Trask

[jtfolden]

Originally posted by Michael Evenden
distance. (There may even be copyright issues here, since Art Wallace constrructed many of the original characters and got credit for that, and, as far as I know, hasn't given them carte-blanche permission to recreate his characters--but I could be way off there.)

I'm not sure how much copyright issues would apply here but it seems that each incarnation of DS has pitfalls in that area. At least where novels are concerned, the 91 version seems even more restrictive. Author Stephen Mark Rainey (who wrote 1999's Dark Shadows : Dreams Of The Dark") wanted to base his book around DS91 but was told he should not as it would face copyright problems so he was forced to revert to OS characters, etc... If it's easier to use the OS for books would it, also, indicate that it would be easier to use it as a basis for newer TV series, as well? Perhaps not, but it's food for thought.

[Michael Evenden]

This is extremely speculative, as you say, but I can't help thinking that Curtis'd be likely to be more protective of existing material in the face of new authors off writing novels in solitude than he would in the face of a new writing team that he was part of developing a new version he was going to produce; so maybe Rainey's difficulty getting access to the 1991 material isn't relevant here. But I admit I don't know. Does anyone know if Curtis was ever officially listed as a writer on HODS or the 91 series? Such attribution would simplify things for a revision process. But this may all be a complete red herring--I really don't know that there was ever a rights issue for adapting the OS, except for an ambivalent credit to Art Wallace at the start of the '91 version--something like "based on some characters developed by" or something remotely like that.

[Wersgor]

Curtis was credited as a writer on DS91, I believe. But I think it may be a mistake to assume that he is the top man this time around. After all, when they let him run everything in '91, the ratings dropped about 50 per cent by the second night of the "miniseries"! (That's not a supposition; I was working at TV Guide at the time, and noted the ratings for the show every week.) I doubt it's a coincidence that this time around, top production people with more recent hits to their credit are involved. I suspect that that's the only way the WB would give the show the go-ahead.

We've already been told that the pilot contains some elements from both previous series (and the movies, since DS91 borrowed heavily from HODS). And the spoilers we've seen seem to confirm that.

[jtfolden]

Originally posted by Wersgor
when they let him run everything in '91, the ratings dropped about 50 per cent by the second night of the "miniseries"! (That's not a supposition; I was working at TV Guide at the time, and noted the ratings for the show every week.)

Do you happen to have these ratings, still? I know the first night was incredibly successful and according to Jim Pierson's book the second night had similarly promising numbers. Anytime I've heard mention of a 50% or greater drop it was for the following Friday after the beginning of the War, when the West coast didn't even get to see it.

[FangFan]

You know, I live in San Francisco and I saw every episode of the show. What episode was supposed to have been preempted? If that happened, they must have shown it later.

[Michael Evenden]

Thanks, Wersgor.

Okay, maybe I'm dense, maybe (well, almost certainly) I don't know when to stop flogging a dead horse--but which elements that we've heard of so far in the WB pilot and planned episodes are from the OS exclusively, that is, not also present in the 1991 version? They haven't announced or cast a Quentin . . .

[jtfolden]

Originally posted by FangFan
You know, I live in San Francisco and I saw every episode of the show. What episode was supposed to have been preempted? If that happened, they must have shown it later.

Episode 4....

Episodes 2 & 3 were actually part 2 of the pilot, so episode 4 was to be the very first single hour episode to be aired in the normal Friday 9PM timeslot. However, before that happened the Gulf War broke out and NBC decided that it's Thursday night line up was more important so they decided on that Friday to re-air Cheers and (I think) Night Court in DS's time slot, uninterrupted. What's hilarious and tragic is that they advertised on Thursday for re-airing Cheers the following night but DS got no real advertisement about it's schedule mix-up. For EST and CST viewers, DS was moved to 10PM but people on the west coast got war coverage instead. To make up for it NBC aired Episode 4 again the following Friday at 9pm and episode 5 at 10pm. That could have actually been an hour earlier, but they were aired back to back, anyway.

Then a few weeks later, DS got moved again to a later time slot for the remaining episodes. There was no realistic way for it to keep or grow a stable audience as it never aired reliably at the same time each week. lol

[Wersgor]

I do still have the weekly ratings written down, but at the moment they're in storage two counties away. I'll try to dig them out the next time I'm there. I'm quite clear on when the first big drop occurred, though; I remember being very disheartened by it. It was followed by a second big drop with the first hour-length episode, but that made sense, since it was delayed by war news and most people didn't realize it aired after prime time. (Which seems to give the lie to the idea that "everyone was too busy watching the news" - if they had been watching the news, they would have seen the announcements that DS would be airing when the special reports were over.) From that point on, the ratings remained at approximately the same low point until the end, dropping a little bit more each week. Interestingly, they dropped LESS per week at the later timeslot, indicating that the audience had leveled off and was no longer shrinking.

Of course, in 1991 the Nielsen ratings still reflected the same audience that they had reflected in 1953: family units and single adults. If the adjustment made just a year or so later had been in effect then, DS would have scored impressive ratings among teens and young singles - and "The Simpsons" would probably have been the Number One show on TV.

A number of non-fans who had watched the first night of the "miniseries" told me that they didn't plan to watch the weekly series at all. Reason? They had been led to expect a miniseries - a complete story with a beginning and an end. When the first night was filled with commercials saying "The story continues", they felt that NBC was trying to trick them into a commitment. And others, who kept an open mind about that throughout the third and fourth hours, felt that ending the "mini" on a cliffhanger was the last straw. People don't like to be misled.

[jtfolden]

Originally posted by Wersgor
drop with the first hour-length episode, but that made sense, since it was delayed by war news and most people didn't realize it aired after prime time. (Which seems to give the lie to the idea that "everyone was too busy watching the news" - if they had been watching the news, they would have seen the announcements that DS would be airing when the special reports were over.) From

...but it wasn't war news broadcasting in that 9PM slot on what was supposed to be DS's first normal time slot... it was Cheers. I remember turning over and wondering where the heck DS was and then turning away about 5 mins later... If it hadn't been for the fact that my mother decided to stick with watching Cheers, I would have never known DS was coming on an hour later. She saw an ad and let me know. In the west coast where they broadcast news reports on that Friday, they didn't air it AT ALL - so there were no announcements it was coming on later for those viewers. If there were, they apparently didn't follow up on it. Which makes it even more confusing for viewers, I guess.

A number of non-fans who had watched the first night of the "miniseries" told me that they didn't plan to watch the weekly series at all. Reason? They had been led to expect a miniseries - a complete story with a beginning and an end. When the first night was filled with commercials saying "The story continues", they felt that NBC was trying to trick them into a commitment. And others, who kept an open mind about that throughout the third and fourth hours, felt that ending the "mini" on a cliffhanger was the last straw. People don't like to be misled.

I remember them advertising the first 4 hours as a mini-series... but at the same time I don't remember there not being common knowledge about future episodes. I was certainly aware of it but wasn't a avid DS fan at that point so it must have come from ads and press prior to the mini. Assuming there's really people that think as you stated then I suppose that's just another of NBC's great blunders with the 91 series.

[Wersgor]

Hmm, that's true, I was watching earlier so I knew what was going on. People who didn't tune in until the actual airtime would have been much more confused.

I'm sure the people who gave that as their reason for not watching the series were being honest about it. Of course, they were not as aware of what was coming on TV as you and I. Many people just seem to take it day by day.

[Wersgor]

Michael asked: "which elements that we've heard of so far in the WB pilot and planned episodes are from the OS exclusively, that is, not also present in the 1991 version? They haven't announced or cast a Quentin . . ."

What I was referring to was not additional characters, but the way in which the same characters are being treated. We've had spoilers that mention Elizabeth hiding away from the world; Carolyn not wanting to end up like her mother; Roger wondering if Barnabas is after the Collins money; David claiming to have spoken with the ghost of a beautiful lady; Vicki talking to a friendly old stranger on the train to Collinsport. All of these are original-series elements - some major, some touched on only briefly - which never made their way into DS91. So I think it's safe to say that the producers have been doing some research.

[Michael Evenden]

Whaddya know. I missed two of these spoilers--Elizabeth as a recluse and David having a ghost-friend who was a beautiful lady. (Where were these?) If you're right, Wersgor, the OS fan in me is much encouraged! Thanks! And good cl.ue-watching! (I still believe that HODS and the '91 series, both of which had their strengths, still missed the heart of several crucial elements--now I can torture myself with more hope and less resignation for the next version!)

[k. caorli]

In the original spoilers before any cast announcements the female spirit was described as blond and implied to be Angelique.But we now know the actress playing Angelique is a brunett,though she's played blonds in the past too.Of course the new Vicki is reputedly a natural blond who is claimed to look just like Josette's portrait.Reincarnation is inferred but not yet certain perhaps.Marley Shelton may die her hair for either or both roles, assuming Josette appears.Though not canon Dan Ross's novels reversed the coloring of Josette and Angelique but not Vicki, who was not the former's reincarnation. When she replaced Vicki in the books neither was Maggie.But it wouldn't be hard to alter the reference to hair color if need be.It wasn't entirely clear if the audience will see what David describes.It related to his dicovery of Angelique's amulet which upsets Barnabas once he learns about it as it had been buried with the witch.[He said 'they' buried her implying it was not just Ben who did so.Ben, in fact, has not yet been mentioned though neither have most of the 18th[?] century characters.]If it is possible to retain Josette as a ghost a in 1966 it could still technicly be she David sees. She might try to stop him from finding Angelique's amulet, futilely. But if so the boy aught to have recognized the resemblence to Vicki and commented on it, though such a detail could stil be added. But I doubt it will be.In the original I liked that Barnabas was drawn to Vicki because of her personality [ and admittedly her vulnerability as an orphan.]rather than an exact resemblence to Josette like Maggie.But what has been reported so far makes the reincarnational aspect from HODS and 1991 a virtual certainty. Still, as I said only the physical likeness is apparently definite in the pilot.
As for Carolyn it remains to be seen how he desire to leave Collinsport will be played.The spoiler,as written, suggested the Carolyn of 1966 but could be portrayed like the bored 'wanna-be' jet setter implied in 1991.We know the actress age is greater than the 1966 version but less so than was true of Nancy Barrett.As with all the cast knowing the actor's ages doesn't tell us about the characters. Vicki was 20 in 1966 but the 1991 version was a more realistic 25,either of which the 30 year old Miss Shelton could play, though 20 might be pushing it.Yet she played a teen within the last two to three years...Josette was originally 23-24 at her death but they later reduced it to 21.The 'old man' she speaks to on the train is certainly reminiscent of the old woman used to warn Vicki of the town's isolation in 1966.

[Wersgor]

Another possibility is that the mysterious blobde lady could be David's mother - if they were separated at such an early age that he doesn't remember her. Or if it is Josette, she could be wearing a veil as in TOS, but with some of her hair visible due to its length.

[k. caorli]

While the hair color of David's mother in this version is unknown I'm fairly sure the initial spoilers did say that she had been institutionalized when he was too young to have remembered her.In the original's Phoenix plot she was, of course, blond Whereas in 1991 Roger painted her as a
brunette. I guess we'll see. It was noted that Roger's wife was asked about, suggesting they intend to deal with her at some point or they wouldn't have waisted time on it in an already crowded pilot.