Moments that made you go "WHAT?!!!!"

[IluvBarnabas]

What i don't get is that John Karlen was gone for a long time brefore he returned as Carl for those few episodes.  They should have just let him stay away and fade out like they did with Tony Peterson and Frank Garner.

[spoiler]The same with the Laura situation as Jamison did live on to the present, so why was he so worried she would kill him by fire?  It wasn't necessary for him to interfer with this whatsoever, just for dramtic effect to make him appear to be the hero.[/spoiler]

In the case of Laura and Jamison, well obviously we don't know what really happened there before Barnabas went back and changed things other than Jamison did live on to carry the name. [spoiler]You can't really fault Barnabas for wanting to keep Jamison alive. After all Laura was hell-bent on luring Jamison and Nora to their fiery deaths along with her. Suppose
Laura had succeeded, without Jamison, there would be no Elizabeth, Roger, Carolyn and David.....though one has to wonder did Barnabas' going back to the past bring about Laura's return....when the events of 1897 played out originally did she just simply stay dead?

Well in any case, Barnabas probably did meddle way too much than he should have (for better or worse) but he never really intended to go back to 1897....when he used the I Ching, he simply wanted to contact Quentin's ghost and get him to release David unharmed.[/spoiler]

[ProfStokes]

However, the act that I think was even more reprehensible was [spoiler]Dirk programming Judith to shoot Rachel. In that instance Dirk's motivation was nothing but pure revenge, and Rachel had simply stumbled into the wrong place at the wrong time through absolutely no fault of her own. Yet poor Rachel's death doesn't elicit half the sympathy or outrage that Carl's death does. I just wonder why that is?[/spoiler]

For one thing, Carl was a more likable character (at least in my opinion); he was funnier, more innocent, and had been on the verge of a happy life with Pansy Faye when it all hit the fan. Also [spoiler]Carl's death was more shocking than Rachel's because it involved the conspiracy of two family members--his own brother Quentin and Barnabas, who claims to care for his family so much and is always willing to jump through hoops or go back in time to protect their welfare.  Rachel was unfortunate, a damsel in distress who led a tragic life and died a sad, unfair, and tragic death, but Dirk using her as a tool of vengeance doesn't come close to the betrayal that Carl suffered.[/spoiler]

ProfStokes

[MagnusTrask]

Why would [spoiler]Rachel's death[/spoiler] elicit fan outrage?   Was Dirk supposed to be a wonderful person who would never do such a thing?    I still don't have the first fifth of 1897 so maybe I missed the bit that made the fans love Dirk so much.

I liked Lydia's answer very much.  It was along the lines of remarks made earlier by Penny Dreadful.   The [spoiler]murder of Carl[/spoiler] was SO reprehensible, in an obvious way, that it seems unrealistic and very far-fetched to accuse the writers of simply being "lazy"... after all, when a character on The Edge of Night needed to be written out, a kind and good character, they didn't have the main protagonist of the series (if there was one) just haul off and shoot him between the eyes, expecting the audience to still root for that main character.

[spoiler]The murder of Carl[/spoiler] was not justified much in dialogue on-screen, so it certainly seems as if we're supposed to buy it, automatically, without explanation.      They may have been going for something unexpected and challenging though, and hoping the viewers would appreciate it without any explanation, which is more interesting.

edited by mod   

[Mysterious Benefactor]

For one thing, Carl was a more likable character (at least in my opinion); he was funnier, more innocent, and had been on the verge of a happy life with Pansy Faye when it all hit the fan. Also [spoiler]Carl's death was more shocking than Rachel's because it involved the conspiracy of two family members--his own brother Quentin and Barnabas, who claims to care for his family so much and is always willing to jump through hoops or go back in time to protect their welfare.  Rachel was unfortunate, a damsel in distress who led a tragic life and died a sad, unfair, and tragic death, but Dirk using her as a tool of vengeance doesn't come close to the betrayal that Carl suffered.[/spoiler]

I understand what you're saying - and I'm not saying you're wrong - but, I don't know, something about someone (Rachel in this case) dying as a victim of circumstances completely out of their control just strikes me as so unfair and wholely tragic.

Why would [spoiler]Rachel's death[/spoiler] elicit fan outrage?   Was Dirk supposed to be a wonderful person who would never do such a thing?    I still don't have the first fifth of 1897 so maybe I missed the bit that made the fans love Dirk so much.

It has much less to do with Dirk and much more to do with Rachel.

[MagnusTrask]

People we like die a lot on DS.    It's a show about tragedy and misery.    

[IluvBarnabas]

People we like die a lot on DS.    It's a show about tragedy and misery.     

Ain't that the truth. [spoiler]Rachel, Josette, Naomi, Sarah, Jeremiah, are just a few I can think of who met sad and undeserved fates. Even in the case of Vicki and Peter in which we had assumed had led happy lives together unfortunately the writers (or Dan Curtins) had to put in that stupid twist in which we learned they both came to bad ends because of Jeb Hawkes.[/spoiler]

The closest anyone came to a happy ending was at the end of the 1840 storyline where [spoiler]Barnabas, Julia and Professor Stokes return to 1971 and find the family alive and Collinwood in tact[/spoiler]

[michael c]

shortly after the storyline returned to the present after 1795 i had a few "what?!" moments(and not just julia's switch from pageboy to pixie).

[spoiler]for instance during the whole first year barnabas couldn't bring himself to bite vicki.he was too fond of her.it was an integral part of the plot.suddenly he bites her.does anything interesting come from this development?

no.after a few episodes they get into the car crash and the dr.lang business begins and all of the implications of that are completely forgotten and the show moves in a different direction.[/spoiler]

as for the business with carl i wasn't that shocked.barnabas was in danger of becoming too much of a goody-two-shoes by this point and this re-established an element of dangerousness that had been missing for awhile.

[Jackie]

But killing [spoiler]Carl, as Barnabas did to protect his secret, which he must,[/spoiler] could drastically alter the history in the future.  So I see this [spoiler]murder by Barnabas[/spoiler] detrimental to his cause when going to 1897 to save the family.  We've seen Barnabas, as a vampire, use other means to control his victims or potential threats through [spoiler]hypnotism, controlling their will, or making them forget something very important.  He could have done this to Carl, made his leave Collinsport with Pansy which of course would have saved her life too.[/spoiler] Then John Karlen could leave on his acting venture and come back into the story IF he returned.  It would have protected the idea that Barnabas did NOT kill his own family members.[/size]

[Mysterious Benefactor]

I think some of the people who find Carl's death so hard to accept might be laboring under the misconception that Barnabas somehow became a good guy. Yes, Barn often does things to try to protect his family/friends, but he's not a good guy by any means in the classic sense. He lies, cheats, manipulates, browbeats and, yes, even murders a family member if he sees it as a means to an end - and it doesn't even have to be for his own ends. In a book of principles that Barn might use to rule his life, one most certainly would not find one that reads "Do No Harm."    That fact is actually one of the things that makes Barn a fascinating character: Right in the middle of doing something seemingly heroic, he can turn on a dime and do something reprehensible if he sees it as a means to an end.

[michael c]

(breathing a hearty sigh of relief)

thank you mysterious for posting this outside of the spoiler box.

for years this one particular plot development seems to get "spoilered" more than any other and i think it's obvious most of us know all about it.

[Mysterious Benefactor]

Actually, that was only because I spoilered the whole topic by adding the Spoiler Alert icon to it. Having spoiler boxes in almost every post was getting to be a bit ridiculous when just using the Spoiler Alert for the whole topic accomplishes the same thing.    But, yes, I agree that mostly everyone is aware of how Carl dies. Though there's probably always going to be some new fan who doesn't...

[Jackie]

Actually, that was only because I spoilered the whole topic by adding the Spoiler Alert icon to it. Having spoiler boxes in almost every post was getting to be a bit ridiculous when just using the Spoiler Alert for the whole topic accomplishes the same thing.    But, yes, I agree that mostly everyone is aware of how Carl dies. Though there's probably always going to be some new fan who doesn't...

So if there is a spoiler icon for the whole thread, we don't have to use the spoiler codes? Thank god!!!  I have to agree, it gets crazy with all those white spaces between disjoined words.  

[MagnusTrask]

More Carl spoilers.




I like leaving a lot of space.  I find that by the time I notice the word "spoiler", I'm already reading the spoiler itself.

Barnabas did become a decent person, to me, just not in a simple way.     He would break the rules of ordinary accepted behavior, take risks with others' lives but would get their agreement first unless prevented, and take revenge himself instead of calling the police.    You can always see or infer what justifications he would have for this or that action, and the reasons tended to make sense.

The thing with Carl crossed over a line, and was different.  To say he could have found other ways to protect his secret is to downplay how bad this was.     There are some things you don't do.     Even if it was "the only way" you don't kill an innocent relative to shut him up.

I can accept that a decent person was struggling with a darkness he couldn't understand, and that he was often on the brink of doing something monstrous in a "good cause" without realizing it.

[BuzzH]

Barnabas did become a decent person, to me, just not in a simple way.     He would break the rules of ordinary accepted behavior, take risks with others' lives but would get their agreement first unless prevented, and take revenge himself instead of calling the police.    You can always see or infer what justifications he would have for this or that action, and the reasons tended to make sense.  The thing with Carl crossed over a line, and was different.  To say he could have found other ways to protect his secret is to downplay how bad this was.     There are some things you don't do.     Even if it was "the only way" you don't kill an innocent relative to shut him up.   

ITA w/this!  There were other ppl who knew B's secret (Beth, Nora, Charity etc...) and he didn't kill any of them.  Instead he bit two to put them under his power and hynotized the other.  Why couldn't this have been done w/Carl??  And if the only reason for killing him off really was so that Johnny could go off the show to do a play, HELLO!!??  Just send he and Pansy away again.  Or, if killing Pansy was necessary so that her spirit could lighten Charity up, have Carl leave town because of grief.  Or, if it was integral for Carl to find out about Barnabas for dramatic effect, then lock his ass up in the tower room for the duration of the plotline, something OTHER than killing him.  That was the only time I was really pissed at Barnabas.   

[michael c]

let me throw this out there.

do people get upset that barnabas killed carl collins(a minor character at best)or that he killed a john karlen(a.k.a. willie loomis)character?

the thing with the time travel storylines is that the writers looked at them as "temporary".the characters were disposable.look at 1795 when half the cast got killed off.then when the storyline returned to the present fans could take comfort in that their favorite characters were alive and well(usually).

if john karlen had wanted to leave the show during the 1987 storyline the writers probably didn't think it was worth it to come up with a happy ending for him and the potential for dramatic affect far greater if he met the grisly demise that he did.

then of course old willie could always be brought back when the storyline returned to the present and no harm no foul.