincarnated with different identities in Night of Dark
Shadows - but then that was a common thread on the TV show as well.

http://youtube/Udqf_kjxCbY

This movie was a great deal more violent and overtly sexual than the
afternoon soap, obviously, but not the least bit scary. I was left
totally confused by the whole tawdry affair, being a fan of the show and
seeing familiar characters in so murky a setting.

Unlike the first Dark Shadows movie, which surprised everyone with
strong box office receipts, Night of Dark Shadows wasn't as successful.

Why didn't Curtis do something more in the same bloody vein of the
series and the first feature? Jonathan Frid didn't want to do it, he was
terrified of being typecast.

Can you imagine not wanting to be the star of what could have been a
lucrative film franchise? He should have instead been apprehensive about
not working again; Jonathan Frid was rarely seen on TV or in movies
after the ABC series left the air in March of 1971, two days before
Night of Dark Shadows began filming.

The daytime soap had undergone a major change in the last months of its
existence with Frid portraying perennial loser Bramwell Collins in a
drab storyline that took place in the 1800s.

Gone were the vampires, werewolves, and fantastic characters, replaced
instead by boring archetypes who were vaguely terrified of a room in the
home, a worn out theme by then. I guess the network wanted to see if the
show had any pull as a typical soap opera (set in the past?) without the
bizarre plotlines before they pulled the plug.

Here's the last scene of Dark Shadows, they thankfully delivered a
chilling moment at the very end. I remember being quite impressed.

http://youtube/Iz9ysN5xbak

I understand the director's cut of Night of Dark Shadows will be coming
to DVD in 2012 so maybe I should give this motion picture another shot.
Unlike House of Dark Shadows, Night was directed by Dan Curtis but MGM
forced him to rush cut over 35 minutes from his finished film. This
might account for the lack of cohesion.

An interview with series creator Dan Curtis:

http://youtube/cGnwVG0vQ8Y

Here's a Question & Answer period with Jonathan Frid, Barnabas Collins,
from a 2009 Dark Shadows convention.

http://youtube/CZcUztMmsA0

In 2004, a pilot for a new Dark Shadows series starring Marley Shelton
as Victoria Winters and Alec Newman as Barnabas Collins was produced but
never picked up.
--
"If Barack Obama isn't careful, he will become the Jimmy Carter of the
21st century."
A***@gmail.com
2012-04-22 18:46:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ubiquitous
Who would have thought
this soap opera could rise again after the failed primetime revival in
1991?
I cringe whenever someone uses the phrase "failed prime time revival
in 1991," after all if the Iraq Kuwait war hadn't taken place at the
time and interrupted the series it might have lasted many years and
been hugely successful.

One years earlier or one year later and it might have survived much
longer.
Ubiquitous
2012-04-22 21:45:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by A***@gmail.com
Post by Ubiquitous
Who would have thought
this soap opera could rise again after the failed primetime revival in
1991?
I cringe whenever someone uses the phrase "failed prime time revival
in 1991," after all if the Iraq Kuwait war hadn't taken place at the
time and interrupted the series it might have lasted many years and
been hugely successful.
One years earlier or one year later and it might have survived much
longer.
I don't think the Gulf War had any significant impact on the 1991
revival. It was pretty dreadful, IMHO.
--
"If Barack Obama isn't careful, he will become the Jimmy Carter of the
21st century."
Artis
2012-04-22 22:21:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ubiquitous
Post by A***@gmail.com
Post by Ubiquitous
Who would have thought
this soap opera could rise again after the failed primetime revival in
1991?
I cringe whenever someone uses the phrase "failed prime time revival
in 1991," after all if the Iraq Kuwait war hadn't taken place at the
time and interrupted the series it might have lasted many years and
been hugely successful.
One years earlier or one year later and it might have survived much
longer.
I don't think the Gulf War had any significant impact on the 1991
revival. It was pretty dreadful, IMHO.
--
"If Barack Obama isn't careful, he will become the Jimmy Carter of the
21st century."
Yes, the 1991 edition was really bad. I am worried after seeing the
trailer for the new movie; Barnabas never had
skin that pale.
suzeeq
2012-04-22 22:25:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Artis
Post by Ubiquitous
Post by A***@gmail.com
Post by Ubiquitous
Who would have thought
this soap opera could rise again after the failed primetime revival in
1991?
I cringe whenever someone uses the phrase "failed prime time revival
in 1991," after all if the Iraq Kuwait war hadn't taken place at the
time and interrupted the series it might have lasted many years and
been hugely successful.
One years earlier or one year later and it might have survived much
longer.
I don't think the Gulf War had any significant impact on the 1991
revival. It was pretty dreadful, IMHO.
--
"If Barack Obama isn't careful, he will become the Jimmy Carter of the
21st century."
Yes, the 1991 edition was really bad. I am worried after seeing the
trailer for the new movie; Barnabas never had
skin that pale.
The lighting was pretty bad in the original TV show, you couldn't tell
what color his skin was. Most of it was B&W anyway, wasn't it?
anim8rFSK
2012-04-23 01:35:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by suzeeq
Post by Artis
Post by Ubiquitous
Post by A***@gmail.com
Post by Ubiquitous
Who would have thought
this soap opera could rise again after the failed primetime revival in
1991?
I cringe whenever someone uses the phrase "failed prime time revival
in 1991," after all if the Iraq Kuwait war hadn't taken place at the
time and interrupted the series it might have lasted many years and
been hugely successful.
One years earlier or one year later and it might have survived much
longer.
I don't think the Gulf War had any significant impact on the 1991
revival. It was pretty dreadful, IMHO.
--
"If Barack Obama isn't careful, he will become the Jimmy Carter of the
21st century."
Yes, the 1991 edition was really bad. I am worried after seeing the
trailer for the new movie; Barnabas never had
skin that pale.
The lighting was pretty bad in the original TV show, you couldn't tell
what color his skin was. Most of it was B&W anyway, wasn't it?
No, most of it was color.
--
So we're all agreed that Clod is as stupid as Charlie Sheen?
suzeeq
2012-04-23 02:37:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by anim8rFSK
Post by suzeeq
Post by Artis
Post by Ubiquitous
Post by A***@gmail.com
Post by Ubiquitous
Who would have thought
this soap opera could rise again after the failed primetime revival in
1991?
I cringe whenever someone uses the phrase "failed prime time revival
in 1991," after all if the Iraq Kuwait war hadn't taken place at the
time and interrupted the series it might have lasted many years and
been hugely successful.
One years earlier or one year later and it might have survived much
longer.
I don't think the Gulf War had any significant impact on the 1991
revival. It was pretty dreadful, IMHO.
--
"If Barack Obama isn't careful, he will become the Jimmy Carter of the
21st century."
Yes, the 1991 edition was really bad. I am worried after seeing the
trailer for the new movie; Barnabas never had
skin that pale.
The lighting was pretty bad in the original TV show, you couldn't tell
what color his skin was. Most of it was B&W anyway, wasn't it?
No, most of it was color.
It's been too many years... but I do remember most of the scenes were
dark, even the indoor ones.
anim8rFSK
2012-04-23 03:33:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by suzeeq
Post by anim8rFSK
Post by suzeeq
Post by Artis
Post by Ubiquitous
Post by A***@gmail.com
Post by Ubiquitous
Who would have thought
this soap opera could rise again after the failed primetime revival in
1991?
I cringe whenever someone uses the phrase "failed prime time revival
in 1991," after all if the Iraq Kuwait war hadn't taken place at the
time and interrupted the series it might have lasted many years and
been hugely successful.
One years earlier or one year later and it might have survived much
longer.
I don't think the Gulf War had any significant impact on the 1991
revival. It was pretty dreadful, IMHO.
--
"If Barack Obama isn't careful, he will become the Jimmy Carter of the
21st century."
Yes, the 1991 edition was really bad. I am worried after seeing the
trailer for the new movie; Barnabas never had
skin that pale.
The lighting was pretty bad in the original TV show, you couldn't tell
what color his skin was. Most of it was B&W anyway, wasn't it?
No, most of it was color.
It's been too many years... but I do remember most of the scenes were
dark, even the indoor ones.
Well, it was all shot on sets on video tape. But Barnabas was the same
color as everybody else.
--
So we're all agreed that Clod is as stupid as Charlie Sheen?
Kishin
2012-04-23 05:20:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by anim8rFSK
Post by suzeeq
Post by anim8rFSK
Post by suzeeq
Post by Artis
Post by Ubiquitous
Post by A***@gmail.com
Post by Ubiquitous
Who would have thought
this soap opera could rise again after the failed primetime revival in
1991?
I cringe whenever someone uses the phrase "failed prime time revival
in 1991," after all if the Iraq Kuwait war hadn't taken place at the
time and interrupted the series it might have lasted many years and
been hugely successful.
One years earlier or one year later and it might have survived much
longer.
I don't think the Gulf War had any significant impact on the 1991
revival. It was pretty dreadful, IMHO.
--
"If Barack Obama isn't careful, he will become the Jimmy Carter of the
21st century."
Yes, the 1991 edition was really bad. I am worried after seeing the
trailer for the new movie; Barnabas never had
skin that pale.
The lighting was pretty bad in the original TV show, you couldn't tell
what color his skin was. Most of it was B&W anyway, wasn't it?
No, most of it was color.
It's been too many years... but I do remember most of the scenes were
dark, even the indoor ones.
Well, it was all shot on sets on video tape. But Barnabas was the same
color as everybody else.
I could be wrong, but I thought I read somewhere that the vamps in DS
were required to stay out of the sun, so as to be pale. Sorry I can't
remember where, but I've read most of the DS books, and lots of stuff
online.
--
Kishin
anim8rFSK
2012-04-23 13:47:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kishin
Post by anim8rFSK
Post by suzeeq
Post by anim8rFSK
Post by suzeeq
Post by Artis
Post by Ubiquitous
Post by A***@gmail.com
Post by Ubiquitous
Who would have thought
this soap opera could rise again after the failed primetime revival in
1991?
I cringe whenever someone uses the phrase "failed prime time revival
in 1991," after all if the Iraq Kuwait war hadn't taken place at the
time and interrupted the series it might have lasted many years and
been hugely successful.
One years earlier or one year later and it might have survived much
longer.
I don't think the Gulf War had any significant impact on the 1991
revival. It was pretty dreadful, IMHO.
--
"If Barack Obama isn't careful, he will become the Jimmy Carter of the
21st century."
Yes, the 1991 edition was really bad. I am worried after seeing the
trailer for the new movie; Barnabas never had
skin that pale.
The lighting was pretty bad in the original TV show, you couldn't tell
what color his skin was. Most of it was B&W anyway, wasn't it?
No, most of it was color.
It's been too many years... but I do remember most of the scenes were
dark, even the indoor ones.
Well, it was all shot on sets on video tape. But Barnabas was the same
color as everybody else.
I could be wrong, but I thought I read somewhere that the vamps in DS
were required to stay out of the sun, so as to be pale. Sorry I can't
remember where, but I've read most of the DS books, and lots of stuff
online.
Yes and no; DS vamps did in fact avoid sunlight, but weren't any paler
than anybody else. Hell, all these people lived in New England fog!
It's not like he was out in Vega$ or something. :)
--
So we're all agreed that Clod is as stupid as Charlie Sheen?
Dragon Lady
2012-05-04 05:10:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by anim8rFSK
Post by suzeeq
Post by anim8rFSK
Post by suzeeq
Post by Artis
Post by Ubiquitous
Post by A***@gmail.com
Post by Ubiquitous
Who would have thought
this soap opera could rise again after the failed primetime revival in
1991?
I cringe whenever someone uses the phrase "failed prime time revival
in 1991," after all if the Iraq Kuwait war hadn't taken place at the
time and interrupted the series it might have lasted many years and
been hugely successful.
One years earlier or one year later and it might have survived much
longer.
I don't think the Gulf War had any significant impact on the 1991
revival. It was pretty dreadful, IMHO.
--
"If Barack Obama isn't careful, he will become the Jimmy Carter of the
21st century."
Yes, the 1991 edition was really bad. I am worried after seeing the
trailer for the new movie; Barnabas never had
skin that pale.
The lighting was pretty bad in the original TV show, you couldn't tell
what color his skin was. Most of it was B&W anyway, wasn't it?
No, most of it was color.
It's been too many years... but I do remember most of the scenes were
dark, even the indoor ones.
Well, it was all shot on sets on video tape. But Barnabas was the same
color as everybody else.
I could be wrong, but I thought I read somewhere that the vamps in DS were
required to stay out of the sun, so as to be pale. Sorry I can't remember
where, but I've read most of the DS books, and lots of stuff online.
He didn't look any paler than anybody else. Besides, in the new movie, he's
not pale. He's white. He looks like he's wearing clown makeup. The whole
point of vampires is that they look just like ordinary people. Why else
would anyone let them get close enough to get bitten?
Kishin
2012-05-04 12:44:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kishin
Post by suzeeq
Post by anim8rFSK
Post by suzeeq
Post by Ubiquitous
Post by A***@gmail.com
Post by Ubiquitous
Who would have thought
this soap opera could rise again after the failed primetime revival in
1991?
I cringe whenever someone uses the phrase "failed prime time revival
in 1991," after all if the Iraq Kuwait war hadn't taken place at the
time and interrupted the series it might have lasted many years and
been hugely successful.
One years earlier or one year later and it might have survived much
longer.
I don't think the Gulf War had any significant impact on the 1991
revival. It was pretty dreadful, IMHO.
--
"If Barack Obama isn't careful, he will become the Jimmy Carter of the
21st century."
Yes, the 1991 edition was really bad. I am worried after seeing the
trailer for the new movie; Barnabas never had
skin that pale.
The lighting was pretty bad in the original TV show, you couldn't tell
what color his skin was. Most of it was B&W anyway, wasn't it?
No, most of it was color.
It's been too many years... but I do remember most of the scenes were
dark, even the indoor ones.
Well, it was all shot on sets on video tape. But Barnabas was the same
color as everybody else.
I could be wrong, but I thought I read somewhere that the vamps in DS
were required to stay out of the sun, so as to be pale. Sorry I can't
remember where, but I've read most of the DS books, and lots of stuff
online.
He didn't look any paler than anybody else. Besides, in the new movie,
he's not pale. He's white. He looks like he's wearing clown makeup. The
whole point of vampires is that they look just like ordinary people. Why
else would anyone let them get close enough to get bitten?
Traditional vampires should be pale, as they are never exposed to
sunlight. But you're right about movie Barnie. He definitely could not
pass for normal. I'm pretty pale, myself, but I have much more color
than movie Barnie does. I would imagine any normal white person would
have more color than him. Real human skin doesn't come in that color.
--
Kishin
anim8rFSK
2012-05-04 14:43:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kishin
Post by Kishin
Post by suzeeq
Post by anim8rFSK
Post by suzeeq
Post by Ubiquitous
Post by A***@gmail.com
Post by Ubiquitous
Who would have thought
this soap opera could rise again after the failed primetime
revival in
1991?
I cringe whenever someone uses the phrase "failed prime time revival
in 1991," after all if the Iraq Kuwait war hadn't taken place at the
time and interrupted the series it might have lasted many years and
been hugely successful.
One years earlier or one year later and it might have survived much
longer.
I don't think the Gulf War had any significant impact on the 1991
revival. It was pretty dreadful, IMHO.
--
"If Barack Obama isn't careful, he will become the Jimmy Carter of the
21st century."
Yes, the 1991 edition was really bad. I am worried after seeing the
trailer for the new movie; Barnabas never had
skin that pale.
The lighting was pretty bad in the original TV show, you couldn't tell
what color his skin was. Most of it was B&W anyway, wasn't it?
No, most of it was color.
It's been too many years... but I do remember most of the scenes were
dark, even the indoor ones.
Well, it was all shot on sets on video tape. But Barnabas was the same
color as everybody else.
I could be wrong, but I thought I read somewhere that the vamps in DS
were required to stay out of the sun, so as to be pale. Sorry I can't
remember where, but I've read most of the DS books, and lots of stuff
online.
He didn't look any paler than anybody else. Besides, in the new movie,
he's not pale. He's white. He looks like he's wearing clown makeup. The
whole point of vampires is that they look just like ordinary people. Why
else would anyone let them get close enough to get bitten?
Traditional vampires should be pale, as they are never exposed to
sunlight.
What's your assumption here? That they start their vampire 'life' at
the tan level they had at death, and gradually lose it from lack of
exposure to the sun? If you don't age or gain weight, why would your
skin color wane?

But you're right about movie Barnie. He definitely could not
Post by Kishin
pass for normal. I'm pretty pale, myself, but I have much more color
than movie Barnie does. I would imagine any normal white person would
have more color than him. Real human skin doesn't come in that color.
--
So we're all agreed that Clod is as stupid as Charlie Sheen?
Kishin
2012-05-04 15:40:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by anim8rFSK
Post by Kishin
Post by Kishin
Post by suzeeq
Post by anim8rFSK
Post by suzeeq
Post by Ubiquitous
Post by A***@gmail.com
Post by Ubiquitous
Who would have thought
this soap opera could rise again after the failed primetime
revival in
1991?
I cringe whenever someone uses the phrase "failed prime time revival
in 1991," after all if the Iraq Kuwait war hadn't taken place at the
time and interrupted the series it might have lasted many years and
been hugely successful.
One years earlier or one year later and it might have survived much
longer.
I don't think the Gulf War had any significant impact on the 1991
revival. It was pretty dreadful, IMHO.
--
"If Barack Obama isn't careful, he will become the Jimmy Carter of the
21st century."
Yes, the 1991 edition was really bad. I am worried after seeing the
trailer for the new movie; Barnabas never had
skin that pale.
The lighting was pretty bad in the original TV show, you couldn't tell
what color his skin was. Most of it was B&W anyway, wasn't it?
No, most of it was color.
It's been too many years... but I do remember most of the scenes were
dark, even the indoor ones.
Well, it was all shot on sets on video tape. But Barnabas was the same
color as everybody else.
I could be wrong, but I thought I read somewhere that the vamps in DS
were required to stay out of the sun, so as to be pale. Sorry I can't
remember where, but I've read most of the DS books, and lots of stuff
online.
He didn't look any paler than anybody else. Besides, in the new movie,
he's not pale. He's white. He looks like he's wearing clown makeup. The
whole point of vampires is that they look just like ordinary people. Why
else would anyone let them get close enough to get bitten?
Traditional vampires should be pale, as they are never exposed to
sunlight.
What's your assumption here? That they start their vampire 'life' at
the tan level they had at death, and gradually lose it from lack of
exposure to the sun? If you don't age or gain weight, why would your
skin color wane?
That's a fair argument, but I suspect my assumption is the more common
in the genre.

In the novel "Dracula," his color was described as very pale, unless
he'd recently fed, in which case he became flush. Dracula is one of the
main archetypes for modern vampire fiction.

"For the rest, his ears were pale, and at the tops extremely pointed.
The chin was broad and strong, and the cheeks firm though thin. The
general effect was one of extraordinary pallor."

--

Kishin
Marcovaldo
2012-05-04 18:37:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kishin
Post by anim8rFSK
Post by Kishin
Post by Kishin
Post by suzeeq
Post by anim8rFSK
Post by suzeeq
Post by Ubiquitous
Post by A***@gmail.com
Post by Ubiquitous
Who would have thought
this soap opera could rise again after the failed primetime
revival in
1991?
I cringe whenever someone uses the phrase "failed prime time
revival
in 1991," after all if the Iraq Kuwait war hadn't taken place
at the
time and interrupted the series it might have lasted many years and
been hugely successful.
One years earlier or one year later and it might have survived much
longer.
I don't think the Gulf War had any significant impact on the 1991
revival. It was pretty dreadful, IMHO.
--
"If Barack Obama isn't careful, he will become the Jimmy Carter
of the
21st century."
Yes, the 1991 edition was really bad. I am worried after seeing the
trailer for the new movie; Barnabas never had
skin that pale.
The lighting was pretty bad in the original TV show, you couldn't tell
what color his skin was. Most of it was B&W anyway, wasn't it?
No, most of it was color.
It's been too many years... but I do remember most of the scenes were
dark, even the indoor ones.
Well, it was all shot on sets on video tape. But Barnabas was the same
color as everybody else.
I could be wrong, but I thought I read somewhere that the vamps in DS
were required to stay out of the sun, so as to be pale. Sorry I can't
remember where, but I've read most of the DS books, and lots of stuff
online.
He didn't look any paler than anybody else. Besides, in the new movie,
he's not pale. He's white. He looks like he's wearing clown makeup. The
whole point of vampires is that they look just like ordinary people. Why
else would anyone let them get close enough to get bitten?
Traditional vampires should be pale, as they are never exposed to
sunlight.
What's your assumption here? That they start their vampire 'life' at
the tan level they had at death, and gradually lose it from lack of
exposure to the sun? If you don't age or gain weight, why would your
skin color wane?
That's a fair argument, but I suspect my assumption is the more common
in the genre.
In the novel "Dracula," his color was described as very pale, unless
he'd recently fed, in which case he became flush. Dracula is one of the
main archetypes for modern vampire fiction.
"For the rest, his ears were pale, and at the tops extremely pointed.
The chin was broad and strong, and the cheeks firm though thin. The
general effect was one of extraordinary pallor."
His eyes — how they twinkled! his dimples how merry!
His cheeks were like roses, his nose like a cherry!

Oh, wait, wrong reference.
anim8rFSK
2012-05-04 21:05:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kishin
Post by anim8rFSK
Post by Kishin
Post by Kishin
Post by suzeeq
Post by anim8rFSK
Post by suzeeq
Post by Ubiquitous
Post by A***@gmail.com
Post by Ubiquitous
Who would have thought
this soap opera could rise again after the failed primetime
revival in
1991?
I cringe whenever someone uses the phrase "failed prime time
revival
in 1991," after all if the Iraq Kuwait war hadn't taken place
at the
time and interrupted the series it might have lasted many years and
been hugely successful.
One years earlier or one year later and it might have survived much
longer.
I don't think the Gulf War had any significant impact on the 1991
revival. It was pretty dreadful, IMHO.
--
"If Barack Obama isn't careful, he will become the Jimmy Carter
of the
21st century."
Yes, the 1991 edition was really bad. I am worried after seeing the
trailer for the new movie; Barnabas never had
skin that pale.
The lighting was pretty bad in the original TV show, you couldn't tell
what color his skin was. Most of it was B&W anyway, wasn't it?
No, most of it was color.
It's been too many years... but I do remember most of the scenes were
dark, even the indoor ones.
Well, it was all shot on sets on video tape. But Barnabas was the same
color as everybody else.
I could be wrong, but I thought I read somewhere that the vamps in DS
were required to stay out of the sun, so as to be pale. Sorry I can't
remember where, but I've read most of the DS books, and lots of stuff
online.
He didn't look any paler than anybody else. Besides, in the new movie,
he's not pale. He's white. He looks like he's wearing clown makeup. The
whole point of vampires is that they look just like ordinary people. Why
else would anyone let them get close enough to get bitten?
Traditional vampires should be pale, as they are never exposed to
sunlight.
What's your assumption here? That they start their vampire 'life' at
the tan level they had at death, and gradually lose it from lack of
exposure to the sun? If you don't age or gain weight, why would your
skin color wane?
That's a fair argument, but I suspect my assumption is the more common
in the genre.
In the novel "Dracula," his color was described as very pale, unless
he'd recently fed, in which case he became flush. Dracula is one of the
main archetypes for modern vampire fiction.
Right. He aged too when he wasn't feeding, and 'youthened' when he was.
Post by Kishin
"For the rest, his ears were pale, and at the tops extremely pointed.
The chin was broad and strong, and the cheeks firm though thin. The
general effect was one of extraordinary pallor."
It's a strange conceit though. Dracula's appearance is apparently just
some sort of mental projection, and yet he can't see himself in the
mirror, so why would it change?
--
So we're all agreed that Clod is as stupid as Charlie Sheen?
Dragon Lady
2012-05-07 00:51:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by anim8rFSK
Post by Kishin
Post by Kishin
Post by suzeeq
Post by anim8rFSK
Post by suzeeq
Post by Ubiquitous
On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 14:06:16 -0400,
Post by Ubiquitous
Who would have thought
this soap opera could rise again after the failed primetime
revival in
1991?
I cringe whenever someone uses the phrase "failed prime time revival
in 1991," after all if the Iraq Kuwait war hadn't taken place at the
time and interrupted the series it might have lasted many years and
been hugely successful.
One years earlier or one year later and it might have survived much
longer.
I don't think the Gulf War had any significant impact on the 1991
revival. It was pretty dreadful, IMHO.
--
"If Barack Obama isn't careful, he will become the Jimmy Carter of the
21st century."
Yes, the 1991 edition was really bad. I am worried after seeing the
trailer for the new movie; Barnabas never had
skin that pale.
The lighting was pretty bad in the original TV show, you couldn't tell
what color his skin was. Most of it was B&W anyway, wasn't it?
No, most of it was color.
It's been too many years... but I do remember most of the scenes were
dark, even the indoor ones.
Well, it was all shot on sets on video tape. But Barnabas was the same
color as everybody else.
I could be wrong, but I thought I read somewhere that the vamps in DS
were required to stay out of the sun, so as to be pale. Sorry I can't
remember where, but I've read most of the DS books, and lots of stuff
online.
He didn't look any paler than anybody else. Besides, in the new movie,
he's not pale. He's white. He looks like he's wearing clown makeup. The
whole point of vampires is that they look just like ordinary people. Why
else would anyone let them get close enough to get bitten?
Traditional vampires should be pale, as they are never exposed to
sunlight.
What's your assumption here? That they start their vampire 'life' at
the tan level they had at death, and gradually lose it from lack of
exposure to the sun? If you don't age or gain weight, why would your
skin color wane?
Because your blood in no longer circulating, at least not like it should.
Traditional vampires have no discernable heartbeat, although I've always
assumed it must be doing *something*, otherwise all their blood would pool
in whatever body part(s) were touching the earth.
anim8rFSK
2012-05-07 03:27:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dragon Lady
Post by anim8rFSK
Post by Kishin
Post by Kishin
Post by suzeeq
Post by anim8rFSK
Post by suzeeq
Post by Ubiquitous
On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 14:06:16 -0400,
Post by Ubiquitous
Who would have thought
this soap opera could rise again after the failed primetime
revival in
1991?
I cringe whenever someone uses the phrase "failed prime time
revival
in 1991," after all if the Iraq Kuwait war hadn't taken place
at the
time and interrupted the series it might have lasted many years
and
been hugely successful.
One years earlier or one year later and it might have survived
much
longer.
I don't think the Gulf War had any significant impact on the 1991
revival. It was pretty dreadful, IMHO.
--
"If Barack Obama isn't careful, he will become the Jimmy Carter
of the
21st century."
Yes, the 1991 edition was really bad. I am worried after seeing the
trailer for the new movie; Barnabas never had
skin that pale.
The lighting was pretty bad in the original TV show, you couldn't tell
what color his skin was. Most of it was B&W anyway, wasn't it?
No, most of it was color.
It's been too many years... but I do remember most of the scenes were
dark, even the indoor ones.
Well, it was all shot on sets on video tape. But Barnabas was the same
color as everybody else.
I could be wrong, but I thought I read somewhere that the vamps in DS
were required to stay out of the sun, so as to be pale. Sorry I can't
remember where, but I've read most of the DS books, and lots of stuff
online.
He didn't look any paler than anybody else. Besides, in the new movie,
he's not pale. He's white. He looks like he's wearing clown makeup. The
whole point of vampires is that they look just like ordinary people. Why
else would anyone let them get close enough to get bitten?
Traditional vampires should be pale, as they are never exposed to
sunlight.
What's your assumption here? That they start their vampire 'life' at
the tan level they had at death, and gradually lose it from lack of
exposure to the sun? If you don't age or gain weight, why would your
skin color wane?
Because your blood in no longer circulating, at least not like it should.
Traditional vampires have no discernable heartbeat, although I've always
assumed it must be doing *something*, otherwise all their blood would pool
in whatever body part(s) were touching the earth.
And they usually can be taken down by tranqs (certainly Buffy vamps
could) which sort of implies blood circulation.
--
So we're all agreed that Clod is as stupid as Charlie Sheen?
Mason Barge
2012-05-07 19:17:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dragon Lady
Post by anim8rFSK
Post by Kishin
Post by Kishin
Post by suzeeq
Post by anim8rFSK
Post by suzeeq
Post by Ubiquitous
On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 14:06:16 -0400,
Post by Ubiquitous
Who would have thought
this soap opera could rise again after the failed primetime
revival in
1991?
I cringe whenever someone uses the phrase "failed prime time
revival
in 1991," after all if the Iraq Kuwait war hadn't taken place
at the
time and interrupted the series it might have lasted many years and
been hugely successful.
One years earlier or one year later and it might have survived much
longer.
I don't think the Gulf War had any significant impact on the 1991
revival. It was pretty dreadful, IMHO.
--
"If Barack Obama isn't careful, he will become the Jimmy Carter
of the
21st century."
Yes, the 1991 edition was really bad. I am worried after seeing the
trailer for the new movie; Barnabas never had
skin that pale.
The lighting was pretty bad in the original TV show, you couldn't tell
what color his skin was. Most of it was B&W anyway, wasn't it?
No, most of it was color.
It's been too many years... but I do remember most of the scenes were
dark, even the indoor ones.
Well, it was all shot on sets on video tape. But Barnabas was the same
color as everybody else.
I could be wrong, but I thought I read somewhere that the vamps in DS
were required to stay out of the sun, so as to be pale. Sorry I can't
remember where, but I've read most of the DS books, and lots of stuff
online.
He didn't look any paler than anybody else. Besides, in the new movie,
he's not pale. He's white. He looks like he's wearing clown makeup. The
whole point of vampires is that they look just like ordinary people. Why
else would anyone let them get close enough to get bitten?
Traditional vampires should be pale, as they are never exposed to
sunlight.
What's your assumption here? That they start their vampire 'life' at
the tan level they had at death, and gradually lose it from lack of
exposure to the sun? If you don't age or gain weight, why would your
skin color wane?
Because your blood in no longer circulating, at least not like it should.
Traditional vampires have no discernable heartbeat, although I've always
assumed it must be doing *something*, otherwise all their blood would pool
in whatever body part(s) were touching the earth.
Heh. Well at some point I always spoil the fun by pointing out that
vampires are essentially ridiculous and the rules of a vampire story
cannot bear too much examination.

I've always wondered, if you can only "kill" a vampire by staking it
through the heart, what would happen if the body was vaporized by, say,
standing next to an atomic bomb? Or if it is made of chemicals, let's put
the bottom half in a vat of something utterly corrosive that will break it
down at the molecular level.
Alane Sue
2012-05-07 23:03:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mason Barge
Post by Dragon Lady
Post by anim8rFSK
Post by Kishin
Post by Kishin
Post by suzeeq
Post by anim8rFSK
Post by suzeeq
Post by Ubiquitous
On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 14:06:16 -0400,
Post by Ubiquitous
Who would have thought
this soap opera could rise again after the failed primetime
revival in
1991?
I cringe whenever someone uses the phrase "failed prime time
revival
in 1991," after all if the Iraq Kuwait war hadn't taken place
at the
time and interrupted the series it might have lasted many years and
been hugely successful.
One years earlier or one year later and it might have survived much
longer.
I don't think the Gulf War had any significant impact on the 1991
revival. It was pretty dreadful, IMHO.
--
"If Barack Obama isn't careful, he will become the Jimmy Carter
of the
21st century."
Yes, the 1991 edition was really bad. I am worried after seeing the
trailer for the new movie; Barnabas never had
skin that pale.
The lighting was pretty bad in the original TV show, you couldn't tell
what color his skin was. Most of it was B&W anyway, wasn't it?
No, most of it was color.
It's been too many years... but I do remember most of the scenes were
dark, even the indoor ones.
Well, it was all shot on sets on video tape. But Barnabas was the same
color as everybody else.
I could be wrong, but I thought I read somewhere that the vamps in DS
were required to stay out of the sun, so as to be pale. Sorry I can't
remember where, but I've read most of the DS books, and lots of stuff
online.
He didn't look any paler than anybody else. Besides, in the new movie,
he's not pale. He's white. He looks like he's wearing clown makeup. The
whole point of vampires is that they look just like ordinary people. Why
else would anyone let them get close enough to get bitten?
Traditional vampires should be pale, as they are never exposed to
sunlight.
What's your assumption here? That they start their vampire 'life' at
the tan level they had at death, and gradually lose it from lack of
exposure to the sun? If you don't age or gain weight, why would your
skin color wane?
Because your blood in no longer circulating, at least not like it should.
Traditional vampires have no discernable heartbeat, although I've always
assumed it must be doing *something*, otherwise all their blood would pool
in whatever body part(s) were touching the earth.
Heh. Well at some point I always spoil the fun by pointing out that
vampires are essentially ridiculous and the rules of a vampire story
cannot bear too much examination.
I've always wondered, if you can only "kill" a vampire by staking it
through the heart, what would happen if the body was vaporized by, say,
standing next to an atomic bomb? Or if it is made of chemicals, let's put
the bottom half in a vat of something utterly corrosive that will break it
down at the molecular level.
The vampires in the latest UK series of "Being Human" blew up and stayed
in pieces, so it really depends on who is telling the story.

The thing I've always wondered about is why their clothes aren't
reflected in mirrors.

Alane
Mack A. Damia
2012-05-08 00:07:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alane Sue
Post by Mason Barge
Post by Dragon Lady
Post by anim8rFSK
Post by Kishin
Post by Kishin
Post by suzeeq
Post by anim8rFSK
Post by suzeeq
Post by Ubiquitous
On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 14:06:16 -0400,
Post by Ubiquitous
Who would have thought
this soap opera could rise again after the failed primetime
revival in
1991?
I cringe whenever someone uses the phrase "failed prime time
revival
in 1991," after all if the Iraq Kuwait war hadn't taken place
at the
time and interrupted the series it might have lasted many years
and
been hugely successful.
One years earlier or one year later and it might have survived
much
longer.
I don't think the Gulf War had any significant impact on the 1991
revival. It was pretty dreadful, IMHO.
--
"If Barack Obama isn't careful, he will become the Jimmy Carter
of the
21st century."
Yes, the 1991 edition was really bad. I am worried after seeing the
trailer for the new movie; Barnabas never had
skin that pale.
The lighting was pretty bad in the original TV show, you couldn't tell
what color his skin was. Most of it was B&W anyway, wasn't it?
No, most of it was color.
It's been too many years... but I do remember most of the scenes were
dark, even the indoor ones.
Well, it was all shot on sets on video tape. But Barnabas was the same
color as everybody else.
I could be wrong, but I thought I read somewhere that the vamps in DS
were required to stay out of the sun, so as to be pale. Sorry I can't
remember where, but I've read most of the DS books, and lots of stuff
online.
He didn't look any paler than anybody else. Besides, in the new movie,
he's not pale. He's white. He looks like he's wearing clown makeup. The
whole point of vampires is that they look just like ordinary people. Why
else would anyone let them get close enough to get bitten?
Traditional vampires should be pale, as they are never exposed to
sunlight.
What's your assumption here? That they start their vampire 'life' at
the tan level they had at death, and gradually lose it from lack of
exposure to the sun? If you don't age or gain weight, why would your
skin color wane?
Because your blood in no longer circulating, at least not like it should.
Traditional vampires have no discernable heartbeat, although I've always
assumed it must be doing *something*, otherwise all their blood would pool
in whatever body part(s) were touching the earth.
Heh. Well at some point I always spoil the fun by pointing out that
vampires are essentially ridiculous and the rules of a vampire story
cannot bear too much examination.
I've always wondered, if you can only "kill" a vampire by staking it
through the heart, what would happen if the body was vaporized by, say,
standing next to an atomic bomb? Or if it is made of chemicals, let's put
the bottom half in a vat of something utterly corrosive that will break it
down at the molecular level.
The vampires in the latest UK series of "Being Human" blew up and stayed
in pieces, so it really depends on who is telling the story.
The thing I've always wondered about is why their clothes aren't
reflected in mirrors.
The essence of horror and fantasy is the suspension of disbelief.
Daryl
2012-05-08 00:22:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mack A. Damia
Post by Alane Sue
Post by Mason Barge
Post by Dragon Lady
Post by anim8rFSK
Post by Kishin
Post by Kishin
Post by suzeeq
Post by anim8rFSK
Post by suzeeq
Post by Ubiquitous
On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 14:06:16 -0400,
Post by Ubiquitous
Who would have thought
this soap opera could rise again after the failed primetime
revival in
1991?
I cringe whenever someone uses the phrase "failed prime time
revival
in 1991," after all if the Iraq Kuwait war hadn't taken place
at the
time and interrupted the series it might have lasted many years
and
been hugely successful.
One years earlier or one year later and it might have survived
much
longer.
I don't think the Gulf War had any significant impact on the 1991
revival. It was pretty dreadful, IMHO.
--
"If Barack Obama isn't careful, he will become the Jimmy Carter
of the
21st century."
Yes, the 1991 edition was really bad. I am worried after seeing the
trailer for the new movie; Barnabas never had
skin that pale.
The lighting was pretty bad in the original TV show, you couldn't
tell
what color his skin was. Most of it was B&W anyway, wasn't it?
No, most of it was color.
It's been too many years... but I do remember most of the scenes were
dark, even the indoor ones.
Well, it was all shot on sets on video tape. But Barnabas was the same
color as everybody else.
I could be wrong, but I thought I read somewhere that the vamps in DS
were required to stay out of the sun, so as to be pale. Sorry I can't
remember where, but I've read most of the DS books, and lots of stuff
online.
He didn't look any paler than anybody else. Besides, in the new movie,
he's not pale. He's white. He looks like he's wearing clown makeup. The
whole point of vampires is that they look just like ordinary people. Why
else would anyone let them get close enough to get bitten?
Traditional vampires should be pale, as they are never exposed to
sunlight.
What's your assumption here? That they start their vampire 'life' at
the tan level they had at death, and gradually lose it from lack of
exposure to the sun? If you don't age or gain weight, why would your
skin color wane?
Because your blood in no longer circulating, at least not like it should.
Traditional vampires have no discernable heartbeat, although I've always
assumed it must be doing *something*, otherwise all their blood would pool
in whatever body part(s) were touching the earth.
Heh. Well at some point I always spoil the fun by pointing out that
vampires are essentially ridiculous and the rules of a vampire story
cannot bear too much examination.
I've always wondered, if you can only "kill" a vampire by staking it
through the heart, what would happen if the body was vaporized by, say,
standing next to an atomic bomb? Or if it is made of chemicals, let's put
the bottom half in a vat of something utterly corrosive that will break it
down at the molecular level.
The vampires in the latest UK series of "Being Human" blew up and stayed
in pieces, so it really depends on who is telling the story.
The thing I've always wondered about is why their clothes aren't
reflected in mirrors.
The essence of horror and fantasy is the suspension of disbelief.
A huge hit for the Brits would be where they are not invisible in
the mirrors but their clothes are.
--
http://tvmoviesforfree.com
for free movies and Nostalgic TV. Tons of Military shows and
programs.
Howard Brazee
2012-05-08 00:39:10 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 07 May 2012 17:07:05 -0700, Mack A. Damia
Post by Mack A. Damia
Post by Alane Sue
The thing I've always wondered about is why their clothes aren't
reflected in mirrors.
The essence of horror and fantasy is the suspension of disbelief.
Sure. I want to know what rules exist in a fantasy story then have
the fantasy stick to them.

Better yet, give an explanation for the rules. I haven't seen an
explanation for that rule. But many of the old fantasies have
characteristics added over the years that become standard (See Santa
Claus).

The movie of The Shadow gave him invisibility by the ability to cloud
men's minds - but his footprints in the water were visible. No,
that doesn't work.
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."

- James Madison
Mack A. Damia
2012-05-08 00:54:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Howard Brazee
On Mon, 07 May 2012 17:07:05 -0700, Mack A. Damia
Post by Mack A. Damia
Post by Alane Sue
The thing I've always wondered about is why their clothes aren't
reflected in mirrors.
The essence of horror and fantasy is the suspension of disbelief.
Sure. I want to know what rules exist in a fantasy story then have
the fantasy stick to them.
Better yet, give an explanation for the rules. I haven't seen an
explanation for that rule. But many of the old fantasies have
characteristics added over the years that become standard (See Santa
Claus).
The movie of The Shadow gave him invisibility by the ability to cloud
men's minds - but his footprints in the water were visible. No,
that doesn't work.
The lack of rules is a suspension in itself. Who would set the rules
or explanations? The wizard behind the curtain doesn't exist - except
in your mind.
--
Howard Brazee
2012-05-08 02:14:26 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 07 May 2012 17:54:11 -0700, Mack A. Damia
Post by Mack A. Damia
Post by Howard Brazee
Sure. I want to know what rules exist in a fantasy story then have
the fantasy stick to them.
The lack of rules is a suspension in itself. Who would set the rules
or explanations? The wizard behind the curtain doesn't exist - except
in your mind.
I'm not going to suspend that much. Random plots don't work for me.
And it's not that hard to fix.
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."

- James Madison
Mack A. Damia
2012-05-08 04:30:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Howard Brazee
On Mon, 07 May 2012 17:54:11 -0700, Mack A. Damia
Post by Mack A. Damia
Post by Howard Brazee
Sure. I want to know what rules exist in a fantasy story then have
the fantasy stick to them.
The lack of rules is a suspension in itself. Who would set the rules
or explanations? The wizard behind the curtain doesn't exist - except
in your mind.
I'm not going to suspend that much. Random plots don't work for me.
And it's not that hard to fix.
The "rules" are a part of the novel or the screenplay. They exist
without question.

Bram Stoker had one set of rules for Dracula and his vampires; Anne
Rice has another set of rules for her vampires.
--
Dragon Lady
2012-05-08 03:26:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alane Sue
Post by Mason Barge
I've always wondered, if you can only "kill" a vampire by staking it
through the heart, what would happen if the body was vaporized by, say,
standing next to an atomic bomb? Or if it is made of chemicals, let's put
the bottom half in a vat of something utterly corrosive that will break it
down at the molecular level.
The vampires in the latest UK series of "Being Human" blew up and stayed
in pieces, so it really depends on who is telling the story.
The thing I've always wondered about is why their clothes aren't reflected
in mirrors.
For that matter, why aren't their bodies reflected in mirrors? It makes no
sense.
anim8rFSK
2012-05-08 06:22:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dragon Lady
Post by Alane Sue
Post by Mason Barge
I've always wondered, if you can only "kill" a vampire by staking it
through the heart, what would happen if the body was vaporized by, say,
standing next to an atomic bomb? Or if it is made of chemicals, let's put
the bottom half in a vat of something utterly corrosive that will break it
down at the molecular level.
The vampires in the latest UK series of "Being Human" blew up and stayed
in pieces, so it really depends on who is telling the story.
The thing I've always wondered about is why their clothes aren't reflected
in mirrors.
For that matter, why aren't their bodies reflected in mirrors? It makes no
sense.
The best theory I ever heard was, it's the silver.
--
So we're all agreed that Clod is as stupid as Charlie Sheen?
Duggy
2012-05-08 03:29:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alane Sue
The vampires in the latest UK series of "Being Human" blew up and stayed
in pieces, so it really depends on who is telling the story.
Very true:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_vampire_traits

===
= DUG.
===
anim8rFSK
2012-05-08 01:33:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mason Barge
Post by Dragon Lady
Post by anim8rFSK
Post by Kishin
Post by Kishin
Post by suzeeq
Post by anim8rFSK
Post by suzeeq
Post by Ubiquitous
On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 14:06:16 -0400,
Post by Ubiquitous
Who would have thought
this soap opera could rise again after the failed primetime
revival in
1991?
I cringe whenever someone uses the phrase "failed prime time
revival
in 1991," after all if the Iraq Kuwait war hadn't taken place
at the
time and interrupted the series it might have lasted many years
and
been hugely successful.
One years earlier or one year later and it might have survived
much
longer.
I don't think the Gulf War had any significant impact on the 1991
revival. It was pretty dreadful, IMHO.
--
"If Barack Obama isn't careful, he will become the Jimmy Carter
of the
21st century."
Yes, the 1991 edition was really bad. I am worried after seeing the
trailer for the new movie; Barnabas never had
skin that pale.
The lighting was pretty bad in the original TV show, you couldn't
tell
what color his skin was. Most of it was B&W anyway, wasn't it?
No, most of it was color.
It's been too many years... but I do remember most of the scenes were
dark, even the indoor ones.
Well, it was all shot on sets on video tape. But Barnabas was the same
color as everybody else.
I could be wrong, but I thought I read somewhere that the vamps in DS
were required to stay out of the sun, so as to be pale. Sorry I can't
remember where, but I've read most of the DS books, and lots of stuff
online.
He didn't look any paler than anybody else. Besides, in the new movie,
he's not pale. He's white. He looks like he's wearing clown makeup. The
whole point of vampires is that they look just like ordinary people. Why
else would anyone let them get close enough to get bitten?
Traditional vampires should be pale, as they are never exposed to
sunlight.
What's your assumption here? That they start their vampire 'life' at
the tan level they had at death, and gradually lose it from lack of
exposure to the sun? If you don't age or gain weight, why would your
skin color wane?
Because your blood in no longer circulating, at least not like it should.
Traditional vampires have no discernable heartbeat, although I've always
assumed it must be doing *something*, otherwise all their blood would pool
in whatever body part(s) were touching the earth.
Heh. Well at some point I always spoil the fun by pointing out that
vampires are essentially ridiculous and the rules of a vampire story
cannot bear too much examination.
I've always wondered, if you can only "kill" a vampire by staking it
through the heart, what would happen if the body was vaporized by, say,
standing next to an atomic bomb? Or if it is made of chemicals, let's put
the bottom half in a vat of something utterly corrosive that will break it
down at the molecular level.
There are a lot of problems with the rules. Stoker's Dracula didn't
require *just* a stake through the heart; there was cutting off of heads
and stuffing mouths with garlic and all manner of unpleasantry. Also,
you had to do it with 'things of the Earth' which knives, being metal
and all, apparently aren't, and they do Dracula in all wrong at the end
of the book anyway. One theory (probably mine) is that the stake just
serves to keep you pinned down, although this is at odds with the 'cut
out their heart' school. I think it was Captain Kronos where every
vampire had to be killed a different way ...
--
So we're all agreed that Clod is as stupid as Charlie Sheen?
Duggy
2012-05-08 03:26:32 UTC
Permalink
There are a lot of problems with the rules.  Stoker's Dracula didn't
require *just* a stake through the heart; there was cutting off of heads
and stuffing mouths with garlic and all manner of unpleasantry.  Also,
you had to do it with 'things of the Earth' which knives, being metal
and all, apparently aren't, and they do Dracula in all wrong at the end
of the book anyway.  One theory (probably mine) is that the stake just
serves to keep you pinned down, although this is at odds with the 'cut
out their heart' school.  I think it was Captain Kronos where every
vampire had to be killed a different way ...
I've heard - don't know if there's anything to it - that stake-through-
the-heart was an actual tradition if someone was suspected to have
been a vampire they'd be staked in the coffin to stop them rising. If
that is true, Stoker's using of it makes some sense to pin them down.

===
= DUG.
===
Dragon Lady
2012-05-08 03:23:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mason Barge
Post by Dragon Lady
Post by anim8rFSK
What's your assumption here? That they start their vampire 'life' at
the tan level they had at death, and gradually lose it from lack of
exposure to the sun? If you don't age or gain weight, why would your
skin color wane?
Because your blood in no longer circulating, at least not like it should.
Traditional vampires have no discernable heartbeat, although I've always
assumed it must be doing *something*, otherwise all their blood would pool
in whatever body part(s) were touching the earth.
Heh. Well at some point I always spoil the fun by pointing out that
vampires are essentially ridiculous and the rules of a vampire story
cannot bear too much examination.
I've always wondered, if you can only "kill" a vampire by staking it
through the heart, what would happen if the body was vaporized by, say,
standing next to an atomic bomb? Or if it is made of chemicals, let's put
the bottom half in a vat of something utterly corrosive that will break it
down at the molecular level.
Heh. I've always wanted to know, if their heart isn't beating, why would
staking them through it kill them anyway? :P And why only the bottom half?
Dragon Lady
2012-05-07 00:49:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kishin
He didn't look any paler than anybody else. Besides, in the new movie,
he's not pale. He's white. He looks like he's wearing clown makeup. The
whole point of vampires is that they look just like ordinary people. Why
else would anyone let them get close enough to get bitten?
Traditional vampires should be pale, as they are never exposed to
sunlight. But you're right about movie Barnie. He definitely could not
pass for normal. I'm pretty pale, myself, but I have much more color than
movie Barnie does. I would imagine any normal white person would have more
color than him. Real human skin doesn't come in that color.
Exactly my point. If I were walking down the street (even at night) and saw
someone who looked like that, I'd either run (depending on how spooked I
was) or call the local looney bin to see if one of the inmates was missing.
In either case, he wouldn't get close enough to bite me.
~consul
2012-05-07 21:30:02 UTC
Permalink
He didn't look any paler than anybody else. Besides, in the new movie,
he's not pale. He's white. He looks like he's wearing clown makeup. The
whole point of vampires is that they look just like ordinary people. Why
else would anyone let them get close enough to get bitten?
Traditional vampires should be pale, as they are never exposed to sunlight. But you're right about movie Barnie. He definitely could not pass for normal. I'm pretty pale, myself, but I have much more color than movie Barnie does. I would imagine any normal white person would have more color than him. Real human skin doesn't come in that color.
I have only seen the trailors, though I plan on seeing the movie. Personally, I've seen folks do the white powder on their face, though it seems to be for sun protection. Asian women predominantely that I saw. My fiance is very pale and she has super white skin.
--
"... respect, all good works are not done by only good folk. For here, at the end of all things, we shall do what needs to be done."
--till next time, consul -x- <<poetry.dolphins-cove.com>>
Dragon Lady
2012-05-08 03:25:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by ~consul
Post by Kishin
He didn't look any paler than anybody else. Besides, in the new movie,
he's not pale. He's white. He looks like he's wearing clown makeup. The
whole point of vampires is that they look just like ordinary people. Why
else would anyone let them get close enough to get bitten?
Traditional vampires should be pale, as they are never exposed to
sunlight. But you're right about movie Barnie. He definitely could not
pass for normal. I'm pretty pale, myself, but I have much more color than
movie Barnie does. I would imagine any normal white person would have
more color than him. Real human skin doesn't come in that color.
I have only seen the trailors, though I plan on seeing the movie.
Personally, I've seen folks do the white powder on their face, though it
seems to be for sun protection. Asian women predominantely that I saw. My
fiance is very pale and she has super white skin.
*Nobody* is that white unless they are wearing clown makeup. The stuff you
see them wearing for sun protection is probably lotion, not powder.
Harold Groot
2012-05-08 11:52:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dragon Lady
Post by ~consul
Post by Kishin
He didn't look any paler than anybody else. Besides, in the new movie,
he's not pale. He's white. He looks like he's wearing clown makeup. The
whole point of vampires is that they look just like ordinary people. Why
else would anyone let them get close enough to get bitten?
Traditional vampires should be pale, as they are never exposed to
sunlight. But you're right about movie Barnie. He definitely could not
pass for normal. I'm pretty pale, myself, but I have much more color than
movie Barnie does. I would imagine any normal white person would have
more color than him. Real human skin doesn't come in that color.
I have only seen the trailors, though I plan on seeing the movie.
Personally, I've seen folks do the white powder on their face, though it
seems to be for sun protection. Asian women predominantely that I saw. My
fiance is very pale and she has super white skin.
*Nobody* is that white unless they are wearing clown makeup. The stuff you
see them wearing for sun protection is probably lotion, not powder.
Maybe Zinc Oxide or even titanium oxide as a sunblocking agent?
Usually only lifeguards and such would use it - pretty glaringly
white, but it DID do a great job in preventing sunburn. Quite often
only applied to the nose (which because of the angle, was the most
susceptable to burning).

Back several hundred years ago, wearing very white powder was all the
rage for a while. It was intended to emphasize that you were nobility
and never needed to toil in the sun. The problem was that they used
things like a powdered form of arsenic (Aqua Toffana) and/or white
lead and/or mercury, all quite toxic. They would also bleed
themselves to appear paler.

Then a bit later (in the 1600s when diseases were hitting Europe hard
- in epidemic numbers) things reversed - makeup was used to make the
face darker, to emphasize that you were healthy enough to be out and
about instead of being confined to your bedroom in quarentine.

Elizabeth I of England was a famous person who had a very white face
via makeup.

If memory serves, Barnabas had been buried for 200 years or so (taking
us back to around 1770), but I don't recall for how long he had been
active BEFORE the witch put that curse on him. Maybe someone here can
recall. But it's quite possible that WHEN HE WAS ALIVE the white-face
look might have been quite popular (and he didn't change along with
trends in such matters when he became undead).

http://www.makeup2enhance.com/history-of-makeup.html

Dragon Lady
2012-04-23 05:03:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Artis
Post by Ubiquitous
I don't think the Gulf War had any significant impact on the 1991
revival. It was pretty dreadful, IMHO.
Yes, the 1991 edition was really bad. I am worried after seeing the
trailer for the new movie; Barnabas never had
skin that pale.
Hey, at least he doesn't sparkle!

Persoanly, I thought vampires were supposed to look human. This one just
looks ridiculous. I've seen less pancake makeup on clowns.
Will Dockery
2012-04-24 18:41:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dragon Lady
Post by Ubiquitous
I don't think the Gulf War had any significant impact on the 1991
revival. It was pretty dreadful, IMHO.
Yes, the 1991 edition was really bad.  I am worried after seeing the
trailer for the new movie; Barnabas never had
skin that pale.
Hey, at least he doesn't sparkle!
Persoanly, I thought vampires were supposed to look human.  This one just
looks ridiculous.  I've seen less pancake makeup on clowns.
When I and several friends who were DS fans as children heard Depp was
cast as Barnabas we saw it as a good thing, since Depp *could* have
pulled the role off straightforward, or at least not as a comedy...
but from the few stills I've seen, no...

--
Music & poetry of Will Dockery:
http://www.reverbnation.com/willdockery
Z***@yahoo.com
2012-04-25 17:22:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dragon Lady
Persoanly, I thought vampires were supposed to look human.  This one just
looks ridiculous.  I've seen less pancake makeup on clowns.
Again lets wait and see what the movie looks like,

Bear in mind that "pancake mackup may be required for a blue screen
type of effect.
anim8rFSK
2012-04-25 20:16:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Dragon Lady
Persoanly, I thought vampires were supposed to look human.  This one just
looks ridiculous.  I've seen less pancake makeup on clowns.
Again lets wait and see what the movie looks like,
Bear in mind that "pancake mackup may be required for a blue screen
type of effect.
No. That was an early rumour that turned out to be just that.
--
So we're all agreed that Clod is as stupid as Charlie Sheen?
Dragon Lady
2012-05-04 05:12:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Persoanly, I thought vampires were supposed to look human. This one just
looks ridiculous. I've seen less pancake makeup on clowns.
Again lets wait and see what the movie looks like,
Bear in mind that "pancake mackup may be required for a blue screen
type of effect.
I'm afraid I don't get that. In any case, he just looks ridiculous in every
single scene I've seen. (Try saying that three times fast!)
anim8rFSK
2012-05-04 11:04:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dragon Lady
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Persoanly, I thought vampires were supposed to look human. This one just
looks ridiculous. I've seen less pancake makeup on clowns.
Again lets wait and see what the movie looks like,
Bear in mind that "pancake mackup may be required for a blue screen
type of effect.
I'm afraid I don't get that.
There's nothing to get. It's some bizarre excuse that Depp/Burton
defenders came up with to try to dismiss the early stills showing Depp
in Kabuki Clown whiteface.

In any case, he just looks ridiculous in every
Post by Dragon Lady
single scene I've seen. (Try saying that three times fast!)
that*that*that
--
So we're all agreed that Clod is as stupid as Charlie Sheen?
Z***@yahoo.com
2012-05-04 18:56:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by anim8rFSK
There's nothing to get. It's some bizarre excuse that Depp/Burton
defenders came up with to try to dismiss the early stills showing Depp
in Kabuki Clown whiteface.
That having been said go watch how Avatar was made
and how sophistacated film making is now. I'm not ready to
condemn that makeup yet. I'll wait for the final result.
Special effects have come a long way since Dark Shadows
was made all thoese years ago.

[Did you happen to think that Pancake makeup was
for test shots early on and it was not used after those
early tests?]

Again i'll wait until for the movie to open (one week from
today.)
anim8rFSK
2012-05-04 21:00:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by anim8rFSK
There's nothing to get. It's some bizarre excuse that Depp/Burton
defenders came up with to try to dismiss the early stills showing Depp
in Kabuki Clown whiteface.
That having been said go watch how Avatar was made
and how sophistacated film making is now. I'm not ready to
condemn that makeup yet. I'll wait for the final result.
Special effects have come a long way since Dark Shadows
was made all thoese years ago.
Which has nothing to do with them painting him white.
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
[Did you happen to think that Pancake makeup was
for test shots early on and it was not used after those
early tests?]
Of course not; we've been seeing final footage for weeks now, and he's
in complete clown face.
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Again i'll wait until for the movie to open (one week from
today.)
And they're still hiding it from the critics.
--
So we're all agreed that Clod is as stupid as Charlie Sheen?
Z***@yahoo.com
2012-05-05 05:46:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by anim8rFSK
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by anim8rFSK
There's nothing to get. It's some bizarre excuse that Depp/Burton
defenders came up with to try to dismiss the early stills showing Depp
in Kabuki Clown whiteface.
That having been said go watch how Avatar was made
and how sophistacated film making is now. I'm not ready to
condemn that makeup yet. I'll wait for the final result.
Special effects have come a long way since Dark Shadows
was made all thoese years ago.
Which has nothing to do with them painting him white.
And since you haven't seen the film yet you know this how?
Post by anim8rFSK
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
[Did you happen to think that Pancake makeup was
for test shots early on and it was not used after those
early tests?]
Of course not; we've been seeing final footage for weeks now, and he's
in complete clown face.
And since you haven't seen the film how do you know that wasn't an
early test that was ended very early on?
Post by anim8rFSK
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Again i'll wait until for the movie to open (one week from
today.)
And they're still hiding it from the critics.
Wrong. I came accross a list of a number of advance screenings,
some of which occurred in late April. They ae not hiding it from the
critics.

None occurred or are occurring in this part of the US of A but there
have been and will be advanced screenings.
anim8rFSK
2012-05-05 15:04:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by anim8rFSK
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by anim8rFSK
There's nothing to get. It's some bizarre excuse that Depp/Burton
defenders came up with to try to dismiss the early stills showing Depp
in Kabuki Clown whiteface.
That having been said go watch how Avatar was made
and how sophistacated film making is now. I'm not ready to
condemn that makeup yet. I'll wait for the final result.
Special effects have come a long way since Dark Shadows
was made all thoese years ago.
Which has nothing to do with them painting him white.
And since you haven't seen the film yet you know this how?
You're kidding, right? There are numerous clips and segments. You can
see 10 minutes of it. And there is no connection between optical fx and
kabuki white makepup.
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by anim8rFSK
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
[Did you happen to think that Pancake makeup was
for test shots early on and it was not used after those
early tests?]
Of course not; we've been seeing final footage for weeks now, and he's
in complete clown face.
And since you haven't seen the film how do you know that wasn't an
early test that was ended very early on?
Okay, you're just trolling. Not even Cloddreamer is this stupid.
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by anim8rFSK
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Again i'll wait until for the movie to open (one week from
today.)
And they're still hiding it from the critics.
Wrong. I came accross a list of a number of advance screenings,
some of which occurred in late April. They ae not hiding it from the
critics.
Of course they are, which is why there are no reviews available.
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
None occurred or are occurring in this part of the US of A but there
have been and will be advanced screenings.
So, are you a liar, a fool, a troll, a studio shill, or combination of
all?
--
So we're all agreed that Clod is as stupid as Charlie Sheen?
Z***@yahoo.com
2012-05-05 19:22:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by anim8rFSK
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by anim8rFSK
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by anim8rFSK
There's nothing to get. It's some bizarre excuse that Depp/Burton
defenders came up with to try to dismiss the early stills showing Depp
in Kabuki Clown whiteface.
That having been said go watch how Avatar was made
and how sophistacated film making is now. I'm not ready to
condemn that makeup yet. I'll wait for the final result.
Special effects have come a long way since Dark Shadows
was made all thoese years ago.
Which has nothing to do with them painting him white.
And since you haven't seen the film yet you know this how?
You're kidding, right? There are numerous clips and segments.
And since you've seen the film you know for a fact that these clips
and segments weren't obsolete many months ago?
Post by anim8rFSK
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
And since you haven't seen the film how do you know that wasn't an
early test that was ended very early on?
Okay, you're just trolling. Not even Cloddreamer is this stupid.
You do realize the process for making films takes many months
and you could be seeing scenes leaked that were cut from the
film many months ago?
.
Personally i'll wait ********six more days******* and see the actual
film before judging anything.
Post by anim8rFSK
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by anim8rFSK
And they're still hiding it from the critics.
Wrong. I came accross a list of a number of advance screenings,
some of which occurred in late April. They ae not hiding it from the
critics.
Of course they are, which is why there are no reviews available.
Did you read the part about advanced screenings? There are no
reviews becuase newspapers wait to run the reviews opening
day or the day before.

If you use google you can find a list of advanced screenings of which
there have been quit a few. Just because there weren't any in this
part of the US of A doesn't mean there weren't any.

A google search will tell where they were held.
anim8rFSK
2012-05-05 23:14:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by anim8rFSK
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by anim8rFSK
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by anim8rFSK
There's nothing to get. It's some bizarre excuse that Depp/Burton
defenders came up with to try to dismiss the early stills showing Depp
in Kabuki Clown whiteface.
That having been said go watch how Avatar was made
and how sophistacated film making is now. I'm not ready to
condemn that makeup yet. I'll wait for the final result.
Special effects have come a long way since Dark Shadows
was made all thoese years ago.
Which has nothing to do with them painting him white.
And since you haven't seen the film yet you know this how?
You're kidding, right? There are numerous clips and segments.
And since you've seen the film you know for a fact that these clips
and segments weren't obsolete many months ago?
Post by anim8rFSK
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
And since you haven't seen the film how do you know that wasn't an
early test that was ended very early on?
Okay, you're just trolling. Not even Cloddreamer is this stupid.
You do realize the process for making films takes many months
and you could be seeing scenes leaked that were cut from the
film many months ago?
You do realize you're an idiot? Hard to tell if you're a liar or a
troll, but either way you're an idiot.
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
.
Personally i'll wait ********six more days******* and see the actual
film before judging anything.
You can tell now it's crap, if you're smart enough; but we've already
established that you're an idiot.
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by anim8rFSK
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by anim8rFSK
And they're still hiding it from the critics.
Wrong. I came accross a list of a number of advance screenings,
some of which occurred in late April. They ae not hiding it from the
critics.
Of course they are, which is why there are no reviews available.
Did you read the part about advanced screenings? There are no
reviews becuase newspapers wait to run the reviews opening
day or the day before.
Okay, stupid and liar. Rotten Tomatoes has had reviews of THE AVENGERS
for *weeks*

Movie reviews? In a newspaper?? Where are you posting from, 1987?
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
If you use google you can find a list of advanced screenings of which
there have been quit a few. Just because there weren't any in this
part of the US of A doesn't mean there weren't any.
A google search will tell where they were held.
Okay, just for you, o stupid one

NOBODY
SAID
A
WORD
ABOUT
SCREENINGS
EXCEPT
YOU

THE
POINT
IS
THEY'RE
NOT
LETTING
REVIEWERS
SEE
IT
BECAUSE
IT'S
AWFUL

AND
THE
PROOF
IS

THERE
ARE
NO
REVIEWS
--
So we're all agreed that Clod is as stupid as Charlie Sheen?
suzeeq
2012-05-05 23:40:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by anim8rFSK
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by anim8rFSK
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by anim8rFSK
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by anim8rFSK
There's nothing to get. It's some bizarre excuse that Depp/Burton
defenders came up with to try to dismiss the early stills showing Depp
in Kabuki Clown whiteface.
That having been said go watch how Avatar was made
and how sophistacated film making is now. I'm not ready to
condemn that makeup yet. I'll wait for the final result.
Special effects have come a long way since Dark Shadows
was made all thoese years ago.
Which has nothing to do with them painting him white.
And since you haven't seen the film yet you know this how?
You're kidding, right? There are numerous clips and segments.
And since you've seen the film you know for a fact that these clips
and segments weren't obsolete many months ago?
Post by anim8rFSK
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
And since you haven't seen the film how do you know that wasn't an
early test that was ended very early on?
Okay, you're just trolling. Not even Cloddreamer is this stupid.
You do realize the process for making films takes many months
and you could be seeing scenes leaked that were cut from the
film many months ago?
You do realize you're an idiot? Hard to tell if you're a liar or a
troll, but either way you're an idiot.
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
.
Personally i'll wait ********six more days******* and see the actual
film before judging anything.
You can tell now it's crap, if you're smart enough; but we've already
established that you're an idiot.
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by anim8rFSK
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by anim8rFSK
And they're still hiding it from the critics.
Wrong. I came accross a list of a number of advance screenings,
some of which occurred in late April. They ae not hiding it from the
critics.
Of course they are, which is why there are no reviews available.
Did you read the part about advanced screenings? There are no
reviews becuase newspapers wait to run the reviews opening
day or the day before.
Okay, stupid and liar. Rotten Tomatoes has had reviews of THE AVENGERS
for *weeks*
Movie reviews? In a newspaper?? Where are you posting from, 1987?
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
If you use google you can find a list of advanced screenings of which
there have been quit a few. Just because there weren't any in this
part of the US of A doesn't mean there weren't any.
A google search will tell where they were held.
Okay, just for you, o stupid one
NOBODY
SAID
A
WORD
ABOUT
SCREENINGS
EXCEPT
YOU
THE
POINT
IS
THEY'RE
NOT
LETTING
REVIEWERS
SEE
IT
BECAUSE
IT'S
AWFUL
AND
THE
PROOF
IS
THERE
ARE
NO
REVIEWS
You're wrong. They're just holding the reviews back. Watch for them a
day or two before it opens.
Dimensional Traveler
2012-05-06 01:09:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by suzeeq
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by anim8rFSK
There's nothing to get. It's some bizarre excuse that
Depp/Burton defenders came up with to try to dismiss the early
stills showing Depp in Kabuki Clown whiteface.
That having been said go watch how Avatar was made and how
sophistacated film making is now. I'm not ready to
condemn that makeup yet. I'll wait for the final result.
Special effects have come a long way since Dark Shadows was made
all thoese years ago.
Which has nothing to do with them painting him white.
And since you haven't seen the film yet you know this how?
You're kidding, right? There are numerous clips and segments.
And since you've seen the film you know for a fact that these clips
and segments weren't obsolete many months ago?
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
And since you haven't seen the film how do you know that wasn't an
early test that was ended very early on?
Okay, you're just trolling. Not even Cloddreamer is this stupid.
You do realize the process for making films takes many months and you
could be seeing scenes leaked that were cut from the
film many months ago?
You do realize you're an idiot? Hard to tell if you're a liar or a
troll, but either way you're an idiot.
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
.
Personally i'll wait ********six more days******* and see the actual
film before judging anything.
You can tell now it's crap, if you're smart enough; but we've already
established that you're an idiot.
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by anim8rFSK
And they're still hiding it from the critics.
Wrong. I came accross a list of a number of advance screenings,
some of which occurred in late April. They ae not hiding it from the
critics.
Of course they are, which is why there are no reviews available.
Did you read the part about advanced screenings? There are no reviews
becuase newspapers wait to run the reviews opening day or the day
before.
Okay, stupid and liar. Rotten Tomatoes has had reviews of THE AVENGERS
for *weeks*
Movie reviews? In a newspaper?? Where are you posting from, 1987?
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
If you use google you can find a list of advanced screenings of which
there have been quit a few. Just because there weren't any in this
part of the US of A doesn't mean there weren't any.
A google search will tell where they were held.
Okay, just for you, o stupid one
NOBODY
SAID
A WORD
ABOUT
SCREENINGS
EXCEPT
YOU
THE
POINT
IS
THEY'RE
NOT
LETTING
REVIEWERS
SEE
IT
BECAUSE
IT'S AWFUL
AND
THE
PROOF
IS
THERE
ARE NO REVIEWS
You're wrong. They're just holding the reviews back. Watch for them a
day or two before it opens.
Effectively the same thing.
anim8rFSK
2012-05-06 05:57:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by suzeeq
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by anim8rFSK
There's nothing to get. It's some bizarre excuse that
Depp/Burton defenders came up with to try to dismiss the early
stills showing Depp in Kabuki Clown whiteface.
That having been said go watch how Avatar was made and how
sophistacated film making is now. I'm not ready to
condemn that makeup yet. I'll wait for the final result.
Special effects have come a long way since Dark Shadows was made
all thoese years ago.
Which has nothing to do with them painting him white.
And since you haven't seen the film yet you know this how?
You're kidding, right? There are numerous clips and segments.
And since you've seen the film you know for a fact that these clips
and segments weren't obsolete many months ago?
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
And since you haven't seen the film how do you know that wasn't an
early test that was ended very early on?
Okay, you're just trolling. Not even Cloddreamer is this stupid.
You do realize the process for making films takes many months and you
could be seeing scenes leaked that were cut from the
film many months ago?
You do realize you're an idiot? Hard to tell if you're a liar or a
troll, but either way you're an idiot.
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
.
Personally i'll wait ********six more days******* and see the actual
film before judging anything.
You can tell now it's crap, if you're smart enough; but we've already
established that you're an idiot.
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by anim8rFSK
And they're still hiding it from the critics.
Wrong. I came accross a list of a number of advance screenings,
some of which occurred in late April. They ae not hiding it from the
critics.
Of course they are, which is why there are no reviews available.
Did you read the part about advanced screenings? There are no reviews
becuase newspapers wait to run the reviews opening day or the day
before.
Okay, stupid and liar. Rotten Tomatoes has had reviews of THE AVENGERS
for *weeks*
Movie reviews? In a newspaper?? Where are you posting from, 1987?
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
If you use google you can find a list of advanced screenings of which
there have been quit a few. Just because there weren't any in this
part of the US of A doesn't mean there weren't any.
A google search will tell where they were held.
Okay, just for you, o stupid one
NOBODY
SAID
A WORD
ABOUT
SCREENINGS
EXCEPT
YOU
THE
POINT
IS
THEY'RE
NOT
LETTING
REVIEWERS
SEE
IT
BECAUSE
IT'S AWFUL
AND
THE
PROOF
IS
THERE
ARE NO REVIEWS
You're wrong. They're just holding the reviews back. Watch for them a
day or two before it opens.
Effectively the same thing.
Exactly. If the reviews are being held back, it's 'cause they're bad.
If there were any good reviews we'd be hearing about them by now.
--
So we're all agreed that Clod is as stupid as Charlie Sheen?
anim8rFSK
2012-05-06 05:54:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by suzeeq
Post by anim8rFSK
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by anim8rFSK
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by anim8rFSK
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by anim8rFSK
There's nothing to get. It's some bizarre excuse that Depp/Burton
defenders came up with to try to dismiss the early stills showing Depp
in Kabuki Clown whiteface.
That having been said go watch how Avatar was made
and how sophistacated film making is now. I'm not ready to
condemn that makeup yet. I'll wait for the final result.
Special effects have come a long way since Dark Shadows
was made all thoese years ago.
Which has nothing to do with them painting him white.
And since you haven't seen the film yet you know this how?
You're kidding, right? There are numerous clips and segments.
And since you've seen the film you know for a fact that these clips
and segments weren't obsolete many months ago?
Post by anim8rFSK
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
And since you haven't seen the film how do you know that wasn't an
early test that was ended very early on?
Okay, you're just trolling. Not even Cloddreamer is this stupid.
You do realize the process for making films takes many months
and you could be seeing scenes leaked that were cut from the
film many months ago?
You do realize you're an idiot? Hard to tell if you're a liar or a
troll, but either way you're an idiot.
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
.
Personally i'll wait ********six more days******* and see the actual
film before judging anything.
You can tell now it's crap, if you're smart enough; but we've already
established that you're an idiot.
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by anim8rFSK
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by anim8rFSK
And they're still hiding it from the critics.
Wrong. I came accross a list of a number of advance screenings,
some of which occurred in late April. They ae not hiding it from the
critics.
Of course they are, which is why there are no reviews available.
Did you read the part about advanced screenings? There are no
reviews becuase newspapers wait to run the reviews opening
day or the day before.
Okay, stupid and liar. Rotten Tomatoes has had reviews of THE AVENGERS
for *weeks*
Movie reviews? In a newspaper?? Where are you posting from, 1987?
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
If you use google you can find a list of advanced screenings of which
there have been quit a few. Just because there weren't any in this
part of the US of A doesn't mean there weren't any.
A google search will tell where they were held.
Okay, just for you, o stupid one
NOBODY
SAID
A
WORD
ABOUT
SCREENINGS
EXCEPT
YOU
THE
POINT
IS
THEY'RE
NOT
LETTING
REVIEWERS
SEE
IT
BECAUSE
IT'S
AWFUL
AND
THE
PROOF
IS
THERE
ARE
NO
REVIEWS
You're wrong. They're just holding the reviews back. Watch for them a
day or two before it opens.
Who's holding the reviews back?
--
So we're all agreed that Clod is as stupid as Charlie Sheen?
Kishin
2012-05-06 09:34:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by anim8rFSK
Post by suzeeq
Post by anim8rFSK
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by anim8rFSK
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by anim8rFSK
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by anim8rFSK
There's nothing to get. It's some bizarre excuse that Depp/Burton
defenders came up with to try to dismiss the early stills showing Depp
in Kabuki Clown whiteface.
That having been said go watch how Avatar was made
and how sophistacated film making is now. I'm not ready to
condemn that makeup yet. I'll wait for the final result.
Special effects have come a long way since Dark Shadows
was made all thoese years ago.
Which has nothing to do with them painting him white.
And since you haven't seen the film yet you know this how?
You're kidding, right? There are numerous clips and segments.
And since you've seen the film you know for a fact that these clips
and segments weren't obsolete many months ago?
Post by anim8rFSK
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
And since you haven't seen the film how do you know that wasn't an
early test that was ended very early on?
Okay, you're just trolling. Not even Cloddreamer is this stupid.
You do realize the process for making films takes many months
and you could be seeing scenes leaked that were cut from the
film many months ago?
You do realize you're an idiot? Hard to tell if you're a liar or a
troll, but either way you're an idiot.
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
.
Personally i'll wait ********six more days******* and see the actual
film before judging anything.
You can tell now it's crap, if you're smart enough; but we've already
established that you're an idiot.
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by anim8rFSK
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by anim8rFSK
And they're still hiding it from the critics.
Wrong. I came accross a list of a number of advance screenings,
some of which occurred in late April. They ae not hiding it from the
critics.
Of course they are, which is why there are no reviews available.
Did you read the part about advanced screenings? There are no
reviews becuase newspapers wait to run the reviews opening
day or the day before.
Okay, stupid and liar. Rotten Tomatoes has had reviews of THE AVENGERS
for *weeks*
Movie reviews? In a newspaper?? Where are you posting from, 1987?
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
If you use google you can find a list of advanced screenings of which
there have been quit a few. Just because there weren't any in this
part of the US of A doesn't mean there weren't any.
A google search will tell where they were held.
Okay, just for you, o stupid one
NOBODY
SAID
A
WORD
ABOUT
SCREENINGS
EXCEPT
YOU
THE
POINT
IS
THEY'RE
NOT
LETTING
REVIEWERS
SEE
IT
BECAUSE
IT'S
AWFUL
AND
THE
PROOF
IS
THERE
ARE
NO
REVIEWS
You're wrong. They're just holding the reviews back. Watch for them a
day or two before it opens.
Who's holding the reviews back?
It is very common for film companies to impose quarantines on reviews
till a few days before that film premiers. I'm not saying that critics
have had a chance to review DS at this point or not, just that it's
common practice. "The Avengers" and "Battleship" are exceptions to this
rule, since they both opened overseas before in the US.

The real test will be whether there are reviews BEFORE opening weekend.
If there's no review in Entertainment Weekly, then you will know that
the film company did not preview the film for critics and they had to
wait for public showings.
--
Kishin
Dimensional Traveler
2012-05-06 22:23:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kishin
Post by anim8rFSK
Post by suzeeq
You're wrong. They're just holding the reviews back. Watch for them a
day or two before it opens.
Who's holding the reviews back?
It is very common for film companies to impose quarantines on reviews
till a few days before that film premiers. I'm not saying that critics
have had a chance to review DS at this point or not, just that it's
common practice. "The Avengers" and "Battleship" are exceptions to this
rule, since they both opened overseas before in the US.
The real test will be whether there are reviews BEFORE opening weekend.
If there's no review in Entertainment Weekly, then you will know that
the film company did not preview the film for critics and they had to
wait for public showings.
And the usual reason for imposing review blackouts is because the
distributor KNOWS the reviews are going to be bad before they ever show
it outside the company.
Invid Fan
2012-05-08 00:38:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Kishin
Post by anim8rFSK
Post by suzeeq
You're wrong. They're just holding the reviews back. Watch for them a
day or two before it opens.
Who's holding the reviews back?
It is very common for film companies to impose quarantines on reviews
till a few days before that film premiers. I'm not saying that critics
have had a chance to review DS at this point or not, just that it's
common practice. "The Avengers" and "Battleship" are exceptions to this
rule, since they both opened overseas before in the US.
The real test will be whether there are reviews BEFORE opening weekend.
If there's no review in Entertainment Weekly, then you will know that
the film company did not preview the film for critics and they had to
wait for public showings.
And the usual reason for imposing review blackouts is because the
distributor KNOWS the reviews are going to be bad before they ever show
it outside the company.
Pre-internet, it used to be because they figured reviews done before
Friday would be forgotten by the public, so they wanted them all
printed the first day the films hit theaters. The Buffalo News caught
flack for doing one movie review, usually the biggest release, in the
Thursday paper for a few years.
--
Chris Mack "If we show any weakness, the monsters will get cocky!"
'Invid Fan' - 'Yokai Monsters Along With Ghosts'
Dimensional Traveler
2012-05-08 04:00:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Invid Fan
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Kishin
Post by anim8rFSK
Post by suzeeq
You're wrong. They're just holding the reviews back. Watch for them a
day or two before it opens.
Who's holding the reviews back?
It is very common for film companies to impose quarantines on reviews
till a few days before that film premiers. I'm not saying that critics
have had a chance to review DS at this point or not, just that it's
common practice. "The Avengers" and "Battleship" are exceptions to this
rule, since they both opened overseas before in the US.
The real test will be whether there are reviews BEFORE opening weekend.
If there's no review in Entertainment Weekly, then you will know that
the film company did not preview the film for critics and they had to
wait for public showings.
And the usual reason for imposing review blackouts is because the
distributor KNOWS the reviews are going to be bad before they ever show
it outside the company.
Pre-internet, it used to be because they figured reviews done before
Friday would be forgotten by the public, so they wanted them all
printed the first day the films hit theaters. The Buffalo News caught
flack for doing one movie review, usually the biggest release, in the
Thursday paper for a few years.
Not sure that makes any sense since Thursday night used to be the Big TV
Night _because_ that was the night all the movie ads were placed.
Kishin
2012-05-05 23:54:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by anim8rFSK
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by anim8rFSK
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by anim8rFSK
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by anim8rFSK
There's nothing to get. It's some bizarre excuse that Depp/Burton
defenders came up with to try to dismiss the early stills showing Depp
in Kabuki Clown whiteface.
That having been said go watch how Avatar was made
and how sophistacated film making is now. I'm not ready to
condemn that makeup yet. I'll wait for the final result.
Special effects have come a long way since Dark Shadows
was made all thoese years ago.
Which has nothing to do with them painting him white.
And since you haven't seen the film yet you know this how?
You're kidding, right? There are numerous clips and segments.
And since you've seen the film you know for a fact that these clips
and segments weren't obsolete many months ago?
Post by anim8rFSK
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
And since you haven't seen the film how do you know that wasn't an
early test that was ended very early on?
Okay, you're just trolling. Not even Cloddreamer is this stupid.
You do realize the process for making films takes many months
and you could be seeing scenes leaked that were cut from the
film many months ago?
You do realize you're an idiot? Hard to tell if you're a liar or a
troll, but either way you're an idiot.
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
.
Personally i'll wait ********six more days******* and see the actual
film before judging anything.
You can tell now it's crap, if you're smart enough; but we've already
established that you're an idiot.
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by anim8rFSK
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by anim8rFSK
And they're still hiding it from the critics.
Wrong. I came accross a list of a number of advance screenings,
some of which occurred in late April. They ae not hiding it from the
critics.
Of course they are, which is why there are no reviews available.
Did you read the part about advanced screenings? There are no
reviews becuase newspapers wait to run the reviews opening
day or the day before.
Okay, stupid and liar. Rotten Tomatoes has had reviews of THE AVENGERS
for *weeks*
Not to defend ZZH770's point, but I think most of those reviews came
from overseas, where "The Avengers" was released a couple of weeks
before it was in the US.

<snipping the rest>
--
Kishin
Dragon Lady
2012-05-07 01:01:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by anim8rFSK
Okay, just for you, o stupid one
NOBODY
SAID
A
WORD
ABOUT
SCREENINGS
EXCEPT
YOU
THE
POINT
IS
THEY'RE
NOT
LETTING
REVIEWERS
SEE
IT
BECAUSE
IT'S
AWFUL
AND
THE
PROOF
IS
THERE
ARE
NO
REVIEWS
Um...that's not proof that the movies is rotten. It just proof that they
aren't letting reviewers see it. The rest is just a logical inference based
on that fact.
Dragon Lady
2012-05-07 00:59:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by anim8rFSK
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by anim8rFSK
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by anim8rFSK
There's nothing to get. It's some bizarre excuse that Depp/Burton
defenders came up with to try to dismiss the early stills showing Depp
in Kabuki Clown whiteface.
That having been said go watch how Avatar was made
and how sophistacated film making is now. I'm not ready to
condemn that makeup yet. I'll wait for the final result.
Special effects have come a long way since Dark Shadows
was made all thoese years ago.
Which has nothing to do with them painting him white.
And since you haven't seen the film yet you know this how?
You're kidding, right? There are numerous clips and segments.
And since you've seen the film you know for a fact that these clips
and segments weren't obsolete many months ago?
I'm beginning to think he may be right about you. They aren't clips.
They're trailers, and only recently released, so how could they be obsolete
months ago?
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by anim8rFSK
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
And since you haven't seen the film how do you know that wasn't an
early test that was ended very early on?
Okay, you're just trolling. Not even Cloddreamer is this stupid.
You do realize the process for making films takes many months
and you could be seeing scenes leaked that were cut from the
film many months ago?
.
Personally i'll wait ********six more days******* and see the actual
film before judging anything.
The movie comes out in 5 days, and you think the trailors are obsolete
months ago????
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by anim8rFSK
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by anim8rFSK
And they're still hiding it from the critics.
Wrong. I came accross a list of a number of advance screenings,
some of which occurred in late April. They ae not hiding it from the
critics.
Of course they are, which is why there are no reviews available.
Did you read the part about advanced screenings? There are no
reviews becuase newspapers wait to run the reviews opening
day or the day before.
If you use google you can find a list of advanced screenings of which
there have been quit a few. Just because there weren't any in this
part of the US of A doesn't mean there weren't any.
A google search will tell where they were held.
Dragon Lady
2012-05-07 00:56:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by anim8rFSK
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by anim8rFSK
There's nothing to get. It's some bizarre excuse that Depp/Burton
defenders came up with to try to dismiss the early stills showing Depp
in Kabuki Clown whiteface.
That having been said go watch how Avatar was made
and how sophistacated film making is now. I'm not ready to
condemn that makeup yet. I'll wait for the final result.
Special effects have come a long way since Dark Shadows
was made all thoese years ago.
Which has nothing to do with them painting him white.
And since you haven't seen the film yet you know this how?
Because we've seen the trailors, which are scenes taken from the finished
product. He'd still wearing clown makeup.
Z***@yahoo.com
2012-05-04 18:49:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dragon Lady
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Persoanly, I thought vampires were supposed to look human. This one just
looks ridiculous. I've seen less pancake makeup on clowns.
Again lets wait and see what the movie looks like,
Bear in mind that "pancake mackup may be required for a blue screen
type of effect.
I'm afraid I don't get that. In any case, he just looks ridiculous in every
single scene I've seen. (Try saying that three times fast!)
With a blue screen they key in on the blue screen and then superimpose
an image over that blue screen.

A good example is your local weather forecast. You're lookiing at a r
blue screen, they superimpose the weather map over that
blue screen.

Another good example is Avatar, where they take an actors
image and suepr impose it on a computer generated image.

I would not comment on the "Pancake makeup" until I see
the final result in this post Avatar movie world.

Special effects have come a long way since the original
Dark Shadows. It's abosultely amazing how far movie
making has come in recent years.
anim8rFSK
2012-05-04 21:02:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Dragon Lady
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Persoanly, I thought vampires were supposed to look human. This one just
looks ridiculous. I've seen less pancake makeup on clowns.
Again lets wait and see what the movie looks like,
Bear in mind that "pancake mackup may be required for a blue screen
type of effect.
I'm afraid I don't get that. In any case, he just looks ridiculous in every
single scene I've seen. (Try saying that three times fast!)
With a blue screen they key in on the blue screen and then superimpose
an image over that blue screen.
Well, you've got your terms wrong, but so what?
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
A good example is your local weather forecast. You're lookiing at a r
blue screen, they superimpose the weather map over that
blue screen.
Only if you're watching TV like 20 years ago. And using the wrong
terminology.
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Another good example is Avatar, where they take an actors
image and suepr impose it on a computer generated image.
Uh, no, nothing like that at all happened in Avatar at any point.
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
I would not comment on the "Pancake makeup" until I see
the final result in this post Avatar movie world.
You've seen it already. Lots of final footage. He's painted white, for
reasons that have nothing to do with FX.
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Special effects have come a long way since the original
Dark Shadows. It's abosultely amazing how far movie
making has come in recent years.
So what?
--
So we're all agreed that Clod is as stupid as Charlie Sheen?
Dragon Lady
2012-05-07 00:53:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Post by Dragon Lady
Post by Z***@yahoo.com
Persoanly, I thought vampires were supposed to look human. This one just
looks ridiculous. I've seen less pancake makeup on clowns.
Again lets wait and see what the movie looks like,
Bear in mind that "pancake mackup may be required for a blue screen
type of effect.
I'm afraid I don't get that. In any case, he just looks ridiculous in every
single scene I've seen. (Try saying that three times fast!)
With a blue screen they key in on the blue screen and then superimpose
an image over that blue screen.
A good example is your local weather forecast. You're lookiing at a r
blue screen, they superimpose the weather map over that
blue screen.
Another good example is Avatar, where they take an actors
image and suepr impose it on a computer generated image.
I would not comment on the "Pancake makeup" until I see
the final result in this post Avatar movie world.
Special effects have come a long way since the original
Dark Shadows. It's abosultely amazing how far movie
making has come in recent years.
While I agree that special effects have come a long way in recent years, the
most recent clips I've seen *still* show Barnabas made up like a clown.
Would you let someone who looked like that get close enough to attack you?
I wouldn't.
RichA
2012-04-23 12:25:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ubiquitous
Post by A***@gmail.com
Post by Ubiquitous
Who would have thought
this soap opera could rise again after the failed primetime revival in
1991?
I cringe whenever someone uses the phrase "failed prime time revival
in 1991," after all if the Iraq Kuwait war hadn't taken place at the
time and interrupted the series it might have lasted many years and
been hugely successful.
One years earlier or one year later and it might have survived much
longer.
I don't think the Gulf War had any significant impact on the 1991
revival. It was pretty dreadful, IMHO.
--
"If Barack Obama isn't careful, he will become the Jimmy Carter of the
21st century."
Yes, the 1991 edition was really bad.  I am worried after seeing the
trailer for the new movie; Barnabas never had
skin that pale.
Until Depp.
Diva Magenta
2012-04-22 23:52:25 UTC
Permalink
I enjoyed the revival series, and have the DVD set. With the exception
of Lysette Anthony's Angelique, I thought the cast did a very good job,
and was pretty true to the original. I loved that they made Vicki
Josette's reincarnation rather than Maggie - she had so much more of
Josette's sweet innocence, and shared Barnabas' love of the past. They
always seemed like a more logical match.

The biggest problem with the revival series is that it just didn't have
the luxury of time to tell the story. The original took months of daily
episodes to explore 1795, while the revival had to pack it all into a
few weekly episodes. But with those constraints, I think they did quite
a good job IMHO.

Diva

--

DivaMagenta @}{~~>~~~>~~~>~~~~~

"Religion is man's futile attempt to reach out to God, trying to earn
His favor. Christianity is the good news that God has reached out in
love to us through His Son, because He knows that our arms are not long
enough..."

http://divamagenta.webbywarehouse.com
A***@gmail.com
2012-04-23 17:48:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Diva Magenta
The biggest problem with the revival series is that it just didn't have
the luxury of time to tell the story. The original took months of daily
episodes to explore 1795, while the revival had to pack it all into a
few weekly episodes. But with those constraints, I think they did quite
a good job IMHO.
Diva
The biggest problem from my point of view is that I only got to see
a few episodes. Most of the others were pre-empted for news
coverage of the gulf war. I remember vividly the often inturrptions
to report an incoming scud.
Kishin
2012-04-23 05:23:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ubiquitous
Post by A***@gmail.com
Post by Ubiquitous
Who would have thought
this soap opera could rise again after the failed primetime revival in
1991?
I cringe whenever someone uses the phrase "failed prime time revival
in 1991," after all if the Iraq Kuwait war hadn't taken place at the
time and interrupted the series it might have lasted many years and
been hugely successful.
One years earlier or one year later and it might have survived much
longer.
I don't think the Gulf War had any significant impact on the 1991
revival. It was pretty dreadful, IMHO.
Dreadful or not (I think not), most published stories I've read about
the series, including the new DS book from KLS, indicate that the Gulf
War totally killed the new DS.
--
Kishin
Michael Black
2012-04-23 13:57:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ubiquitous
Post by A***@gmail.com
Post by Ubiquitous
Who would have thought
this soap opera could rise again after the failed primetime revival in
1991?
I cringe whenever someone uses the phrase "failed prime time revival
in 1991," after all if the Iraq Kuwait war hadn't taken place at the
time and interrupted the series it might have lasted many years and
been hugely successful.
One years earlier or one year later and it might have survived much
longer.
I don't think the Gulf War had any significant impact on the 1991
revival. It was pretty dreadful, IMHO.
Dreadful or not (I think not), most published stories I've read about the
series, including the new DS book from KLS, indicate that the Gulf War
totally killed the new DS.
I seem to recall the Gulf War was treated as an event, rather than an
ongoing war. So it got 24 hour coverage, for a bit at least, complete
with intro music and some nifty title.

Certainly the local radio stations added a newscast at the 30 minute mark
every hour, which they never took away afterwards, which seems an
indicator that TV was doing an All-War mode for a bit, just like they've
done some other times when they've decided some news event warrants it.


Michael
A***@gmail.com
2012-04-23 17:56:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Black
I seem to recall the Gulf War was treated as an event, rather than an
ongoing war. So it got 24 hour coverage, for a bit at least, complete
with intro music and some nifty title.
it was an event. Bear in mind at the start of the Gulf War Bush 41
had an apporoval rating of like 95%. Radio and TV stations had round
the clock coverage, even on weeekends. it was huge news, got huge
ratings, and huge coverage.
Post by Michael Black
Certainly the local radio stations added a newscast at the 30 minute mark
every hour, which they never took away afterwards, which seems an
indicator that TV was doing an All-War mode for a bit, just like they've
done some other times when they've decided some news event warrants it.
I remember radio shows that only ran during the week doing special
weekend editions. Many Tv shows did the same thing. it was wall
to wall coverage, many shows were pre-empted, many stations
even pre-empted the commercials.


Finally i'd point out alot of stations had to go all war all the time
or else viewers were going to switch to CNN to get the news.
A***@gmail.com
2012-04-23 17:40:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ubiquitous
Post by A***@gmail.com
Post by Ubiquitous
Who would have thought
this soap opera could rise again after the failed primetime revival in
1991?
I cringe whenever someone uses the phrase "failed prime time revival
in 1991," after all if the Iraq Kuwait war hadn't taken place at the
time and interrupted the series it might have lasted many years and
been hugely successful.
One years earlier or one year later and it might have survived much
longer.
I don't think the Gulf War had any significant impact on the 1991
revival. It was pretty dreadful, IMHO.
I have to disagree. Around here the news updates obliterated
regular programming. Espeicallly when word came down that
a scud missle was enroute to a specifc area.

I remember being glued to the TV for news updates.

I spend more time watching CNN than other channels.
Will Dockery
2012-04-24 18:33:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by A***@gmail.com
Post by Ubiquitous
Who would have thought
this soap opera could rise again after the failed primetime revival in
1991?
I cringe whenever someone uses the phrase "failed prime time revival
in 1991," after all if the Iraq Kuwait war hadn't taken place at the
time and interrupted the series it might have lasted many years and
been hugely successful.
One years earlier or one year later and it might have survived much
longer.
Yes, Ben Cross portrayed a pretty good Barnabas, if my memory serves
me well.
~consul
2012-04-25 22:23:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by A***@gmail.com
Post by Ubiquitous
Who would have thought
this soap opera could rise again after the failed primetime revival in
1991?
I cringe whenever someone uses the phrase "failed prime time revival
in 1991," after all if the Iraq Kuwait war hadn't taken place at the
time and interrupted the series it might have lasted many years and
been hugely successful.
One years earlier or one year later and it might have survived much
longer.
Wait, is there some reason why the Gulf War would have had any effect? An actor dropping out because of deployment or something?
--
"... respect, all good works are not done by only good folk. For here, at the end of all things, we shall do what needs to be done."
--till next time, consul -x- <<poetry.dolphins-cove.com>>
suzeeq
2012-04-26 00:23:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by ~consul
Post by A***@gmail.com
Post by Ubiquitous
Who would have thought
this soap opera could rise again after the failed primetime revival in
1991?
I cringe whenever someone uses the phrase "failed prime time revival
in 1991," after all if the Iraq Kuwait war hadn't taken place at the
time and interrupted the series it might have lasted many years and
been hugely successful.
One years earlier or one year later and it might have survived much
longer.
Wait, is there some reason why the Gulf War would have had any effect? An actor dropping out because of deployment or something?
Because it was mostly round the clock news on the networks, probably
especially the one DS 2 aired on.
anim8rFSK
2012-04-26 02:42:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by suzeeq
Post by ~consul
Post by A***@gmail.com
Post by Ubiquitous
Who would have thought
this soap opera could rise again after the failed primetime revival in
1991?
I cringe whenever someone uses the phrase "failed prime time revival
in 1991," after all if the Iraq Kuwait war hadn't taken place at the
time and interrupted the series it might have lasted many years and
been hugely successful.
One years earlier or one year later and it might have survived much
longer.
Wait, is there some reason why the Gulf War would have had any effect? An
actor dropping out because of deployment or something?
Because it was mostly round the clock news on the networks, probably
especially the one DS 2 aired on.
Hmm. No, they showed it. We missed the first episode 'cause Mom
knocked the antenna loose on her new Xmas gift TV set so I didn't watch
them, thinking there'd be reruns (which there never were) but I peeked
in now and again.
--
So we're all agreed that Clod is as stupid as Charlie Sheen?
Ubiquitous
2012-04-26 09:36:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by suzeeq
Post by ~consul
Post by A***@gmail.com
I cringe whenever someone uses the phrase "failed prime time revival
in 1991," after all if the Iraq Kuwait war hadn't taken place at the
time and interrupted the series it might have lasted many years and
been hugely successful.
One years earlier or one year later and it might have survived much
longer.
Wait, is there some reason why the Gulf War would have had any effect?
An actor dropping out because of deployment or something?
Because it was mostly round the clock news on the networks, probably
especially the one DS 2 aired on.
He seems to forget that GW coverage would affect all channels on all days.
--
"If Barack Obama isn't careful, he will become the Jimmy Carter of the
21st century."
Ubiquitous
2012-04-26 09:34:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by ~consul
Post by A***@gmail.com
Who would have thought this soap opera could rise again after the failed
primetime revival in 1991?
I cringe whenever someone uses the phrase "failed prime time revival
in 1991," after all if the Iraq Kuwait war hadn't taken place at the
time and interrupted the series it might have lasted many years and
been hugely successful.
One years earlier or one year later and it might have survived much
longer.
Wait, is there some reason why the Gulf War would have had any effect? An
actor dropping out because of deployment or something?
He doesn't know what he's talking about.The revival sucked.
--
"If Barack Obama isn't careful, he will become the Jimmy Carter of the
21st century."
Captain Infinity
2012-04-26 13:15:24 UTC
Permalink
Once Upon A Time,
Post by Ubiquitous
Post by ~consul
Post by A***@gmail.com
Who would have thought this soap opera could rise again after the failed
primetime revival in 1991?
I cringe whenever someone uses the phrase "failed prime time revival
in 1991," after all if the Iraq Kuwait war hadn't taken place at the
time and interrupted the series it might have lasted many years and
been hugely successful.
One years earlier or one year later and it might have survived much
longer.
Wait, is there some reason why the Gulf War would have had any effect? An
actor dropping out because of deployment or something?
He doesn't know what he's talking about.The revival sucked.
I remember that I wastched the whole revival mini-series, but I don't
remember it sucking. The worst I can say about it now is that I don't
remember much of it at all.


**
Captain Infinity
Kishin
2012-04-26 14:41:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Captain Infinity
Once Upon A Time,
Post by Ubiquitous
Post by ~consul
Post by A***@gmail.com
Who would have thought this soap opera could rise again after the failed
primetime revival in 1991?
I cringe whenever someone uses the phrase "failed prime time revival
in 1991," after all if the Iraq Kuwait war hadn't taken place at the
time and interrupted the series it might have lasted many years and
been hugely successful.
One years earlier or one year later and it might have survived much
longer.
Wait, is there some reason why the Gulf War would have had any effect? An
actor dropping out because of deployment or something?
He doesn't know what he's talking about.The revival sucked.
I remember that I wastched the whole revival mini-series, but I don't
remember it sucking. The worst I can say about it now is that I don't
remember much of it at all.
I didn't think it sucked at all. It was much better than the Burton
movie appears to be. I eventually watched the whole series on DVD.
--
Kishin
anim8rFSK
2012-04-26 16:40:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kishin
Post by Captain Infinity
Once Upon A Time,
Post by Ubiquitous
Post by ~consul
Post by A***@gmail.com
Who would have thought this soap opera could rise again after the failed
primetime revival in 1991?
I cringe whenever someone uses the phrase "failed prime time revival
in 1991," after all if the Iraq Kuwait war hadn't taken place at the
time and interrupted the series it might have lasted many years and
been hugely successful.
One years earlier or one year later and it might have survived much
longer.
Wait, is there some reason why the Gulf War would have had any effect? An
actor dropping out because of deployment or something?
He doesn't know what he's talking about.The revival sucked.
I remember that I wastched the whole revival mini-series, but I don't
remember it sucking. The worst I can say about it now is that I don't
remember much of it at all.
I didn't think it sucked at all. It was much better than the Burton
movie appears to be. I eventually watched the whole series on DVD.
I can't think of anything that you couldn't say was "much better than
the Burton movie appears to be"
--
So we're all agreed that Clod is as stupid as Charlie Sheen?
Kishin
2012-04-26 18:15:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by anim8rFSK
Post by Kishin
Post by Captain Infinity
Once Upon A Time,
Post by Ubiquitous
Post by ~consul
Post by A***@gmail.com
Who would have thought this soap opera could rise again after the failed
primetime revival in 1991?
I cringe whenever someone uses the phrase "failed prime time revival
in 1991," after all if the Iraq Kuwait war hadn't taken place at the
time and interrupted the series it might have lasted many years and
been hugely successful.
One years earlier or one year later and it might have survived much
longer.
Wait, is there some reason why the Gulf War would have had any effect? An
actor dropping out because of deployment or something?
He doesn't know what he's talking about.The revival sucked.
I remember that I wastched the whole revival mini-series, but I don't
remember it sucking. The worst I can say about it now is that I don't
remember much of it at all.
I didn't think it sucked at all. It was much better than the Burton
movie appears to be. I eventually watched the whole series on DVD.
I can't think of anything that you couldn't say was "much better than
the Burton movie appears to be"
What I meant was, it was a reasonable, respectful adaptation of the
original series, where Burton's movie doesn't appear to be.
--
Kishin
Marcovaldo
2012-04-26 20:16:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kishin
Post by anim8rFSK
Post by Kishin
Post by Captain Infinity
Once Upon A Time,
Post by Ubiquitous
Post by ~consul
Post by A***@gmail.com
Who would have thought this soap opera could rise again after the failed
primetime revival in 1991?
I cringe whenever someone uses the phrase "failed prime time revival
in 1991," after all if the Iraq Kuwait war hadn't taken place at the
time and interrupted the series it might have lasted many years and
been hugely successful.
One years earlier or one year later and it might have survived much
longer.
Wait, is there some reason why the Gulf War would have had any effect? An
actor dropping out because of deployment or something?
He doesn't know what he's talking about.The revival sucked.
I remember that I wastched the whole revival mini-series, but I don't
remember it sucking. The worst I can say about it now is that I don't
remember much of it at all.
I didn't think it sucked at all. It was much better than the Burton
movie appears to be. I eventually watched the whole series on DVD.
I can't think of anything that you couldn't say was "much better than
the Burton movie appears to be"
What I meant was, it was a reasonable, respectful adaptation of the
original series, where Burton's movie doesn't appear to be.
--
Kishin
I thought the primetime show was pretty good. Then again, at the time that I watched it, I had only seen bits and pieces of the original, so it didn't suffer so much from comparison.
anim8rFSK
2012-04-26 22:50:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kishin
Post by anim8rFSK
Post by Kishin
Post by Captain Infinity
Once Upon A Time,
Post by Ubiquitous
Post by ~consul
Post by A***@gmail.com
Who would have thought this soap opera could rise again after the failed
primetime revival in 1991?
I cringe whenever someone uses the phrase "failed prime time revival
in 1991," after all if the Iraq Kuwait war hadn't taken place at the
time and interrupted the series it might have lasted many years and
been hugely successful.
One years earlier or one year later and it might have survived much
longer.
Wait, is there some reason why the Gulf War would have had any effect? An
actor dropping out because of deployment or something?
He doesn't know what he's talking about.The revival sucked.
I remember that I wastched the whole revival mini-series, but I don't
remember it sucking. The worst I can say about it now is that I don't
remember much of it at all.
I didn't think it sucked at all. It was much better than the Burton
movie appears to be. I eventually watched the whole series on DVD.
I can't think of anything that you couldn't say was "much better than
the Burton movie appears to be"
What I meant was, it was a reasonable, respectful adaptation of the
original series, where Burton's movie doesn't appear to be.
Yes. I was agreeing. :)
--
So we're all agreed that Clod is as stupid as Charlie Sheen?
Kishin
2012-04-27 04:46:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by anim8rFSK
Post by Kishin
Post by anim8rFSK
Post by Kishin
Post by Captain Infinity
Once Upon A Time,
Post by Ubiquitous
Post by ~consul
Post by A***@gmail.com
Who would have thought this soap opera could rise again after the failed
primetime revival in 1991?
I cringe whenever someone uses the phrase "failed prime time revival
in 1991," after all if the Iraq Kuwait war hadn't taken place at the
time and interrupted the series it might have lasted many years and
been hugely successful.
One years earlier or one year later and it might have survived much
longer.
Wait, is there some reason why the Gulf War would have had any effect? An
actor dropping out because of deployment or something?
He doesn't know what he's talking about.The revival sucked.
I remember that I wastched the whole revival mini-series, but I don't
remember it sucking. The worst I can say about it now is that I don't
remember much of it at all.
I didn't think it sucked at all. It was much better than the Burton
movie appears to be. I eventually watched the whole series on DVD.
I can't think of anything that you couldn't say was "much better than
the Burton movie appears to be"
What I meant was, it was a reasonable, respectful adaptation of the
original series, where Burton's movie doesn't appear to be.
Yes. I was agreeing. :)
Don't agree with me! Wouldn't it be more fun to argue?
--
Kishin
anim8rFSK
2012-04-27 14:27:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kishin
Post by anim8rFSK
Post by Kishin
Post by anim8rFSK
Post by Kishin
Post by Captain Infinity
Once Upon A Time,
Post by Ubiquitous
Post by ~consul
Post by A***@gmail.com
Who would have thought this soap opera could rise again after the
failed
primetime revival in 1991?
I cringe whenever someone uses the phrase "failed prime time revival
in 1991," after all if the Iraq Kuwait war hadn't taken place at the
time and interrupted the series it might have lasted many years and
been hugely successful.
One years earlier or one year later and it might have survived much
longer.
Wait, is there some reason why the Gulf War would have had any effect? An
actor dropping out because of deployment or something?
He doesn't know what he's talking about.The revival sucked.
I remember that I wastched the whole revival mini-series, but I don't
remember it sucking. The worst I can say about it now is that I don't
remember much of it at all.
I didn't think it sucked at all. It was much better than the Burton
movie appears to be. I eventually watched the whole series on DVD.
I can't think of anything that you couldn't say was "much better than
the Burton movie appears to be"
What I meant was, it was a reasonable, respectful adaptation of the
original series, where Burton's movie doesn't appear to be.
Yes. I was agreeing. :)
Don't agree with me! Wouldn't it be more fun to argue?
That would mean claiming Burton isn't doing a crapfest, a deliberate
insult to the show and it's fans. I can't claim that!
--
So we're all agreed that Clod is as stupid as Charlie Sheen?
Kishin
2012-04-27 14:45:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by anim8rFSK
Post by Kishin
Post by anim8rFSK
Post by Kishin
Post by anim8rFSK
Post by Kishin
Post by Captain Infinity
Once Upon A Time,
Post by Ubiquitous
Post by ~consul
Post by A***@gmail.com
Who would have thought this soap opera could rise again after the
failed
primetime revival in 1991?
I cringe whenever someone uses the phrase "failed prime time revival
in 1991," after all if the Iraq Kuwait war hadn't taken place at the
time and interrupted the series it might have lasted many years and
been hugely successful.
One years earlier or one year later and it might have survived much
longer.
Wait, is there some reason why the Gulf War would have had any effect? An
actor dropping out because of deployment or something?
He doesn't know what he's talking about.The revival sucked.
I remember that I wastched the whole revival mini-series, but I don't
remember it sucking. The worst I can say about it now is that I don't
remember much of it at all.
I didn't think it sucked at all. It was much better than the Burton
movie appears to be. I eventually watched the whole series on DVD.
I can't think of anything that you couldn't say was "much better than
the Burton movie appears to be"
What I meant was, it was a reasonable, respectful adaptation of the
original series, where Burton's movie doesn't appear to be.
Yes. I was agreeing. :)
Don't agree with me! Wouldn't it be more fun to argue?
That would mean claiming Burton isn't doing a crapfest, a deliberate
insult to the show and it's fans. I can't claim that!
Damn. So I guess my only hope is that I end up loving the movie, and can
argue with everyone about it then.
--
Kishin
anim8rFSK
2012-04-27 18:07:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kishin
Post by anim8rFSK
Post by Kishin
Post by anim8rFSK
Post by Kishin
Post by anim8rFSK
Post by Kishin
Post by Captain Infinity
Once Upon A Time,
Post by Ubiquitous
Post by ~consul
Post by A***@gmail.com
Who would have thought this soap opera could rise again after the
failed
primetime revival in 1991?
I cringe whenever someone uses the phrase "failed prime time revival
in 1991," after all if the Iraq Kuwait war hadn't taken place at the
time and interrupted the series it might have lasted many years and
been hugely successful.
One years earlier or one year later and it might have survived much
longer.
Wait, is there some reason why the Gulf War would have had any
effect?
An
actor dropping out because of deployment or something?
He doesn't know what he's talking about.The revival sucked.
I remember that I wastched the whole revival mini-series, but I don't
remember it sucking. The worst I can say about it now is that I don't
remember much of it at all.
I didn't think it sucked at all. It was much better than the Burton
movie appears to be. I eventually watched the whole series on DVD.
I can't think of anything that you couldn't say was "much better than
the Burton movie appears to be"
What I meant was, it was a reasonable, respectful adaptation of the
original series, where Burton's movie doesn't appear to be.
Yes. I was agreeing. :)
Don't agree with me! Wouldn't it be more fun to argue?
That would mean claiming Burton isn't doing a crapfest, a deliberate
insult to the show and it's fans. I can't claim that!
Damn. So I guess my only hope is that I end up loving the movie, and can
argue with everyone about it then.
Sign up for that lobotomy now; it's your only hope!
--
So we're all agreed that Clod is as stupid as Charlie Sheen?
Duggy
2012-04-27 23:55:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by anim8rFSK
That would mean claiming Burton isn't doing a crapfest, a deliberate
insult to the show and it's fans.  I can't claim that!
If that were true then his Planet of the Apes would have been crap...
Oh, I see your point.

===
= DUG.
===
Wiseguy
2012-04-28 01:36:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by anim8rFSK
Post by Kishin
Post by anim8rFSK
Post by Kishin
Post by anim8rFSK
Post by Kishin
Post by Captain Infinity
Once Upon A Time,
Post by Ubiquitous
Post by ~consul
On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 14:06:16 -0400,
Who would have thought this soap opera could rise again
after the failed
primetime revival in 1991?
I cringe whenever someone uses the phrase "failed prime time
revival in 1991," after all if the Iraq Kuwait war hadn't
taken place at the time and interrupted the series it might
have lasted many years and been hugely successful.
One years earlier or one year later and it might have
survived much longer.
Wait, is there some reason why the Gulf War would have had any effect? An
actor dropping out because of deployment or something?
He doesn't know what he's talking about.The revival sucked.
I remember that I wastched the whole revival mini-series, but I
don't remember it sucking. The worst I can say about it now is
that I don't remember much of it at all.
I didn't think it sucked at all. It was much better than the
Burton movie appears to be. I eventually watched the whole
series on DVD.
I can't think of anything that you couldn't say was "much better
than the Burton movie appears to be"
What I meant was, it was a reasonable, respectful adaptation of
the original series, where Burton's movie doesn't appear to be.
Yes. I was agreeing. :)
Don't agree with me! Wouldn't it be more fun to argue?
That would mean claiming Burton isn't doing a crapfest, a deliberate
insult to the show and it's fans. I can't claim that!
it's = it is
Ubiquitous
2012-04-27 01:07:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ubiquitous
He doesn't know what he's talking about.The revival sucked.
I remember that I watched the whole revival mini-series, but I don't
remember it sucking. The worst I can say about it now is that I don't
remember much of it at all.
See, what did I tell you?
--
"If Barack Obama isn't careful, he will become the Jimmy Carter of the
21st century."
Wiseguy
2012-04-27 04:44:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ubiquitous
Post by Ubiquitous
He doesn't know what he's talking about.The revival sucked.
I remember that I watched the whole revival mini-series, but I don't
remember it sucking. The worst I can say about it now is that I don't
remember much of it at all.
See, what did I tell you?
You said it sucked. He said he couldn't remember it sucking. He wasn't
agreeing with you. Not everybody agrees with you. Deal with it.
anim8rFSK
2012-04-26 13:16:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ubiquitous
Post by ~consul
Post by A***@gmail.com
Who would have thought this soap opera could rise again after the failed
primetime revival in 1991?
I cringe whenever someone uses the phrase "failed prime time revival
in 1991," after all if the Iraq Kuwait war hadn't taken place at the
time and interrupted the series it might have lasted many years and
been hugely successful.
One years earlier or one year later and it might have survived much
longer.
Wait, is there some reason why the Gulf War would have had any effect? An
actor dropping out because of deployment or something?
He doesn't know what he's talking about.The revival sucked.
I only finally saw it a year or two ago when it came out on DVD. It ...
wasn't very good. That model house! Who the Hell thought they were
going to get away with passing off that stupid dollhouse as the real
place?
--
So we're all agreed that Clod is as stupid as Charlie Sheen?
Ubiquitous
2012-04-27 01:05:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by anim8rFSK
I only finally saw it a year or two ago when it came out on DVD.
It ... wasn't very good. That model house! Who the Hell thought
they were going to get away with passing off that stupid dollhouse as
the real place?
I hated how they went thru the original plot at such a breakneck speed.
If memory serves, the storyline in which Victoria spend several months
watching Barnabus' past unfold took place in about two eps!
--
"If Barack Obama isn't careful, he will become the Jimmy Carter of the
21st century."
Wiseguy
2012-04-27 04:50:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by anim8rFSK
Post by Ubiquitous
Post by ~consul
Post by A***@gmail.com
Who would have thought this soap opera could rise again after the
failed primetime revival in 1991?
I cringe whenever someone uses the phrase "failed prime time
revival in 1991," after all if the Iraq Kuwait war hadn't taken
place at the time and interrupted the series it might have lasted
many years and been hugely successful.
One years earlier or one year later and it might have survived
much longer.
Wait, is there some reason why the Gulf War would have had any
effect? An actor dropping out because of deployment or something?
He doesn't know what he's talking about.The revival sucked.
I only finally saw it a year or two ago when it came out on DVD. It
... wasn't very good. That model house! Who the Hell thought they
were going to get away with passing off that stupid dollhouse as the
real place?
What about irrelevant things such as writing, directing, etc.?
B***@yahoo.com
2012-04-27 18:20:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by anim8rFSK
I only finally saw it a year or two ago when it came out on DVD. It
... wasn't very good. That model house! Who the Hell thought they
were going to get away with passing off that stupid dollhouse as the
real place?
You do realize when you watch many a tv show/movie that you're looking
at miniatures?

Many of them are so well done that you can't tell it is a miniature.
A***@gmail.com
2012-04-26 17:05:31 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 15:23:46 -0700, ~consul
Post by ~consul
Post by A***@gmail.com
One years earlier or one year later and it might have survived much
longer.
Wait, is there some reason why the Gulf War would have had any effect?
Yeah......walt to wall coverage of the war.

There were many days where the coverage would last all day,
they'd drop the commercials, and pre-empt a ton of shows.

The bottom line: stations had to go wal to wall or else viewers
would have a mass exodus to CNN.
3***@366.com
2012-04-22 18:56:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ubiquitous
In 2004, a pilot for a new Dark Shadows series starring Marley Shelton
as Victoria Winters and Alec Newman as Barnabas Collins was produced but
never picked up.
That was for the WB and I have to say i'm glad it wasn't picked up.
As ASP of the Gilmore Girls and others pointed out over the course
of time WB/CW/UPN was too small a network to really do a TV series
properly.

This was painfullly true with Gilmore Girls/Charmed/etc.
anim8rFSK
2012-04-23 01:33:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ubiquitous
by Billy Ingram
It's a foregone conclusion that whenever a big screen adaptation of a TV
show happens it's a disaster. Over and over we see the examples. But
there was a string of motion pictures based on television shows that
were as good or better than the originals.
They tended to be the very first adaptations
Hardly the very first. Our Miss Brooks did a movie a decade earlier.

- McHale's Navy (1964),
Post by Ubiquitous
McHale's Navy Joins the Air Force (1965), Munster Go Home! (1964),
Batman (1966), and House of Dark Shadows (1970).
The first McHale's Navy film was pretty good,
agreed

the second not so great,

Lack of McHale being a problem, but it was still pretty good
Post by Ubiquitous
but I would say they were on par with the sitcom. That's not really
saying much but they were movies for kids.
Munster Go Home! was a dumbed down, stretched thin episode of the CBS
show (that had just been cancelled), relying too much on bad puns and
childish slapstick. It might actually play better if you've never seen
The Munsters before, the best gags were all too familiar from the TV
version. The first season of The Munsters represented some of the
funniest television ever but the motion picture never aspired to that
level of quality, in terms of the writing anyway. But it does sport the
original cast (with a new Marilyn) in vivid color for the first time and
featured a cool new dragster created by George Barris.
http://youtube/Vf2v5uvt-Hk
Say what you will about the primetime portrayal of the Dark Knight but
if you liked the 1966 show you'd love the movie of the same year.
Oh yes
Post by Ubiquitous
http://youtube/osrA1tQsAS8
But for me, House of Dark Shadows stands as the most effective TV
adaptation to the big screen until Star Trek II the Wrath of Khan came
along in 1982.
House is a great movie, unfortunately about to be crapped all over by
Tim Burton.
Post by Ubiquitous
The daytime soap opera Dark Shadows struggled to find an audience before
Jonathan Frid joined the cast as Barnabas Collins. This happened in 1967
just after Batman ignited in primetime; both Frid and Adam West became
instant pop icons. Perhaps it was the success of the Batman movie that
prompted MGM to green light a film version of Dark Shadows four years
later.
The motion pictures House of Dark Shadows from 1970 and the sequel Night
of Dark Shadows from 1971 have never appeared on DVD -
Well, no, but there have been VHS and Laser and you can stream it.

but a release is
Post by Ubiquitous
promised for 2012. Interest in the upcoming Johnny Depp film version of
Dark Shadows has made the series super hot again. Who would have thought
this soap opera could rise again after the failed primetime revival in
1991?
Or the uber failed pilot in 2004 (?)
Post by Ubiquitous
House of Dark Shadows is a faithful re-telling of the origin of Barnabas
Collins straight from the soap opera plotline, only far more gruesome
and bloody. Creator and producer Dan Curtis constructed a rock solid
scenario so a blood curdling time was had by all.
There are many creepy moments and genuine chills in this gothic tale of
a vampire released after more than a century in captivity, consumed with
a longing to romantically reconnect with his long-buried past.
http://youtube/zjovb6UQgyA
The music by Robert Cobert was a major contributor to the overall
creepiness of Dark Shadows and it is carried over nicely to the motion
picture version. Some of the dialogue and camera set-ups are identical
to the first Barnabas TV story arc but the house was different, by
necessity. You can't shoot a motion picture on a TV soap opera set so
the Lyndhurst Estate in Tarrytown, New York and the Lockwood-Mathews
Mansion in Connecticut became the new Collins' mansions.
The feature film broke with the TV show's continuity in another key area
in that almost everyone was left dead by the end credits.
or undead
Post by Ubiquitous
Night of Dark Shadows I remember being schlocky and seemingly meant to
go straight to the Drive-In circuit, the equivalent in 1971 of going
direct to DVD.
Like the television series, part of the film takes place in the past but
there's no Barnabas - instead Quentin Collins (David Selby) is the
center of attention, a silly prat possessed and in love with the ghost
of Angelique.
Most of the cast of House of Dark Shadows returned except Jonathan Frid
and Joan Bennett as Elizabeth Collins Stoddard. I guess she stayed dead
after the last movie.
Actors who played supporting characters that were offed in the first
film were reincarnated with different identities in Night of Dark
Shadows - but then that was a common thread on the TV show as well.
http://youtube/Udqf_kjxCbY
This movie was a great deal more violent and overtly sexual than the
afternoon soap, obviously, but not the least bit scary. I was left
totally confused by the whole tawdry affair, being a fan of the show and
seeing familiar characters in so murky a setting.
Unlike the first Dark Shadows movie, which surprised everyone with
strong box office receipts, Night of Dark Shadows wasn't as successful.
Why didn't Curtis do something more in the same bloody vein of the
series and the first feature? Jonathan Frid didn't want to do it, he was
terrified of being typecast.
Can you imagine not wanting to be the star of what could have been a
lucrative film franchise? He should have instead been apprehensive about
not working again; Jonathan Frid was rarely seen on TV or in movies
after the ABC series left the air in March of 1971, two days before
Night of Dark Shadows began filming.
The daytime soap had undergone a major change in the last months of its
existence with Frid portraying perennial loser Bramwell Collins in a
drab storyline that took place in the 1800s.
Gone were the vampires, werewolves, and fantastic characters, replaced
instead by boring archetypes who were vaguely terrified of a room in the
home, a worn out theme by then. I guess the network wanted to see if the
show had any pull as a typical soap opera (set in the past?) without the
bizarre plotlines before they pulled the plug.
Here's the last scene of Dark Shadows, they thankfully delivered a
chilling moment at the very end. I remember being quite impressed.
http://youtube/Iz9ysN5xbak
I understand the director's cut of Night of Dark Shadows will be coming
to DVD in 2012 so maybe I should give this motion picture another shot.
Unlike House of Dark Shadows, Night was directed by Dan Curtis but MGM
forced him to rush cut over 35 minutes from his finished film. This
might account for the lack of cohesion.
http://youtube/cGnwVG0vQ8Y
Here's a Question & Answer period with Jonathan Frid, Barnabas Collins,
from a 2009 Dark Shadows convention.
http://youtube/CZcUztMmsA0
In 2004, a pilot for a new Dark Shadows series starring Marley Shelton
as Victoria Winters and Alec Newman as Barnabas Collins was produced but
never picked up.
Or even finished.
--
So we're all agreed that Clod is as stupid as Charlie Sheen?
Captain Infinity
2012-04-23 12:59:43 UTC
Permalink
Once Upon A Time,
Post by Ubiquitous
http://youtube/Vf2v5uvt-Hk
I've only clicked on three of them, but so far none of the links you've
posted work.


**
Captain Infinity
globular
2012-04-26 00:40:55 UTC
Permalink
I thought the upcoming Dark Shadows movie was a revival of the Vampire
films of the early seventies, Count Yorga, the Hammer Horror ones with
Peter Cushing et al.
Ubiquitous
2012-04-27 01:01:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by globular
I thought the upcoming Dark Shadows movie was a revival of the Vampire
films of the early seventies, Count Yorga, the Hammer Horror ones with
Peter Cushing et al.
If ONLY it were!
--
"If Barack Obama isn't careful, he will become the Jimmy Carter of the
21st century."
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...