Would The Audience Have Accepted AM As An Evil Character? (Was Leviiathon question)

[David]

Alexandra has addressed this in interviews--she would only come back to the show if Vicky could show her evil side. She hated the character as originally written because Vicky was so dumb, as she put it.
If Curtis would allow Vicki to go mad, become a vampire, or whatever, Alexandra would have returned, but Curtis wouldn't go along with that.

[MagnusTrask]

Jeez, that's sad and pathetic, isn't it?   Did Dan feel Vicki (or any character AM played) had to be kept "pure" somehow?  And was being dumb somehow part of the "purity"?   Of course I can't say I know that AM was able to play villains well, but I'm going to guess she could.

[Cousin_Barnabas]

I'm not sure how fans would respond to an evil Victoria.  It's just counterintuitive.  In this regard, I feel Dan's decision was right... unless Victoria became possessed by some evil force and did evil things as a result of that.  But she'd have to go back to being good Victoria sooner than later.  Maybe she should have been the chief Leviathan.  Now that would have been some story!   

[Mysterious Benefactor]

AM didn't want to play Vicki as evil - she simply wanted to be allowed to play a different character that had a dark side.  But DC was insistent that the audience would never accept her as any character other than Vicki.

[Cousin_Barnabas]

And therefore she would have to play evil Victoria, as David suggests.   

[David]

Too bad they didn't compromise--sweet Vicki in "our time", evil Vicki in PT. Regardless, what Curtis did to Peter & Vicki in 1970 was lame--having Paul Stoddard's ghost appear would have made more sense.

[Mysterious Benefactor]

And therefore she would have to play evil Victoria, as David suggests.   

But she didn't want to come back as Vicki. She wanted to play a different character, and she wanted that character to have a dark side. But when DC wouldn't hear of that, it was end of any possibility of her returning to the show. 

And as for AM returning for 1970PT as a PTVicki with a dark side, I've always said that could have been a great compromise. But apparently DC wasn't up for that either because he was so insistent that the audience would only accept AM as the sweet Vicki of normal time. Short sighted on DC's part, if you ask me. But there's nothing anyone can do about that now...

[David]

And as for AM returning for 1970PT as a PTVicki with a dark side, I've always said that could have been a great compromise. But apparently DC wasn't up for that either because he was so insistent that the audience would only accept AM as the sweet Vicki of normal time. Short sighted on DC's part, if you ask me. But there's nothing anyone can do about that now...

Yes we can. We can travel back to 1970 via I Ching, steal the scripts and rewrite them, while holding Dan prisoner in the broom closet.  Let's do it!

[Cousin_Barnabas]

Yes, I know.  But perhaps it is retrospect which makes me inclined to agree with Curtis.  AM is Victoria Winters.  She is so essential to the plot, to the story, to the lore.  I don't know how she would work as another character.  It's almost as if **gasp** Jonathan Frid were to play a different character...    

I don't like Bramwell, never have.  And I don't associate Jonathan Frid with having played him.  Even if the story went on longer, I don't think I would associate Frid with Bramwell.  I watch 1841PT for Kate Jackson and Grayson Hall, and the little we see of Joan Bennett. 

And having seen Frid try out another character on the show (a part I saw as Barnabas in PT), I don't know how AM would have worked out, unless she brought some radically different performance to the table.  It would have been a hard nut to crack. 

I still like the notion put forth of evil Vicki, though.  That would have been cool, as long as there was the aforementioned regression or the PT time component. 

[Mysterious Benefactor]

We can travel back to 1970 via I Ching, steal the scripts and rewrite them, while holding Dan prisoner in the broom closet.  Let's do it!

If only! 

[David]

Accepting Alexandra as an evil character is no different than watching Joan Bennett switch from Liz to Naomi, or Nancy Barrett's switches from Carolyn to Millicent to Charity/Pansy.
As long as the script makes sense, go for it, which is better than having a character stagnate.

[Uncle Roger]

Short sighted indeed. Especially when you consider that Lara Parker, Nancy Barrett, Grayson Hall, Thayer David, Joel Crothers and Don Briscoe, to name a few, had all played characters with shades of gray. It doesn't seem like Alexandra was looking to play someone who would have given Danielle Roget nightmares, just a more rounded character. Someone who might have gotten the upper hand on occasion, someone who could get the last word in. A character like Dorian Lord. Casting Alexandra against type might have proven very effective. Would the audience have accepted her as that kind of character? Speaking for myself, hell yeah!! As long as the performance was good.

[Cousin_Barnabas]

And folks might have been able to see it that way during the first run, though having her play the same character in 1795 seemed to cinch the deal.  But, now, the decision - to me - seems to be a decent one, and makes her role even more important. 

Like I said, I think the problem with having AM play different characters came with the decision to have Victoria be herself in the past.  She was Victoria in two time periods.  And, if she had still been around, I'd loved to have seen her go back to 1897 to save the day.  Barnabas could have met her there.  It would have been fascinating. 

But I'd much rather have had Vicki stagnate than have her brought back up in the crude fashion she was during the Leviathans.     So, if anything, we should go back and change it so that never happened. 

[michael c]

while i can understand motlke's desire to play a more complex character i've always found vicki's placidity a nice, and necessary, counterpoint to the over the top, scenery chewing characterizations that happen elsewhere on the series. she had a soothing onscreen presence and moltke's quiet, even rather flat, acting style and slightly aristocratic bearing gave a gravity and seriousness to some outrageous situations.

rather than complain about it all the time alexandra could have made the most of a prized position in the story. still, she was pregnant, and would have had to leave sooner or later anyways.


that said i've always thought, just for fun, a vain, glamorous and pleasure seeking victoria would have been fun for a few months in 1970 parallel time.

[petofi]

Too bad they didn't compromise--sweet Vicki in "our time", evil Vicki in PT. Regardless, what Curtis did to Peter & Vicki in 1970 was lame--having Paul Stoddard's ghost appear would have made more sense.

You mean the grinning photo of Paul Stoddard's ghost, dont you? (for ultimate lameness) 

Petofi