DARK SHADOWS FORUMS
General Discussions => Current Talk Archive => Current Talk '24 I => Current Talk '05 II => Topic started by: MagnusTrask on November 27, 2005, 04:17:04 AM
-
This was almost certainly just sloppiness on DSs part, but I have to wonder: why was BC able to go for incredibly long periods, almost entire storylines seemingly, without victimizing anybody and slaking his evil upon their cardiovasculary systems? I mean, while he was definitely a vampire?
It's often occurred to me... if vampires are immortal except for staking etc., do they actually need blood to "survive"? Not precisely, if they can be chained in a coffin for centuries, without it. Julia certainly treats BC as if he could just avoid biting through willpower, if he wanted to. Sometimes JH and BC talk as if it's just a "hunger" and not a "need".
All I've been able to figure... maybe vampires just get really anemic and tuckered out sans globulin, and can't move after awhile. But no, not if he's up and about for so much of 1897, say.
-
To be honest, I like to take Anne Rice's take on the vampire, that vampires can survive off of animal blood, which is evident by all of the cattle being killed when Barnabas was first released. My thoughts are that in 1897, even though animal killings aren't mentioned, they are being done when Barnabas isn't on camera. Either that, or some nameless hookers are being killed and tossed in the ocean. ;)
-
I've wondered the same thing.
Maybe it's more of a need than Hoffman realizes and Barnabas admits to, and he simply sneaks off and takes advantage of the availables in Collinsport while noone, including the camera, is looking?
But if it's simply a hunger, rather than a need, perhaps it's an excruciating hunger? Imagine 200 years of gnawing anguish...
Quite the Stoic, that Barnabas -
-
Well in 1897 Barnabas attacked both Charity and Beth, I also think that Barnabas probably had other donors besides these two, but that they didn't show them; the more attacks shown the more actors they would have had to pay.
There are lots of different stories about vampires, each with a slightly different theory on their needs. P.N. Elrod's vampires are able to survive on the blood of large domesticated animals like cows and horses, Anne Rice's vampires can get by on the blood of animals, but she seems to imply that they don't satisfy their needs, Louis finally seems unable to control himself and attacks Claudia.
I think that most of the stories say that a vampire needs to drink blood in order to stay rational, but being immortal if they are unable to get blood they go into a comatose state. When they are again able to imbibe they recover.
Misa
-
I am going to second what others are saying. Barnabas probably did plenty of feeding "offscreen." We simply didn't see every one of his victims. I'm sure there were enough homeless unfortunates and unwary ladies of the evening to satisfy his needs. Heck, maybe he even made nocturnal visits to neighboring towns and cities. I also agree that the animal blood was likely a temporary, but ultimately unsatisfying, fix. I assume that without blood, Barnabas would become increasingly feral and more "undead"-looking.
-
BC in 1840 was able to jump right out of the coffin and go out wherever to dine, without attacking Julia first. I like the coma theory, though. I could see a vampire being able to attack the one person who lets him out, but then needing that one person's blood before he has the strength to get up and leave. Strange that with all the vampire stories over my whole life, i've never seen it presented what happens to a vampire if she/he doesn't get blood. Really strange.
As for BC and secret townie victims... that would change everything.
Barnabas just wouldn't be the person we think he is. We can have some understanding for the position BC is in, the struggle, the corner he's often backed up into... but if he's really just wantonly snacking on townsfolk, that goes over a certain boundary, and at least to some extent makes him a fraud, as a DS protagonist.
-
I think that most of the stories say that a vampire needs to drink blood in order to stay rational...
Well, it sure didn't seem to help Barnabas stay rational. ::)
Ha ha hee hee ho ho.........ahem
8)
Ya know, I've been watching some 1897 lately -- around the time Julia arrives to aid Barnabas in saving the day for Quentin and the future generation. He is SO on my nerves. What a bossy, Mr. Know-It-All Fop! Here Julia's risked her life to help him once again, and all he does is order her around in his usual obnoxious way, your can't tell him ANYTHING, he's telling Quentin how and why everything's been happening in this superior, knowing way......AND to add insult to injury, he's reading it all off the damned teleprompter!! I wanna kick him in the head! LOL
Oh yeah, and if that's not enough, he's about to go chasing after the latest Josette incarnation and the hell with everything else!
Just once I would have loved to have had Julia say, "I'm sick and tired of your crap, Barnabas. Get STUFFED!"
[furious3] [5363] [furious3]
[tongue6]
-
i've been thinking about this too.
i'm watching the 1897 storline now and there has been a remarkably low body count for there being a vampire in town.when barnabas first arrived in 1967 there was lots of talk of animal drained of blood and attacks on local girls.in 1795 he was fond of those dockside doxies.but in 1897 there is very little of that.
my theory is this.when b was first brought in he was to serve as the ultimate villian.so it was acceptable for him to do really revolting,animalistic things to survive.by the time they tell the 1897 story he serves as the show protagonist.it's bizzare "moral center".so it would not have been acceptable for him to be attacking animals and destroying everyone in sight.he'd been written into too much of a "gentleman" for that.he was a vampire because it made for interesting storytelling and on occasion he could bite pretty girls like charity and beth but the more animalistic side of his nature was off-limits.
-
Still, he must have been commiting the attacks despite the fact that we didn't see them happen as often. He must have been because he's a friggin' vampire! He can fight the urge all he wants, but eventually his vampiric nature will take over. IIRC he attacked Sophie Baker in 1897. I assume he was still doing that all along. The writers chose not to keep showing us the attacks because they were irrelevant to the plot at hand, and because the audience would likely turn on Barnabas.
-
Just because he attacks someone doesn't mean that he has to drain all of their blood, I'd think that by having a group of people to supply him with blood he would be able to drink from one on Monday another on Tuesday and so on. If he needed more than that he could probably drink from three different ladies a night and then a different three ladies the next night. In this way they would all have time to recover in between feedings. He probably just forgot to be careful sometimes and that's why Charity almost dies.
As to being the hero, when they show how Barnabas became a vampire they also show that being a vampire changed him, that he wasn't as caring as he was when he was human. They also show that he eventually started to fight this and tried to be kinder, but that sometimes he succumbs to his animalistic (vampire) behaviour. [spoiler]He kills poor Carl, and others,[/spoiler] he is rude to Julia, the pre vampire Barnabas was always pretty charming and polite. But I think that the writers tried to show him in the best light most of the time because he had become the "hero" of the show.
Misa
-
mcsbryk--- If he had been victimizing right and left, he'd cease to be the good guy. It wouldn't just be ungentlemanly, it would make him a monster. I like how forgiving everyone here is, though. (Not sarcasm.) BC himself has reformed, though, and keeps the sucking to a bare minimum. Alright, you could make a case that he never really did reform, and point to Carl, but is this supposed to be a show about a hypocritical villain posing as a hero? I enjoy the fact that BC is three dimensional and still has his harsh violent side. But his conscience is obviously functioning and active. Well, except for the problematic Carl thing.
I think that he just can't take blood from someone more than four times or so without killing her/him. There's Willie.... maybe if he waited a really long time between, it wouldn't be fatal, but that means lots and lots of victims, and when everyone in town has a family member or friend wearing ascots or scarves or turtlenecks, and mooning over their 8x10 glossies of Barnabas and putting him on their speed-dial for no apparent reason, it won't stay a secret long. Just thinking out loud. I don't know.
-
you're right mangus,
that was sort of my point.as originally conceived barnabas was a monster.but by the time the 1897 story was told he had become the show's protagonist and deeply troubled 'hero'.
as such i think the writers knew that having him do really yucky things like drink animals blood was unseemly and likely to turn off viewers and that's why it wasn't discussed at this point.
i wasn't thinking about what a real vampire might need in terms of blood but simply how the writing for the character had changed between 1967 and 1897. ;)
-
it would make him a monster.
Essentially he is a monster.
Barnabas isn't a hero. In fact, he possesses many of the qualities of a villain (calculating, brutal, vampire, murderer, unforgiving, a liar) but has the soul of a hero (courage, willing to risk danger in order to help his family, guilt over his blood-drinking, strong romantic feelings of love for Josette and others). This combination of traits makes Barnabas an anti-hero. The anti-hero, as a literary concept, has been around since the dawn of literature and Barnabas, from 68-71, is the anti-hero to a T. He definitely starts out as a villain, and that does change as the show goes on. I'd never say he was a hero though. He simply possesses too many non-heroic, flat-out villainous traits. Barnabas killed quite a few more people after Carl, although viewers tend to forgive those murders because most of them were "bad guys."
-
The period that really gets me is during the Summer of 1970; he's a vampire, but Julia isn't treating him, and there is no reference to cattle attacks, or ANYTHING! Same goes for 1840 after the end of a certain subplot. I know in the case of the latter storyline, Jonathan Frid flatly refused to do anymore onscreen fanging, which I think partly explains the introduction of the abrupt cure scenario by Angelique, even though she had tried and failed to cure him in a previous storyline (but at that point, she had yet to morph into SuperWitch!).
The other thing that always floors me is this episode in 1897 when the light of dawn is breaking and Barn is scurrying down to the basement, opens his coffin, and there's Rachel passed out inside, thoughtfully left there as a little love-token from Angelique. By rights Barnabas ought to have dumped her on a sofa in the drawing room, dashed madly back after locking the basement door, and hit the hay. But he stays and talks with Rachel for awhile, or gets Magda to attend to her (can't recall which).
By the series' own logic, he should have been burnt toast crumbs at that point. But he isn't!
G.
-
I think that most of the stories say that a vampire needs to drink blood in order to stay rational, but being immortal if they are unable to get blood they go into a comatose state. When they are again able to imbibe they recover.
I would agree w/this, although I am by no means a vampire expert. The *rational* part totally takes care of the change from 1795 when Barnabas is rational and reasonable and begs Joshua to stop him by shooting him w/the silver bullet. Then, in 1967 when Willie releases him, we all know he's completely insane and irrational, even "forgetting" his own past (Jeremiah being middle-aged, Jeremiah bringing his bride Josette back to Collinwood rather than her coming on her own to marry Barnabas etc...). It helps me put aside all the inconsistancies from when Barnabas was only supposed to be on 13 weeks and his ending up on the show permantly and them changing his back-story. ;D
Also, in regards to the WB pilot, remember that when we see Barnabas in the crypt when Willie and his girlfriend are robbing it, he's all dried up and shriveled and when Willie's girlfriend's blood hits him he's revived.
-
Essentially he is a monster.
Barnabas isn't a hero. In fact, he possesses many of the qualities of a villain (calculating, brutal, vampire, murderer, unforgiving, a liar) but has the soul of a hero (courage, willing to risk danger in order to help his family, guilt over his blood-drinking, strong romantic feelings of love for Josette and others). This combination of traits makes Barnabas an anti-hero. The anti-hero, as a literary concept, has been around since the dawn of literature and Barnabas, from 68-71, is the anti-hero to a T. He definitely starts out as a villain, and that does change as the show goes on. I'd never say he was a hero though. He simply possesses too many non-heroic, flat-out villainous traits. Barnabas killed quite a few more people after Carl, although viewers tend to forgive those murders because most of them were "bad guys."
Right on Penny! He is an *anti-hero*, just like Luke Spencer on GH! ;)
-
BuzzH,
Were you one of the lucky ones who got to see the WB pilot? I thought that it sounded as though it would have been a really exciting show.
Sure wish someone would make a new Dark Shadows.
Misa
-
Essentially he is a monster.
Barnabas isn't a hero. In fact, he possesses many of the qualities of a villain (calculating, brutal, vampire, murderer, unforgiving, a liar) but has the soul of a hero (courage, willing to risk danger in order to help his family, guilt over his blood-drinking, strong romantic feelings of love for Josette and others). This combination of traits makes Barnabas an anti-hero. The anti-hero, as a literary concept, has been around since the dawn of literature and Barnabas, from 68-71, is the anti-hero to a T. He definitely starts out as a villain, and that does change as the show goes on. I'd never say he was a hero though. He simply possesses too many non-heroic, flat-out villainous traits. Barnabas killed quite a few more people after Carl, although viewers tend to forgive those murders because most of them were "bad guys."
I like your post quite a bit and there's a lot to chew over here.
Some various disconnected thoughts in response...
PD... Do you like Barnabas?
For thirty years or so I've had trouble assimilating the concept of "anti-hero". I never knew whether to see it as the exact opposite of "hero", or as a more 3-D mixture of "good" and "bad"... as if there really are such things anyway.
Do you think it was the intent of the writers (forget DC) to have such an "anti-hero" as their... protagonist, or semi-protagonist? Were they thinking in that complex a way?
It'd be great to think of a subversive group of creative people back then, doing their best to get great, cool, challenging material past the DS and ABC suits and goons.
Let me be plain and clear as to my opposition to murder. In fact, I mean for a statue to myself to be constructed someday to commemorate my personal, heroic stance against murder. I'm really going out on a limb here, I know, in my opposition to offing folks that one doesn't like, but that's just the kind of guy I am. Yet... except for Carl, which is an incident that stands out like a sore thumb, I think Barney Baby exercised a certain degree of restraint in this department. I do like the idea of having principles of right and wrong which supercede those of the society in general. Except for Carl and the possible depletion of necessary post-death neurotransmitters* which may be responsible for that act, I generally applaud BCs slaughters. In fact next time I intend to literally applaud. My moral sense may be skewed in some weird way.
If you agree with an anti-hero's murders, are you evil?
-
BuzzH,
Were you one of the lucky ones who got to see the WB pilot? I thought that it sounded as though it would have been a really exciting show.
Indeed I was lucky enough to see the WB pilot Misa, and it was AWESOME! I make no secret of the fact that I despised the NBC show and was happy when it got canned, but this one....this one I could have definately gotten in to. They finally had a gorgeous, sexy Barnabas in Alec Newman. I mean puhleeze....BEN CROSS?!! Hell Frid was better than him! Don't get me wrong, I thought Frid was *great* as Barnabas, even if he wasn't gorgeous, sexy or knew his lines every day. But Alec....sigh...........! Even Willie was hot although I always thought Johnny Karlen was little slice of heaven. ;) Still is.... ;D
-
Oh yes, John Karlen's Willie was absolutely great! I'm talking about Willie up to where he is sent to Wyndcliff.
The way he portrayed him made you just want to be able to hold him and tell him everything was going to be okay, and try to make things better for him.
He was vulnerable, sad, cute, sexy, (although the writer's didn't play this part up). He felt so much guilt because he had released Barnabas. He tried so hard to help Maggie, but was not able to completely go against Barnabas. He tried to protect people from Barnabas if he could.
Again, wasn't he just so CUTE and SEXY? I felt so awful when he was shot. Lucky for him he couldn't remember anything then, or Barnabas probably would have killed him.
Misa :-*
-
Don't get me wrong, I thought Frid was *great* as Barnabas, even if he wasn't gorgeous, sexy or knew his lines every day.
[idontknow]
Hm...I take exception.
Don't know that I'd necessarily use the word "gorgeous", but I certainly found him uniquely attractive and definitely sexy in a subtle, refined way.
;D
-
Don't get me wrong, I thought Frid was *great* as Barnabas, even if he wasn't gorgeous, sexy or knew his lines every day.
[idontknow]
Hm...I take exception.
Don't know that I'd necessarily use the word "gorgeous", but I certainly found him uniquely attractive and definitely sexy in a subtle, refined way.
;D
I suppose there were times where he came off sorta sexy, those kissing scenes w/Angie in his bedroom during 1795 come to mind. And of course, as Bramwell he WAS definately sexy, but that was the way that character was written. But he pulled it off beautifully! ;D
-
And of course, as Bramwell he WAS definately sexy, but that was the way that character was written. But he pulled it off beautifully! ;D
Yeah - especially in that scene in the garden with Catherine when he's sort of goading her about her life with Morgan.
Funny though - I find him the most sexy not necessarily in the romantic scenes with women, but when he's tormented over something.
Wierd?
;D
-
PD... Do you like Barnabas?
Sure, I love Barnabas! Look to the left. See. I've got a nifty Basil Gogos Barnabas avatar. PD clearly digs Barnabas! [cheer] That being said, I still think he's a bastard in a lot of ways. He's fascinating, and he's my fave TV character ever, but I probably wouldn't wanna hang out with him. ;) While Barnabas might have many redeeming qualities, he's unpredictable and dangerous. In a bad way.
Check out this gruesome list of murder victims post-1795.
[spoiler]1968
Tom Jennings (twice! - though technically Tom was already dead, Barnabas was pretty callous in dispatching the vampire)
1796
Crystal Cabot
1897
Sophie Baker
Dirk Wilkins
Istvan
Carl Collins
A Deputy
1970 Leviathan
Megan Todd
Schuyler Rumson
1970 Parallel Time
Cyrus Longworth/John Yaeger
1995
Sheriff
1840
Lamar Trask
This is off the top of my head. I'm probably missing some. Several other deaths were indirectly caused by Barnabas - Roxanne in 1840, Edith in 1897, etc... We can also assume sundry Collinsport ladies of the evening met their doom off-camera during Barnabas' feedings/strangulations.[/spoiler]
It'd be great to think of a subversive group of creative people back then, doing their best to get great, cool, challenging material past the DS and ABC suits and goons.
Heck, I think that's exactly what was going on, plus they were making a unique TV show. The DS writers were a cool bunch. DS featured traditional gothic horror and romance, but was innovative in its knack for making most of these creatures into three-dimensional beings with feelings and human desires. The "otherness" of the monsters was tempered with a human soul.
Sure, I'd say the DS writers were definitely sneaking in some subversive cultural commentary. For example, even though it was sick and twisted when Barnabas walled up Reverend Trask, the viewers sort of wanted him to do it - we were horrified, but couldn't help but cheer on a bloodsucking vampire as he walled up a devoutly religious, fanatically insane holy man. Subversive? You bet.
If you agree with an anti-hero's murders, are you evil?
Yes. ;) j/k
-
Ya know, I've been watching some 1897 lately -- around the time Julia arrives to aid Barnabas in saving the day for Quentin and the future generation. He is SO on my nerves. What a bossy, Mr. Know-It-All Fop! Here Julia's risked her life to help him once again, and all he does is order her around in his usual obnoxious way, your can't tell him ANYTHING, he's telling Quentin how and why everything's been happening in this superior, knowing way......AND to add insult to injury, he's reading it all off the damned teleprompter!! I wanna kick him in the head! LOL
Oh yeah, and if that's not enough, he's about to go chasing after the latest Josette incarnation and the hell with everything else!
Yeau, this is true but what an idiot enabler Julia Hoffman is. Why does she follow him around trying to "help" him anyway? And ... he can't help chasing the latest Josette incarnation. That's Barnabas for you.
-
Yeau, this is true but what an idiot enabler Julia Hoffman is. Why does she follow him around trying to "help" him anyway?
Damned if I know.
It's funny 'cause when you're watching and involved, etc., you don't really notice. But if you stand back and look at the two of them, they're both quite ridiculous. Maybe they deserve each other.
::)
-
Yeau, this is true but what an idiot enabler Julia Hoffman is. Why does she follow him around trying to "help" him anyway?
Damned if I know.
It's funny 'cause when you're watching and involved, etc., you don't really notice. But if you stand back and look at the two of them, they're both quite ridiculous. Maybe they deserve each other.
It never once occurred to me, when I was a kid, to question the running around in time and Julia's involvement. People are in trouble, you do stuff to help them. That's still true, but (tangent) at what point do you stop fooling with time to prevent tragedies? Couldn't you always think of more tragedies even within your own family that might be fixed given a year or two of agonizing travail in some past era?
Where do you get your money to live on, in the past? What does Barnabas ever live on? I know, he doesn't. But when he's alive? When he's dead but kicking, does he have zero material needs? Except candles and matches? Sometimes no one's even around to clean up. Do vampires poop? There's a children's book for you.... more tangents. Toilet paper? Note to self, do fan drawing of BC on the john for hell of it. Further note to self: don't do that after all. (Eyes hurt like hell enough already.) Addendum: stop making so many notes to self or at least think for split second first.
What I meant to say was although Julia's to be applauded for trying so hard (where's her money come from? And does she poop? Wait, of course she does, never mind... there's where the thinking for a split second would have come in handy), and I still think we have to err on the side of believing people can just help other people because it's necessary-- (sentence getting too long so let's just pause and breathe a few moments to make up for the fact that I can't seem to figure out how to throw in a period occasionally.... okay continuing...) --- it's still strange how JH does all this for a couple of people connected to someone else's family.... wait, I'm just a crappy 21st century callous cynic now that I hear myself talking. But I went to a lot of trouble to type all that, so I'm posting it.
PD------ I was asking whether you like BC on a personal level, actually, or just appreciate him as a dramatic character. I thought it was a good moment to ask that. You don't so much, and thus far I still do. Lamar was very overdue. We do need legal restraints on revenge for the society overall, but some of those can't exactly be called murders except in court.
I'll do a better response to you later.
-
.....at what point do you stop fooling with time to prevent tragedies? Couldn't you always think of more tragedies even within your own family that might be fixed given a year or two of agonizing travail in some past era?
Good question. But let's face it - I would imagine that a good number of us, given the opportunity, would go back in time to fix a couple of things. One would have to be very careful however, and consider the far-reaching effects on the future. It would definitely be easy to get carried away. Life's lessons are what make us who we are.
If you were allowed to travel back in time and maybe change one or two things, what would it be? (Within your own life and family - not the world at large) It's a lot to think about.
Do vampires poop?
Now THERE'S an important question! lol
I'd vote no. I mean, they don't eat, correct? So, there ya go.
[santa_cheesy]
-
If you were allowed to travel back in time and maybe change one or two things, what would it be? (Within your own life and family - not the world at large) It's a lot to think about.
Do vampires poop?
Now THERE'S an important question! lol
I'd vote no. I mean, they don't eat, correct? So, there ya go.
Within my family I can't think of anything, but if it *was* the world at large, it would be 9/11. I'd have every one of those Al Quada bastards caught at their respective security check-points. I'd also reverse the 2000 election, kick W's ass back to Texas where it belongs! [santa_angry]
What I want to know is, how did Barnabas cope once he's cured! How did he shower, eat, do his laundry etc...and I'm talking BEFORE they bring Willie back from Wyndcliff. And once they did, did Willie have to boil hot water for their bath's? I have this amusing image of Barnabas' very first SHOWER at Collinwood when he's there taking care of the family in 1968 when Roger goes away on an extended business trip and asks B to "look after the family" (I LOVE that scene btw, when R asks him, B looks so *honored* that R is entrusting the family's welfare to him, and he takes it seriously by MOVING IN to the Great House!).
Anyway, back to the shower, that's a scene I'd love to have seen, B running to tell Julia how "glorious" it felt to take a shower w/the hot water streaming down his body etc...LOL! ;)
-
PD------ I was asking whether you like BC on a personal level, actually, or just appreciate him as a dramatic character.
I think he was, more or less, a nice guy before the curse. When he's not under the curse he's generally (though not always) a nicer individual.
-
Well, I just watched some episodes from early Dream Curse (1968) last night (just got 'em on DVD--I righteously dig the format, and that menu sequence is just Super Groovy! outasite! but I digress) and I nearly gagged at how self-absorbed Barn came off. Here's Julia about a pin's breadth away from a complete nervous breakdown (she actually screams at him "Why can't you leave me alone?!?!" and I wanted to stand and cheer) and all the man can do is moan about how he needs her to do the Experiment NOW.
You would have thought that with all his talk of how wonderful it is to be a human being, he would have tried on some compassion for size. He was so extremely self-involved, I found myself thinking of Isobel's husband in Portrait of a Lady by Henry James (the novel, not the film version).
G.
-
Yeah - especially in that scene in the garden with Catherine when he's sort of goading her about her life with Morgan.
OMG Connie, I *love* that scene!! When he does that little bite thing? Damn sexy I must say! [santa_tongue]
-
Buzz-- seems to me that there's nothing about being a vampire that would mean you don't have to take showers or baths. What, the dirt of the world slides off him?
-
Well, perhaps he just needed Willie to dust him off once a day......
-
Well, I just watched some episodes from early Dream Curse (1968) last night (just got 'em on DVD--I righteously dig the format, and that menu sequence is just Super Groovy! outasite! but I digress) and I nearly gagged at how self-absorbed Barn came off. Here's Julia about a pin's breadth away from a complete nervous breakdown (she actually screams at him "Why can't you leave me alone?!?!" and I wanted to stand and cheer) and all the man can do is moan about how he needs her to do the Experiment NOW.
"Dream Curse" is not the best of times for Barnie lovers. I really don't get how they could have gone from a sympathetic, complex and exciting Barnabas in 1795 (vampire adulterer and all) to a one-dimensional self-centered bore (the bit about wanting Jeff Clark's head on Adam was just totally out of character). I don't watch it for that reason and initially when I did see a few Dream Curse tapes I leaned more towards Nicholas Blair who got the best lines from that storyline. Maybe the writers were suffering from Barnabas fatigue by that point. But, after watching 1795, when he was human you can see that becoming a vampire did alter Barnabas' personality for the worse even when he'd change back into human every so often. And,as far as Julia is concerned ... she hung on to him long after it was necessary. Barnabas was always completely honest with her as to what kind of person/monster he was. Never did he imply that he was anything except grasping and frightened and weak when human.
-
during this part of the story barnabas did do one supremely unselfish thing.
when he saw that the effects of the dream curse were driving vicki insane he implored her to tell him the dream so that she may have some peace.
but yes,otherwise b was essentially as self serving as pre-1795 vampire b.to soften him up a bit they threw in that everything he was doing was to protect vicki and then the entire collins family(how's that for a stretch?)from death at the hands of adam.
-
All this constitutes spoilers for me, so I'm going away from here for awhile. [bnghd]
-
Funny though - I find him the most sexy not necessarily in the romantic scenes with women, but when he's tormented over something.
Wierd?
Yes, Connie. Admirably so.
PDreadful confirmed earlier what I had long dreaded to hear... that I'm evil (because I agree with an anti-hero's murders). Well, I can't pretend it's a total surprise.
This isn't the better reply I promised.
-
PDreadful confirmed earlier what I had long dreaded to hear... that I'm evil (because I agree with an anti-hero's murders). Well, I can't pretend it's a total surprise.
I know you're joking, but just in case you're not aware, j/k = just kidding. [cheesyg]
-
In my view, Barnabas was neither really a hero nor a villian. Sure some of his actions were villianous and downright evil, while other actions could be applauded and condoned. Certainly [spoiler]the murder of Carl can't be condoned in any shape or form, nor the fact he wanted to kill Maggie, Burke and David during his early days.[/spoiler]On the other hand [spoiler]the fact that he wanted to help Chris find a cure to Chris' curse[/spoiler] proves that Barnabas still had some good in him and he was capable of compassion for others.
[spoiler]BTW how was Barnabas' staking of Tom Jennings callous? What was he supposed to do, let Tom live and kill Julia, thus making her a vampire? Killing Tom to save Julia[/spoiler] is another example of Barnabas' better deeds. He wouldn't have [spoiler]staked Tom[/spoiler] if he didn't care so much for Julia. At that point he had come a long way from the nasty, cruel vampire Barnabas who treated Julia rather badly at the beginning of their relationship.
Barnabas was like the rest of us.....human (even in his vampire state, lol). The fact that he can do both good and evil makes him a very complex and interesting character.
-
He wouldn't have [spoiler]staked Tom[/spoiler] if he didn't care so much for Julia. At that point he had come a long way from the nasty, cruel vampire Barnabas who treated Julia rather badly at the beginning of their relationship.
I disagree, Barnabas would have made sure Tom was taken care of but maybe not so quickly. He still cared about his family and Tom could have claimed one of them as his victim. I do believe his feelings for Julia did make him act as quickly as he did plus the fact the "experiment" HAD to go on at any cost.
-
You're right dsbarnabas fan!
I said that wrongly. Of course he would have [spoiler]staked Tom[/spoiler] anyway, Julia or no Julia, just to protect his family.
Didn't realize how silly I had phased that, thanks for making me realize that! [hall2_wink]
-
Still, he must have been commiting the attacks despite the fact that we didn't see them happen as often. He must have been because he's a friggin' vampire! He can fight the urge all he wants, but eventually his vampiric nature will take over. IIRC he attacked Sophie Baker in 1897. I assume he was still doing that all along. The writers chose not to keep showing us the attacks because they were irrelevant to the plot at hand, and because the audience would likely turn on Barnabas.
I think that's exactly it -- Barn's doings were peripheral to the main plot, and if explained in more detail would have distracted from the story they were trying to tell. What a lot of people forget with 1897 is that Barnabas is a SUPPORTING character in it, not the main focus of the plot.
And DS has this schitzophrenic habit of sometimes making the most brainless leaps of illogic that underestimate the intelligence of the audience, but also as often they give you a framework, like a radio drama or a play, and assume that the audience is bright enough to pick up on the implications and fill in the pieces for themselves.