DivaMagenta@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>>The 1990's version was HORRIBLE!
>>The (recycled) stories were rushed (even
>>though each ep was an hour in length).
>
>
> I didn't *hate* the revival (except for Lysette Anthony's awful
> performance as Angelique), but it completely paled in comparision to the
> original, and in great part for the reason you stated. The original
> series had the luxury of a daytime drama's schedule to tell their
> stories over months and years, five days a week, with the op****tunity to
> truly develop the characters and write rich storylines for them, making
> us care about them and their plights. This could be said for soaps in
> general, as no other genre really affords the years or even decades of
> time to add such layers of depth to these memorable characters.
>
> On the other hand, the revival - out of necessity - rushed through the
> Collins family tale that might make for an interesting evening of
> television,, but without the development of character and storylines
> that made the original so unforgettable.
>
> I think the other main problem was retreading the familiar 1795
> storyline with the same characters, which for a show with such a strong,
> loyal fan base was, I thnk, a huge mistake. Imagine the Trekkies'
> protests if they attempted to do the newer Star Trek TV series by
> recasting new, young actors to play Kirk, Spock and the rest of the
> iconic characters, instead of the wise move of creating new stories and
> new characters within the same universe. Any new DS would be better
> off, IMHO, with a new generation of the Collins family, the descendants
> of the Collins' we grew up with and loved. Ben Cross was very good, but
> there's just no other Barnabas but Jonathan Frid. But now, if he had
> been Barnabas' son...
I didn't like the setting. It looked nothing like Maine. The vegetation,
the ocean, and the architecture looked like California. It would have
worked if they'd changed the story so it took place there instead of
Maine, but they didn't.
WR
|
