What About Roxanne!?

[Ian]

So, I've always wondered this, since I've NEVER gotten the pleasure of seeing anything past Gerard haunting Collinwood in 1970. So, since this thread will most likely be spoiler-ridden, I'll just put a spoiler tag in now, and write "Spoiler Alert" below that.

[spoiler]So I know that Roxanne is destroyed in 1840...Is the Roxanne in 1970 the Roxanne from 1840, or is this another vampire Roxanne? If it is the same one, what do you think happened? Did she just disappear from time loop? If she just disappears from the time loop, then what happened to Sebastian? Did she cause him to come to Collinsport in the first place? If she did, does that mean that Sebastian never came to Collinsport to fulfill the prophecy?[/spoiler]

Oi vey, the ordeals that time travel puts the mind through...

Oh, and from now, on...spoiler alert? XD

[PennyDreadful]

  Ian, this is so weird - I was going to start a thread about the same topic!

[spoiler]  The presence of Roxanne in 1970 raises a lot of questions which never really get answered in the series.  You brought up several of them.  Another one I'd like to add: IF this Roxanne is the same Roxanne from 1840, is Barnabas the one who turned her into a vampire before he actually even knew it in 1970?  Weird.

   I have a couple of possible theories on 1970 Roxanne:

   (A) She is the same Roxanne from 1840.  However, in the original course of events, she was turned into a vampire by someone other than Barnabas.  Since destiny really seemed to have a vampiric fate in store for her, she was still turned into a vampire in the altered timeline, albeit by Barnabas instead.  Her destruction in 1840 either led to her complete non-existence in 1970, and possibly removed Sebastian from the picture as well, OR Roxanne ceased to exist in the present only from a certain point forward (ala Quentin's ghost).

   (B) The Roxanne in 1970 is not the same Roxanne from 1840.  She is most likely a descendant of the 1840 Roxanne.

     I tend to favor the first theory, but the second is definitely less 'messy.'

     Does anyone know if the writers were planning to play it off that Barnabas WAS the one who turned Roxanne into a vampire all along, even though he hadn't actually experienced those events yet in 1970?  That's some weird paradoxical time-travel stuff right there if they were.[/spoiler]
  ~Penny Dreadful~

[MagnusTrask]

I don't know about the destiny thing.    If you had to invent such a thing to make it all work, if you were writing more DS after 1970, then you might have to resort to such a vague idea, and you could get away with it on a show about magic.

[spoiler]The weird thing for me is that '70 Roxanne shows no recognition of BC, and vice-versa, not even a psychic feeling from running into an old victim.    It seems clear to me that R in 1970 was meant to be a victim of BCs, unless they were just winging it, and the writers really had no idea yet why R was a vampire.   Well, plenty of people can hide their feelings, and Roxanne would be no exception I guess.   Usually, though, we get to see an occasional private moment where the character's mask slips, and we don't get that with her.

In general... everything in 1970/71 is changed by BC's altered 1840, so much that they didn't dare even attempt to show real "present day" events after that.     No Roxanne since she died in 1840.    No Cassandra.    No Barnabas.    You see the perils of pursuing this line of thought too far.

Here's the real Roxanne problem:  1970 vampire Roxanne only existed because of BC's going back and interfering with history.     All the other 'present day' events that sprung from the past (on DS overall), before any BC time-travel, were events that came from a non-interfered with, "pre-Barnabas" timeline.    BC in the original timeline was chained in the coffin in 1840.   It's all well and good to speculate that there was another vampire around (and maybe you have to assume it to make things work, but it's messy and I don't like it) but we see no evidence for it.    Though I suppose vampires could be like hoboes, staying out of each others' territories... maybe BC psychically deflected the competition away, just by being there.

Anyway, we see the results of BC going back in time... Roxanne is made undead (so far, so good) and then destroyed... both results of BC going back, but only the first event existed in the original 1970 timeline we saw.    I have to guess at three possible timelines here.    One, BC is chained and no Roxanne reaches 1970.    Two, the original 1970 we saw.   In this timeline, BC isn't alerted to the death of "Julia Hoffman Collins" in time, doesn't I Ching back to stop himself strangling her or biting her... Roxanne stays out and about after death and survives to a ripe old age.    Angelique also doesn't die, and goes on her way after checking in at the crypt.   Third, the timeline as changed by 1970 Barnabas.

I'm going to have to come back here later, and see what gaping holes I may have left in this thing.  My brain's done wore out.

Anyway, what I was getting at with the three timelines is that I think there may have been an original timeline we never saw.   Somehow, BC and JH chose to change that history, in a way that produced the second timeline, the one we think of as uninterfered with, the "original".    They have no memory of it, because it of course has now never happened.    The second timeline is also screwy however, and they interfere again, not realizing they tried before, which of course they didn't, because that never happened... anymore.

You know, it just hit me that you might have to have four timelines to make this work.   Suddenly I feel like Einstein, making up all sorts of extra dimensions.[/spoiler]

[Joeytrom]

Watching the summer 1970 episodes, it never was apparent to me that Roxanne was a victim of Barnabas.

Daphne mentions that Roxanne was a local girl in town who one day "was different" but thats all we have to go on.  Daphne makes no mention of Barnabas or Julia at all and doesn't recognize them.  One fan fiction has Gerard/Judah turning her into a vampire, perhaps thats what happened.

Barnabas himself couldn't tell she was a vampire by just being near her, though she does go to bite him and he backs off in fear.  I thought that was odd, what could she possbily do to him?

[Ian]

Well, Joey, if you'd like to discuss fanfiction theories, I'd be more than happy to lend CDT's theory on what happened to Roxanne following 1840. Remember, the following is a spoiler for the continuation of DS fanfic, not DS the show.

[spoiler]In CDT's continuation of DS, the Roxanne in 1970 only shares the same name as the Roxanne of 1840, but in reality, she is a Roxanne Drew from 1897. She, along with a man named Michael Anderson (I THINK), infiltrated the gypsy camp to get the hand of Count Petofi, after he was supposedly burned in Tate's studio. There, Roxanne and Michael were turned into vampires, and Petofi switched bodies with Anderson to keep from being killed by the gypsies. He enlisted Roxanne's help to get revenge on the Collinses, and that's pretty much all the backstory you need for that fanfic.[/spoiler]

[Misa]

I think that the 1840, 1970 storylines were pretty much written as they went along. They didn't have anything thought out at all. [spoiler]If I remember correctly the ghost of Gerard was never shown to be Judah.[/spoiler] I missed some of this story I didn't see the episode where Daphne talks about Roxanne.

I think Roxanne was there because the writers had her in the PT story, and thought it would be interesting to show how different she was in regular time. She seemed to loath Barnabas on sight. not sure if the writers even had decided that she was a vampire when she first arrives. Perhaps they thought it would be interesting to show Barnabas dealing with another vampire, one whom he loved (although why he should love her just because she looks like Roxanne from PT I don't know, but then I thought him falling in love with the PT Roxanne was stupid too).

Also wondering how the original timeline in 1840 was supposed to have gone. Without Barnabas and Julia going back there it seems to me that Judah should have been able to destroy the whole Collins family without any trouble at all. [spoiler]So why was he a ghost, and as I said before why would his ghost have the appearance of Gerard?[/spoiler]

This is why I don't think this was thought out at all. It doesn't make any sense. It seems that the writers just threw a bunch of stuff together that had been successful in past stories. (Gerard and Daphne = Quentin and Beth, Leticia Faye = Pansy Faye, Judah Zachary = Count Petofi) There was some interesting story here, but overall it was just a rehash. Of course I watched it because I loved the actors; I just wish the story had been good.

Edith in 1840 wasn't written the way I could ever imagine her becoming the grandmamma in 1897, [spoiler]of course she doesn't live to become her, but that is beside the point.[/spoiler] The writers didn't write her as the young Edith that we met in 1897. When I look at the characters from this time period they are really pretty boring compared to almost any other characters, Daphne was rather interesting. Samantha was interesting, Edith, if she wasn't supposed to be Edith would have been interesting. Daniel, Ben, Desmond, and Flora were good characters as well. [spoiler]Gerard should have just been himself though and not be possessed by Judah, (forget about the Judah character Gerard could have been a warlock with evil plans),[/spoiler] and I would have preferred that they not make a different Quentin. I think that the 1897 Quentin (the immortal one) should have also joined Julia and Barnabas in the past, perhaps posing as a brother. This way Gabriel would have been Daniel's only son. Could have been interesting too to have had Louis play Gabriel and not have Daniel played by a new older actor. Daniel could have been an invalid so he doesn't have any scenes with Barnabas, and no one bothers him with the news of visiting cousins from England. Then they could have had him pass on the secret to Edith from his deathbed. Think what an interesting scene that could have been. They could have chained him up in his coffin again this would have helped prevent the changing of time.

This is getting pretty long and confusing, but just wanted to say one more thing, [spoiler]Edith should not have died in 1840, they shouldn't have cured Barnabas of vampirism,[/spoiler] and it might also have been interesting if they had Lara Parker play an innocent young woman who just looked like Angelique (and not have had her play Angelique in this time), they have Barnabas fall in love with her.

[Misa]

Could have been interesting too to have had Louis play Gabriel and not have Daniel played by a new older actor. Daniel could have been an invalid so he doesn't have any scenes with Barnabas, and no one bothers him with the news of visiting cousins from England. Then they could have had him pass on the secret to Edith from his deathbed. Think what an interesting scene that could have been. They could have chained him up in his coffin again this would have helped prevent the changing of time.

This is getting pretty long and confusing, but just wanted to say one more thing, ... and it might also have been interesting if they had Lara Parker play an innocent young woman who just looked like Angelique (and not have had her play Angelique in this time), they have Barnabas fall in love with her.

Oops, I meant that they could have had an older actor play Daniel. and not what I said (and not have Daniel played by a new older actor). Also should have written this more clearly: that Lara Parker play an innocent Valerie instead of being Angelique would have been interesting. Then if they had Barnabas fall for her it would have been much better than having him say that he had really loved Angelique all along.

Also forgot to put a spoiler in my previous post, hope someone will fix it.

[Joeytrom]

IMHO, the original timeline had Quentin and Desmand beheaded and shortly after that Gerard killed Daphne, Carrie, Tad, and then himself.

They never should have used Edith in 1840, intead her and a third Collins son should have been out of town at the time with their children.  Terry Crawford could have played another character married to Gabriel Collins without any children.

[Ian]

IMHO, the original timeline had Quentin and Desmand beheaded and shortly after that Gerard killed Daphne, Carrie, Tad, and then himself.

They never should have used Edith in 1840, intead her and a third Collins son should have been out of town at the time with their children.  Terry Crawford could have played another character married to Gabriel Collins without any children.

Ah...but as you can remember, without Edith and Gabriel, Caleb, Charles, and the all-important Geoffrey would not have been born. Thanks to Geoffrey and "unnamed wife's" overactive sex drive, you get Judith, Edward, Carl, and Quentin. Therefore, "Grandmama" needed to be there. ;)Though I'd still like to see what effect Edith's death in 1840 had on happenings after all of that, 1897 and the present included.

[Misa]

Ian, I think what Joeytrom said was that Edith and her husband should have been living in Boston or something, and Terry Crawford and Chris Pennock would have played another Collins brother and his wife. This way they both can die without ruining the continuity, because after everyone died the family from Boston inherits the house. They move back and there's where Edith, Edward, Judith, Carl, and Quentin come from. Of course they would have to have Daniel live long enough to tell his son about Barnabas. Then Barnabas would have to be chained back in his coffin.

Misa

[Garth Blackwood]

[spoiler]The presence of Roxanne in 1970 raises a lot of questions which never really get answered in the series.  You brought up several of them.  Another one I'd like to add: IF this Roxanne is the same Roxanne from 1840, is Barnabas the one who turned her into a vampire before he actually even knew it in 1970?  Weird.
...
     Does anyone know if the writers were planning to play it off that Barnabas WAS the one who turned Roxanne into a vampire all along, even though he hadn't actually experienced those events yet in 1970?  That's some weird paradoxical time-travel stuff right there if they were.[/spoiler]

Whenever anything like that happens, a wizard did it.