DARK SHADOWS FORUMS
General Discussions => Current Talk Archive => Current Talk '24 I => Current Talk '06 II => Topic started by: Para L. Time on October 16, 2006, 10:48:57 PM
-
Greetings All!
I have currently written an outline for a story having to do with the repercussions of the 1840 storyline. However, before I start writing the "meat" of the story, I need some facts. I was hoping someone(s) could answer a few questions, such as:
Rose Cottage. What does it have to do with Collinwood, is it still in existence when Barnabas and Julia return to 1971, and where is it?
The Stairway in Time. How does it work? Who created it? Do you walk upstairs from the past or downstairs? Or is it a passageway? Do you think about where you want to go, or does the Stairway take you where IT wants? Where is it inside Collinwood? And lastly, is it destroyed by someone in 1840?
Gerard and Daphne. Is Gerard dead or alive when Barnabas and Julia leave 1840? Who is he married to? Does Daphne end up with Quentin I?
Professor Stokes. Does he know Collinwood has "gone back to normal" when he goes back to 1840? Or is he surprised that Collinwood is no longer destroyed in 1971? Does Stokes change anything, or is he just there to bring back Julia and Barnabas?
Sorry for all the questions, but I have only gotten halfway through 1897 so far, and I had an idea for a new story after reading about how Barnabas's existance in the 1960's is actually negated by events in 1840. I just needed these facts answered so that my story makes more sense.
-
Hi Para,
generally, any effort to make the "facts" of the Dark Shadows narrative fit an internally consistent structure is doomed to failure. There was really no effort made to establish continuity as the story evolved (or unraveled!), mainly because Dan Curtis was the de facto "head writer" on the show and would change the direction of the plot on a whim (and, if the screenplay writers protested, he'd ask them "Well, are you writing the show or aren't you? I can get other people to write this show if you're not interested!). There was also the problem that they were writing it all very much on the fly and they usually didn't have time to go back and check through the voluminous scripts of bygone years (though Sam Hall did keep a set at home).
To answer your questions:
[spoiler]1. Rose Cottage was identified as "the old Magruder property" in 1970. I see no reason why it would not still exist in 1971 since Gerard's ghost never haunted the grounds in '70 because of the change of history, so he would never have used magic to burn it as we saw in the Summer of 1970 storyline. However, bear in mind that sometimes even when the characters went back to change history, some of the events that SHOULD have been changed still happened. Thus, when they came back to 1969, Liz and Amy and others still had memories of Quentin's ghost haunting the grounds, even though he never died so the haunting should never have happened.
2. The Stairway in Time was created by the 1840s Quentin Collins (not the same as the 1897/1960s Quentin. Check out an online document called The Dark Shadows FAQ for further lore about it. It basically follows the whim of the writers!
3. Gerard dies at the end of 1840.
4. Professor Stokes finds out that Collinwood was saved as a result of his, Barnabas, and Julia's actions in 1840, when he returns to 1971 with them.
Overall, the 1840 storyline has more conflicts with pre-existing continuity than any other story--mainly because it came at the end of the show so there was more story around for it to contradict. I'd say you should feel free to write any story you choose to devise about that plotline. Nobody could possibly make more of a mess of it than the writers already managed to do on their own! [/spoiler]
Best wishes,
Gothick
-
Oh, and Barnabas has only ever been married once--to Angelique. Of course, I'm assuming their vows were traditional enough to include "till death we do part" which makes it a little tricky. Because they both died, and yet did not really part. Of course later they lived together as man and wife, so whether they were common law spouses is another question altogether.
In PT, of course, Barnabas married Josette.
-
I say bring in Thirdspace from Babylon Five, say people live in it, and come up with a whole new parallel history for DS in it.
I'm not a typical audience, but I'd really be interested in fanfic for cleverly tying and tidying up those loose ends. We're not in the kind of rush the writers were, and we're not getting paid in the first place, and Dan can't fire us.
-
I enjoyed 1840 but I'd be lying if I said it didn't have more continuity problems than any other story of the show. It left me with a lot of "how can that be?" moments....the biggest "WHAT?!!!" for me comes at the end of the storyline. Won't spoil it for anyone, but it truly had me dazed and confused for days.
-
Look forward to decades for dazed confusion! You'll never make sense out of that infernal convoluted mess!
[candle_in_skull_2] [candle_in_skull_2] [candle_in_skull_2] [candle_in_skull_2] [candle_in_skull_2]
-
What I couldn't figure out was that during the 1970 haunting, they made such a big thing about a ship called the Raging Witch, or Sea Witch, or Witchie Queen, or something-or-other, but back in 1840, phhhhtttt. Nothing. So what was that s'pose to be all about?
Gerard
-
Gerard... even you forgot??!!
Hmmm, yes... well.... I think that was the ship whose crew Gerard made into zombies so that he could attack Collinwood, but that was 1970. When they went to 1840, the ship may have been mentioned early on, but I don't remember. In 1840 I only remember Gerard as having served with Quentin #1 on whatever ship that was, where Q and his son were washed overboard. I don't think that was it. If Gerard served with the dead sailors, I don't think it was explained. I remember something about a ship crashing near Collinwood, and the sailors being buried there. Those were the future zombies. So maybe Gerard had no connection to it.
-
Two words: 1840 Concordance! ;) They are a MUST for any fan fic writer. ;)
-
What I couldn't figure out was that during the 1970 haunting, they made such a big thing about a ship called the Raging Witch, or Sea Witch, or Witchie Queen, or something-or-other
It was the Java Queen. [hall2_wink]
-
Ye Gods, I wish that ship had been called the Witchie Queen.
I'm just imagine Grayson trying to say "Barnabas! Barnabas! It's the... the Witchie Queen!" with a straight face, and totally losing it. Priceless.
There is a whole narrative set up in the Summer of 1970 sequence that gets trashed once they actually arrive in 1840. Of course, only one month away from 1795, they had set up a very elaborate narrative for Barnabas, Jeremiah and Josette in the 1830s that never, ever saw the light of day, so it would be unfair to cast particular aspersions on the writers in 1970--the ones in 1967 wandered just as far afield in their embroideries.
G.
-
How about the Raging Queen??!
[female_skull] [female_skull] [female_skull] [female_skull] [female_skull] [candle_in_skull_2] [candle_in_skull_2] [candle_in_skull_2] [candle_in_skull_2] [candle_in_skull_2]
-
Thanks Gothic! My questions were to confirm some things that I kind of knew but wasn't 100% sure about. Luckily, my story is about the effects of 1840, and not about the year itself! Just one more itsy bitsy question to anyone out there: Did Professor Stokes ever find out about Barnabas's vampirism?
As for the Java Queen, dear God! It sounds like someone who works at Starbucks! It makes me think about alot of caffeinated man-loving going-on on that ship! They could have called it the Cruising Queen, and I would have been no less able to keep a straight face!
-
Did Professor Stokes ever find out about Barnabas's vampirism?
Nope, he never did.
-
Ye Gods, I wish that ship had been called the Witchie Queen.
I'm just imagine Grayson trying to say "Barnabas! Barnabas! It's the... the Witchie Queen!" with a straight face, and totally losing it. Priceless.G.
Oh my sweet Goddess.....I'm HOWLING over here, Steve......[lghy]
-
they most likely changed the 1840 story due to the unavailability of David Henesy, who appeared in only three or four episodes of 1840. This time, I believe another actor should have been hired to play Tad.
As for the 1795 difference to what was said before in the present time, originally they were going to tell the flashback through books and ghosts instead of it being a time travel story. If they did it that way, then they could have told the origin of Barnabas over several years instead of condensing it to five months. I don't know who made the decision to have a character go back in time (Sam Hall perhaps?)
-
that was inspired, even though the method seemed silly. it was like spoiling us, allowing us to actually see the events unfold.
-
The Java Queen - that's it! I remember way back in 1970 when I watched the story for the first time, I got really excited because next to DS, my greatest passion is for things nautical and maritime, like ships, boats, etc., and here they were building up this whole seemingly important plot thing that involved a ship. And then when they popped back to 1840, nary a mention is made. Ironically, probably because I was in denial about nothing coming of it after such great expectations, I suffered a bout of FDSMS (Faulty Dark Shadows Memory Syndrome). For years I was positive that they not only talked about the Java Queen in 1840, but even had episodes taking place on board. I was just so positive. And then when I watched it all unfold again in the early '90's on the Sci-Fi Channel, there were no episodes. But I was so sure about it. Like I said, just another example of FDSMS.
Gerard
-
OMG... I have FDSMS!! LOL! I may also be catching EAAS!!!! Excessive Alphabetical Abbreviation Syndrome!!!!
Was Petofi on the Java Queen? I'm pretty certain about that one.... Also, PT Trask fought Greg Trask in a death cage match.
-
Jonathan Frid's 1967 letters to his Mother mention that Dan Curtis told him in August or September of that year that they would do a going-back-in-time storyline to show the origins of Barnabas. Decisiions about major plot points such as this were ALWAYS made by Dan Curtis up until late in the game,perhaps around the Summer of 1970? when Lela Swift started producing the show and she is on record as having come up with a certain notorious plot twist in 1840...
G.
-
I've always wondered whether the switch to 1795 occurred because of the costumes that were available for rental for that storyline; although I think Sarah's tombstone always read 1795.
G.
-
although I think Sarah's tombstone always read 1795.
I think it did too, or a date very similar, which would back-up the statement made by Barnabas to Willie [spoiler]when he says his 'best friend' (Sarah) died when she, and HE, were children. This statement makes Barnabas & Sarah closer in age, like a difference of 2 to 3 years, rather than a 10 plus difference as is of course established in 1795 when we see Sarah as a little girl and Barnabas as a grown man about to be married. Her dying as a child of course means her ghost is that of a child, but Barnabas, who *didn't* die as a child, went on to grow up, which explains the subsequent age difference we see in 1967.[/spoiler]
-
Prior to 1795, Sarah's tombstone read 1786-1796.
-
Did Professor Stokes ever find out about Barnabas's vampirism?
Nope, he never did.
That's a tough one to call. One of the things that makes Stokes an interesting character is that you can't always take him at face value. The early scene in the Adam storyline when he arrives at the Old House to barter over the talisman with Barnabas is a good example. I don't think he was honestly interested in any of the furniture he was commenting on. That was just a put on to gauge Barnabas' interest in the item -- whether he was interested as a collector or as someone who honestly felt protection from a witch was needed.
Just because he doesn't openly admit to knowing something, that doesn't mean he's ignorant of it.
-
Just because he doesn't openly admit to knowing something, that doesn't mean he's ignorant of it.
That's an excellent obversation. Stokes was extremely observant and perceptive - at times briliantly so. One would have to be to deduce so quickly that Leona Eltridge was simply an anagram of Danielle Roget. [hall2_wink] And at one point during the Adam storyline Stokes as much as told Julia he knew far more than she was aware he knew. On the surface he would have appeared to only be admitting to being aware of more about Adam than Julia was aware, but one never knows. As you said, Stokes often played a bit of a game with people just to see how they would react and what they might inadvertantly divulge. One can't help but admire Strokes tactics, and one could also learn a lot from studying them as well as occasionally employing them oneself. [hall2_grin]
-
Another thing about Professor Stokes is, unlike Barnabas and Julia, he didn't have any "baggage" hanging over him.
-
Well, I've decided to write Stokes, in my story, as if he Knows Everything, but he's waiting for Barnabas and Julia to just come right out and tell him. The situation that I have them in, they are going to have to tell him everything to figure out what's going on. Actually, there isn't much to figure out, it all seems pretty straightforward to me, but with Barnabas, I have to make him really dumbed down, because even on the show he Just Doesn't Get It! Even Julia should be smarter sometimes, but she is consistently smarter than Barnabas. If anyone wants to check out the first chapter, the story is called "Altered Shadows" and it's on fanfiction.net.
(I don't know if we are allowed to talk about or peddle our own stuff on here, so if it's not okay, feel free to delete the last sentence! Thanks!)
-
Did Professor Stokes ever find out about Barnabas's vampirism?
Nope, he never did.
That's a tough one to call. One of the things that makes Stokes an interesting character is that you can't always take him at face value. The early scene in the Adam storyline when he arrives at the Old House to barter over the talisman with Barnabas is a good example. I don't think he was honestly interested in any of the furniture he was commenting on. That was just a put on to gauge Barnabas' interest in the item -- whether he was interested as a collector or as someone who honestly felt protection from a witch was needed. Just because he doesn't openly admit to knowing something, that doesn't mean he's ignorant of it.
This is very true or course. Stokes was astute enough to know more than he let on, and it's clear he relished not revealing what he knew. I guess my statement above comes solely from the fact that we never saw, on camera, either Barnabas or Julia letting him in on the 'secret'. So I assume he didn't know, but it's entirely possible, and believable to me, that maybe he did know! For sure he at least suspected something was up w/Barnabas, at the very least that he was the ORIGINAL Barnabas who may have been a time traveler. [hall2_grin]
-
Or the Screaming Queen?? [hall2_grin]
How about the Raging Queen??!
-
Or the Screaming Queen??
I could say something, but I won't! [hall2_grin] >:D
-
I'm not a typical audience, but I'd really be interested in fanfic for cleverly tying and tidying up those loose ends. We're not in the kind of rush the writers were, and we're not getting paid in the first place, and Dan can't fire us.
And that's exactly what readable fanfiction is SUPPOSED to do. (NOTE: I said the readable kind, not the kind which you see prefaced with statements like "I just wrote this in five minutes flat and posted it so dont flame me if its bad".) [flmthrw]
Someone will get frustrated by a contradiction, or ticked off by a plot development, and will sit down and plot out how it could either be made consistant or could have happened another way. This kind of fanfiction of course takes timeto write, and research, but the end product is something people can read without feeling that they have wasted their time.
Don't even get me started about the sheer volume of unreadable fanfiction out there....
-
Two words: 1840 Concordance! ;) They are a MUST for any fan fic writer. ;)
WHAT BUZZ SAID!!!
FYI they also make nifty souvenirs once you get them signed at a Fest by all the actors in that particular storyline. [thumb]
-
What I found odd...
[spoiler]When Professor Stokes arrived in 1840, Julia and Barnabas felt it necessary to explain the presence of Angelique, whom Stokes knew as Cassandra. They told him that Cassandra was still obsessed over Barnabas and followed him down the staircase! I am sure that they could have said nothing and pretend she was a lookalike of a present day character like the others were. [/spoiler]
-
To Barnabas, and Julia, when she's in the past, Edward does not look just like Roger. Carl doesn't look just like Willie Loomis. They are only look-alikes to the viewer. Angelique is always the same person though, and always looks like herself to other characters, except when their brains leak and they can't recognize her just because she has a bad black wig on. They should know her.
-
To Barnabas, and Julia, when she's in the past, Edward does not look just like Roger. Carl doesn't look just like Willie Loomis. They are only look-alikes to the viewer.
And where were you when I said the exact same thing a month or two ago, and everybody jumped all over me? Hiding behind a tree so you wouldn't have to defend my honor?
-
To Barnabas, and Julia, when she's in the past, Edward does not look just like Roger. Carl doesn't look just like Willie Loomis. They are only look-alikes to the viewer.
I'm not sure I follow here. What I THINK you're saying is that Prof. Stokes should know who she is without any explanation at all? He should automatically know that she is Angelique and that she is a witch? This is kind of fuzzy to me, because by this logic, and please explain it to me if I'm wrong, Angelique would only be a LOOK-A-LIKE to Cassandra, but not actually Cassandra herself. Same way with Edward and Roger, Carl and Willie, etc etc. So while she looks like Cassandra, she actually isn't (although she really is because the viewer knows that Angelique stays the same everywhere). So why then, couldn't Barnabas and Julia just tell Stokes that she looks like Cassandra but that her name is Angelique, and let Stokes go from there?
Or is this what you're already saying?
::confused:: [santa_undecided]
-
And where were you when I said the exact same thing a month or two ago, and everybody jumped all over me? Hiding behind a tree so you wouldn't have to defend my honor?
Lydia, are you referring to these comments?--
In fact there was only a vague family resemblance between the Naomi and Elizabeth; they didn't look alike. What we see on Dark Shadows is a theatrical representation of the history of the Collins family. Budgetary considerations and an effort to make the story more accessible to viewers compelled Dan Curtis to use the same actress for Naomi and Elizabeth and the same actor for Roger and Joshua, and so on - but it wasn't really like that.
If so, I have to agree with the responses (all in the course of what looks to be polite debate) to your post stating that evidence to the contrary was presented on the show regarding 1795 and Naomi in particular. I can't recall that you said the same thing about other characters or storylines (and if I'm not mistaken, you mentioned not having rewatched all of 1840 yet). But I agree that, because the cast was basically a repertory company, some resemblances were presented as plot devices while others remained unintentional. Neither Barnabas nor Angelique commented on Evan Hanley's resemblance to Nicholas, for example, so viewers were supposed to follow their lead by ignoring the seemingly obvious resemblance of the two characters.
-
Two words: 1840 Concordance! ;) They are a MUST for any fan fic writer. ;)
Where does one get one of these? I've never seen them advertised on any of the sites I've found so far? It sounds like it would be cool to have!
-
I'm not sure I follow here. What I THINK you're saying is that Prof. Stokes should know who she is without any explanation at all? He should automatically know that she is Angelique and that she is a witch? This is kind of fuzzy to me, because by this logic, and please explain it to me if I'm wrong, Angelique would only be a LOOK-A-LIKE to Cassandra, but not actually Cassandra herself. Same way with Edward and Roger, Carl and Willie, etc etc. So while she looks like Cassandra, she actually isn't (although she really is because the viewer knows that Angelique stays the same everywhere). So why then, couldn't Barnabas and Julia just tell Stokes that she looks like Cassandra but that her name is Angelique, and let Stokes go from there?
Or is this what you're already saying?
Sorry Brandon, I'm almost completely lost concerning what you said... but I may as well say it here, my eye problem is making it so harmful for me to post that I'm not thinking straight. As I focus on the monitor, it's like my eyes are in vices. I need to absolutely never focus on anything for days or weeks to recover, but everything I do hurts and makes me worse, and it's hard to just sit still and do nothing for days. So the moment I got up I went back on the computer. It's horrible but I can't find a way out of the cycle. Pain killers are even causing reactions.
We've seen different sorts of plays, TV shows, and movies, and we've seen actors in different roles. Louis E played Roger and Edward, because they were using the same cast. The characters probably resembled each other, the ones that were related, but they are only "look-alikes" to us the viewers because their parts had to be polayed by a limited number of actors. You're being asked to suspend disbelief.
Stokes being a bright guy should have recognized Angelique unless she had put a spell over him, just because she's very distinctive-looking and Angelique tends to leave an impression, whatever name or wig she's using. She's certainly not "protected" by the cloaking shield of unrecognizability that keeps Julia, say, from saeeing Carl as Willie, because it doesn't exist. Angelique/Cassandra are exactly the same person, not different roles played by the same actress. It's one role. One person with one single face. Julia recognizes her. So should Elliot. So should ECS in 1970.
I don't know 1968 so I may be missing things for that reason.
1795 was a sort of special case, because they set it up, apparently, on the idea that faces were mysteriously duplicated from 1967, maybe to ease the viewers' transition, because it would throw some viewers to see the same actors in different roles. I imagine that they hoped to explain it all later as a supernaturally-caused phenomenon, and maybe they did, since anything made in 1968 I have no access to. I think, though, that they just let that go. We were just supposed to forget about the "sea of familiar faces" thing I guess. All that is gone by 1897.
If i'm crazy enough to keep coming back online instead of stopping for a few weeks, maybe offer me some hot soup and cold compresses or something, which won't help, but are comforting--- I was at the ER once and morphine didn't help, so I don't know what to tell you. I'm looking for some source of comfort I guess, even a symbolic one. God my eyes hurt. My life is all about my eyes hurting, I almost said, except for the other huge symptoms involved, so I guess I can't say that.
-
Where does one get one of these? I've never seen them advertised on any of the sites I've found so far? It sounds like it would be cool to have!
Write to Kathleen Resch: Kathleener@aol.com
-
To Barnabas, and Julia, when she's in the past, Edward does not look just like Roger. Carl doesn't look just like Willie Loomis. They are only look-alikes to the viewer. Angelique is always the same person though, and always looks like herself to other characters, except when their brains leak and they can't recognize her just because she has a bad black wig on. They should know her.
Excellent point Magnus! If I remember correctly, only in 1795 is there any reference to the resemblance between characters played by the same actor. The rest of the time, in my opinion, you are meant to ignore this, since the troup was essentially functioning like a repertoire company, where a few actors play many unrelated roles.
LOL on the leaking brain line. [santa_thumb] Of course, I have a friend who refers to it as the influence of the infamous Collinsport Dumbwater. [santa_grin]
-
OOps, I just read the rest of the thread and noticed that the rep company issue had already been addressed. That'll larn me to read the whole thread before posting. [a395]
Let's blame it on this rotten cold that's had me home from work for two day... yeah that's the ticket....Or as Han Solo put it "It's not my fault!" [signerror]
-
What I meant to say in my post was that there wasnt any need to explain Angelique looking like Cassandra to Professor Stokes. They should have just let him believe that Angelique resembled Cassandra.
The only other characters who got noticed as a lookalike was the Trasks of 1897 & 1840.
-
interesting points.
when i was watching the 1897 storyline it never occured to me that barnabas didn't identify the people he met there in relation to the people he knew in the present.for instance i don't recall him having any special reaction when he met judith whom of course not only resembled elizabeth but also his own mother naomi.
the exception would be both rachel and kitty whom he seemed to perceive as some manifestation of josette.
with the 1795 story perhaps because it was the first go-round with a time travel plot they felt they needed to spell that out to the audience with each episode(but boy did that voiceover get old!).i guess because vicki was supposed to represent "us" the viewer she needed to register shock with each new encounter.this must have gotten pretty tiresome for alexandra when the director shouted "o.k. alex when joan walks into the scene look really shocked!" and then some variation on that day after day for weeks.
during the 1970pt. storyline they did return to making some sort of explanatory announcement during the voiceover because all of the characters had the same names as their "real time" counterparts.
-
Lydia, are you referring to these comments?
Yes, Midnite, you found it. No need to comment further on it; others have already made here any worthwhile points that I might have done. (Which leaves open the question of any unworthwhile points I might have been contemplating.)
But in reference to the following:
(all in the course of what looks to be polite debate)
I wish to state for the record that I had no objection to the comments made at that time. I just didn't agree with them.
-
What I meant to say in my post was that there wasnt any need to explain Angelique looking like Cassandra to Professor Stokes. They should have just let him believe that Angelique resemble Cassandra
This is what I was getting at. I guess in trying to think about it I actually just screwed my own words up more, lol. Byt this was basically my point, that they should've just let Stokes believe Angelique looked like Cassandra. If he was smart enough to figure out that Angelique and Cassandra are one and the same, then he should most definitely notice Judith's resemblance to Liz (or whatever. I'm not sure which time period he was in during the past and who the characters are).
I guess I am one of those people who don't see the point in Barnabas and Julia explaining it to him. Ah well.
-
The only other characters who got noticed as a lookalike was the Trasks of 1897 & 1840.
Actually that's not true, Roxanne was someone Barnabas recognized as being the same Roxanne from PT, or at least thought looked the same in the summer of 1970 (post 1970 PT) and several ppl thought Ned Stuart looked remarkably like Jeff Clarke.
[santa_wink]
-
Just want to put my own spin on the whole lookalike scenerio: just because Barnabas didn't say anything about Edward looking like Roger (or Joshua for that matter), Judith looking like Elizabeth (and Naomi) or Carl looking like Willie doesn't mean he never saw the resemblances....unlike Vicki, Barnabas had the intelligence not to go blabbing "hey you look like someone I know" everytime he saw a lookalike to the people he knew in 1969.
-
Just want to put my own spin on the whole lookalike scenerio: just because Barnabas didn't say anything about Edward looking like Roger (or Joshua for that matter), Judith looking like Elizabeth (and Naomi) or Carl looking like Willie doesn't mean he never saw the resemblances....unlike Vicki, Barnabas had the intelligence not to go blabbing "hey you look like someone I know" everytime he saw a lookalike to the people he knew in 1969.
Excellant point ILB! [santa_thumb]
-
Just want to put my own spin on the whole lookalike scenerio: just because Barnabas didn't say anything about Edward looking like Roger (or Joshua for that matter), Judith looking like Elizabeth (and Naomi) or Carl looking like Willie doesn't mean he never saw the resemblances....unlike Vicki, Barnabas had the intelligence not to go blabbing "hey you look like someone I know" everytime he saw a lookalike to the people he knew in 1969.
Not to mention that he was smart enough not to go blabbing about "Planes, Trains, and Automobiles" because a projector that puts people on a screen would no doubtedly have caused a rile up, not to mention the fact that everything in the title of that picture would've caused some commotion.
-
I'm somewhat alarmed at the fact that I have no idea what that previous post meant. My comprehension may be much more impaired than usual. I'm not being sarcastic. I often blank out and miss the point of things for neurological reasons.
I'll offer this one last idea on the issue... I say the 1897 characters weren't all exact look-alikes of the 1969 characters, because that kind of thing just doesn't happen. If we looked through some family history of ours, we wouldn't see photos of ancestors who looked exactly like ourselves and members of our present-day families.
If the past were filled with exact duplicates, that's one great big supernatural phenomenon that could not fail to grab anyone's attention. Barnabas on his own in the past would have no one to comment on this to, but once Julia was there, it had to come up. I suppose she could have showed her shock at the duplications offscreen, but really, any major bizarre phenomenon like that deserves to be reacted to and dealt with onscreen, and would be.
-
I am just as glad they didn't have Barnabas and Julia dwell on the whole duplicates from the present thing. It got very annoying to watch Vicki keep on doing it again and again in 1795. I think it was wise of the writers not to inflict that on us again.
-
I am just as glad they didn't have Barnabas and Julia dwell on the whole duplicates from the present thing. It got very annoying to watch Vicki keep on doing it again and again in 1795. I think it was wise of the writers not to inflict that on us again.
ITA w/this. Besides, it harmed my 'suspension of disbelief' when watching this remarkable phenominon of someone ACTUALLY going back in time.
[santa_wink]
-
Oh for heaven's sake!.....Soap Operas have ensemble casts because the viewers need to care about the characters. The have to invest in them or they don't keep coming back every day. And when a character has to be eliminated, the loss of the actor can be as real a problem for the production as the loss of a character. So they keep the actor, and create a new character.
Dan Curtis obviously liked working with an ensemble cast of "regulars" and used them the way they would have been in a theatre ensemble.....always available to take up the slack, fill in the empty spaces, and be who and whatever was needed. And the less said by the characters about look-alike characters, the easier it is for the audience to keep dis-belief suspended.
-
If the past were filled with exact duplicates, that's one great big supernatural phenomenon that could not fail to grab anyone's attention.
There's a thought: a Santayana Curse. Those who do not learn from history are condemned to relive it. Perhaps if anybody ever wrote a Collins Family History that contained the truth from beginning to end, suddenly all the Collins generations would look different from each other. It would blow the Dan Curtis Productions budget, of course, but that's a minor detail.
-
the show was rather schizophrenic about when it acknowledged that a particular character strongly resembled another character played by the same actor.
for instance they decided that this was a very big deal with the 1795 storyline.so much so that vicki remarked upon it with every encounter(in a nice nod to continuity she was frightened of ben stokes who of course looked like matthew morgan who had tried to kill her over a year before this)and it was announced in every voiceover.however by the time of the telling of the 1897 story for whatever reason they decided this was a nonissue and it wasn't mentioned(barnabas did recognize laura as his uncle jeremiah's first wife...but that major continuity gaffe is another issue all together).
as has been pointed out everyone noted the resemblance between jeff clark and ned stuart and also jeb hawkes and sebastian shaw.but while julia and barnabas recognized instantly angelique rumson carolyn and liz did not.
no one seemed to pick up on any resemblance between eve and megan todd but then again the characters were styled so differently.
-
Those characters who looked remarkably alike were spoken of that way by other characters. If they weren't, they were only look-alikes to us. Some may have resembled later characters a bit because they were related, but just in the same way your ancestors may have looked a little bit like you.
My problem is with the occasions when they went out of their way to call attention to resemblances with no logical reason for them, or explanation later. You don't raise mysteries and forget about them. That's sort of, well, rude. We could have just lumped that Pennock psychic guy in with the other very different characters who just happened to be played by one of the same ensemble had they not pointed to the resemblance with neon letters.
-
They probably had to mention the Sebastion/Jeb resemblence as Jeb was carolyn's husband and she was still in mourning.
-
Not if he didn't "really" look like Jeb.
-
I have some 1840 questions of my own:
1) Barnabas travelled back in time to 1840 via the i-ching to save Julia (just as Julia had done to 1897 to save Barnabas, a neat Barnabas-Julia reciprocity here). Yet when Barnabas and Julia return to the present, they BOTH do so by the stairway through time. Why didn't Barnabas return from 1840 via the i-ching just as he had gone there, and what happened to Barnabas' physical body in 1970 in the i-ching trance? Did his i-ching entranced physical body mysteriously disappear when he and Julia traversed the stairway through time to return to the present?
2) The ghost of Gerard (aka Judah Zachery possessing Gerard's body) is haunting Collinwood in 1995 and in the present, and brings about the destruction of Collinwood in the present. Questions surrounding Gerard: Did he become master of Collinwood in the UNALTERED timeline? If so, for what did he need to exact revenge on the Collins' in the present, if he got what he wanted in 1840? Also, why did he wait until 1970 to destroy Collinwood? If he became master of Collinwood in the unaltered timeline, what eventually happened as far as the Collins' family history timeline is concerned? Did something happento depose Gerard as master of Collinwood in 1840?
If he did not become master of Collinwood in 1840, then what was it that Barnabas and Julia sought to change in 1840?
3) Angelique, as 'Miranda' in 1692, testified against Judah Zachery in court, leading to his execution as a warlock. What eventually caused Angelique's turn to evil ways as a witch ( obviously she was one before she met Barnabas in 1795 and became jealous over him)?
-
Re question #1: the HUGE dilemma is how Barnabas could physically travel in his 1840 body along the Stairway to 1971, instead of putting that body back into the coffin in 1841 so that it's there for Willie to let out in 1967, which it HAS to be. Plus his 1970 body is presumably sitting there in a trance in 1970, or 1971 by that point, waiting to receive his 1970 spirit back again. Instead, there's Barnabas walking around 1971 in his 1840 body with another body sitting at the table in front of the I Ching wands, in the Old House basement I suppose.
-
Instead, there's Barnabas walking around 1971 in his 1840 body with another body sitting at the table in front of the I Ching wands, in the Old House basement I suppose.
If that's true, there would be TWO Barnabas Collins: One normal and human (the one returning from 1840) and the other a vampire (the one in the i-ching trance). This brings up ANOTHER dilemma: How would the vampire body of the i-ching entranced Barnabas survive the daylight hours?