Lets talk about the dumbest things the writers ever did.

[MagnusTrask]

No, HE deserved to be repaid.   No amount of help from Ang makes up for killing Barnabas's family.   

I think the 1840 scene works, but not because B really did love her all along.   I don't know why we have to accept anything that comes out of a character's mouth about his own feelings as gospel.   How many of us know what our real feelings are?     If B had been a saint or even an average fairly innocent man, he would never make that declaration, but by this point, they've both had similar histories, feeling compelled to do anything, including murder, to satisfy passions, so Ang actually taking the first difficult steps toward reforming, for real, just completed the picture.   They were alike.   It wasn't Ang all along... it just felt that way at that moment, reappraising the whole history.

It's true that he may not have really known Josette that well, but the real beneficiary of that realization would be Julia, I think.   He's closer to Julia than anyone else.  Ang would just be yet another passion he got carried away with.

[Brandon Collins]

It's true that he may not have really known Josette that well, but the real beneficiary of that realization would be Julia, I think.   He's closer to Julia than anyone else.  Ang would just be yet another passion he got carried away with.

I completely agree with this point. Barnabas and Julia are the shows ULTIMATE couple, even if they never really became a couple on the show. She obviously loved him, and he, like a dunderhead, completely did not realize that she loved him as much as she did. Even if he did see that she liked him, there's no way he would've just dissed her all those times. Why should he? For their professional relationship? Hardly!

And, if you notice, Angelique never really did anything that bad to Julia. Compare what she did to Julia (practically nothing) to what she did to Barnabas' ACTUAL family, and it pales in comparison. All this even after Julia slapped the H-E-L-L out of Cassangelique! which called for some serious retribution!

[alwaysdavid]

There are so many, but bringing Roger Davis back as Ned was way up there.  I can still remember his showing up at Collinwood and thinking "Not again."   

[David]

There are so many, but bringing Roger Davis back as Ned was way up there.  I can still remember his showing up at Collinwood and thinking "Not again."

Ned was created by the writers, but it was Curtis who cast Roger in that role, I'm sure.

(edited by admin)
Nothing else explains why such a weak actor was brought back to the DS canvas over & over!

David

[michael c]

brandon makes an interesting point...

by rights angelique should have turned julia into toast.she was in part responsible for the removal of her curse on barnabas and was always assisting him in some way.
let's not forget either that part of the curse was that anyone who loved barnabas would die and we all know how julia felt.

people seem to like to throw julia a pity party because barnabas never returned her feelings but considering what sort of catastrophes befell most of the other characters julia got off rather easily.

[Midnite]

When a poster is speculating, or even joking, a rumor can get started, which is the purpose of the Forum Guideline regarding gossip about the actors' private lives.

Nothing else explains why such a weak actor was brought back to the DS canvas over & over!

Roger Davis spoke at my first Fest (in '97) about that.... He said that Curtis enjoyed his first appearance on the show, put up with his quirks, and kept wanting him back.  Well, this isn't the only time that fans have been baffled by one of DC's decisions!

[loril54]

All I can say is actions speak louder than words. Barnabas and Julia saved each other many times.  My personal
opinion was that Barn cared about Julia more than he wanted to believe.  He fought for Josette and he fought for Julia. Roxanne, he had her brother killed her. Maggie and most others that had some sort of relationship with Barnabas didn't really fight for them, they were infatuations. Angelique I don't think that really understood how
important Julia was to Barnabas.

The time when Angelique died. I think he saw the last of his first life disappear. Angelique was the last connection to his pre-vampire days.

[Lydia]

Comments on varying subjects...

1) The Jeb/Peter/Vicky business...Stupid, doesn't make any sense, but doesn't bother me. I have no doubt that I could figure out a way to make it make sense and to give Peter and Vicky a happy ending after the Leviathan business, but I never had much use for Vicky (I've said that so many times that maybe I should put it in my profile so I don't have to say it again) so I haven't dreamed anything up...yet.

2) Barnabas/Angelique/Josette...Magnus has it pretty much right in his top-of-page-2 post. I have an idea that Judah Zachary had some sort of evil influence over Angelique from the time that he died in 1692 until the time when he exited the Head and entered Gerard's body.  At that point, for some inexplicable reason (this theory is still in development), Angelique became free of Judah's evil influence, and found it possible to be a good person, whereupon Barnabas, without understanding what had happened, responded to the goodness.  As for Barnabas not really loving Josette – I don't buy that.  He loved her.  Go watch the beginning of 1795 again.  Their characters fit together.  And there's a very sweet scene between them just before Angelique first starts messing around with Josette's mind.

3) Deaths of Angelique, Edith, and Roxanne in 1840...They destroy continuity.  But they were nicely done, and that's all that matters.  The Roxanne story in particular is impossible, but that just makes me like it all the more.

4) Dan Curtis being impossible...Everything I see about him tells me I wouldn't like him. But if he hadn't been impossible, we wouldn't have had Dark Shadows at all.  Good heavens, how many guys who did golf shows persuaded a programming manager to let them do a gothic soap opera?

5) Adam...Concept good, execution bad.  I'm sure you'll be hearing more from me on this subject in the Watching Project topics in the coming months.

6) Burke Devlin's death...Definitely a dumb thing.  An opportunity for murder and mayhem and ghosts simply gratuitously thrown away.  Since when do Dark Shadows characters die by accident?

7) Angelique and Julia...Somewhere in the Watching Project I threw in a rationalization for Julia not being toast.  The rationalization took an anthropomorphic view of Barnabas's Curse, and said that, being a Curse, it didn't understand this thing called love, and so it decided to base its actions on whether a person actually confessed to loving Barnabas.  Reading this hare-brained rationalization, can anybody doubt that, if I cared to, I could dream up an equally hare-brained rationalization of the Jeb/Peter/Vicky business?

My own personal contribution for dumb thing that the writers did: they didn't tell the whole Damian Edwards story.  Gothick says somewhere else that you can connect the dots, and he's right, pretty much - but I don't watch Dark Shadows for the dots; I watch it for the connections.  Having skimped on the Damian Edwards story and gotten away with it, the writers were then emboldened to skimp on many other stories.  What about that yachting accident?  What about Harriet's murder?  And that's just the big stuff.

I think that's it...for now.

[MagnusTrask]

Actually, Barnabas was specifically working to subvert "continuity" in the past... it's just that there's good continuity, and bad continuity.   Unmake Quentin's original death, and he's never a ghost terrorizing Collinwood (unless his portrait catches fire in 2050 or something and he terrorizes Collinwood later in the 22nd century... we know he has a predeliction for haunting).    Avoid Roxanne becoming a vampire in 1840, and you solve the problem of having to keep her in a coffin in 1970.    Roxanne's death was one of the objectives, since even if she never became a vampire, she'd have died of old age well before 1970.

Ang... well, she died a lot.   In some afterlife Diabolos or whoever might take a renewed interest in her career.   The problem is getting her from 1840 to... what's her next temporal stop?   1968?   I don't see how to fit 1840 between 1795 and 1968, not to mention "1796"....  Edith's death, really bad discontinuity, and it can't even be blamed on Barnabas's or Julia's presence in 1840, can it?   

Someone please create a justification for the idea that when Barnabas's real body disappears from 1969 while in the I Ching trance, that body materializes inside the coffin in 1897, and when he leaves 1897, his over-written 1897 soul pops back into the body that's now in the coffin.   Or something.

[Joeytrom]

This never occured to me before about Barnabas' 1969 self sent to the chained coffin in 1897 (& probably frozen like in the present).  I know that after this takes place, we never see the mausoleum again in 1897. 

I always wondered what happened to his present time body after its diappearance, but it going into the 1897 chained coffin works.  Off camera, Angelique could have managed to right the souls with the bodies & the medication she gave to Barnabas was for his physical well being after the body switiching.

Someone please create a justification for the idea that when Barnabas's real body disappears from 1969 while in the I Ching trance, that body materializes inside the coffin in 1897, and when he leaves 1897, his over-written 1897 soul pops back into the body that's now in the coffin.   Or something.

[Mysterious Benefactor]

Dan Curtis being impossible...Everything I see about him tells me I wouldn't like him. But if he hadn't been impossible, we wouldn't have had Dark Shadows at all.  Good heavens, how many guys who did golf shows persuaded a programming manager to let them do a gothic soap opera?

I'm not quite so sure how much truth there is in that. For one, DC wanted to bring his dream to life as a primetime series. It was the ABC exec that he pitched it to who insisted it be done in daytime despite DC's objections. And for another, DC's impossibility often made the working environment at DS unpleasant at best and impossible at worst (who can forget the writer (and an excellent writer at that) who became so unsettled that he threw up under DC's pressure and quickly quit rather than work under it?). I doubt anyone should be thankful for that. 

Having skimped on the Damian Edwards story and gotten away with it, the writers were then emboldened to skimp on many other stories.

It's most probably true that there's no one scene where someone lays out the entire Dameon Edwards story, BUT everything about how/why his death occurred is indeed explained. The writer's provided all the details. And personally when it comes to a lot of the shows that I watch I'm often happier not to have the writers spoon feed me and/or tie things up with a nice neat bow because it means the writers trust the intelligence of their audience. 

What about that yachting accident?  What about Harriet's murder?  And that's just the big stuff.

It might have been interesting to get more details about both of those, but I don't honestly think it was necessary or consider the fact that we didn't an oversight because neither ultimately factored into their respective storylines main narratives, and getting into them deeper would have unnecessarily taken away time from the main narratives. The mention of the yatching accident was simply to plant suspicion and potential motive (knowing that there was possible suspicion surrounding the incident was all that was actually needed) and Harriet's ghost was simply a device to make sure Daniel never remembered Angelique (and knowing the simple fact that Daniel had killed Harriet was all that was needed).


And as for the possibility of Angelique never really doing anything that bad to Julia that others have mentioned, perhaps some have forgotten a certain 1840 turn of events involving Angelique, Julia and Roxanne which nearly resulted in a dramatic change for Julia? Or perhaps some have yet to even see it...

[Midnite]

And, if you notice, Angelique never really did anything that bad to Julia. Compare what she did to Julia (practically nothing) to what she did to Barnabas' ACTUAL family, and it pales in comparison. All this even after Julia slapped the H-E-L-L out of Cassangelique! which called for some serious retribution!

brandon makes an interesting point...

by rights angelique should have turned julia into toast.she was in part responsible for the removal of her curse on barnabas and was always assisting him in some way.
let's not forget either that part of the curse was that anyone who loved barnabas would die and we all know how julia felt.

people seem to like to throw julia a pity party because barnabas never returned her feelings but considering what sort of catastrophes befell most of the other characters julia got off rather easily.

This exchange, from #1144, takes place in 1840, and Angelique seems crueler here to one of Barnabas' loved ones than she ever was as Cassandra (whom she has no memory of, btw):  (Very spoilery)

Valerie/Angelique: Surely you're not surprised to see me, Julia.
Julia: You caused...
Valerie:  I caused you to fall asleep this afternoon. So you got to the mausoleum too late to destroy Roxanne.
Julia:  Where am I?
Valerie:  In an old lighthouse. I had Roxanne bring you here. She is completely under my control.
Julia:  What are you going to do to me?
Valerie:  Why nothing, dear sister in law. I'm simply going to allow nature to take its course... and let you die.
Julia: And after I die?
Valerie: You will become a vampire. Does that frighten you, Julia? Oh, I suppose I could have destroyed you in a more conventional way, but that would have given me no joy. It would give me great joy to see you rise from the dead and walk the night. And just think, Julia, in your new existence, you'll be able to understand all that Barnabas has gone through. You''ll be closer to him than you ever have been before. Isn't that what you've always wanted?
Julia:  Barnabas hates you. You'll never have him.
Valerie:  Perhaps not,  but neither will you, nor will any other woman. Now I'll stay here with you until Laszlo comes to guard you.  So, Julia, try to enjoy the last night of your life.

[Gothick]

One of the writers threw up during a story conference?  Wow.  That story, I'd never heard.

DC was brutal to work for.  But supposedly, it was Lela who came up with the "Barnabas realizes Angelique is his one true love" reek.

G.

[Midnite]

And as for the possibility of Angelique never really doing anything that bad to Julia that others have mentioned, perhaps some have forgotten a certain 1840 turn of events involving Angelique, Julia and Roxanne which nearly resulted in a dramatic change for Julia? Or perhaps some have yet to even see it...

MB, you were so much more subtle than I.   

[Lydia]

I wish to retract something I said in my previous post on subject # 5: Adam.  I said: “Concept good, execution bad.”  Having watched episode 500 for the Watching Project, I have realized that I'm regularly seeing things in this storyline that I didn't see there before.  I never particularly minded this part of the storyline; it's the later part that I objected to.  And now I'm willing to entertain the possibility that there are things in the later part that I never noticed before, so I had better not condemn it until after the Watching Project has waded through it.

Avoid Roxanne becoming a vampire in 1840, and you solve the problem of having to keep her in a coffin in 1970.    Roxanne's death was one of the objectives, since even if she never became a vampire, she'd have died of old age well before 1970.

But how did Roxanne originally become a vampire in 1840, if Julia wasn't there to let Barnabas out of his coffin?  It's like an Escher picture.

Someone please create a justification for the idea that when Barnabas's real body disappears from 1969 while in the I Ching trance, that body materializes inside the coffin in 1897, and when he leaves 1897, his over-written 1897 soul pops back into the body that's now in the coffin.   Or something.

The Leviathans cleaned up that mess.  And then Barnabas welshed on his end of the deal.  Shame on him.

(who can forget the writer (and an excellent writer at that) who became so unsettled that he threw up under DC's pressure and quickly quit rather than work under it?)

Like Gothick, I had never heard that story before.  I don't know that it changes my opinion, however.

And personally when it comes to a lot of the shows that I watch I'm often happier not to have the writers spoon feed me and/or tie things up with a nice neat bow because it means the writers trust the intelligence of their audience.

When it comes to Dark Shadows, I'm all for being spoon-fed.  Bring it on.