Author Topic: Carrie Why?  (Read 2526 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Julia99

  • Full A ed Newest Fervor Post
  • Senior Poster
  • ****
  • Posts: 2020
  • Karma: +272/-722
  • My Fans are Legion
    • View Profile
    • Barnabas & Company
Carrie Why?
« on: November 14, 2003, 11:10:30 PM »
What was the point of the Carrie Stokes character anyway (past the ploy to get B and J into 1840).  She disappears then comes back, whiney and all and this little love situation with that hairy boy . .what was that all about. . .so unnecessary and short-shifted. .  . if they'd maybe developed it but it seemed doomed from the first moment.. so why did the writers even toss it in?  Again, if they wanted something else going on .. .why couldn't you know--my favorite character have had a little unexpected flirtation going on?  That woulda been kinda dicey and distracting. . much more than whiney Carrie.  ..ahhh man. . .i'm just ranting now.
Julia99

Offline Raineypark

  • DSF God
  • *****
  • Posts: 2749
  • Karma: +13053/-14422
    • View Profile
Re:Carrie Why?
« Reply #1 on: November 14, 2003, 11:22:07 PM »
I think the short answer to your question, Julia99, is that TPTB needed to make sure that the teenaged, female segment of the audience had someone on the show to identify with.  Never underestimate the importance of demographics in television!
"Do not go gentle into that good night.  Rage, rage against the dying of the light."
Dylan Thomas

Offline Mysterious Benefactor

  • Systems Manager /
  • Administrator
  • NEW SUPERNAL SCEPTER
  • *****
  • Posts: 16331
  • Karma: +205/-12208
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re:Carrie Why?
« Reply #2 on: November 15, 2003, 12:11:46 AM »
TPTB needed to make sure that the teenaged, female segment of the audience had someone on the show to identify with.

I also think that the writers had originally planned for David Henesy to be a bigger part of 1840, but no longer being under contract, combined with beginning his freshman year of high school, Henesy had other ideas. On the other hand, Kathy Cody was under contract, so they had to figure out something to do with her once it became clear that their original plans weren't going to play out.

Offline Gothick

  • FULL ASCENDANT
  • ********
  • Posts: 6608
  • Karma: +124/-2900
  • Gender: Male
  • Somebody book me a suite at Wyndcliffe, NOW!
    • View Profile
Re:Carrie Why?
« Reply #3 on: November 15, 2003, 12:14:32 AM »
She was adding to that Satanist edge of the 1840 storyline.

I know that every time I hear that evil wail, "HUUUU--- ARRRRE--- YUUUUU???" I feel the Powers of Darkness rising.

Carrie was DS' very own screaming banshee.  Just think about it--every appearance of Carrie heralds some ghastly fate suffered by one of the characters.

looping the loop, G.

Offline dom

  • Long Lost Cousin Returned
  • Global Moderator
  • SENIOR ASCENDANT
  • *****
  • Posts: 12180
  • Karma: +591/-43265
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re:Carrie Why?
« Reply #4 on: November 15, 2003, 09:11:50 AM »
I wonder if the "hairy boy" was intended to take over as the resident male youngster on the show, with Henesy's departure?

Offline wes

  • THIS SPACE FOR RENT
  • Junior Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 117
  • Karma: +3/-8
  • My Journey is Beginning
    • View Profile
Re:Carrie Why?
« Reply #5 on: November 15, 2003, 07:11:00 PM »
 ;D I think "dom" is correct.  Tom Happer didn't appear in a lot of episodes -- and didn't appear in winter 1971 (1841 PT) and spring 1971 (NODS)... BUT, if the franchise had continued, he was probably going to have a large role.  He was considered a regular (!) and I think a bigger role would have been developed for him on the TV series.

 ;D Through the winter of 1971, the TV series tightened up... by that I mean no elements of a future storyline were introduced, so Mr. Happer's phone didn't ring.  The contracted players who wanted to stay moved on to NODS.... but some of the newer players got "bumped" -- Happer & Cody.  I think Vestoff bumped herself.  She was going to be in NODS, but Diana Millay replaced her.  Millay was set to return to the TV show, but did the movie instead.  You can take all of this with a grain of salt, dear reader, like you should do with any official version of the same "facts!"

Offline Midnite

  • Exec Moderator /
  • Administrator
  • SENIOR ASCENDANT
  • *****
  • Posts: 10716
  • Karma: +717/-4897
  • Gender: Female
    • View Profile
Re:Carrie Why?
« Reply #6 on: November 15, 2003, 08:07:03 PM »
;D I think "dom" is correct.  Tom Happer didn't appear in a lot of episodes -- and didn't appear in winter 1971 (1841 PT) and spring 1971 (NODS)... BUT, if the franchise had continued, he was probably going to have a large role.  He was considered a regular (!) and I think a bigger role would have been developed for him on the TV series.

It's believed he was brought in for his heart throb appeal in David Henesy's absence, and I do get that you're speculating, but I don't understand what you mean by being considered a regular. ???

Quote
;D Through the winter of 1971, the TV series tightened up... by that I mean no elements of a future storyline were introduced, so Mr. Happer's phone didn't ring.

Is that more speculation?  PLEASE be clear about it if that's what you're doing.  The forums have a lot of readers and I'm sure you wouldn't want to be misleading.

Quote
The contracted players who wanted to stay moved on to NODS.... but some of the newer players got "bumped" -- Happer & Cody.  I think Vestoff bumped herself.  She was going to be in NODS, but Diana Millay replaced her.

Vestoff didn't appear in the movie because she was already appearing on stage in 1776.

Quote
Millay was set to return to the TV show, but did the movie instead.  You can take all of this with a grain of salt, dear reader, like you should do with any official version of the same "facts!"

Was Millay set to return to the show?  I hadn't heard that.  And actually, while I understand your point that official facts can sometimes be questionable, what's considered to be an official fact on the forums is what's been publicly spoken or written by any of the DS personnel or published in a reputable source; the rest is considered speculation and/or gossip.  FYI for everyone (since we have lots of newbies to the boards), if the latter violates a person's privacy, is libelous, or it's being presented as a fact when there's no official information to support it, it may get removed by one of the moderators.

Offline Mysterious Benefactor

  • Systems Manager /
  • Administrator
  • NEW SUPERNAL SCEPTER
  • *****
  • Posts: 16331
  • Karma: +205/-12208
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re:Carrie Why?
« Reply #7 on: November 15, 2003, 08:21:49 PM »
Was Millay set to return to the show?  I hadn't heard that.

Several sources, including Millay herself, have said that she was supposed to return to once again play Laura the pheonix. However, no one has ever mentioned how.

Considering that Laura had supposedly disappeared in 1967 for another hundred years, apparently they were going to be very, uh, "inventive" - yeah, that's the term. I'm sure it's not that they were just going to ignore the history they'd already established. They'd NEVER do THAT!  [lghy]
 

Offline Midnite

  • Exec Moderator /
  • Administrator
  • SENIOR ASCENDANT
  • *****
  • Posts: 10716
  • Karma: +717/-4897
  • Gender: Female
    • View Profile
Re:Carrie Why?
« Reply #8 on: November 15, 2003, 08:30:01 PM »
Several sources, including Millay herself, have said that she was supposed to return to once again play Laura the pheonix. However, no one has ever mentioned how.

How bizarre!  Thanks, wes and MB, for that interesting tidbit.

Quote
Considering that Laura had supposedly disappeared in 1967 for another hundred years, apparently they were going to be very, uh, "inventive" - yeah, that's the term. I'm sure it's not that they were just going to ignore the history they'd already established. They'd NEVER do THAT!  [lghy]

LOL!  And without David Henesy?!

Offline wes

  • THIS SPACE FOR RENT
  • Junior Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 117
  • Karma: +3/-8
  • My Journey is Beginning
    • View Profile
Re:Carrie Why?
« Reply #9 on: November 16, 2003, 01:08:56 AM »
 ::) Actually, none of what I posted was my speculation alone (I didn't dream it).  It's okay if you delete it... I don't mind.  It's nice that you are careful about what goes up here; and, also nice to let the poster know something might be deleted.

 ;) You could see the scripts tighten up as the "end" of the TV show got nearer.  As the last story arc ended, there was no introduction of any new story arc.  Normally, bits of the coming story arc would be blended in as the new arc was prepared.  The last season was a "stand alone" season with no real connection to the whole series.  On the front end, this was an attempt to change the direction of the series... from supernatural sci-fi to gothic romance.  On the back end, you could argue the attempt failed; because no hints of the next story arc were introduced.

I think the original idea for "Night of Dark Shadows" was to have Virginia Vestoff play Samantha.  This was in the spring of 1971.  The series was going to feature Diana Millay as Laura Collins.  My guess is that Diana switched over to NODS and changed "Samantha" to "Laura" because Virginia couldn't get away from "1776" to Tarrytown as easily as she could to the regular studio.

As far as "how" Laura could return?  Remember, they were in "Parallel Time."  No version of the Laura character had appeared in "Parallel Time."  That being said, I don't think they would have stayed in the 1841 PT setting.

Yes, Diana Millay is someone I asked.  I was surprised, too, at first, that she said she was asked to re-join the TV series as Laura in 1971.  But, if you look at the entire picture of what went on with casting during the winter and spring of 1971, it makes perfect sense.  She could have held up the daytime show while the others filmed NODS.

 :-  The term "regular" on DS originally meant being under contract.  However, as the show went on, more "regulars" went off contract.  They were called and worked day-to-day.  This was good for the artistic freedom of the writers and the actors who happened to have other work.  It wasn't so great if you needed a steady paycheck.... Later, though, I think "regular" meant all the actors associated with the show UNTIL they started turning down roles -- mostly when they got better contracts on other shows!

 ;D Of course, I'm just speculating!  Take it with a grain of salt!



Offline Julia99

  • Full A ed Newest Fervor Post
  • Senior Poster
  • ****
  • Posts: 2020
  • Karma: +272/-722
  • My Fans are Legion
    • View Profile
    • Barnabas & Company
Re:Carrie Why?
« Reply #10 on: November 16, 2003, 06:28:26 PM »
I think you can also, going with Wes' logic (which is close to mine on this), see that the end was nearing toward the conclusion of  RT1840. . [spoiler]when B and J return to 1971. . .that scene of them walking out and no hint of anything wrong. from Liz and Julia's statement about them remembering those they left behind. .  .certainly has some sense of finality about it.[/spoiler]
Julia99

Offline Josette

  • Full A ed Newest Fervor Post
  • NEW ASCENDANT
  • ******
  • Posts: 4601
  • Karma: +75/-3072
  • Gender: Female
    • View Profile
Re:Carrie Why?
« Reply #11 on: November 27, 2003, 08:44:55 AM »
What was the point of the Carrie Stokes character anyway (past the ploy to get B and J into 1840).  She disappears then comes back, whiney and all and this little love situation with that hairy boy . .what was that all about. . .so unnecessary and short-shifted. .  . if they'd maybe developed it but it seemed doomed from the first moment.. so why did the writers even toss it in?  Again, if they wanted something else going on .. .why couldn't you know--my favorite character have had a little unexpected flirtation going on?  That woulda been kinda dicey and distracting. . much more than whiney Carrie.  ..ahhh man. . .i'm just ranting now.

I didn't want to comment until we reached this point - but it would seem that they needed Carrie and Jeremy's little love affair in order to set up this "ultimate" crime to pin on Quentin - with innocent Carrie as the witness forced to testify against him - and Jeremy, previously staunchly against his father, now firmly in his camp.
Josette

Offline Gerard

  • NEW ASCENDANT
  • ******
  • Posts: 3590
  • Karma: +559/-6689
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re:Carrie Why?
« Reply #12 on: November 27, 2003, 08:09:01 PM »
Several sources, including Millay herself, have said that she was supposed to return to once again play Laura the pheonix. However, no one has ever mentioned how.

Considering that Laura had supposedly disappeared in 1967 for another hundred years, apparently they were going to be very, uh, "inventive" - yeah, that's the term. I'm sure it's not that they were just going to ignore the history they'd already established. They'd NEVER do THAT!  [lghy]

Not to mention that she'd be running out of Collins men-folk to marry in 1971.  Maybe they'd hook her up with the head of the Collinsport Volunteer Firefighters Department.

Gerard

Offline Julia99

  • Full A ed Newest Fervor Post
  • Senior Poster
  • ****
  • Posts: 2020
  • Karma: +272/-722
  • My Fans are Legion
    • View Profile
    • Barnabas & Company
Re:Carrie Why?
« Reply #13 on: November 30, 2003, 03:16:33 AM »
I also think now  ..  . Grayson's unexpected 3-week leave of absence probably had something with us suffering Carrie . . .
Julia99