Talk:Dark Shadows

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] revamp!

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 -- 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] "The Wolf Man" is a "literary masterpiece?"

The Wolf Man was not based on any book.

[edit] 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)