DARK SHADOWS FORUMS
General Discussions => Current Talk '24 I => Topic started by: Patti Feinberg on July 24, 2019, 06:38:37 PM
-
So, I remember the 'head' part, but, I guess I never watched how [spoiler] Gerard puts on J. Macaabe's mask & becomes J. Macaabe.[/spoiler]
Is this why in 1970/RT the ghost of G is so nasty?
I realize they were going for the same theme as ((Quentin)), but, no way Jose.
Am I correct?
Patti
What am I doing wrong...I don't see anythig correct with trying to put it in as 'spoiler'...?
-
Your code is fine, Patti, but for the last couple of years or so the spoiler feature hasn't been working.
-
I'm hoping that now that I've been able to correct the Video Mod that I installed the other day, maybe I'll be able to fix the Spoiler Mod. I just haven't had the chance to try yet...
-
I'm assuming TPTB were trying to re-do the ((Quentin)) storyline, i.e., in current time, he was menacing and scary.
So, the 1995 Gerard (and 1970) Gerard, were both possessed by Judah Zachary?
And, why was Daphne always meddling with the 'kids'?
(This is the first time I've ever seen the 1840 time story.)
Patti
-
All of the stuff with Gerard was very confusing to me as well during my last rewatch of the show. It is extremely obvious that the writers were trying to capitalize on Quentin's popularity and the storyline of 1897 (at least the lead up to it anyway). But a lot of the stuff surrounding the kids wasn't ever fully explained--why were they victimized and, like Patti said, why was Daphne all about protecting them when she was a ghost only to act differently during the flashback? Did Ghost Daphne have the power of 20/20 hindsight and was able to act accordingly?
The highlight for me of this whole storyline was the Judah Zachary/Miranda DuVal history because that was actually interesting and truly built on the story of certain characters and the Collins family overall.
-
The 1840 storyline played out somewhat similarly to the 1897 one in terms of foreshadowing in "the present" that did not play out once everyone was back in 19th century times. In 1897, the discontinuity wasn't quite so blatant, in part because they spent eight months (or was it nine) moving through what they wound up with. Those in charge of the show simply presumed that the viewers at home wouldn't recall what had been shown during the lead-up in Dec. 1968-March 1969. In all fairness, they did try to explain some of the disparities, but at one point either Barnabas or Julia told one bewildered character "We can't answer ALL the questions now." And as usual when they told Professor Stokes or Maggie that they would "explain later"... they never did.
With 1840 it was a more compacted timeline that was complicated by some real life developments. David Henesy left the show, so the Tad character went off to boarding school or a relative's home (I can't recall which). Jonathan Frid ALMOST left. Grayson had to leave because of an in-law's death and I think she had minor plastic surgery at one point. But she did come back.
Fans were following all of it really closely and it was glaringly obvious to those of us watching that the various "clues" about the Java Queen, Rose Cottage, Gerard and Daphne's shipboard romance, etc. formed a trail that led to precisely nothing once everyone had arrived in 1840.
G.
-
As usual Gothick, you've provided some behind the scenes information that I never knew that helps explain this storyline and its inaccuracy. I never realized that Henesy left the show completely, though I suppose thinking back on it, it is very obvious because Tad pretty much disappears like you said. Frid and Hall's absences were also very felt during this storyline, especially because they were so involved in the lead up and then with Julia becoming possessed by Judah being such a big plot point during the actual storyline.
This is definitely one of those storylines that can hurt to watch it. So much squandered potential, and as has been discussed many times previously, DC was starting to become disinterested in the show, and it showed.
-
The 1840 storyline has been my favorite, but so many years have passed since I last watched it, the details of how it all fits together escape me. Recently, I've had the opportunity, the first in many years, to re-watch some DS. I didn't know where to start, so I randomly pulled out a DVD case from my DS storage bin and saw that it was the brief 1995 storyline - one that I remember as the most bleak of the entire series. With Collinwood in ruins, many of the Collins family dead, and the survivors emotionally and mentally scarred for life, I think that's a fair assessment. And then even those survivors die for the most part, except for Quentin. It's such a brief sequence but sets up the mystery that is to follow with the Summer of 1970. A few of the questions that came to mind as I was watching: in an early episode when Barnabas and Julia find themselves in 1995, someone relates to them that a young couple went to the ruined Collinwood on a dare and something terrible happened to them. I think the girl's name was Jean. A framed photo of Jean is shown, and I thought it looked like a young Grayson Hall. Does anyone remember seeing that photo, and if it was Grayson? Also, not so much a question, but a comment, things happen so quickly and with so little reflection - for example, Mrs. Johnson is frightened to death by Gerard - but no one mentions this or anything about her in any of the following scenes. Some depth is lacking; the 1995 sequence seems all about plot points. Even so, there are touching moments showing Carolyn in more depth, such as when she is looking at old photographs and doesn't recognize herself. Barnabas gently points out that the photo is of her, but a few moments later she has already forgotten. This is poignant to watch, and for those of us who have watched a loved one slowly lose their memory, it is also emotionally very real.
And as I said, 1995 does set up the mystery that is to follow. I'm now at the point in 1970 when the night of the sun and the moon occurs, the first clue Carolyn struggles to right down as she searches her memory for what led to the disaster that overtook Collinwood in 1970. Another event she writes down is the "unfinished horoscope." "the night I sang my song," and then there is "Rose Cottage." I found these very intriguing and satisfying mysteries in previous viewings, and I find myself puzzling now how some of them work out. For example, Elizabeth has just received her horoscope for the remainder of the year, but how will this become "unfinished" I wonder? David and Hallie are beginning to be haunted by Tad and Carrie, though they (and we) don't understand it at this point, and in going through some old letters and notes of the children, mention is made of Rose Cottage. The ghost of Daphne is frightening them, but if I remember correctly, Daphne was governess and protector of Tad and Carrie, who sought to shield them from Gerard. But their haunting of David and Hallie is unsettling because, if I remember correctly, they want to possess them in order to live in the physical world ... which seems like a callous and even evil thing to do. I don't know whether that issue is addressed or resolved. I thought Rose Cottage was the most fascinating aspect of the mystery.
-
Philippe, you bring up some of my favorite parts of the lead up to the actual 1840 flashback. I thought much of the plot building was very well done, and 1995 is one of my absolutely favorite episode runs of the entire series. It really was an out-of-the-box adventure, even for DS, and something that they had never done before: jumping into the future instead of the past.
I think the writers missed an opportunity here. If they concluded 1840 and the show was going to continue (of course we know that Frid didn't want to play Barnabas anymore and there were other considerations as well), it would have been a great storyline to have Barnabas and Julia end up back in the future, but a changed future from what they experienced before because they changed the past and what happened to Tad and Carrie. Think of the opportunity for the actors to play future family members, and the show could have existed in that timeline for a story arc. I'm sure there is fanfic somewhere that takes a whack at this.
-
At some point in the early Fall of 1970 (I think), Dan made Lela Swift the producer of the show. So, she was producing it and directing it. In terms of the production context of DS, this meant that she also became the de facto head writer in terms of having the ability to dictate where storylines would go or how they would play out.
I think Kathy Resch and Marcy Robin wrote in an essay in an early PomPress book that the 1840 storyline was plotted during a two day "retreat" where Sam and Gordon and whoever else was writing the show were holed up trying to come up with something that could be produced with the limitations of the cramped studio space and small budget. The original plan had been for KLS to play Samantha but that was jettisoned because she decided to leave the show--she, like many other regulars, was working without a contract.
NOTHING about Judah and his resurrection was hinted at in ANY of the foreshadowing--I am not sure at what point they came up with that, but it may have been during this storyboarding session which must have taken place at some point in mid to late September of '70.... roughly 49 years ago now.
G.
-
I really enjoyed the two weeks in 1995. Some genuinely creepy moments and some of Nancy Barrett's best work. What follows is extremely frustrating.
The summer of 1970 leads us to expect certain things to play out once we finally get to 1840. But most of them appear to be red herrings. I was very spooked when Gerard turned Carolyn into Leticia and using her as a helper. But when we reach 1840 proper, Leticia is shown to have had a past camaraderie with Gerard that may not have been 100% on the up and up. As the story progresses, Leticia becomes more and more suspicious of Gerard and allies herself with the Collins family. It would have worked better if 1970's Gerard had Carolyn possessed by Edith or Samantha.
At the Anaheim festival, Jeane Avery, David Henesy's mom, said that David's absence from the show was due to his decision to spend some time with his father. She added that she asked them not to write David out of the show completely in case he changed his mind. Henesy does appear in maybe three 1840 episodes. This may have impacted on long term story. It would have been difficult to write Tad in as a key character if they weren't sure that the actor would be available. It would have been a challenge to write a story about a character that didn't require his presence on screen without recasting.
Daphne is a hard character to figure. She is supposed to be the protector of the children but seems to lead them into more and more danger in 1970. And, for a servant in 1840, she seems to have an abundance of free time.
Gerard is definitely a Quentin retread. But the character is never well developed. The Gerard that we meet before the possession is, as Julia pointed out, an opportunist. He's a con man, working Flora, Daniel, Carrie, Edith, Samantha and probably others for his own purposes. We never see any attempt that he's trying to fight off the possession. If anything, Judah gives him a chance to really manipulate people. It's next to impossible to root for that kind of character.
-
I didn't know where to start
Phillippe, that's exactly what happened with me.
I own a couple of the 'Best of' and 'Fan Favs'. One was 1995, so, I got out my series, and that's why I went with 1840; I had never seen it before.
About Gerard being an opportunistic, this is probably true, but, his friendship for Quentin is real.
Another thing about 1840 is that JZ will destroy ALL descendants of all the judges, um, nope.
We don't even know all the judges, but, what about Barnabas, Tad and Flora (I'm only mentioning the Collins' by blood.)
So cool that when Stokes, Julia & Barn ascend the stairs, NO time has passed.
And, oh goody, now onto ANOTHER P/T.... (the two things that shine are Angalexis and Hoffman/Julia).
-
Gerard is definitely a Quentin retread. But the character is never well developed. The Gerard that we meet before the possession is, as Julia pointed out, an opportunist. He's a con man, working Flora, Daniel, Carrie, Edith, Samantha and probably others for his own purposes. We never see any attempt that he's trying to fight off the possession. If anything, Judah gives him a chance to really manipulate people. It's next to impossible to root for that kind of character.
I think this would have been brilliant if played correctly. I always liked that Gerard was not sympathetic. He was a true villain, unlike one DS had really seen before. Sure, Angelique was evil and manipulative, but she always came from a place of "loving" Barnabas to explain her actions. Unless I'm forgetting someone, Gerard is really the only main character (maybe beside PT Bruno) that is truly an opportunist and is looking to get something for nothing. His friendship with Quentin might be real, but I would even call that into question because we can't truly believe anything Gerard says or does.
It would have been interesting to weave Gerard's storyline more around his attempts to weasel his way into the Collins family and take over, or at least cash in, only to be thwarted or knocked down several times until Judah Zachary took over. This is sort of what happened, but I think it could've been leaned on more heavily as a plot device. Especially if some of the more erroneous storyline/plot point mix-ups were taken out.
-
What about Count Petofi? I'm not sure if "opportunist" is the right word to describe the Count--it does not seem sufficiently grandiose for that magnificent schemer and manipulator.
He did say "I have but one God, and his name is Petofi," and I don't think he was joking.
It's been over a decade since I last watched 1840. My memory is that when Gerard comes on, he is a charming rogue with some minor psychic powers (healing Flora of her headaches... that was such a trippy scene) who has spun a yarn to the family about his travels with Quentin. He definitely had his own personality, one which I would describe as deceitful and devious but not full-on malevolent. Wasn't Gerard initially a friend of Letitia's? I remember a couple of scenes between them that showed more of himself than he wanted to reveal to the family.
I thought James Storm did a good job, all things considered, in the role. I know people who live for Storm's unique enunciation of that fateful name... MIRRRRRAAAAANDAAAAHHH!
G.
-
True statement about Petofi. He wasn't really of an opportunist, but he definitely was selfish and focused on his end goal.
I last watched 1840 earlier this year, and I have to admit that I don't really remember it all too well despite having just watched it. I think Storm did a good job in the role as well, but I still feel like Gerard was never truly a good person. He may have been friends with Leticia, and he may have tried to charm his way into helping the family, but I still always got the feeling that it was just because he wanted to take Quentin's place. He saw an opportunity to get in, get rich, and make everyone believe that he was a good guy and he tried to take it.
-
There's an implied back story that Gerard and Leticia had known each other, though it's never specified exactly when and where. I think that it would have to have been before Gerard embarked on a sailing career. Maybe a con job had gone bad and that going to sea was the quickest way out of town. I got the impression that Gerard had invited Leticia to Collinsport to help him with a new scheme.
I didn't especially like the induced erotic dreams that Gerard sent to Daphne. The dreams weren't especially erotic or all that interesting. The evil warlock obsessed with the innocent ingenue worked better with Nicholas and Maggie
-
I find myself puzzling now how some of them work out. For example, Elizabeth has just received her horoscope for the remainder of the year, but how will this become "unfinished" I wonder?
As you'll see, the unfinished horoscope belongs to a character other than Liz.
-
I was very spooked when Gerard turned Carolyn into Leticia and using her as a helper. But when we reach 1840 proper, Leticia is shown to have had a past camaraderie with Gerard that may not have been 100% on the up and up. As the story progresses, Leticia becomes more and more suspicious of Gerard and allies herself with the Collins family. It would have worked better if 1970's Gerard had Carolyn possessed by Edith or Samantha.
One of the plans they had, had the show continued, was that once things returned to the present it was going to be revealed that Carolyn was actually the reincarnation of Leticia and possibly really did share Leticia's second site abilities. That's why the foundation for that was laid in the Summer of '70 storyline. I think that would have had great potential. But alas...
-
I always liked that Gerard was not sympathetic. He was a true villain, unlike one DS had really seen before.
Exactly, and I liked that aspect of the character, just as I liked it in Samantha. Some fans complain that Samantha isn't likable, but Hello!, she's not supposed to be. But at the same time Virginia Vestoff played her beautifully and I found it almost impossible to take my eyes off of her whenever she was in a scene.
-
I LOVED Virginia Vestoff as Samantha. She was the standout in that storyline, for me.
I did think there were some good elements but there were long stretches of absolute nonsense that were hard to sit through. It was fun watching Jerry Lacy chew the scenery once more as Lamar Trask (a character named after Lara Parker's real-life name--I always wondered whose idea of a joke that was). I also liked the showdown between Julia and Angelique.
G.
-
OH! and Christopher Pennock as Gabriel was marvelous--finally, Pennock was given a role worthy of his talents. His scenes were great fun.
G.
-
OMG YES - Pennock was brilliant as Gabriel! [thumb]
I've mentioned this before, but back in the late '90s the official DS group on AOL held what they called the Brandies Awards for various aspects of DS. Voting was conducted across the entire Internet, not just AOL. And in the preliminary voting round to narrow things down to the top threes in each of the categories, the top three vote getters for favorite storyline didn't include one present day storyline - the top three were 1795, 1897, and 1840. (1795 came out on top in the final round of voting.) So, say what you will, but 1840 has many fans.
-
the top three vote getters for favorite storyline didn't include one present day storyline - the top three were 1795, 1897, and 1840. (1795 came out on top in the final round of voting.) So, say what you will, but 1840 has many fans.
Very surprised to hear this, that 1840 was in the top three. I can't say I'm surprised that any present day storylines didn't quite make it--they always seemed to suffer from not being able to continue the high of the flashbacks.
I, too, enjoyed VV as Samantha because she definitely was a presence in every scene she had. Quite frankly, they didn't have enough of her after a certain point in the storyline (didn't she leave to do a play or something?). And Pennock as Gabriel, by far, had many of the best scenes in this storyline as well. I always felt like Carolyn was going to develop some psychic type power given the hints dropped, and would have really liked to see this play out.
1840 was really a turning point for the series, I think, in the amount of potential there was to set up the show and its storylines for months to come. There was a ton of potential with 1841PT as well, for us to learn more about the backstory of the PT Collins family we saw in 1970 (assuming it was the same timeline) and build that up.
As always, talking about these things makes me wish they had continued the show. Though with some big names leaving, or requesting character changes, or whatever else was going on behind the scenes, all arrows pointed towards DS ending sooner than it really should have.
-
I have written about this several times over the years--a long time ago, having sifted through all the evidence available to me, I came to the conclusion that DS was canceled because Dan Curtis had decided to wrap up the show.
Just my personal belief--at one point when we were discussing the final month or so of the show, somebody commented that the cancellation was announced at the March ABC board meeting. The ratings were actually going up when the announcement was made, and board members were concerned that the network was losing a very popular show.
I also think that some of the major actors were totally burnt out on doing it at that point. A more immediate motive for Curtis must have been plans in place to shoot NoDS and looking at another four to six weeks of having major actors not being available. I've always thought it was significant that the NoDS shoot started something like 1 to 2 weeks after the taping of the final DS episode.
G.
-
Yes, DS definitely didn't end because the network wanted it to end. Funny how that fact often gets ignored or outright misrepresented in a lot of articles about DS.
As as far as the time between taping Ep #1245 and the beginning of shooting of NoDS goes, Ep #1245 taped on March 24th and NoDS started shooting on the 29th.
-
Seems odd that Curtis would use NODS as a motivation to end the show, especially because not that many main actors were in it compared to what was built on the show at the time. With NODS filming, you would have lost David Selby, Lara Parker, James Storm, Grayson Hall, and Kate Jackson as main players. Outside of that, the other actors in NODS probably could've done double duty like some of the lesser actors from HODS did. Though, to be fair, shooting a show and a movie at the same time would have been extremely tiring for the actors I'm sure.
But, the show still would've had Joan Bennett, Louis Edmonds, Jonathan Frid, Keith Prentice, and probably could've used Thayer David, Jim Storm, Chris Pennock (these last three making up the lesser used actors from NODS).
Curtis was probably tired of doing DS and wanted to move on, but if show running was already left up to Lela Swift, what difference would it have made if the show kept going?
-
There were rumors that Diana Millay was returning to the show as Laura but I have no idea what her proposed storyline or time period would have been. I assume that a Laura centric plot would have carried the show the same way that the Angelique/Alexis story had done the previous year.
Kathy Cody and Donna Wandrey might have been involved in the story too.
-
Diana Millay herself has insisted several times that she was negotiating to return. And when asked who she would have played, her reply was Laura, of course. But who knows...
-
Yes, DS definitely didn't end because the network wanted it to end. Funny how that fact often gets ignored or outright misrepresented in a lot of articles about DS.
And here's the most recent example where they conveniently leave out the network's reaction to the cancellation:
Why was Dark Shadows the TV show cancelled? (https://www.quora.com/Why-was-Dark-Shadows-the-TV-show-cancelled)
He's also wrong that the audience for the '91 DS never materialized because it had decent ratings, often coming in first in its time period. And it had the highest demos of the night. In fact, it was those demos that caused Warren Littlefield, the then head of NBC, to realize the error of his ways for cancelling the show and to approach DC about reviving the show as a series of movies, however, DC wouldn't have it because once you burn DC, well... But DC also had another reason: he felt DS is best as a continuing story and didn't want to do movies in which the story had to wrap up and not be continued...
-
It's interesting that so many articles say what this one said: "the ratings were no longer there." And then the other most common answer I see is the one about JF not wanting to play Barnabas anymore. I suppose its very easy to scapegoat someone rather than just saying the producers, or Curtis himself, were no longer interested in making the show any longer. And you would think it would be more well known, or at the very least worth a mention, if the network really did want to keep the show because the ratings were rising, or at least strong enough to continue.
-
Actually, it wasn't that Frid didn't want to play Barnabas anymore. Yes, he wanted the chance to play a different character, so that's how Bramwell came along - and if the show had continued, perhaps he would have gotten other chances at other characters. But it was that he didn't want to play Barnabas as a vampire anymore.
-
They certainly would've had the opportunity to keep Barnabas mortal if the show had continued, what with Angelique lifting his curse during 1840. Obviously there are questionable timeline issues there, but DS always ignored those anyway.
I rather liked non-vamp Barnabas during the 68 storyline. Though, it would have gotten old to have repeated attempts or threats at turning him back into a vampire, or to have evil characters hold it over his head to manipulate him, as with the Leviathans.
I wasn't alive when the series originally aired and thusly did not watch it until 30 years later. But I would imagine that for the rabid fanbase of kids/teenagers who were watching, they probably would not want to see non-vamp Barnabas for long stretches of time. Hell, I doubt many fans now would want to see that. But there is a lot of story potential there and I wouldn't mind.
-
I have no idea how typical or atypical I was, but as an original-airing DS fan, I was dedicated to the show and loved it, regardless of the storyline of the moment. I don't think Barnabas being a vampire or being cured had any bearing on my interest in the show. There were plenty of other elements that kept it going for me.
-
Same here, KMR. But the perception from DC, the publicity unit, the network heads etc. was that it was the vampire thing that made it so huge.
There's a funny interview on one of the DVDs (I am not sure if the "coffin set" includes all the interviews) with an ABC publicist who told a story about a network executive more or less accidentally tuning into an episode of DS sometime in 1967 and turning, baffled, to the publicity guy and saying "what's going on with Cousin Barney's teeth??"
G.
-
Interesting discussion about the reasons behind the cancellation of the show, and how much potential was left. Considering that it had to end some time, better that it didn't limp its way out ... still, could you imagine if it had kept on for decades, like a few of the soaps did! DS might have become a part of one's life for so much longer (something like a later generation growing up with the Harry Potter books, which lasted a few years longer, anyway), rather than a brief highlight that one goes back to rekindle time and again ... I don't know if one way is better than the other.
-
Same here, KMR. But the perception from DC, the publicity unit, the network heads etc. was that it was the vampire thing that made it so huge.
Exactly the same thing here, too. I know there are many fans who do, but I've never watched DS just for Barnabas. I enjoy all the characters. And some may find this sacrilegious, but at points in various storylines I find the other characters a lot more interesting than whatever Barnabas might be doing. When he's missing from the storyline, more often than not I don't even notice. Back when DS was on Sci-fi people would make comments about how they'd been missing Barnabas because he hadn't been in the last several episodes and I wouldn't have noticed until they'd pointed that out.
(I am not sure if the "coffin set" includes all the interviews)
Back when that set was being publicized they promised that all the interviews that had appeared on the previous DVD/VHS releases would be included in the set. I seem to remember that they even said that some new interviews would be added. However, I've never checked for that. There are discs in the set where more than one video is featured at the end of certain discs, but it may have been that same way on the original discs as well.
Somewhere there's a list of all the extras on the original DVD releases. And all the extras for the "coffin set" are listed in the booklet that comes with it. But I've never compared them...
-
MB, I agree that the times where Barnabas is absent I usually do not notice unless the other characters mention his name a number of times in relation to the plot, or something that may have happened earlier during the storyline. Most times, the story while Barnabas is gone is strong enough, and the characters are strong enough, to not miss him. There were a few times that he was locked back in his coffin over the course of the series and it wasn't really a big deal.