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

[David]

the deaths of Edith & Angelique in 1840, with NO explanation as to how these deaths affected the 1897/modern dress stories was a major WHAT??

Ending in 1841 PT without tying up loose ends in 1971 wasn't just a WHAT?
That was a WTF?? ?? ?? ?

David

[Jackie]

Another WHAT??? plot that makes my hair stand on end is Cassandra's spell on Liz.  [spoiler]Really!  how much can one stand to hear the classy Elizabeth Stoddard talk about her own death and being buried alive!  Yes at first I can be very sympathatic but after weeks of this, one wants to scream more than just WHAT???[/spoiler]I was very happy to see that subplot end![/size]

[Jackie]

[spoiler]The murder of Carl[/spoiler] was the most gratuitious, stupid, unneccesary plot twist in the entire run of the show, IMHO.

Yeah, Carl...sigh... that was tragic and even I was angry at Barnabas for that decision but I blame the writers more than the character since Barnabas was written that way [using Jessica's voice in "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?"]

[Gerard]

[spoiler]The murder of Carl[/spoiler] was the most gratuitious, stupid, unneccesary plot twist in the entire run of the show, IMHO.

That one really bugged me, too, because I absolutely loved that character.  But, I guess, in "real life" he was given the opportunity to go and do something else for awhile so his character had to be written out.  They did that quite a few times with the performers during that storyline so they could, at least temporarily, pursue other things.

Gerard

[Raineypark]

I'm sure that John Karlen had another "gig" he wanted to do, and Dan was willing to accomodate him.

I just don't buy that the solution they came up with was the only, or even the best choice.

THIS one was lazy writing at its worst!

[D_Friedlander]

As a youngster, I found a lot of the PT 1970 goings-on not only "WHAT?!!!!"-inducing, but queasily uncomfortable, confusing and definitely TV-M 14 moments.  Examples:

[spoiler]The whole demise-of-Will Loomis sequence---- wherein PT Angelique reminds him of how she teased 'n' pleased the married-but-unhappy author, tormented him about Barnabas, and for all intents and purposes badgered him out the tower window.  I wondered then why he didn't just shove her out of his way and scram out the door, but it seemed like the scene was written as though the character WANTED, for many reasons, to be made to feel guilty and worthy of punishment---- pretty complex concept for a 13-yr-old to grasp.

The implied rape and/or physical abuse of Buffy by Yaeger / Longworth, not to mention his mistreatment and murder of Maggie and Sabrina respectively.  Even though many aspects of the sexually-threatening Yager were ripped from "Jekyl and Hyde"  (and the previous film versions, one of which was pretty racy for 1930s)  they knew young kids were still watching, so they couldn't show much--- therein lies the ambiguous "did he or didn't he?"  But the aftermath (including Barnabas's own victimization of the victim) sure left a sour taste and more confusion for the innocent 1970 adolescent mind that was once mine.  Though now I sometimes think, both Longworth AND his alter-ego were impotent and only capable of expressing themselves by sexually-tinged violence.

The whole sequence of horrible murders that left only 3 or 4 members of the PT Collins family standing.  Geesh, no amount of grief counselling's going to help the survivors "move on" and find "closure" from all THAT trauma![/spoiler]

And guess what?  Even after viewing those scenes for the first time as an adult, 20 years after the first time I saw them, I STILL felt creeped and corrupted because much of the nastiness was only thematically supernatural in nature--- it was more an intense reflection of the ugliness some experience in real life.  Which, ironically, interpreting these unpleasant human aspects in terms of vampires, witches, ghosts, etc. is supposed to sublimate or explain or leaven in some way.[/b]

[BuzzH]

[spoiler]not to mention his mistreatment and murder of Maggie and Sabrina respectively. [/spoiler]

[spoiler]Yeager didn't murder Maggie, she was alive and well at the end of 1970 PT[/spoiler]   

[IluvBarnabas]

I'm sure that John Karlen had another "gig" he wanted to do, and Dan was willing to accomodate him.

I just don't buy that the solution they came up with was the only, or even the best choice.

THIS one was lazy writing at its worst!

I agree they could have found another way to write Carl off.

[spoiler]Having Barnabas kill a blood relative in cold blood[/spoiler] ticked off a lot of fans (including myself even though I am a huge fan of Barnabas' and not too keen on Carl). The writers should have realized that the whole [spoiler]Barnabas killing Carl[/spoiler] just might alienate a lot of the vampire's biggest fans. I still love Barnabas but I can't really defend what he did this time.

Though I suppose dsbarnabasfan has a point, the writers are really more to blame in regards to Carl's fate more than anyone.

[Lydia]

[The writers should have realized that the whole [spoiler]Barnabas killing Carl[/spoiler] just might alienate a lot of the vampire's biggest fans. I still love Barnabas but I can't really defend what he did this time.

Though I suppose dsbarnabasfan has a point, the writers are really more to blame in regards to Carl's fate more than anyone.

I love this forum; it keeps giving me reasons to like things that I didn't like before.

Bravo to the writers!  All that time spent in 1795 and 1968 kowtowing to the audience, making Barnabas sympathetic, making him a victim, making him a hero, and then  POW!!!  they rebel, and hit you with

[spoiler]Barnabas killing Carl[/spoiler]
Too bad it didn't happen on July 4th.

[BuzzH]

I agree they could have found another way to write Carl off.

[spoiler]Having Barnabas kill a blood relative in cold blood[/spoiler]

Yeah, ITA w/this!  They could have had Barnabas [spoiler]simply put Carl under his spell like he did Nora (and he did it w/out biting her, a sort of hynosis by having her stare into his eyes ala Angelique).  He didn't have to kill him![/spoiler]

[Midnite]

[spoiler]not to mention his mistreatment and murder of Maggie and Sabrina respectively.[/spoiler]

[spoiler]Yeager didn't murder Maggie, she was alive and well at the end of 1970 PT[/spoiler]  

I think you missed "respectively" (for each separately and in that order), so she wasn't saying Maggie was murdered. 

[BuzzH]

I think you missed "respectively" (for each separately and in that order), so she wasn't saying Maggie was murdered. 

Ah!  You are correct madam!  

[Mysterious Benefactor]

For better or worse, whenever a character/actor was being written out of the show, the tact the writers most often chose was to kill them off. I'll grant them that it was certainly the most dramatic choice.

And while we're on this subject, there's been something that has always puzzled me. I most definitely agree that the act of [spoiler]Barnabas killing Carl[/spoiler]was reprehensible and in no way am I trying to defend it, BUT [spoiler]Carl was determined to expose Barnabas, so at the very least Barnabas acted in self-defense.[/spoiler]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? For me, anyway, Rachel's death is more tragic than Carl's...[/spoiler]

[IluvBarnabas]

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? For me, anyway, Rachel's death is more tragic than Carl's...[/spoiler]

I have to agree that what Dirk did to Rachel was despicable. But it really doesn't make what Barnabas did any less bad. He had other options, he could have put Carl under his power like [spoiler]he did with Charity but he didn't.[/spoiler]

Dirk didn't believe or didn't want to believe that Barnabas [spoiler]simply could not bring back Laura just like that (and considering that so many people have come back from the dead on this show it's not hard to see why). Sadly Rachel was the unlucky one he chose to wreak his revenge against Barnabas on (not to mention Judith).[/spoiler]

I guess in both cases, both Barnabas and Dirk failed to look at their options objectively and at the tragic expense of others.

[Joeytrom]

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 writers really did damage to 1897 by having Barnabas responsible not only for the death of Carl, but also Dirk, Pansy, and Rachael.  When I saw these episodes for the first time I thought he defeated the purpose of trying to save David by causing the deaths of these other people whose lives he should have known not to interfere with in the first place!  He was not a smart time traveler and appears in 1897 as the judge and jury of whose life should go where and how.

The writers seem to not realize that he should have taken a passive role and watched the events unfold as they originally did, like Vicky in 1795.  At least that would have solved the mystery of the ghosts in the present clearer.

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.

At least he seems to have wised up more in 1840 by staying mostly on the sidelines.[/spoiler]