DARK SHADOWS FORUMS

General Discussions => Current Talk Archive => Current Talk '24 I => Current Talk '04 I => Topic started by: michael c on June 13, 2004, 12:36:40 AM

Title: 1795:a query
Post by: michael c on June 13, 2004, 12:36:40 AM
this is going to be a long one.i just completed the task of viewing the 1795 story in it's entirety on vid.i have a few(probably asked before)qustions.for starters, victoria was not just a passive observer but an active participant in the events of that year, barnabas knew her.so why didn't he recognize her when he arrived in 1967?when phyllis wick first appears at the 67 seance she was on her way to collinwood for the first time(in 95).but when time returns to the present barnabas knows her.how could he if she never arrived at collinwood in 1795?in 1795 real time,who was sara's governess,phyllis or vicki?let's not forget that while "time stood still" at present day collinwood,the story actually began in 67 but ended in 68(oops!).in 1795 josette thought vicki to be a witch,so why did she often protect her in the future and communicate through her at several seances?was maggie evans josette reincarnated or did she only resemble her?why did millicent,daniel and the countess dupres stay on months after the wedding was canceled?why was suki staying at collinwood?with the house constantly "in mourning" why did the ladies continue to wear colorful,lively costumes instead of black?and in future generations,did no one think it odd that nearly the entire family dies within a few months of each other?i'm sure i'll think of more. ::)
Title: Re: 1795:a query
Post by: ProfStokes on June 13, 2004, 03:36:29 AM
Good questions, mscbryk!  A couple of them have come up before.  Regarding Barnabas, Phyllis Wick, and Victoria, Dr. Eric Lang has posted some brilliant diagrams and descriptions of parallel timelines that were created by Vicki going back to 1795.   If you visit the Current Talk IV board and see the topic "Time Paradoxes--1795 and 1897?" you can see them for yourself.

...

Essentially, he suggests that when Vicki returned to the present, she was in another band of time than the one she had left; therefore, Barnabas would not have recognized Vicki when he emerged from his coffin because all of that took place in the Phyllis Wick timeline (erm, maybe it would be easier if you just saw the diagrams, lol.)

As for Millicent, I think Joshua kept her around hoping to somehow tie her wealth to his own branch of the family.  Natalie probably remained to watch over Josette.

Was Suki actually living at Collinwood, or did she just spend all her free time there?  Perhaps Millicent invited her to stay because presumably, Suki was her sister-in-law to be.

I hope this helps. :)

ProfStokes
Title: Re: 1795:a query
Post by: tripwire on June 13, 2004, 04:51:44 AM
Here is another you will come up with Bryk......The portraits of Barnabas look just like him.   The Painting of Angelique looks just like her......In later episodes, the Painting of Quentin will look just like him.......But that painting of Josette looks nothing like her....I am sure that the writers had no idea that when the painting was drawn very early in the show that it would get connected to Maggie, and so on, or they would have it looking much more like Naggie. 
Title: Re: 1795:a query
Post by: Miss_Winthrop on June 13, 2004, 03:28:04 PM
I actually see a slight resemblence between Josette and Maggie. Mostly throught the eyes. I do have one complaint about the Barnabas portrait. Robert Costello sat for the original portrait and they just left the face off waiting for Barnabas.  Except for the final face, the portait is Costello's body but the neck on the portait is nothing like Frid's.  Frid seemed a to have more mass throughout his neck and shoulders than Costello IMO.
Title: Re: 1795:a query
Post by: Patti Feinberg on June 15, 2004, 11:32:14 PM
Quote
why did millicent,daniel and the countess dupres stay on months after the wedding was canceled?why was suki staying at collinwood?

Millicent and Daniel were Joshua's cousins or niece/nephew.

Countess Dupres....they didn't have airplanes...maybe she was waiting for an answer as to what happened to her niece.

Suki was Nathan's wife, but he lied and presented her to Collins' as his sister; since (I forget if he & Millicent were as yet married) Nathan was marrying into Collins family, pretty common occurance to have one's 'spinster' sister live with him.

Patti
Title: Re: 1795:a query
Post by: michael c on June 16, 2004, 01:50:40 AM
suki was a pretty foxy "spinster".i kind of liked her.does anyone else think the actress(jane draper i believe) should have been brought back as another character? ;)
Title: Re: 1795:a query
Post by: dom on June 16, 2004, 06:57:48 AM
Perhaps she could have taken the role of Buffy Harrington or Sabrina Stewart or Roxanne (Willie's mysterious girlfriend), or Roxanne or Amanda Harris. My vote would go to her showing up as Willie's girlfriend.

I remember Suki Forbes but I don't really remember anything other than that she was blond.
Title: Re: 1795:a query
Post by: Gothick on June 16, 2004, 03:23:03 PM
Suki Forbes was a HOOT!  If memory serves she was from Baltimore, an old stomping-ground of yours truly--she definitely had that sassy, slightly sleazy Balto edge--can't you just see her performing on "the Block" (for old-timers) in the profession she was in when Nathan first met her?

And you didn't ask, but my personal opinion (ever the maverick!) is that 1795 is the most over-rated of all the DS storylines.  I think it starts out beautifully and builds up until the curse but then slumps dreadfully after the death of a certain pivotal character.  I find the Vicki's trial sequences and Vicki/Peter romance to be among the most snooze-worthy moments in DS history.

That said, the storyline does boast some of DS' finest moments, but in my opinion that could be said of all the other storylines as well.

G.
Title: Re: 1795:a query
Post by: Raineypark on June 16, 2004, 03:41:57 PM
Parhaps 1795 enjoys so much positive response in part because it was the FIRST time-travel story.  Unexpected, novel, and different.  None of the other "past" stories had that going for them.

While I think Ben Stokes is a stand-out character, and Thayer David a brilliant actor,  the absence of John Karlen throughout the entire 1795 storyline makes it less than thrilling for me.... ;)
Title: Re: 1795:a query
Post by: Mysterious Benefactor on June 16, 2004, 06:49:01 PM
does anyone else think the actress(jane draper i believe) should have been brought back as another character? ;)

I totally agree. Draper was definitely someone I wish we'd seen more of - but alas...


That said, the storyline does boast some of DS' finest moments, but in my opinion that could be said of all the other storylines as well.

Again, I totally agree.  ;)
Title: Re: 1795:a query
Post by: Cassandra Blair on June 16, 2004, 08:14:07 PM
  I find the Vicki's trial sequences and Vicki/Peter romance to be among the most snooze-worthy moments in DS history. 

Totally in agreement with you on this, Gothick!  Although 1795/96 overall is just magic, the trial and the romance are sooooo boring.  But then the other time travel (1897, 1840) sequences suffer from the same problem.  They start off with a bunch of really great and interesting ideas, but once they've peaked they just kind of peter (pun intended) out.

I have also kind of wondered why the Countess stayed on so long.  Particularly after Josette's death, there doesn't seem to be any purpose to her being there.  Perhaps like her lookalike Dr. Julia Hoffman, she's the house guest that just never leaves.

And just what the hell happened to Andre DuPres?  He wasn't even around much after the wedding got cancelled.  I certainly don't remember seeing him any time immediately prior to or after Josette's header off Widow's Hill.

It IS very strange that with all the deaths at Collinwood, nobody seems to be in mourning for more than an episode or two.  Seems totally inappropriate for a rich family of the time.

I think that part of the reason nobody from later generations ever thought it was weird that so many family members died so close together was that Joshua rewrote the family history so that posterity wouldn't see how freakish the events of that time appeared. 

With Millicent gone nuts, Daniel only a child and Ben slavishly devoted to the good memory of "Mr. Barnabas," there pretty much wasn't anybody around to contradict Joshua's version of events.  If you'll remember, Naomi's headstone claims a much later date of death for her than 1796, as it must have been.

Makes you wonder how much of what we learn about history has a similar subjective spin on events.
Title: Re: 1795:a query
Post by: tripwire on June 16, 2004, 10:00:18 PM
Another thing about 1795 was Daniel, he didnt make an appearence in the 1795 flashback until very late, but we are supposed to assume he has been there since Millicent got there, as he talked about Vicki like he had been there the entire time....I agree about the later part of 1795   it drug out way too long, as opposed to the first part, where things moved quickly.
Title: Re: 1795:a query
Post by: Gothick on June 16, 2004, 10:43:47 PM
Folks, just to clarify:  I'm not saying 1795 is bad.  I think overall it's a great story, even though it contradicted practically everything we had told about the past of the Collins Family up till that time--certainly everything about Barnabas and Josette (just go back 3 weeks before the start of 1795 to a long scene between Barnabas and Julia where he admits to her that Josette in life *never* reciprocated his love).

I just think that it's overrated.  Time and again, fans run polls on the best storyline, and 1795 always winds up winning.

Of the historical storylines, I personally prefer 1897.  Jeeeeepseeeee!  I don' kno NAHSSINGK!

And then there's Count Petofi, who may have been the most literate character in all American television history.

G.
Title: Re: 1795:a query
Post by: michael c on June 17, 2004, 02:33:14 AM
i havn't seen the other time-travel stories in thier entirety yet.i too think 1795 starts off with a bang but drags on too long.nathan/millicent and vicki/peter are pretty dull.but i think the story redeems itself in it's final few eps., like naomi's suicide is so sad and i liked b's revenge on nathan.it was strange how daniel didn't even show up until late in the story and then carried on as if vicki had been his governess for years(i can't recall a scene between them until after vicki leaves collinwood).in my post-1795 viewings i just saw the ep. where vicki and barnabas get into the car crash.i watched it over and again because the two of them in this cheesy fake car was just too good! ::)
Title: Re: 1795:a query
Post by: Patti Feinberg on June 17, 2004, 02:51:29 AM
Of the historical storylines, I personally prefer 1897.  Jeeeeepseeeee!  I don' kno NAHSSINGK!

And then there's Count Petofi, who may have been the most literate character in all American television history.

OOOHHH....a man (Steve) who takes my breath away!!!

love ya dahling (and I love my Count Petofi!!!!)

Patti
Title: Re: 1795:a query
Post by: Josette on June 17, 2004, 08:30:51 AM
Part of the appeal of 1795 for me was the clothing.  Even though the other past time periods have lots of lovely period clothing (I'm not going into whether or not they are accurate), my recollection of the colors and general style of 1795 seems superior to the others.

Then, there is seeing Barnabas as a "young" and good man - as he was alive - before anything happened to him and learning how it all happened.  Plus there was the introduction of Angelique and as evil as all her doings were, they were certainly fun to watch.

Also, the overall storyline was fairly compact.  They had a good story, told it, eventually brought it to an end.  As much as I love most of 1897 and marvel at how they managed to keep so many disparate aspects of the story going and get them to work together, it does seem much more sprawling and meandering.
Title: Re: 1795:a query
Post by: Patti Feinberg on June 17, 2004, 01:34:45 PM
Josette..I too love this period.

I love when Barnabas meets the befuddled Victoria...he was nice to her.

Yes the clothes...but, oyevah....THE FAUX FACIAL TATTOOS!!

Patti

(2 spades.....3 clubs!!!)
Title: Re: 1795:a query
Post by: stefan on June 17, 2004, 02:51:56 PM
Quote
but drags on too long.nathan/millicent and vicki/peter are pretty dull.but i think the story redeems itself in it's final few eps.,

I didn't see 1795 after tape episode 40 but I wanted to make a commment on your statement. It's interesting that most of the actors who played the above characters are quite competent..like N. Barrett and J. Crothers and feel A. Moltka had the best romantic chemistry with early Roger Davies (when Peter Bradford was soft spoken and sensitive) but it's true that as compared to Barnabas/Josette/Angelique or even Noami/Joshua they are not as watcheable at all. Could it just be a question of writing? acting? TV presence? chemistry? 1795 Vickie was especially dull. J. Crothers captured the easy cad charm of Nathan Forbes but as the Millicent/Nathan story got heavier and he became more evil he struck me as being a bit of a lightweight. Not enough force.
Title: Re: 1795:a query
Post by: Joeytrom on June 17, 2004, 04:05:07 PM
For me, 1897 dragged out way too long during the last two months.  It should have ended once Barnabas completed his mission there.  The whole I Ching tries by Petofi were too long for me.

Roger Davis in a second role was another negative factor for me.

1795 seemed to have a plan ,while 1897 seemed to divert from the original plan and the writers went day by day instead.
Title: Re: 1795:a query
Post by: Gerard on June 17, 2004, 06:19:21 PM
The one thing that irked me about 1795 is how everyone reacted when they first saw Vicki in her 20th century clothing.  Actually, they really didn't react, at least not all that much.  With that short skirt, you think they would've been scandalized by her walking around in what to them must have been her unmentionables.  At least the '91 version took care of that by having Vicki wearing a long ("maxi") dress when she took a trip through Sherman and Mr. Peabody's Way-Back Machine.

Gerard
Title: Re: 1795:a query
Post by: dom on June 17, 2004, 09:02:31 PM
I guess they learned their lesson the second or third time around when it was definitely noticed in 1897 or 1840 (can't remember which) when Julia showed up at Collinwood in her "strange clothes" and "hairstyle".

Sometimes they got it right, I guess. ::)

dom
Title: Re: 1795:a query
Post by: Gothick on June 17, 2004, 09:14:31 PM
But... what about Abigail's scene (Clarice in the REAL DS) where she rails to Victoria for about 10 minutes about her scandalous, unspeakable clothes???  Did you miss that episode?

I have to admit I loved Julianna McCarthy's version of this in the 1990 remake.  I still laugh when I think of she said those words "cold... pressed"!

G.
Title: Re: 1795:a query
Post by: Joeytrom on June 17, 2004, 11:03:29 PM
The only people who saw Vicky's present time clothes were Barnabas, Sarah, Nathan, Naomi, and Abigail.

Barnabas, Nathan, and Abigail all commented on her dress.  We never got a chance to see what Naomi would have said as Vicky fainted right after she met her.
Title: Re: 1795:a query
Post by: Miss_Winthrop on June 17, 2004, 11:23:24 PM
suki was a pretty foxy "spinster".i kind of liked her.does anyone else think the actress(jane draper i believe) should have been brought back as another character? ;)

I liked her too.  As a matter of fact, I use her name as my screen name on a different board (unrelated to DS) that I post on.
Title: Re: 1795:a query
Post by: michael c on June 18, 2004, 01:11:11 AM
josette, i liked the clothing alot too.the 1795 fashions combined with 1967 make-up and hairdo's was quite memorable.i love that vicki was allowed to maintain that lustrous "do" rather than adapt to the modest "bun" a real servant would have worn during the period.but as i said before it's strange they didn't don "mourning" black after the deaths began.of nathan and millicent,since they were not really critical to the telling of the story,my impression is that the actors were contracted players and the writers needed to create parts for them.as for vicki and peter, so far i don't care for r.davis.i think a.moltke had great chemistry with mitch ryan(see ep.1).
Title: Re: 1795:a query
Post by: Patti Feinberg on June 18, 2004, 02:18:25 AM
One thing about 1795 was the Nathan Forbes/Suki.

It was very traditional soap opera; sneaking, cheating, etc.

Also, love to hate the way he treats poor Millicent.

GO BARNEY...WITH YOUR FANGED SELF!!
[/b][/i]

Also enjoyed Joan's character having depth; the 'elbow bending' problem AND the way she's treating like a nothing in her own home.

Patti
Title: Re: 1795:a query
Post by: michael c on June 18, 2004, 02:50:43 AM
i don't want to get too naughty,but nathan married millicent for her money.he must have married suki for other reasons.i can imagine a rather "steamy" relationship between them.thier scenes had some "sexual tension" :-*
Title: The Story of Josette
Post by: Nelson Collins on June 18, 2004, 03:30:48 AM
I just finished watching ep 345, where Barnabas tells Julia the story of Josette at the top of Widow's Hill.  It's markedly different than what plays out in the 1795 Flashback.  Barnabas tells Julia that his first meeting with Josette was when she came to live at Collinwood as the young new wife of his middle aged Uncle Jeremiah, and how with the passage of years grew discontented with being married to a much older man.  Obviously, this played out very differently in the Flashback.  How many differing versions of Josette's story are there?

I am curious to know just how far ahead were the writers thinking.  From what I have read on this forum, the writers originally envisaged Barnabas as a temporary ratings boost, but kept on due to his popularity.  Still, I find it strange that the times that Barnabas expounded on his time when he was alive, he never mentioned Angelique.   Were there any mentions of the circumstances of his curse?  When did the writer's start thinking about a lengthly flashback and why.

Sorry, I see I am rambling now.  I'll stop. For now. :)
Title: Re: 1795:a query
Post by: Miss_Winthrop on June 18, 2004, 11:31:09 AM
I'm going thru the pre-Barnabas episodes right now. In one episode, Roger walks in on Carolyn holding a 'Collins Family History?' book and talking to the portrait of Jeremiah over the fire place. She was talking about 'Josette LaFrenier'.  I'm glad they changed her last name to 'DuPre'.  It has a nice ring to it. I was just thinking about all the great scenes between Roger, Sam, Bill and Burke. I wish they had given Andre DuPre more to do in the 1795 flashback.  A character like that of Bill Malloy, employee and friend of the Collinses would have been a nice addition to the flashback IMO.
Title: Re: 1795:a query
Post by: Dr. Eric Lang on June 19, 2004, 01:10:23 AM
Quote
for starters, victoria was not just a passive observer but an active participant in the events of that year, barnabas knew her.so why didn't he recognize her when he arrived in 1967?when phyllis wick first appears at the 67 seance she was on her way to collinwood for the first time(in 95).but when time returns to the present barnabas knows her.how could he if she never arrived at collinwood in 1795?
Quote
Essentially, he suggests that when Vicki returned to the present, she was in another band of time than the one she had left; therefore, Barnabas would not have recognized Vicki when he emerged from his coffin because all of that took place in the Phyllis Wick timeline (erm, maybe it would be easier if you just saw the diagrams, lol.)

Actually, what I suggested is that the only thing that makes sense is that Vicki created an alternate timeline by her travel to 1795 (in which she takes Phyllis Wick's place), but then returned to her own timeline, which is why Barnabas does not remember her as being Sarah's governess in 1795, being hanged as a witch, trying to free her, etc. He still remembers the original timeline in which those things happened to Phyllis Wick. The diagrams, which Prof. Stokes has so kindly referenced, do help to illustrate the concept.

Quote
I just finished watching ep 345, where Barnabas tells Julia the story of Josette at the top of Widow's Hill.  It's markedly different than what plays out in the 1795 Flashback.  Barnabas tells Julia that his first meeting with Josette was when she came to live at Collinwood as the young new wife of his middle aged Uncle Jeremiah, and how with the passage of years grew discontented with being married to a much older man.  Obviously, this played out very differently in the Flashback.  How many differing versions of Josette's story are there?

Part of the problem w/1795 is the divergence the writers took from established history by necessity. Originally, the timeline for the deaths of Josette, Naomi and Barnabas were to have taken place in the 1820's. We can only speculate why these events were pushed back to 1795 (the availability of period costumes, for instance). Nor was Jeremiah, the central ancestral figure, supposed to have died during these events - he and Josette were supposed to be Elizabeth's and Roger's great grandparents. Collinwood wasn't supposed to have been built until 1830. Jeremiah was supposed to be in the same age group as his brother Joshua, not the same age as Barnabas.

The decision to kill off Jeremiah was probably dictated by Anthony George's desire to leave the show and had perhaps the biggest impact on changing the established history. I would have preferred to see the part recast, thus salvaging an important historical plot point.

While 1795 is my favorite story line I'm not blind to its faults. The pacing is decidely off, again perhaps necessitated by Anthony George's unexpected departure. I feel it should have culminated in Josette's death (and may have been originally intended so); instead she's killed off about half way through and the whole Nathan/Millicent storyline seems like a lot of tack-on at the end rather than being interwoven with the rest of the period.

I think what makes it my favorite, aside from the time travel element, is that it represents a time when the actors were given challenging roles to play and acted the heck out of it, and it was during a time when the writing was still sharp and the dialogue still interesting and creative.
Title: Re: 1795:a query
Post by: Joeytrom on June 19, 2004, 04:23:55 PM
Part of the problem w/1795 is the divergence the writers took from established history by necessity. Originally, the timeline for the deaths of Josette, Naomi and Barnabas were to have taken place in the 1820's. We can only speculate why these events were pushed back to 1795 (the availability of period costumes, for instance). Nor was Jeremiah, the central ancestral figure, supposed to have died during these events - he and Josette were supposed to be Elizabeth's and Roger's great grandparents. Collinwood wasn't supposed to have been built until 1830. Jeremiah was supposed to be in the same age group as his brother Joshua, not the same age as Barnabas.

The decision to kill off Jeremiah was probably dictated by Anthony George's desire to leave the show and had perhaps the biggest impact on changing the established history. I would have preferred to see the part recast, thus salvaging an important historical plot point.

While 1795 is my favorite story line I'm not blind to its faults. The pacing is decidely off, again perhaps necessitated by Anthony George's unexpected departure. I feel it should have culminated in Josette's death (and may have been originally intended so); instead she's killed off about half way through and the whole Nathan/Millicent storyline seems like a lot of tack-on at the end rather than being interwoven with the rest of the period.

I think what makes it my favorite, aside from the time travel element, is that it represents a time when the actors were given challenging roles to play and acted the heck out of it, and it was during a time when the writing was still sharp and the dialogue still interesting and creative.

I too wondered why they simply didn't recast Jeremiah with another actor as they already did that with three characters one month before.  It would have been better off that way.  Looks to me like a hasty decision by DC that would become the norm in later years (ex. Carl Collins should have just been written out of 1897 by leaving town as Andre was in 1795)

1795 though, is a great, tightly plotted story that they had a beginning, middle, and end for and it was written better then 1897 was.  1840 is also close to 1795 but not as much in terms of plotting.
Title: Re: The Story of Josette
Post by: michael c on June 19, 2004, 05:16:55 PM
I just finished watching ep 345, where Barnabas tells Julia the story of Josette at the top of Widow's Hill.  It's markedly different than what plays out in the 1795 Flashback.  Barnabas tells Julia that his first meeting with Josette was when she came to live at Collinwood as the young new wife of his middle aged Uncle Jeremiah, and how with the passage of years grew discontented with being married to a much older man.  Obviously, this played out very differently in the Flashback.  How many differing versions of Josette's story are there?
this ep. was filmed only a few weeks before the flashback began,so it's weird that they changed the story so much.there was also supposed to have been some signifigance to the fact that jeremiah resembled burke devlin that ultimately never played out.another totally different version of josette's story is the one barnabas tells carolyn and vicki on that stormy night shortly after his arrival at collinwood.
Title: Re: 1795:a query
Post by: Cassandra on June 20, 2004, 09:33:37 AM
I agree about the later part of 1795   it drug out way too long, as opposed to the first part, where things moved quickly.

  I loved the whole 1795 time travel storyline and it's my favorite out of all of them.  However, I do agree with you about the first part of the storyline and how quick things seemed to move right from the start.   I myself would liked to have seen a little more of Josette & Barnabas' relationship before the whole witchcraft thing got under.  Instead, the first day Josette arrives we see a short scene of the two of them kissing and professing their love for one another, and then he nearly chokes to death!  The relationship is doomed after that.  That early part of their relationship (before the choking) was about the only real normal part we get to witness.


Dr Eric Lang Wrote:
Quote
While 1795 is my favorite story line I'm not blind to its faults. The pacing is decidely off, again perhaps necessitated by Anthony George's unexpected departure. I feel it should have culminated in Josette's death (and may have been originally intended so); instead she's killed off about half way through and the whole Nathan/Millicent storyline seems like a lot of tack-on at the end rather than being interwoven with the rest of the period.

 IMO I think it would have more interesting if they had dragged out the Barnabas/Josette/Angelque relationship (instead of having the latter two die)  than having to sit through that whole Vicky/Peter trial & Millicent/Nathan marriage.

Cassandra
Title: Re: 1795:a query
Post by: Miss_Winthrop on June 20, 2004, 09:53:24 PM
Someone in an earlier post talks about Joel Crothers being a lightweight as a heavy (Forbes).  I have to disagree and here's why.  He starts out as a trusted friend of the family. Here's this trusted friend who puts the moves on Vicki big time right away and in the home of his employer! The first hint that he's not what he seems.  He gradually descends into a hell of his own making with the help of Rev. Trask.  Loved it when he found out what Millicent did with her money! I thought he did great as this bumbling bad guy who rarely got it right.  He gets his props when he sets up the bow & arrow thing in the library as a last resort.
Title: Re: 1795:a query
Post by: danfling on July 15, 2004, 12:10:26 PM
I LOVED Jane Draper as Suki!

She was blonde, and the other thing that I remember about her the most was her June Allyson-like voice!

I would have loved to have seen her in some other role on Dark Shadows or on any soap opera.      I have never seen her in anything else.

(I wouldn't have wanted her to play Buffy Harrington, though - because I liked Elizabeth Eis too!)

Does anyone know anything about what happened to Ms. Draper?      Was she ever invited to any of the cast reunions?
Title: Re: 1795:a query
Post by: IluvBarnabas on October 09, 2006, 09:41:44 PM
While I think Ben Stokes is a stand-out character, and Thayer David a brilliant actor,  the absence of John Karlen throughout the entire 1795 storyline makes it less than thrilling for me.... ;)

I agree John's absence was sorely missed (he would have been ideal for the role of Nathan's partner-in-crime Noah Gifford though Craig Slocum did a fine job) but it doesn't spoil my enjoyment of 1795. I do agree that the witchcraft trial could at times be a trial to watch but all in all I found 1795 to be a great storyline.

Part of the reason I really like the time-travelling stories it gave the actors other roles to play and show their versitility.
I mean Judith, Flora and Naomi were totally different from Elizabeth, as was Millicent, Charity, PT Carolyn,  Melanie and Leticia from  RT Carolyn.....Carl, Desmond, Kendrick and PT Will Loomis from the RT Willie, etc.

I like the present time stories but I just adore all the back-in-time stories so much.