Talk:Dark Shadows/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

actors, movies

What about the movie, "House Of Dark Shadows"? Is it available on DVD?

Can someone write about the short-lived comeback in 1991? Wasn't Adrian Paul in that? --User:Damnedkingdom

For actors, availability on DVD, etc, see www.imdb.com Rick Norwood 20:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Mamachills (talk) 18:27, 25 August 2009 (UTC) Adrian Paul appeared in 3 episodes of the 1991 remake of Dark Shadows. He starred as Barnabas’ younger brother Jeremiah Collins.

The Secret Storm

It's interesting how Dark Shadows is attributed here with killing off The Secret Storm and yet Dark Shadows went off the air in 1971, The Secret Storm not until 1974. If Dark Shadows indeed killed The Secret Storm, it surely took a long time to die! Maybe for the last three seasons it was just part of the undead!

Rlquall 15:08, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The show's ratings had been low since about 1969 or thereabouts, and CBS had sufficient faith to keep airing it, even though the ratings were low. Mike H 10:22, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

revamp!

So, you revamped the synopsis. Cute. But why did you dewikify all the dates? Rick Norwood 23:05, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree that it would help to add the airdates of key parts of the story and I'll bet the editor who eliminated them wasn't alive when the original series aired and, therefore, can't see the importance. For instance, the children David and Amy discovered and became possessed by Quentin's ghost in the weeks before Christmas 1968, a move that sent ratings skyrocketing and one might wonder what effect that year's Christmas vacation had on getting more young viewers hooked on the soap. It helps people remember what exactly might have been happening in their own lives when those memorable episodes were aired. Unless, of course, one hadn't been born yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.79.181.206 (talk) 12:06, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Dewikifying dates

Because wikified dates are pointless. Why would anyone click on "April 8"? Toughpigs

When all else fails, RTFM. The wikification of dates, as I understand it, is to allow browsers in countries that write dates "8 April" to see them that way, and those with browsers in countries that write dates "April 8" to see them that way. Year wikification is to allow people to search for all events that occurred in a particular year. When something is a longstanding tradition, it is dangerous to assume it is pointless. Rick Norwood 00:21, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Let Us Consider Taking this up a Notch

If I may be so bold, I suggest that a major revamp is in order for this entire article. I realize I am waxing hypothetically, but I feel that it ought to have an article for each episode. If nothing else, there should be a separate page for synopses. The scant descriptions offered are tedious to read through, and they are spoilers as well. Much, much work is ahead to bring this up to the standard of all things Simpsons.blood_victory 08:26, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

While I agree that a rewrite would be an improvement, an article for each episode seems excessive. In fact, I think a shorter artilce would be better. Why not give it a try, a little at a time, and see what the response is. Rick Norwood 17:39, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

There's a Wikicity -- com/ CollinWiki -- that's working on this project. They're creating an article for each episode; you should check it out. I know they could use some help. Toughpigs 13:19, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I wonder if everyone at CollinWiki knows that every episode has already been covered in print media? In any case, this wiki is way too big to move whole to wikipedia. Rick Norwood 22:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

What do you mean "covered in print media"? Are you referring to the episode guides from PomPress? These books are great resources, but CollinWiki aims to amalgamate all sources of information into one place, plus include information not previously available in print or online. --Proudhug 04:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, those are the ones I mean. Rick Norwood 17:34, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Then yes, everyone at CollinWiki knows that every episode has already been covered in print media. I don't see the purpose of your question. CollinWiki is (or will be) much much more than an episode guide. --Proudhug 22:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I've finally found the time to begin the rewrite mentioned above. There is still a lot to be done, but I've removed some errors, put things a little closer to chronological order, and worried with the changes from past to present tense.

Question: which is to be preferred? "Barnabus travels back in time." or "Barnabus traveled back in time?" Rick Norwood 14:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Hearing no objection, I'm going to try to get the tense consistent. Rick Norwood 23:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

lost episode?

"Recently, however, original network master tapes to the series were discovered in an L.A. warehouse, so it is quite possible the master to the "lost" episode could be among them."

This sentence should be updated. Has the lost episode now been found? Rick Norwood 14:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The Wiki article should explain how one can listen to the lost episode. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.79.181.206 (talk) 12:09, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

First paragraph

I took out the VERY FIRST mentions of "cult" and "gothic" since we go on to elaborate on it in the VERY SAME paragraph. It's a bit redundant to do it twice. Do you agree? Mike H. That's hot 23:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Here is how the article begins, now.

"Dark Shadows was a gothic TV soap opera that has over the years acheived cult status, originaly airing weekdays on the ABC television network from June 27, 1966 to April 2, 1971. Produced by Dan Curtis and hugely popular in its day, it added a gothic vampire story to the standard "soap" plots and won a cult following with appealing characters and surprising plot twists."

I agree that the repetition of cult and gothic is bad, but would remove the second use of these words rather than the first. How about:

"Dark Shadows was a gothic television soap opera that over the years achieved cult status. It originally aired weekdays on the ABC television network, from June 27, 1966 to April 2, 1971. Produced by Dan Curtis, it was hugely popular in its heyday, when it introduced vampire Barnabas Collins, played by Johnathan Frid."

Not only does that get rid of the duplication, it also correctly spells "achieved". Let me know what you think. Rick Norwood 23:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the description of gothic twists and cult status in the first paragraph are just fine. However, obviously "gothic TV" and "that has over the years acheived cult status, originaly airing" need to go, being replaced with "Dark Shadows was a soap opera which aired weekdays on the ABC television network from June 27, 1966 to April 2, 1971.". Mike H. That's hot 00:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

If, for example, there was a science fiction soap opera, it would be identified as such in the first sentence, wouldn't it? How about if we keep gothic but leave "cult" until later? Is this an acceptable compromise? Rick Norwood 00:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, sounds good. Mike H. That's hot 00:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I reverted back to this version just now. If Shkarter1985 (talk · contribs) would like to discuss here, he's welcome to.--Sean Black ^(talk) 04:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I just watched the first episode of Dark Shadows on Netflix and it ends with a long-buried coffin being opened and a hand coming out. It seems to me this contradicts the article's statement that "supernatural elements were added 6 months in." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.149.129.130 (talk) 23:34, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

How much detail should be in the plot synopsis

Today we have a new edit which adds a lot of detail to the plot synopsis. This seems to me a mistake -- more like something you would want in a term paper than in an encyclopedia article. Do people really want to know the whole plot of a series before they watch it, or to read the plot of something they've already watched. My inclination is to trim the plot synopsis back to its former size, but I would like some other opinions before I do. Rick Norwood 13:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I think there should be brief plot synopsis, concentrating on story arc, and not concerned about spoilers. Such a thing might be useful for someone trying to quickly establish cross influences among shows. I added 4 paragraphs that summarize episodes 210 through Jason's death in episode 275. 108.67.200.56 (talk) 03:28, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

The synopsis is, if anything, not complete enough as, for instance, it doesn't explain why Angelique became known as a villain with an evil laugh to a generation of late Baby Boomer kids. Much of the current synoposis confuses me with important details left out (such as who the heck was David Woodard) and I actually saw the original series (but would have taken summer vacations and missed two months of TV every year). I just had to fill in what happened in the first 150 episodes when the plotline was mostly not supernatural but rather about the strange behavior of Richard Collins who Victoria thought might kill her because she might have learned too much about the mysterious happenings in Collinsport. It is very important to note that the storyline changed to the supernatural because the ghost of Josette boosted ratings from what was otherwise a detective novel soap opera. That is what brought on Barnabas. Also, the music of "Josette's Theme" and "Quentin's Theme" deserves more mention on the Wiki considering how popular they are on YouTube.

93.79.181.206 (talk) 12:17, 27 May 2012 (UTC)Quentin's Ghost

camp?

Camp, as I understand Susan Sontag's term, refers to works that are enjoyed because of their badness. Ed Wood films are camp. I don't think Dark Shadows is camp in that sense. I think people who like Dark Shadows enjoy the good acting and good scripts, and accept the flubbed lines and rubber bats as an unfortunate side effect of a rushed schedule and low budget. That is, I don't think people watch Dark Shadows in order to laught at it. I'm going to remove the reference to camp and see what happens. Rick Norwood 14:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

DavidOPerson cites a newspaper article about a Dark Shadows convention that claims that Dark Shadows is "frequently" called camp. But the article goes on to point out that it isn't camp, and in any case, sad to say newspaper reports of fan conventions are not the most accurate of sources, though this one is better than most. I still don't think Dark Shadows is camp or, at least, not camp enough for that to go into the lead. Maybe further down in the article. Does anyone else have an opinion? Here is how Wikipedia defines "camp": "Camp is an aesthetic in which something has appeal not because of its originality, but because of its unoriginality, bad taste, or ironic value." Does that describe Dark Shadows for you? Rick Norwood 11:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I would agree that Sontag's take on camp doesn't apply here. Her definition is somewhat sociological I think and flimsy if applied in all scenarios. Camp can mean flamboyant, like Krofft Bros productions. I still don't think this applies to DS. But this definition does: "deliberately exaggerated and theatrical in style, typically for humorous effect : the movie seems more camp than shocking or gruesome. • (of a man or his manner) ostentatiously and extravagantly effeminate : a heavily made-up and highly camp actor. • innocently idealistic, conventional, or sentimental : straight camp is about the ongoing comedy of American straightness: the Mormon Tabernacle Choir, the Secret Service, the NRA." Oxford dictionary-2008 While we are not talking about humor here, I do think that "deliberately exaggerated and theatrical in style" pertains to DS. Don't you?

All episodes on video/dvd?

I thought only the episodes starting with Barabas Collins' appearance were released on video/DVD (not the earlier ones). Am I wrong? 66.251.84.28 18:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The early episodes have long been available on VHS and are currently being released on DVD. They should all be available on DVD by mid-2007. Now if only they would put Night and House on DVD. Rick Norwood 13:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Anne Rice?

Does anyone familiar with "Dark Shadows" know whether Anne Rice has ever acknowledged a debt to the show? I recently watched a batch of early shows on DVD and began musing on how some of her ideas and themes have something in common with it, at the very least. Just curious whether she ever talked about it.75.24.110.121 06:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Combine "Brief synopsis" and "A synopsis of some of the major stories?"

There is a great deal of repetition between "Brief Synopsis" and "A synopsis of some of the major stories", which is really not that much longer. I propose combining the two sections. Any objection? Rick Norwood 14:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Four days later, hearing no objection, I'm going to give it a try. Rick Norwood 13:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Link to Dark Shadows storylines

In the "Brief synopsis" section of the entry, I have twice removed the link to the webiste for "Dark Shadows Storylines" that someone had placed at the beginning of the entry. The first time I removed it, I relocated it to the External links section in order to conform with WP:MOS.

I see that another editor has restored the link back to top section of the Brief synopsis section again. It is my opinion that placing that link in the External links section is more in conformity with WP:MOS. I would like to hear the opinions of other editors here, naturally. Thanks. Labyrinth13 20:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Here is the relevant quote from WP:MOS: "Links to websites outside of Wikipedia can be listed at the end of an article or embedded within the body of an article." It makes sense to me to put the link where it will be most convenient. Rick Norwood 21:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I read that section of WP:MOS you cite, but felt that the meaning was that website links used in the body of the entry should only be placed there when being used as a source citation for verifying a statement being made, as a means to verify the accuracy.

In my opinion, the placement of that link at the top of the article was not done in order to cite a source for a statement, but rather as a means to direct readers to an outside website, something that seems more appropriate for the External links section in that capacity. Your thoughts? Labyrinth13 21:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

My reasoning is that we should make Wikipedia as easy to use as we can. Why make a person look down at the bottom of the page for more information? It isn't that big a deal. Rick Norwood 13:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

That is understandable to want to do that, but since I wasn't sure if that was in actual conformity with Wikipedia rules or not, I started this thread to discuss. I hope that I didn't come off as sounding too "authoritative." If I did, please accept my apology.

I've been involved in a similar discussion about external links on another entry and the admins there made it quite clear to everyone that external links to a website outside of Wikipedia should only be used either as an inline citation to verify the accuracy of a statement (and I note that this entry lacks a section for inline cites) or placed in an "External links" section.

I was just trying to follow what I had learned there, but since you believe otherwise, I see no point in belaboring the issue, either.

This is a great entry and I’m glad to see that so many people have done a lot of hard work to make it perfect. Thanks. Labyrinth13 18:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

No specific references

I've tagged this article with {{unreferenced}} because it makes no specific connections between most of its material and the bibliography. Such a style can be acceptable for book publishing, where the participants involved are limited and clearly identified, but doesn't work for Wikipedia, where we have dozens or hundreds of editors contributing bits and pieces of material, much of which frequently cannot be found in cited sources. (For example, I'm skeptical how much of the "Influence" section, which sounds like commonly added but prohibited original research, can actually be found in those references. There is certainly no way to tell from the current article which of the books one should examine to verify any particular statement.) I would ask regular editors of this article to footnote where specific information comes from, using Wikipedia:Footnotes as a guide if possible. Thank you for your assistance. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

"The Wolf Man" is a "literary masterpiece?"

The Wolf Man was not based on any book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.42.95.102 (talk • contribs) 12:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

The film The Wolf Man (1941) was at least loosely based on A Werewolf of Paris (1933) by Guy Endore, though the connection is not as strong as that of Frankenstein or Dracula. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rick Norwood (talk • contribs) 13:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The Beginning on DVD

I think I need to clarify... people keep editing the home video section referencing retail release dates on The Beginning DVD sets. They were released to club members throughout 2007, so that is the date that should be referenced. The later dates are irrelevant and have no true meaning. This is why I have reverted several edits on this issue. Nicholasm79 (talk) 03:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I have to reiterate, that the 2008 releases are only a wider release of something that was already out, albeit limitedly. This is technically the release dates that should be referenced. Thus, the article needs to say 2007. Not 2007 to 2008, 2007-2008, etc., just 2007. Nicholasm79 (talk) 23:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Was Stephen King and JK Rowling influenced by Dark Shadows?

Just as annedotal rumors about Anne Rice, has been King, Rowling, Wes Craven, and Clive Baker, and Josh Weldon- all which may or may not be true.97.82.159.51 (talk) 17:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Salon article

At 17:50, 17 April 2009, I restored an external link to a 2002 salon.com article about Dark Shadows. I have no personal connection with the salon article (and, frankly, no real interest in Dark Shadows either). The salon.com article is literate and informative.

At 18:19, the link was deleted, with this edit summary:

If this link is to be used, it needs to be inline citations pertaining to a part of the article.

Is that true? I know little of Wikipedia’s policy re external links, but I would appreciate seeing a link, within Wikipedia, to support that summary. I am going to restore the link simply to direct discussion here. I certainly won't war over it.71.242.187.197 (talk) 18:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a battleground between the minimalists, who want Wikipedia to contain as little information as possbile, and the maximalists, who want Wikipedia to contain as much information as possible. You may gather which side I'm on my by totally biased description of the two sides. I want the link to the solon article in. Rick Norwood (talk) 19:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

That is a very biased viewpoint and is not a good stance for an editor to take. There is such as thing as NPOV, or neutral point of view, within Wikipedia. I made the edit because of this: if this article is going to be linked to, it needs to be used in a citation, not as an external link. There is nothing in that article that warrants a flat-out external link at the bottom of the page. But, if it adds something to the article that isn't there, put the information in the appropriate section and use an inline citation. I don't know how clearer I can explain that. I don't mind including anything that needs to be there, it just needs to have a purpose for being there. Nicholasm79 (talk) 03:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, again, I really don't know Wikipedia's policies on this sort of thing -- and will certainly not restore the link should it be re-deleted; but I'm not sure why you invoke NPOV. The linked article is an appreciation (an entertaining one, we should note) -- but it's not part of the Wikipedia article itself. Its expression of views can not be mistaken as somehow Wikipedia content. The article helps Wikipedia's visitor get a sense of the show -- of the way the show was appreciated in the days of its original broadcasts. Including it as an external link is very helpful -- especially for Wikipedia visitors who might, indeed, be fond of the show and would appreciate the exposure to a witty treatment of it at a respectable journal. This strikes me precisely as a strength of Wikipedia -- its articles' ability to be hubs for information about their subjects. The linked article augments the article. Probably many visitors to the Wikipedia article will have no idea that this fine article about the subject they've come here to learn about is sitting out there on the internet -- yet somehow we're supposedly polluting Wikipedia by including a link to it among links to TV.com and other tripe. -- I'll go farther than that: The Wikipedia article itself, with its encyclopedic tone, is borderline silly -- considering how much sober attention it devotes to what was, at bottom, a pretty junky television show (even if my little sister and her best friend did watch it religiously). The salon article says, in a way, something that the Wikipedia article can't. I would bet that there are many Dark Shadows fans -- or even non-fans who have come to Wikipedia because they've somehow been exposed to the show and would like to learn more about it -- who will learn more from that one link than they can learn from the whole of the Wikipedia article proper.71.242.187.197 (talk) 05:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

You have said yourself why the article needs to have the tone that it does. Any encyclopedic article is taken seriously. There is a whole Manual of Style that has to be followed on this site. We can't reinvent the rules to suit what we think should or should not be in the article. Granted, the linked article could be considered a review and could stand being in said section. My point all along has been: I don't see how a review article can enhance the information already presented. And, by the way, the NPOV was directed at Rick Norwood, not you. It was calling attention to his accusations about how editors are. That kind of accusation has no place on this site. I'm thru with this. It'll stay in there. Nicholasm79 (talk) 06:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes -- I understand why the article has to have the tone it does. I'm just saying that there's something silly about the dignity of encyclopedic prose in treatments of pop-culture junk (of which I'm a big fan myself, even if not of Dark Shadows specifically). I haven't looked at the Wikipedia article carefully -- but my sense is that most of it reads like a good fan-club document -- i.e., there's very little footnoting. That's fine -- the show is worth an article; and if there's not much literature on it, so, what? -- But when, by a great bit of good luck, a decent, if popular, arts journal honors the show with an entire article -- an article that is respectful of the show -- and reflects affection for it -- but is not unsophisticated, why not make Wikipedia's visitors aware of it? I think Wikipedia's article has statements about the show's popularity, what its fans think of it, etc. -- none of it footnoted, as far as I could see in my quick pass through it. Here's an article -- the salon article -- that speaks to all of that -- and you don't want it in.71.242.187.197 (talk) 17:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Look, I'm going to be quite honest. I'm not a fan of calling stuff campy. The people who worked on this show deserve to be taken seriously. This series is a great piece of drama. What's wrong with taking it in a serious light? I'm not associated with any fan club. And that site, salon.com, that's not an arts journal. It reads more like a news site or entertainment forum. There have been countless articles that state what that article already states. There is nothing new there, just someone else's opinion. All the more reason the link should not be there. Nicholasm79 (talk) 17:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Look, I'm going to be quite honest, too: I didn't call the show campy. I called it junk. If it were campy, I'd like it. -- Regardless, I've taken a shot at addressing your concerns. In an editing series that I began at 18:11, 18 April 2009, I quoted the salon article in the Wikipedia article's section headed "Series production" -- and then I removed the salon article from the External Links.

For the record -- I still think the article was appropriately listed in the External Links. I've read the Wikipedia policy material you've linked below (in the present talk-page's section headed "Links"). It begins as follows:

Wikipedia is neither a mirror nor a repository of links, images, or media files. Wikipedia articles are not:

Mere collections of external links or Internet directories. There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate. See Wikipedia:External links for some guidelines.

That further policy article begins with this:

Wikipedia articles may include links to web pages outside Wikipedia, but must conform to certain formatting restrictions. Such pages could contain further research that is accurate and on-topic; information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail; or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy. (My emphasis.)

Case closed.

Also for the record: Whatever salon.com might now be, it could reasonably have been characterized as a popular arts journal, among other things, at the time the Dark Shadows article was published.71.242.187.197 (talk) 18:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

And to repeat: Nothing wrong with junk. Time Tunnel, anyone?71.242.187.197 (talk) 19:37, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

That's what I wanted all along. It reads better as a citation. By the way, if you think the show is junk, why are you editing this article? That doesn't make any sense. You go try to make a show that tried to do the things it did five days a week, 52 weeks a year on a low budget. See how it turns out. Nicholasm79 (talk) 04:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Your personal remark is (1) out of line, (2) probably in violation of Wikipedia policy, (3) based on no knowledge whatsoever as to what I do for a living, and (4) meaningless in any case. I don't have to be able to create a show superior to Dark Shadows to declare it junk -- and I don't have to think the show is non-junk to be inclined to contribute to the Wikipedia article. (For the record: I don't find the show contemptible -- and, in fact, the love my sister had for it when she was little wins it my affection.) I see you have reworded the passage to falsify it. On what basis do you state that the low quality of the show's special effects is attributable to the technological limits of its time?71.242.187.197 (talk) 11:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I have a college degree in broadcasting. I think I am qualified to discuss technology in television production. Nicholasm79 (talk) 17:53, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you'll be good enough to put that in a footnote.71.242.187.197 (talk) 18:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Links

Everyone associated with this topic really needs to spend time reading this policy. I'm not saying that links shouldn't be there. But, the links should have some use for being there. Nicholasm79 (talk) 17:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I was told that my edit to this, telling the reader than all the episodes of the 1991 revival were available on Hulu (and marking it as a link), was considered "advertising". Ridiculous. I was merely letting folks know that there was an alternative to buying the revival series on VHS/DVD if they weren't sure they would like it or if they couldn't afford it. But I didn't say all that. I simply pointed out where you could watch it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.207.126.66 (talk) 23:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:EL. When everyone notes this sort of thing, while it is in good faith, it comes off as sounding like an advertisement for said website. That really is not looked upon good here. Nicholasm79 (talk) 23:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

A curiosity

Has been Dark Shadow the last program aired on a major American network to debut in black and white?--91.81.193.253 (talk) 23:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

At least 4 prime-time series debuted in black and white, and continued on the air after Dark Shadows: Gunsmoke (1955-1975), My Three Sons (1960-1972), Bewitched (1964-1972), and The Beverly Hillbillies (1962-1971). (The last 1st-run episode of The Beverly Hillbillies was broadcast on March 23, 1971, only 10 days before the last episode of Dark Shadows. But reruns were aired in prime time until September 7, 1971.) If you include soap operas, as Dark Shadows itself was, then at least 4 of them debuted in black and white, and continued long after Dark Shadows: General Hospital, As the World Turns, Search for Tomorrow, and The Guiding Light.Ftfrk61 (talk) 18:29, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

USELESS BOILERPLATE VS PRIMARY SOURCES

For TV programs, generally you are very unlikely to find reliable secondary sources. People are fans of the show & watch it & may go to the network's website to read on it. Thus the only practical sources are primary. So it is a waste of time to be putting up objections to lack of 2ndary sources cited. One must decide either to not have articles like this on TV series or accept primary sources. (EnochBethany (talk) 01:27, 14 August 2011 (UTC))

Thanks, Worldreader, for catching this mistake.

As we who were fans of the show used to say, he who has a Tate is lost. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:50, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Gothic romance

the gothic novels of the 50s-70s often had covers featuring frightened women looking back at misty castles and mansions in the far distance, with a lone light in the uppermost tower. So specific was the market for these books, that if the cover neglected to have a lit window, the book would not sell as well. I note the opening of the series featurs such a shot, and a woman travelling to the castle.75.61.132.26 (talk) 03:48, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

The "Legacy" section looks like it was vandalized

I'm not a soap fanatic, but are the bolded lines actually true?

Legacy

Dark Shadows pioneered the concept of a soap opera with a supernatural theme. An occult-styled Canadian-made serial Strange Paradise soon followed, which was broadcast on CBC Television and in the United States in syndication from October 20, 1969, to July 22, 1970. (U.S. airdates varied; 195 half-hour episodes were produced.) In later years the prime-time satire Soap would introduce an Exorcist-inspired storyline. In 1986, Dark Mansions, a made-for-TV movie intended to be a pilot for a weekly supernatural serial, was produced by Aaron Spelling. Days of Our Lives featured a plot in which its leading female character, Marlena Evans (Deidre Hall), was possessed by Satan.

Coming full circle, the soap operas Port Charles and Passions emerged in the 1990s, both largely driven by supernatural-based plots involving vampires, witches, and werewolves. The popular Joss Whedon series Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel, with their continuing serial plotlines, could be described as treading a path first laid by Dark Shadows. The popular gay and lesbian here! network has produced its own supernatural soap operas Dante's Cove and The Lair which both contain witchcraft and vampire storylines. Dark Shadows is also widely credited with introducing the concept of the "compassionate vampire", the mostly "good" vampire tortured by his affliction and looking for a cure. This concept has continued to be used in many vampire television series and films. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.38.80.221 (talk) 10:12, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure about Days of Our Lives or Port Charles, but I know for sure Passions constantly featured "supernatural" storylines (and I only saw about 10 minutes of it, total, either before or after other shows that aired before or after it). --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 18:22, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

A quick google search re: Days of Our Lives reveals that, yes, Dr. Marlena Evans was possessed by Satan in two different story arcs. She Knows Soaps.com

WP:NPOV

I can't edit the article myself as I haven't seen the series but I'd just like to point out that much of it goes against WP:NPOV. This sentence for example "In retrospect, however, the actors — who effectively formed a repertory company as they played many different roles — created memorable characters, and overcame the challenge of daily scripts combined with brief and demanding rehearsals." from the Errors section, is clearly biased. The same happens in the introduction. Can someone with more knowledge of the series edit the article? Juniper4589 (talk) 09:33, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

These statements should be referenced, but are easy to reference. They reflect the general critical evaluation of the series, and statements reflecting these views have been published in most of the many books about Dark Shadows. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:05, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't find the claims to be "biased", but can you reference the books for these passages so the tags can be removed? I've seen episodes of the show when it aired on television, but I'm not a huge fan who's read all the books, so I'm not familiar with the sources to be able to clean the page up myself. Sorry, but I just find that these "neutrality" tags which constantly get slapped onto the tops of articles give the reader the impression that there's something specious about the article as a whole (when, more often than not, this is not the case), so I'd hate to see them stay on this article for the next year, or two years, or three years, etc. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 18:15, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

The article reads more like a review than like an encyclopedia. The tone is absolutely not neutral - "Dark Shadows displayed an unusually inventive use of costume, make-up" - and this just one example among many (none of which have citations). And sentences like "Thus the network began weeding out supposedly unproductive programming" aren't really appropriate for an encyclopedia either. I'm not saying it isn't true - I haven't seen the show and I don't know the material - but I'm saying it should be rephrased to something more appropriate given the context. Furthermore, the article is overly long because of the flowery formulation. Rephrasing it would shorten it and would make it less tedious to read. Basically, as it stands, the article reads like well written non-stop trivia, instead of information. I'm sorry but I think the tag is necessary and that it's too early to take it off... Juniper4589 (talk) 10:00, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

To clarify - I agree it's too early to remove the tags. The meaning I intended was that I believe most of the claims you've cited that are made within the article are most likely supported by numerous sources. I'm not a huge fan of the show either (as you can see from the edit history, I've never so much as edited a single typo in the article, so it's not that I'm being sensitive about my own work). I believe the show does have a "cult" following (I can't think of any other daytime soap opera that ended 40+ years ago that still has a die-hard following, or gets complete 1000+ episode DVD releases, or gets movie remakes, etc, the way this one does). It was basically like a "repertory company" (it was basically a core cast that kept "swapping out" their characters as the series traveled through time). The show was filmed daily (like almost every other soap opera was/is). I believe the show's premise and use of makeup, costumes, etc was considered "innovative" for it's time (if you know of any other soap operas in the 1960s that were anything like this one then please enlighten me). Since I don't believe there are any big factual errors within the article, I was asking the previous editor (who seemed to be familiar with the sources) if he could cite them, so the tags could be removed. I wasn't asking for the tags to be removed before that was done. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 18:18, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I just glanced at the recent edit history and I now see that post wasn't directed at me specifically. Nevermind.. lol... --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 18:59, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Grammar fail

Grammar fail. Errywhar. 208.111.236.198 (talk) 19:36, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

“Widely credited”?

If the series is so “widely credited” with the introduction of the “Compassionate Vampire”, why isn’t there a single citation to a source? And surely that notion isn’t one which could be definitively traced to a single introduction anyway, it’s just a story theme – I mean, Universal’s “House of Dracula” (1945) plays with the idea of a vampire looking for a cure, and this and the other Lon Chaney Jr. werewolf films have a compassionate monster looking to be rid of his curse, so it wasn’t really an idea waiting to be “introduced”, it was already out there. Jock123 (talk) 11:37, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree. That line probably needs to go, especially as you have just provided proof that it is wrong (however much I loved Barnabas as a kid). Wikipedia has long been a place for weasel words like that. In this case the writer was making a harmless conjecture and passing it off as something many others were saying besides himself (or herself). But often such words are used to push an ideology while pretending that most people agree with it. Someone should go ahead and make this change for the sake of being honest and a master editor should ask for citations wherever "widely credited" is used throughout Wikipedia. 93.79.181.206 (talk) 12:32, 27 May 2012 (UTC) Quentin's Ghost

DVD release has to be a record

Surely we can state without fear of contradiction that the 1200+ episodes in the complete series set released this year has to be the highest number of episodes of a single TV series ever released at one time in a home video format? 70.72.215.252 (talk) 22:53, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Storyline List

The shows various storylines can be broken up into distinct sections. This page at one time contained such a list:

Victoria Winters: episode 1 (27 June 1966) to 127 (20 December 1966)
Laura the Phoenix: episode 128 (21 December 1966) to 192 (21 March 1967)
Jason McGuire: episode 195 (March 24, 1967) to 275 (July 14, 1967)
Barnabas: episode 193 (22 March 1967) to 365 (17 November 1967)
1795: episode 366 (14 November 1967) to 460 (29 March 1968)
Dream Curse/Adam and Eve: episode 461 (1 April 1968) to 637 (3 December 1968)
Werewolf/Quentin's Ghost: episode 638 (4 December 1968) to 700 (28 February 1969)
1897: episode 701 (3 March 1969) to 884 (13 November 1969)
The Leviathans: episode 885 (14 November 1969) to 980 (27 March 1970)
Parallel Time: episode 981 (30 March 1970) to 1060 (17 July 1970)
1995: episode 1061 (20 July 1970) to 1070 (31 July 1970)
Gerard Stiles: episode 1071 (3 August 1970) to 1109 (24 September 1970)
1840: episode 1110 (25 September 1970) to 1198 (27 January 1971)
1841 Parallel Time: episode 1199 (28 January 1971) to 1245 (2 April 1971)

It would be useful if this was reinstated in order for viewers less familiar with the show to know where the various jumping on and off points are in the show's history. Maybe as a separate page as a compromise for not having an episode guide list, something to match the page devoted to the Big Finish audio dramas.

Alternatively, instead of using those titles, it might be worthwhile dividing such a section up into time periods in order to concisely sum up storyline information:

1966/67: episode 1 to 336

Victoria Winters' parentage.
Burke Devlin's manslaughter conviction revenge.
Roger Collins' car crash.
Bill Malloy's murder.
Laura Collins: The Phoenix.
Jason McGuire's insinuation.
Barnabas Collins search for another Josette.
Dr. Hoffman's attempt to cure Barnabas.
Barnabas Collins terrorizing Dr. Julia Hoffman.

1795/96: episode 366 to 461
1968/69: episode 462 to 700
1897: episode 701 to 886
1969/70: episode 887 to 980
1970 PT: episode 981 to 1060
1995: episode 1061 to 1070
1970: episode 1071 to 1109
1840: episode 1110 to 1198
1841 PT: episode 1199 to 1245

A definitive answer needs to be reached on this as the current episode synopsis section is a bit of mess, episodes 210 to 365 are covered in some detail, too much detail in my opinion, whilst everything else is only briefly summarized. 94.175.39.240 (talk) 15:06, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I've totally overhauled the story section, so that it covers the entirety of series as concisely as possible, as stated previously it covered episodes 210 to 365 too heavily. The storyline groupings and synopsis' are taken from the 'Dark Shadows Almanac: Millennium Edition', published in 2000. This is an officially licensed publication, and as such is most official way of categorizing the various storylines of the show. 94.175.39.240 (talk) 13:35, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

'1970 Parallel Time' disliked?

The 'broadcast history' section currently reads

"...the highly disliked storyline involving a 1970 parallel time for roughly six weeks, where many of the main cast were absent in order to film the movie House of Dark Shadows, hurt the series considerably."

Do we have any evidence for this? It's the first time I've seen this statement made. In an interview on the DVD releases, series creator Dan Curtis seems to think this storyline was liked by viewers.

If we are looking for reasons why ratings declined during this period, then I would point to 'The Leviathan' storyline which ran until March 1970. It's been stated in several reviews of the show that this storyline was unpopular with viewers. Jeff Thompson writing in his book ‘The Television Horrors of Dan Curtis’ says:

"The ‘Leviathan’ storyline proved to be a thematic misstep for the show and one from which it never recovered… fans tended to dislike the portrayal of Barnabas as the pawn of some greater power. They proved to be more interested in the archetypes of classic horror, the vampire, the witch, the werewolf than in off-camera suggestion."

Also, Kathryn Leigh Scott's book 'Dark Shadows Companion' has this to say:

"In November 1969, after nine months of some of Dark Shadows’ most intricate, intelligent storylines, an end came to the adventures in 1897. Now the writers were faced with a dilemma. The ratings were at an all-time high. What could they do next to hold the audience? Their decision, unfortunately, signaled the beginning of the end of Dark Shadows."

"Barnabas, under the Leviathan influence, was coldly amoral, showing no hint that Barnabas’ personality was struggling to re-emerge. This unsympathetic portrayal was coupled with a storyline that, compared to the high-gear 1897 saga, quite simply dragged. An irate viewer, writing to one of the daytime soap magazines, complained that the actors seemed to have only half of a script and then improvised for the rest of the episode about “how weird the people are down at the antique shop."

And, Kathryn Leigh Scott's book 'Dark Shadows Almanac' mentions:

"Episode 915 [aired December 29, 1969], in which actress Marsha Mason appears as Audrey, a Leviathan vampire, was a special episode created under emergency circumstances. During this time in the series, Dark Shadows fans complained about Barnabas Collins’ return to evil ways. In an effort to appease viewers and to more clearly explain that the Leviathans were responsible for Barnabas’ behavior, this episode was hastily written, produced and aired. The episode stands alone without affecting the continuity of the previous storyline... After the special episode, Barnabas never again fully supports the Leviathan cause."

Another reason I've seen cited for the demise of the show is a negative perception created by the release of the film 'House of Dark Shadows' in September 1970, which is significantly more gory than its television counterpart. Kathryn Leigh Scott's book 'Dark Shadows Companion' comments:

"Although remembered fondly by today’s fans, and flocked-to by the Dark Shadows viewers of 1970, it has been suggested by some that 'House of Dark Shadows' led to the series’ eventual demise. The TV ratings fell after the movie. No one is quite sure why. Perhaps it was the audience’s reaction to seeing their hero Barnabas in an evil light. Perhaps it was because parents attended House of Dark Shadows with their children and, seeing the amount of blood spilled across the screen, discouraged their children’s choice of television viewing material." The Leviathan Vampire Girl (talk) 09:09, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I've added in some of these citations and removed the uncited section regarding the '1970 Parallel Time' storyline. The Leviathan Vampire Girl (talk) 10:37, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Bill Malloy Storyline Title

In the 'storyline' section, would it be worthwhile changing Matthew Morgan Kills Bill Malloy and Kidnaps Victoria to something else that doesn't give away the identity of the murderer? It isn't revealed until late into that storyline who the murderer is, not until episode 108. I understand it's the one used in the DS Almanac, an officially licensed tome on the series, but it's a little too spoilery and seems a little out of place in context with all the other storyline titles. Maybe change it to The Murder of Bill Malloy instead?

A small detail but it maybe a worthwhile change in order not to spoil readers who haven't seen those episodes yet. Thoughts? The Leviathan Vampire Girl (talk) 16:24, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

"The earliest episodes consisted of introducing the troubled characters and did not show any of the supernatural elements that later made the show a hit."

This line is simply not correct. In reviewing the DVD "Dark Shadows: The Beginning - Collection 1 - Disc 1", I find that by the end of the first week and certainly before the end of the second week there have already been several instances of evidence for pantergeists and poltergeists: loud sobbing in the drawing room, an unexplained broken teacup, distinct wailing heard on the wind, a locked door swinging invitingly open and then slamming shut, locked again. Also much discussion about not believing in ghosts answered by "stick around here a little longer and you will." Leeeoooooo (talk) 01:49, 29 July 2013 (UTC) leeeoooooo

It could do with re-wording, so it's more clear. The tone of the show is supernatural from episode 1, it's just that we don't see anything overtly supernatural until Josette's ghost makes an appearance in episode 70. Here are some episode specific examples:

5: David says the ghosts of the widows told him to send Victoria away from Collinsport.
9: There is a knock at the main doors of Collinwood, however no one is there. A broken teacup is found on the floor.
10: David blames the broken teacup on ghosts.
10: Elizabeth mumbles about ghosts whilst asleep.
11: A door on the landing of Collinwood closes, seemingly by itself.
14: Victoria witnesses the locked door to the closed off section of Collinwood open and then shut, seemingly by itself, despite being locked.
30: Victoria gets trapped in the drawing room during a power outage. The doors open to reveal a silhouetted figure during a flash of lightening.
50: Victoria finds the word “Death” written on her mirror. David blames it on the ghosts of the widows.
52: Victoria and Carolyn hear a noise and go to look in the drawing room for the source. It was a book that had dropped to the floor. They put the book on the desk, and after they leave, by itself, the book opens to a picture of Josette.

BTW, the sobbing in the basement is later revealed to be Elizabeth crying over having 'killed' Paul Stoddard. The Leviathan Vampire Girl (talk) 07:52, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

But what is it about?

Fascinating article, but what's the premise? What is this show supposed to be about. I can't find a single sentence that summarises the basis of this show.

Vampires. Rick Norwood (talk) 17:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

"Dark Shadows was distinguished by its vividly melodramatic performances, atmospheric interiors, memorable storylines, numerous dramatic plot twists, unusually adventurous music score, and broad and epic cosmos of characters and heroic adventures. It continues to enjoy an intense cult following."

Obviously, the show was created so idiotic fan-magazine drooling could be passed off as an encyclopedic Wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.184.114.179 (talk) 17:56, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

If you don't like it, change it. Unless the article is locked down for some reason anyone even an unregistered IP can reword it. That goes for Rick Norwood's criticism as well: I am forever adding obvious information that has either been removed or never stated in Wikipedia articles. 68.146.52.234 (talk) 05:54, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

My criticism? I'm one of the idiotic drooling fan-boys. I've watched every episode. Rick Norwood (talk) 11:37, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Dark Shadows. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:57, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Anyone familiar with this series care to add it to this list?

Types of mythological or fantastic beings in contemporary fiction is a page of, well, fantasy works (movie, TV, written, whatever) and the assorted mythological and/or fantastic critters they contain. This series would qualify. Anyone care to add it? Tamtrible (talk) 18:00, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dark Shadows. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090104213337/http://forums.tannerworld.com/showthread.php?t=4001 to http://forums.tannerworld.com/showthread.php?t=4001

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:41, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Two suggestions

Why is there no mention of the West Wing? IIRC, it was the abandoned part of the manor house where much of the creepiness happened.
After the soap ended, in 1971 TV Guide published an article that reported where the writers had intended to take the series had it not been cancelled. It would be worth finding & the info there incorporating into the article. (As a general rule, TV Guide for much of the 60s & 70s had a number of articles on contemporary tv shows, & would serve as an excellent source to flesh out articles on US tv shows of that time.) -- llywrch (talk) 20:32, 18 July 2019 (UTC)