DARK SHADOWS FORUMS
General Discussions => Current Talk Archive => Current Talk '24 I => Current Talk '03 II => Topic started by: Raholt on September 19, 2003, 04:34:28 AM
-
Just how old is Ben suppose to be as opposed to Daniel. Now in 1795, Ben was a man, in his mid 40's (according to what Professor Stokes says about him in 1968 after Vicki returns to the present) and Daniel is a boy of about 11 or 12. Now, since 45 years have passed since 1795, that would make Daniel only 57 at the most, yet he is presented as being an old man. 57 is not really an old man. This would make Ben in his mid 80's, which also goes against what Profressor Stokes says about Ben's fate when he first meets Vicki in 1968. He says Ben worked his land and died in his 75 year. I saw this episode recently on DVD and if Ben was in his mid 40's in 1795, he would not have lived to 1840.
In the 1840 story, you are given the impression that Daniel is a much older man than he would have been and that he is going senile. 57 is pretty young, even in those days to be going senile. Also Ben seems better able to get around than Daniel, when it probably should be the other way around.
I like the 1840 storyline but there parts of it that really were not written with any logical thought put into it, with regard to time and events both past and future.
Raholt
-
I like the 1840 storyline but there parts of it that really were not written with any logical thought put into it, with regard to time and events both past and future.
Ah, the continuing sage which is Dark Shadows!!!
(Frequently Raholt, they contradict themselves...gotta love it!)
Patti
-
The discrepencies are just another example of the Dark Shadows time-space-continuum warp. Another example is saying how all the events of the winter of 1795/96 suddenly happened in 1797. The Dark Shadows TSCW comes in very handy. I even use it to understand the "connection" between Leticia and Pansy Faye. You see, it's like the one drawer everyone has in their kitchen. For most of your stuff, there's a drawer for everything, but then you have the junk that's useful, but has no category and no place to go, so it all just goes into that one drawer. The drawer makes no sense, but it's sure handy to have around.
Gerard
-
Well, one can always make up a story to make things fit. Ben is 75, he looks much older because he's been through so much that aged him prematurely. And Daniel, well, maybe he has advanced Alzheimer's or dementia already. Didn't that happen to Rita Hayworth and she was really young, 50s or something?
But the truth is I agree with everyone else, that it's just a DS "thing" that happened several times already.
-
Early-onset Alzheimer's Disease can and does manifest before the age of 50. It's a perfectly plausable explanation for Daniel.....except that hardly anyone outside the practice of neurology had ever heard of it in the early 1970's.....so we can be pretty sure none of the writers wrote it into the margins as "what was wrong with Daniel".
It's just the way they wrote things for DS...."Continuity? [hdscrt] WHAT continuity?"
-
Yeah, but even if they didn't have a name for Alzheimer's back in the 1970's (or 1840's for that matter), many people must've been touched by that dread disease. I think it's a plausible explanation for why Daniel was so far gone. That, and the fact that he could have been seriously warped by all that weird sh*t he saw in the 1790's. Would be enough to drive anyone crazy.
Of course, everyone's right - the most plausible explanation is that the writers just didn't remember (or care) about what came before on the show. Nor did they think anyone would be watching this stuff thirty odd years later!
-
I didn't have a problem with the age difference between Daniel and Ben. My husband and I like to watch documentaries and dramas about the revolutionary and civil wars. It seems like alot of men died of natural causes by the age of 45 to 55. There were no treatments for hyper-tension or high cholesterol. Life spans have increased dramatically due to antibiotics alone. Women were more likely to die in childbirth, too. Those were very hard times. Daniel seems to have a heart condition and who knows what else. Mental illness tends to run in families. Millicent seemed a little off before Barnabas' attack and completely unhinged afterward so maybe that explains why Daniel is mentally disturbed or has early senile dementia.
-
I very much appreciate Louis Edmonds' portrayal of the dementia-afflicted Daniel. Having had a parent who suffered and died from Alzheimer's, I have to say that he captured very well the type of behavioral manifestations of a person with the disease (or whatever form of dementia). And along with that, how Ben just humors him when he knows he can get away with it, causing Daniel to calm down. I learned how to do the same with my mother from both the Alzheimer's Association support meetings and the staff who tended to her at the nursing home. The whole plot with Daniel (and with Ben as his apparent caretaker) rings true to reality with me.
Gerard
-
Gerard,
I have never had a "real" experience with a family member with Alzheimer's but also thought that the Ben/Daniel relationship seemed rings true. The age thing could be explained many different ways. Yes, Ben is a great deal older than Daniel but ill health and mental illness can age a person conciderably. I know many a older person who you would never guess they were 75-80 and yet others years younger that seem so much older.
Inconsistancy- What do we expect this is Dark Shadows.
Birdie
-
I didn't have a problem with the age difference between Daniel and Ben. My husband and I like to watch documentaries and dramas about the revolutionary and civil wars. It seems like alot of men died of natural causes by the age of 45 to 55. There were no treatments for hyper-tension or high cholesterol. Life spans have increased dramatically due to antibiotics alone. Women were more likely to die in childbirth, too. Those were very hard times. Daniel seems to have a heart condition and who knows what else. Mental illness tends to run in families. Millicent seemed a little off before Barnabas' attack and completely unhinged afterward so maybe that explains why Daniel is mentally disturbed or has early senile dementia.
Interesting comment. Last night I was reading the 1897 newspaper account of my great-grandfather's death, and he was described as "one of the oldest and most esteemed members of our community" -- and he had barely reached 40! (A bad cold turned to pneumonia.) Granted, the article refers to my great-grandfather as one of the city's founding citizens 20 years earlier, but the account emphasizes his longevity, not his relative youth (by our standards).
(OT -- If anyone can help me with any information regarding Luchring, France, I would greatly appreciate it. No information is available with google ... Reference librarians, could you suggest any resources?)
Birdie wrote:
The age thing could be explained many different ways. Yes, Ben is a great deal older than Daniel but ill health and mental illness can age a person conciderably. I know many a older person who you would never guess they were 75-80 and yet others years younger that seem so much older.
Inconsistancy- What do we expect this is Dark Shadows.
Well put. :)
Another thing to consider, though: when you look at both actors' makeup, it appears that they tried to make Ben look the older of the two. Just compare his gnarled face with Louis Edmonds' relatively smooth complextion.
-
57 is not really an old man.
Well given that life expectancy in the U.S. in 1850 was 38.3 years. . .i'd say 57 was probably considered old .. and Ben ancient. . . now as to the other discrepancies. . .pure DS. But folks often forget that it's only in the last 60-70 years (around 1940) that folks started living on average over 60--
J99
-
... now as to the other discrepancies. . .pure DS.
J99.....lololol YOU'VE coined a new phrase!!!!
Please everyone....each time I look at this topic...
REMEMBER...IT'S PRONOUNCED DANEL, RHYMES WITH PANEL.
(one of my favorite bug-a-boos...love it!)
Patti
-
57 is not really an old man.
Well given that life expectancy in the U.S. in 1850 was 38.3 years. . .i'd say 57 was probably considered old .. and Ben ancient. . . now as to the other discrepancies. . .pure DS. But folks often forget that it's only in the last 60-70 years (around 1940) that folks started living on average over 60--
Actually, from working on my family history, I have found that it is not really that true that people died off at earlier ages back then than they do now. It is true there was a higher mortality rate, especially in infants and children, but adults on average lived into their 60's and some, just like today, lived into their 80's or 90's. It is true that there were more things that could kill you then than there is today, meaning that they did not have the medicines we have today so even a common cold was a serious matter, but on the whole most people did live what we would consider, even today, a decent lenigth of time.
Raholt
-
I think what has always troubled me about the situation between Ben and Daniel is that it is written like they were contemptories of each other, lifelong friends, when the truth is that Daniel would have been 30+ years younger than Ben. To Daniel, Ben would have been an elder all of his life and to Ben, Daniel would have been a young man, no matter how old he got, but this does not seem to be the case.
Daniel should not be an old man in this segment. There has just not been enough time between 1795 and 1840 to justify the age he is portrayed to supposedly be. Quentin is his son and according to the death notice Barnabas and Julia found in 1970, Quentin was born in 1808 so he would have been 32 in 1840. Daniel would be in his late 50's and while I can buy him being in ill health and that it affected his mind, I still have trouble with how they try and even Ben refers to him as an "Old Man".
Raholt
-
Last night I was reading the 1897 newspaper account of my great-grandfather's death, and he was described as "one of the oldest and most esteemed members of our community" -- and he had barely reached 40! (A bad cold turned to pneumonia.) Granted, the article refers to my great-grandfather as one of the city's founding citizens 20 years earlier, but the account emphasizes his longevity, not his relative youth (by our standards).
My husband works on his genealogy. One female relative was described as an elderly spinster. The census listed her age as 46. :-
-
Perhaps it would have been better to have had Joshua Collins still be alive in 1840 and be the patriarch of the family. Joshua and Ben were about the same age.
-
People age at different rates. I know people around my age (mid 40s) who look and act 20 years older than me, in some cases due to debilitating ailments. I have a dear friend who is a year younger than me. She's acted like an old lady since I first knew her back in the late 1980s, and now speaks of herself as a "crone in training."
The real problem is with the info given in 1968 about Ben dying in 1830. But of course, in 1967 the events with Barnabas and Josette were originally described as happening around 1832. So Dark Shadows has kind of a set pattern of just "correcting" its own history.
With the 1840 storyline, the biggest problem of all is that NONE of the material revealed about the period in the immediately preceding 1970 story turns out to be relevant to what's going on when Julia arrives. Some months down the line, when Stokes shows up, she has to try to explain what's been going on to him. The results are semi-comical. I think Grayson and Thayer must have just looked at one another doing the read through and agreed to go for a stiff drink at the Brittany du Soir once they were done with THAT day's taping!
G.
-
My work on my family geneology has also revealed a remarkably group of long lived relatives (most men into their 70s back to the 1600s) but still I recognize this to be atypical. . .when you were past your prime childbearing years--30, you was old. . .
-
It is true that people living into their 70's was a bit atypical but into their 60's was not that unusual. Women did tend to die younger than men and that was because of the number of children most had. It is not that unusual to find a man married to his first wife until she is in her 40's or around 50 and then next you see him married to a 20 or 30 year old woman. The wife has died in the time between. Unlike today, where woman typically outlive the men, it was the other way around back then.
To the person who mentioned Joshua still being alive at in 1840, were he would have been an old man, based on his gravestone in the Mausoleum. He would have been slightly older than Ben.
Now Ben tells Barnabas that Joshusa has been dead these many years. It makes it sound like he died right after Barnabas was placed in the coffin, but he is implying he has been dead for sometime. Then when Ben is questioned about Daniel, who Barnabas refers to as 'the boy," Ben says he is an old man now. That statement has always bothered me because in regard to Ben, Daniel is still a spring chicken. More accurately, the writers should have portrayed Daniel as being ill and that affecting his mind and stayed away from the references to age. Given that Millicent wasn't all there, they could have played on it being a trait that ran in that part of the Collins family. I've always thought it would have been interesting to see Millicent in that time, if only briefly. She could have caused Barnabas a few scares with her way of saying whatever came to her mind. In the end all that is revealed of Millicent is that she never had a happy day in her life. Now Millicent being about 10 years older than Daniel could have qualified as an old lady and a crazy old lady at that and that might have made for an interesting character.
Another point that was made by another poster about this storyline is that what was shown in 1970 ulitmately plays very little part in what happens in 1840, is so true, especially with regard to the children storyline. That storyline in 1970 was at the forefront, but nothing is made of it after they go into the past. I know David Hensey apparently left the series during this part of the story, but I've never understood why nothing was ever made of that part of the story while he was still there.
Finally, another point that has bothered me about this storyline is that in 1897, Edith Collins knew the family secret...Barnabas. Her husband told it to her and he had been told it by his father, Daniel. Now why in 1840 did nobody, including Daniel, know about the family secret. By the 1897 storyline, Joshua, to deminish the chances of Barnabas being released from his coffin had decided to tell Daniel about what became of Barnabas and this info was to be passed down to one person in each generation. I can buy that after 1897, that info got lost so as to explain why those in 1967 didn't know about him, but if someone, Edith, knew in 1897, then someone had to know in 1840 and that fact, a fact played up prominently in 1897, is totally ignored in 1840.
Raholt
-
Raholt...the last go around (on a different board IIRC), we all 'presumed' that Edith did not YET know, because Danel still 'possessed' the knowledge...did he leave it in a will/memento??
But, last time around..that bothered me too! >:(
Patti
-
It occurred to me today to look at the date plaques on the portraits in the hallways of the state historical society where I work. There are many portraits on different floors throughout the building, but I chose three in the hallway near the archives where I work. One gentleman died in 1870 at the age of 81, one died in 1873 at age 73, and the third (a woman) died in 1899 at the age of 91.
The statistics that J99 shared here yesterday are eye opening, but it seems they are subject to interpretation. Many people did live into old age ... but not as many and not as old as is common now.
I'm glad others felt free to mention genealogy, too. After all, ancestry and family history are a major theme of DS. After posting my earlier message, I came across an account of my great-grandfather's death in another newspaper. This account expressed shock and dismay at his sudden death while in the prime of life (or words to that effect) just six days after falling ill in 1897. But a greater discrepancy -- perhaps one worthy of our DS writers -- was that this newspaper named a different town in France as his birthplace. This small town was easy to locate, and I am now excited to learn that my great-grandfather was from the lovely Moselle wine region in Lorraine (not Alsace, as I had wrongly thought for years). My father suggests that the place name mentioned in the other newspaper could be something like a township or parish, but so far this remains unexplained. It was a thrill for me to finally discover the right town because this is my direct bloodline -- which I will now be able to trace alongside my Scandinavian ancestry!
-
Edith not knowing about the family secret in 1840, I understand and I agree that she did not yet have that knowledge. However, Daniel surely had that knowledge and even in his weakened state should have been alarmed at the sight of Barnabas. He was not.
One of the risks writers taken in doing a flashback that goes back in time farther than the one before and in this case falls between 2 flashbacks is that they will foul up on details, which they surely did in more than one way with this one. The storyline is interesting but much is lacking in the way the detalis are handled or just ignored. I know that in the original run, what is on now was being done well after 1897 and thus most people had forgotten what they saw there and that only in reruns does it show to be a glaring error in continuitiy.
DS had one major fault and that was lack of keeping track with itself. Dates seemed to be a primary source of this problem. Often they changed for no reason. Collinwood was originally built in 1830 and that held true until the 1795 flashback. One of my favorite errors regarding dates involves the date of Peter Bradford's tombstone as shown in 1968. It said April 1795 as his date of death, yet Vicki arrived in the past in Oct of 1795 and that is made very clear. How he could have died before she arrived and yet they knew each other and fell in love is something that nobody even thought about at that time. I know time was suspended at Collinwood when Vicki went to 1795, but apparently it never went at the same rate as the rest of the world anyway. This may explain how Daniel became so old so fast.
Raholt
-
BTW, good catches, Raholt. :)
-
As to the lack of connection between the 1970 "replay" of the 1840 story and the actual events we see when they go back, it's not just the lack of attention to the children. We were led to believe that there was the ship Java Queen, Gerard was presumably the captain, and at least one time Daphne visited him there. In 1840 all of that is simply forgotten.
-
That is true that no mention of a ship is made except that Gerard had served with Quentin on board a ship, but the name of the ship is not mentioned that I recall.
However in the case of the Children, that plotline is made to be very important in 1970. You are led to believe that not only was David and Haley in danger in 1970 but that it was somehow a rehashing of what happened to Tad and Carrie in 1840. However in the end, the children are really not prime players in this segment. Carrie is more so than Tad, but neither are put in the kind of danger that Daphne seems to fear for David and Haley in 1970, yet she clearly asks Gerard if it has to happen like it did before? In the end, you wonder why the children were involved in the whole matter at all in 1970. Unlike with 1897 where the events of 1968 and 1969 play a role in the plot line of the past, with the concern being for David in the future, no such thing happens with this plot.
I think the one thing that doesn't happen with 1840 that did happen with the plot leading up to 1897 is there is no reason given for why the ghosts suddenly appeared at Collinwood in 1970. In the Quentin storyline, it is Chris and his curse that bring Quentin restless spriit back. It is also his need for forgiveness from Jamison who he sees in David that is a driving force for his ghost. Also his hatred for his family and their descendents makes him want in death what he could not have in life, which was Collinwood.
In 1840 we have nothing to explain why the ghost show up when they do. There is no event to explain why they came back when they did and why they had not come back before. Had a grave been disturb or a room found, something to show how and why the restless spirits of Gerard, Daphne and the children came back it would have worked to better tie 1840 to 1970.
What was really going on behind the scenes was a franic race to do bigger and grander things each day. Dan Curtis was pushing for something to happen each day and the pace of the show was on manic. It is because of this that so many continuity errors occured. The importance was on effects and having a major event everyday, rather than what had made the show so successful all along and that was telling a good story. Up until the end of the 1897 flashback, the show seemingly could do no wrong. Then the Leviathan storyline came around and that was followed by PT 1970, which might have been better had it no coincided with the production of House of Dark Shadows. So much of the main cast being away for so long caused that storyline to drag and never live up to the potential it could have. Then we had the 1995 flashforward which was quite good and very interesting. Returning to 1970, we had 6 weeks of setup for the trip to 1840 and that was all those 6 weeks were about. Then the story did not flesh out the setup, which really made that whole segment virtually worthless.
As someone else pointed out earlier, this segment had great potential but then it went off course and started rehashing previous plotlines. We had the introduction of new characters and a new family line, the Drew family, but very little was made of the new sources for new stories. Instead we see another version of Trask, which after Rev. Trask and Gregory Trask, the rest just paled in comparsion. It was like because Jerry Lacy's, Tony Peterson didn't work, that he couldn't play anything except someone name Trask. The most interesting part of this storyline is in the early part of this segment for the most part. Toward the end we really start to go a bit crazy with the direction of the story and characters really begin to lose their definition. During this time, without giving away the plot we have one of the biggest goofs continuity wise with a character being killed off who was essential to a later time period. Finally with this segment we have the ulitmate end to the whole Barnabas and Angelique storyline, which to this day I have mixed feelings about.
Like I said originally, I do enjoy watching the 1840 storyline, not as much as 1795, but it is enjoyable to watch, but still I see that there was a great deal wrong with it that should not have happened and could have been avoided.
Raholt
-
Just how old is Ben suppose to be as opposed to Daniel. Now in 1795, Ben was a man, in his mid 40's (according to what Professor Stokes says about him in 1968 after Vicki returns to the present) and Daniel is a boy of about 11 or 12. Now, since 45 years have passed since 1795, that would make Daniel only 57 at the most, yet he is presented as being an old man. 57 is not really an old man. This would make Ben in his mid 80's, which also goes against what Profressor Stokes says about Ben's fate when he first meets Vicki in 1968. He says Ben worked his land and died in his 75 year. I saw this episode recently on DVD and if Ben was in his mid 40's in 1795, he would not have lived to 1840.
In the 1840 story, you are given the impression that Daniel is a much older man than he would have been and that he is going senile. 57 is pretty young, even in those days to be going senile. Also Ben seems better able to get around than Daniel, when it probably should be the other way around.
I like the 1840 storyline but there parts of it that really were not written with any logical thought put into it, with regard to time and events both past and future.
I like to think that Ben's actual age could well have been a mistake, Ben might have been up to 5 or 10 years younger... his good health may be because he worked out in the fresh air, ate a proper diet with plenty of exercise, I recall Ben being a very sound big man.
Also... Daniel's lack of mental decline could be attributed to Daniel's murdering his wife "Harriet" I understand guilt can be so heavy a price to pay as to cause the guilty person to suffer a physical as well as mental breakdown, causing Daniel to appear much older.
I am also enjoying this story line.
Sarah's [ghost]
-
That is true that no mention of a ship is made except that Gerard had served with Quentin on board a ship, but the name of the ship is not mentioned that I recall.
However in the case of the Children, that plotline is made to be very important in 1970. You are led to believe that not only was David and Haley in danger in 1970 but that it was somehow a rehashing of what happened to Tad and Carrie in 1840. However in the end, the children are really not prime players in this segment. Carrie is more so than Tad, but neither are put in the kind of danger that Daphne seems to fear for David and Haley in 1970, yet she clearly asks Gerard if it has to happen like it did before? In the end, you wonder why the children were involved in the whole matter at all in 1970. Unlike with 1897 where the events of 1968 and 1969 play a role in the plot line of the past, with the concern being for David in the future, no such thing happens with this plot.
I'm wondering if it's possible that they simply just deviated from the original plot for 1840 they had earlier sketched out. The 1897 story changed almost instantly from what they originally intended. It was suppose to last only three months and there were apparently many differences from the 1897 "bible" and what eventually transpired on the small screen such as, I believe, Jenny being Edward's wife, not Quentin's. But almost immediately, they began to shuffle characters around when something else popped up (like Diana Millay becoming available, so they rehashed the Laura story). And, of course, as viewership skyrocketted, they just continued to add more and more until the 1897 tale went from three months to almost nine.
So maybe that happened with the 1840 plot. It was laid out on paper, but the red pen quickly altered it without any thought to consistency and things already made clear in 1970 (such as Tad and Carrie dying at almost the exact time Quentin I did back in 1840; what was the importance of the Java Queen in all this; etc.).
Gerard
-
It is even stated on the series itself that things in 1970 do not match up in 1840:
[spoiler]When Stokes arrives in 1840 via the stairway, Julia tells him that what they witnessed in 1970 differs from what she saw: Daphne not being there until later on, Gerard not being the ghost that haunts the family, etc. So, there is some continuity explanation going on...she even brings up Cassandra being in the past to explain away Angelique.[/spoiler]
I still think Judah Zacahary was decieving everyone in 1970 to throw them off the trail.
-
It is even stated on the series itself that things in 1970 do not match up in 1840:
[spoiler]When Stokes arrives in 1840 via the stairway, Julia tells him that what they witnessed in 1970 differs from what she saw: Daphne not being there until later on, Gerard not being the ghost that haunts the family, etc. So, there is some continuity explanation going on...she even brings up Cassandra being in the past to explain away Angelique.[/spoiler]
I still think Judah Zacahary was decieving everyone in 1970 to throw them off the trail.
You're right, Joeytrom.
1840 is also the most complex storyline DS ever attempted, with time periods (1995, 1970, 1840, and late 1600s), events, and characters layered and interlayered amongst one another. No question that there are some loose threads and some inconsistencies, as is the case with every DS storyline. But no other DS storyline -- or any other TV show that I know of -- ever did anything so complex.
If I had time to really delve into every objection Raholt lists, I feel I could come up with a response to many of them ... unfortunately I don't have the time to put into such an effort right now.
I like Raholt's explication of the reasons behind the 1897 events, but to my mind these reasons were not made crystal clear in the show itself. How Quentin's ghost trying to kill David was a bid for David's/Jamison's forgiveness and love is unclear to me.
Someone on this forum argued very cogently during the last run of 1897 that the original scope of that storyline was most likely a simple werewolf story which would have ended with Quentin being walled up in his room. I think an a close reading of 1897 bears that out. In a way, I think I might have liked that shorter version of 1897 better -- at least it would have been more cohesive plotwise and thematically. Nevertheless it would be sad not to have ever had the Petofi character, etc., but that might have been done in yet another storyline, as would the other extensions to the original 1897 plot. And the extensions of the 1897 storyline made up what it lost in cohesiveness and character consistency with some truly memorable sequences.
I agree with JoeyTrom that Judah Zachary is behind the 1970 and 1840 events, including why the ghosts of Gerard and Daphne appeared at Collinwood in 1970. The writers probably didn't make every thing clear, but I feel sure that there was a concept behind their writing other than, "Hey, let's introduce some new ghosts for no reason because we can't think of anything else to do." I feel that an in-depth analysis would uncover much that was left somewhat murky.
I definitely do not agree that various aspects named by Raholt and others were simply retreads of past storylines. For example, it is logical that a Trask character would appear, bridging the gap between 1795 and 1897. It's a delicious irony that this Trask should be an undertaker rather than a clergyman; it's also Jerry Lacy's most realistic villain, portrayed much more like a real person than his other Trask characters, which were really caricatures.
Moreover, the hint of redemption that is brought out near the end of the 1840 storyline marks the fulfillment of DS's ongoing philosophical look at the dark plight Barnabas faces over the length of the series; so in my view not only is 1840 far more cohesive and internally consistent than 1897, it is the culmination thematically of the entire series. (And 1841 PT which follows further develops the redemption theme, making a nice coda for the entire series.)
-
What Juilia says to Stokes, without giving away the details, is primarily relationship related. The relatioinships as they concieved them to be in 1970 are not what they really were in 1840. It is not so much the events she is talking about as the relationships of the people involved, Gerard, Daphne and the family of the period.
On another note, I agree is by far the most complex storyline the writers had to try to manage in the run of the series. While I still think some of it was rehashed material from previous segments designed to try to help the shows ratings by using proven material that was known to work with the audience, just like as Laura Parker has said many time, the characters of Barnabas and Angelique were always brought to the forefront whenever the rating took a dive. They were known to be audience favorites and they were.
It is true that in the writing of any segment of a continuing story, like DS, that certain elements change as the story evolves because of cast changes, a plot not working etc., but in this case it was really like they decided to abandon most of what was presented in 1970 to go off in a whole different direction once they got settled into 1840. I have always wondered if Judiah Zachory was always suppose to be the force behind the evil spirit of Gerard in 1970 or if this was concieved as an explanation for it after the story reached 1840. Even initially Gerard is portraited as being a scondrel and an opportunist when we first see him in 1840. He is trying to get his hands on the Collins money through Samantha and this is made clear from the start. Was this scondel originally suppose to evolve into a cold heartless man who failed to reach his goals in life (Collinwood) and then came back to get them 130 years later, without the possessoin storyline. I can see that as an option open to the writers early on but soon diverted to the Head of Judiah Zachory storyline as an explanation. Still there is no reason given for why what happened in 1970 happened when it did and not at some other point in time. I think that info would have helped this storyline by giving a focal point for Julia and Barnabas to look for and try to prevent, much as Barnabas looked for when and how Quentin would die in 1897, which apparently was not how it was originally intended shown. I think that point was a rewrite in the 1897 storyline.
With all its mistakes and rewrites, 1840 is still a good storyline to watch and I enjoy it. However, after 1795 the writers never again seem to find the magic of telling the story like that again. 1897 does well, esepecially early on, but as has been said before, it did drag out a bit too long and I think ulitmately that hurt that flashback as a whole. 1840 is not as long as 1795 and that actually hurts this one because it is ended sort of in a rushed fashion because of contracts and obligations that kept it from continuing. I think if it could have played out in a more natural way, instead of a forced fashion, it might have been even bettter than it is.
Raholt
-
It looks like there's much to ponder in Raholt's post above, but I just logged in again to quickly add a couple of comments to my previous post.
We were led to believe that there was the ship Java Queen, Gerard was presumably the captain, and at least one time Daphne visited him there. In 1840 all of that is simply forgotten.
A fan-written story, titled "The Java Queen," one of the very best fan stories I've read, nicely fills in this gap. It also fleshes out suspicions that Gerard orchestrated events leading to Quentin and Tad's disappearance. I believe that this may have been a story that Gothic referred to during the last run and which I later found online. An excellent complement to 1840. And yes, the writers do seem to have abandoned this interesting part of the story.
Raholt wrote:
The most interesting part of this storyline is in the early part of this segment for the most part.
Several people have said this, but it doesn't hold true for me ... I'll have more to say later when the time comes relating to archetypes and mythology, which give the later parts of 1840 so much depth and interest, IMO.
-
I know that at times it sounds like I'm picking apart DS and in particular this segment of the series, but I will tell you that I am a fan who looks at the show in a realistic way. What I means is that I see the show as something I enjoy but also as something that is flawed at times and not perfect. Some flaws, I excuse. like actors goofing up or technical mistakes, but I'm far more hard on plot and story continuity problems. I see most of those as being something that could have been controled because the previosly written material had to be available later on and with a bit of research many of the plot and story errors could have been avoided. Therefore I'm more critcal of story errors and plot inconsistencies. I just can't help it. What has always fascinated me about DS and kept me being a fan of the show since it's original run was not the acting or the actors (I did enjoy the performances of most) or the special effects, but the story and the telling of the story. The story is what kept me coming back for more and more. I think the story overall is magic and more fascinating to watch unfold than any classic play, film or book. So bare with me, if I sound too critical of plot points and alike, but for me I'm a fan of the story and when it is not what it should have been, I'm a bit disappointed.
Raholt
-
One of the risks writers taken in doing a flashback that goes back in time farther than the one before and in this case falls between 2 flashbacks is that they will foul up on details, which they surely did in more than one way with this one. The storyline is interesting but much is lacking in the way the detalis are handled or just ignored. I know that in the original run, what is on now was being done well after 1897 and thus most people had forgotten what they saw there and that only in reruns does it show to be a glaring error in continuitiy.
DS had one major fault and that was lack of keeping track with itself. Dates seemed to be a primary source of this problem. Often they changed for no reason
My biggest continuity gripe in this storyline-- the rewriting of Angelique's history. Wandering the globe since 1795 while making annual pilgrimages to Collinwood? Yet possessing knowledge of the current Collinses? Don't. Think. So. According to the story already laid out for us, girlfriend should have been in hell after Ben torched her.
(I'll save Miranda DuVal for another time, another thread. ;))
That is true that no mention of a ship is made except that Gerard had served with Quentin on board a ship, but the name of the ship is not mentioned that I recall.
It was-- the China Sea.
Raholt wrote:I think the one thing that doesn't happen with 1840 that did happen with the plot leading up to 1897 is there is no reason given for why the ghosts suddenly appeared at Collinwood in 1970. In the Quentin storyline, it is Chris and his curse that bring Quentin restless spriit back. It is also his need for forgiveness from Jamison who he sees in David that is a driving force for his ghost. Also his hatred for his family and their descendents makes him want in death what he could not have in life, which was Collinwood.
In 1840 we have nothing to explain why the ghost show up when they do. There is no event to explain why they came back when they did and why they had not come back before. Had a grave been disturb or a room found, something to show how and why the restless spirits of Gerard, Daphne and the children came back it would have worked to better tie 1840 to 1970.
My interpretation is that the emergence of Quentin's and Beth's ghosts was triggered by the appearance of Amy rather than her brother Chris. And so from there I inferred that it was Hallie's presence in the house that roused the ghosts of Gerard and Daphne.
Maybe that happened with the 1840 plot. It was laid out on paper, but the red pen quickly altered it without any thought to consistency and things already made clear in 1970 (such as Tad and Carrie dying at almost the exact time Quentin I did back in 1840; what was the importance of the Java Queen in all this; etc.).
I recall David (while possessed by Tad) mentioning a Gabriel who accompanied his doctor in from town on horseback. Obviously the writers kept the name but blew the only detail we learned about him in 1970. ::)
Didn't the set up for 1795 also include a mention of pirates? Something about Naomi's jewels?
-
There is mention made of pirates and Naomi's jewels, but that is well before teh 1795 flashback. Actually that goes back to just before Barnabas is released from the coffin and Mrs. Johnson is telling Willie about the legends of the Collins family and their jewelry.
Raholt
-
Midnite wrote:
My biggest continuity gripe in this storyline-- the rewriting of Angelique's history. Wandering the globe since 1795 while making annual pilgrimages to Collinwood? Yet possessing knowledge of the current Collinses? Don't. Think. So. According to the story already laid out for us, girlfriend should have been in hell after Ben torched her.
I agree with this one Midnite. First you have Ben burning Angelique in the mini 1796 flashback and then her being brought back by Quentin in 1897 so during the period in between, she should not have been on the earth.
Lets face it, the plotlines changed and were inconsistent based not so much on lack of caring on the part of the powers that be, but out of necessity, dictated by what the writers and producers wanted to show, who was contractually obligated to be on the show and other matters behind the scenes. You have Angelique there because Laura Parker was under contract to appear on the series and they knew that nobody would want her to be anyone else but Angelique. The same held true with, Frid. He had to be Barnabas. Even when the story jumped to PT 1841 and Frid was another character, most people still wanted to see him as Barnabas. So what was popular with the audience also dicated less than consistent plot twists to accomodate what the fans loved to see.
1840 is relatively free of the sudden disappearances or writing out of a character for reasons aside from plot purposes. In 1795, even though Jeremiah has always been said to have outlived and buried Josette, the chararcter of Jeremiah was killed off when Anthony George left the show. In 1897, John Karlen's Carl was killed off because he was leaving the show and the same held true for Clarice Blackburn's Minerva Trask. In both cases the people playing the roles were leaving the show and the characters were written out for that reason. The one exception in 1840 is the sudden disappearance of David Henesy and his character of Tad Collins.
In all the flashbacks some of the facts presented prior to the actual flashback did change. 1840 is not the only one gulity of this kind of thing. In 1795 much of what we see disputed earlier facts about the family but was explained away near the end by showing that Joshua Collins decided to write his own version of the family's fate in that time. This excuse was used to show why the family was so different from what Vicki had always read about them being. In 1897, some minor things were different from what we knew before the flashback began, but we didn't get as much pre flashback info on the 1897 family as we had in either 1795 or 1840. 1840 aside from 1795, gives us the most pre flashback info. We know something about Gerard, Daphne, Tad and Carrie, not to mention a bit about Roxanne and we know that a playroom exists in 1840 Collinwood that doesn't seem to always exist in 1970. We are given details about others like Gabriel as well. We are also given a hint about what direction the story is leading, but when we get there that direction takes a major turn. I think that is what makes 1840 a bit disconcerting is that it takes a major and a seemingly abrupt change in direction from what you expected to see unfold there, whereas the other flashbacks seemed to be a bit more subtle in the changes made or made an effort to explain them.
Raholt
-
we know that a playroom exists in 1840 Collinwood that doesn't seem to always exist in 1970.
That's another thing that bothers me here. Why didn't the playroom exist in 1970?? It seems to be a part of the house during this run in 1840 and since all the other rooms in the house still exist from long ago (as we've seen each time they go back to the past) it has me now wondering just why the room wasn't there in 1970. Surely, if there had been any renovations or changes done to the house, (such as changing the room to a closet) there must have been some sort of a record kept somewhere of this having been done. And the strange part is that the replacement room is so much smaller than the playroom was. Usually, it's the other way around when doing renovations.
One of things that had me baffled during the early Barnabas pre-1795 days was when Barnabas and Vicky were holding a seance to contact the ghost of Josette. Josette came through and spoke only French!! ??? This led me to believe that Josette didn't speak English all too well, yet in 1795 she hardly spoke French, except for one time when she first arrived.
Cassandra
-
When Barnabas first kidnaps Maggie, he tells her that he was Josette's tutor in English and thats when he first fell in love with her.
-
When Barnabas first kidnaps Maggie, he tells her that he was Josette's tutor in English and thats when he first fell in love with her.
I vaguely remember that line. Was that supposed to be in Martinique?
-
That's another thing that bothers me here. Why didn't the playroom exist in 1970?? Cassandra
Thank you Girlfriend; this bothers me too; come on folks, if you're going to do something cool like a disappearing room, at least give some credence to the explanation!
Patti
-
Let's see, what was the original topic of this thread again? ;)
It seems there was dissatisfaction with the apparent age of Daniel in 1840 and his age as worked out chronologically based on information in the 1795 storyline.
The first episode last Friday should put matters to rest. Daniel was talking with Desmond about the Bedford Atrocities ... He said they had occurred during a brief span of time in the Fall of 1803, when he had just turned 20 years of age. That squares with dates from the original 1795 storyline, where Daniel was 12. He would have been born in 1783, according to both the 1795 storyline and the 1840 storyline, making him 57 years old in 1840.
So, the writers seemed to know what they were doing, after all, in this instance. :D I actually was never troubled by this whole age discussion since it appeared to me (as I wrote above), that the makeup staff was obviously trying to make Ben appear much older than Daniel.
It was reiterated in this same recent episode that Daniel has heart trouble. So he was in ill health (physically as well as having deteriorated mentally), not a middle-aged man in good condition. This could certainly justify others referring to Daniel as "an old man," especially given that the time period is 1840.
-
Okay, now we have a definite age for Daniel and it does coincide with the 1795 storyline. Even with Daniel's health and mental problems, the way he is portrayed still gives the impression that he is older than 57. What will always bother me is not so much that the rest of the family thought of him as an old man, that I can believe, but that Ben did. In all fairness though, it could well be that when he says this to Barnabas that he is trying to make a point that he is not a boy anymore but an older man. There are several things Ben says that aren't clear with regard to the fate of the 1795 survivors.
I will say that I favor the way Daniel is shown in 1840 to how he is described by Edith in 1897. By her account he was a mean man who forced her and her husband (who she loved in that flashback) to live at Collinwood despite their wanting to move to the Old House and have a life of their own. When she is dieing she says she won't go with Daniel and you can tell she hates him. Daniel as shown in 1795 was an intelligent kind boy and you would get the impression for that time period that he would be the saving grace of the Collins family and the basis for the fairly good people who live there in the present day.
There is one other point about this storyline that does bother me and I wish the writers had not written it this way. In this flashback without giving away the specifics, there is no way that the 1897 timeline could have happened as it did when we saw it. Critical changes occur and there is a question of exactly how it would end up in the hands of the part of the family that it does end up with, since Quentin is the elder son and Tadd was his heir. In the original timeline, Gabriel inherited Collinwood from Daniel and in turn Edith and then Judith and then Jamison and finally Elizabeth. However, in this storyline, it would have gone to Quentin and then you would assume Tadd and any heirs he had. If he had none then I can see it going back to the grandchildren of Gabriel and I guess that is how the writers thought of it.
I do find it interesting that we never see the children of Gabriel and Edith. In 1897 the father and mother of Edward, Judith, Quentin and Carl are long since dead. In 1840, the children (as it is stated) are away at boarding school. This is a whole generation of the Collins family we never see at any time.
Raholt
-
Daniel in 1840 is not exactly a kind man. He did push his wife Harriet to her death over Widows Hill and both his sons and their wives are aware of this. This would explain Edith's feelings for Daniel in 1897. It was never contradicted anywhere about Daniel forcing Gabriel and Edith to live at Collinwood instead of the Old House, so that could have happened. Perhaps he did that because he was afraid the "family secret" may be found out in The Old House.
As for Edith, she may not have been killed but just unconscious/comatose and revived eventually.
She may have even married another Collins cousin, who died in 1863.
-
Raholt wrote:
I will say that I favor the way Daniel is shown in 1840 to how he is described by Edith in 1897. By her account he was a mean man who forced her and her husband (who she loved in that flashback) to live at Collinwood despite their wanting to move to the Old House and have a life of their own. When she is dieing she says she won't go with Daniel and you can tell she hates him.
Well this part of the storyline does make sense to me as we've already seen just how unhappy Edith has been living in that house. The scene in which she was complaining bitterly to her husband about how much she hates living there seems to go hand in hand with future occurances.
But, the one thing that doesn't make any sense is how Edith from 1897 was going on about how happy she was in the early days of Collinwood, when she and Gabriel were just married. She said they use to have many parties and then went on to say how she and Gabirel use to love to dance! ??? I don't see how he could have been much of a dancer since he supposidly has been in that wheelchair since childhood!
Cassandra