Talk:Dark Shadows

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)

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 -- 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)

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)

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)

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.

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.

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)